论《穆天子传》的史料价值

The Historical Material Value of Biography of King Mu

因为对《穆天子传》成书年代及真伪的不同看法 ,该书的史料价值从明清以来便颇有争议。近代学者中 ,顾实以历法立论 ,认为《穆天子传》用周正 ,自当为周书 ;顾颉刚以战国形势和中西交通立论 ,认为该书成于战国。以北方气候的实际情况而言 ,顾实持论极为坚实。顾颉刚对战国中西交通的推论则与事实不符。借助传统文献与金文研究成果 ,可知战国说者对《穆天子传》为西周文献的几处主要质疑均不能成立。历法之外 ,《穆天子传》中“毛班”见于铭文 ;“穆满”为美称亦有金文可确证 ;《穆天子传》中称穆王为“天子”,更与《诗经》《逸周书》及众多彝器铭文相合。因此 ,《穆天子传》为西周文献 ,具有极高史料价值 ,是无可怀疑的。

As there are different views on the time of writing and the authenticity of Biography of King Mu, people have disputed a lot on its historical material value since the Ming and Qing Dynasties. This paper pays much attention to the arguments of Gu Shi and Gu Jiegang. It concludes that it is above suspicion that the book is the document of Western Zhou Dynasty and is of great value.