CAJ | 학술논문

在关于《大唐新语》真伪问题的讨论中，吴冠文女士前后两篇文章所提出的“伪书说”是非理性的。通过具体考辨可以发现，《大唐新语》与《唐书新语》有直接的渊源关系：《唐书新语》采用了《大唐新语》，或者二者实际上就是同一种书。从宋代及明代前期文献称引《大唐新语》的情况不难看出：《大唐新语》的今本与古本在条目和文字上都有着相当的一致性，今本《大唐新语》中找不到一条可指认为别书的文字。《唐世说新语》只是《大唐新语》流传中的一个异名，所谓今本《大唐新语》为明人伪造之说，完全不能成立。
재관우《대당신어》진위문제적토론중，오관문녀사전후량편문장소제출적“위서설”시비이성적。통과구체고변가이발현，《대당신어》여《당서신어》유직접적연원관계：《당서신어》채용료《대당신어》，혹자이자실제상취시동일충서。종송대급명대전기문헌칭인《대당신어》적정황불난간출：《대당신어》적금본여고본재조목화문자상도유착상당적일치성，금본《대당신어》중조불도일조가지인위별서적문자。《당세설신어》지시《대당신어》류전중적일개이명，소위금본《대당신어》위명인위조지설，완전불능성립。
This paper argues that Wu Guanwen＇sconclusions in her recent papers discussing authenticity of the extant edition of New ＇AnecdoteS of the Tang Dynasty （NATD） are not tenable. With a detailed study of NATD and Tang Shu Xin Yu, we find a direct relationship in between： Tang Shu Xin Yu quotes much from NATD. Or rather, they are the same book, it is a comprehensive examina tion of the citations of NATD in the literature from the Song Dynasty up to the early Ming Dynasty that enables us to see that the original edition of NATD is idehtical with the extant one both in entries and in wording. Put it another way, we fail to find any paragraph from a book other than NATD ,which is but an alternative title of Tang Shi Shuo Xin Yu in its own history. Consequently, the conchusion that NATD is a pseudograph is comoletely untenable.