《尚書•堯典》敘及堯舜禪讓有所謂「歷試政事」，凡言「慎徽五典」、「納于百揆」、「賓于四門」等，大致與政事相應。惟其文又云「納于大麓，烈風雷雨弗迷」者，似嫌荒誕。前人或就字面直釋、或言命舜為虞人、或以為大麓乃大錄之意等，各執所見，其解反益晦澀。據屈萬里所考：〈堯典〉乃戰國儒家述古之作，未可遽定為唐堯之史料。惟上古文獻記述，偶亦記錄先民傳聞神話面貌，或反映初民社會的現實需求與信仰。凡此，自未必皆如經學家依其當世觀念所能詮解，遑論融入其經學系統中。今人欲利用民族學、社會學的角度理解堯舜禪讓，是試圖求史實之真；經學家重新詮釋或合理化遠古傳說，使能切合於時用，乃是求其美。本文嘗試觀照此兩種角度，梳理諸家之說，冀能提出一種不同的考量。

The story of Yao’s abdication to Shun is written in the “Canon of Yao,” Book of Documents. Yao first tests Shun with educational and diplomatic affairs and Shun proves his ability with perfect performance. Yao then sends Shun to a great plains at a foot of hill where Shun has to face fierce wind, thunder, and rain, as the final phase of the test. Because this part is unrelated to politics and appears mythical, some scholars interpret it as an indication that Shun is appointed as official in charge of forests and waters or as prime minister. According to Qu Wan-Li’s study, “Canon of Yao” is written by Confucian scholars in the Warring States period, so it cannot be directly regarded as an evidential material of Yao’s time. It is only to a certain degree that accounts of ancient times record legends or myths of ancient people and reveal real-life needs and beliefs of ancient society. Similarly, scholars with concepts contemporary with their times may not interpret the recounts correctly, not to mention integrating them into the system of classics studies. To apply historical records to reality, past scholars on classics studies reinterpret and rationalize ancient legends; to find historical facts, current scholars study Yao’s abdication to Shun with an ethnological or sociological perspective. This article examines these two perspectives and organizes related theories to provide a new point of view.