梅鶯所撰《尚書考異》與《尚書譜》，是古文《尚書》辨偽史中深具里程 碑意義的著作。但至今為止，關於兩書的作者歸屬、成書先後及彼此關聯等 根本問題，都尚未形成共識。受《四庫全書總目》對兩書分別毀譽的影響， 自十九世紀以來，學界多視《尚書考異》為梅氏代表作。正因如此，在古文 辨偽定鼎之作《尚書古文疏證》中，閻若璩只根據《尚書譜》評論梅鶯而不 提《尚書考異》的做法，引發部分學者的質疑，認為閻若璩有意掩飾梅鶯對 他的影響。本文透過相關文獻的研究，發現《尚書考異》僅是梅鶯辨偽的初 步成果，《尚書譜》才是體現其完整理論的成熟之作。明末清初陳第、黃宗羲 等人均看重《尚書譜》勝於《尚書考異》，自《四庫全書總目》以來，推崇《尚 書考異》而贬低《尚書譜》的價值判斷，實與梅鶯的創作原意有違。閻若璩 以《尚書譜》概括梅鶯辨偽成就，既非孤例，且更貼近梅氏學術發展歷程， 未必是有意掠美。

Mei Zhuo’s 梅鷟 Shangshu kaoyi 尚書考異 and Shangshu pu 尚書譜 are significant milestones in the authentication of the Shangshu (尚書 Documents of the Elder); there is, however, no consensus on the authorship, relation between, or chronological order of the two books. Influenced by the Siku quanshu zongmu’s 四庫全書總目 critique of the two books, since the 19th century, Shangshu kaoyi has been generally regarded in academic circles as Mei’s masterpiece. Nevertheless, in Shangshu guwen shuzheng 尚書古文 疏證, the authoritative work on identifying forged ancient books, Yan Ruoqu’s 閻若璩 comments on Mei Zhuo are based purely on Shangshu pu, without reference to Shangshu kaoyi. This deficiency has aroused suspicion among some scholars that Yan Ruoqu wished to deliberately obscure Mei Zhuo’s influence on him. This paper aims to show that Shangshu kaoyi represents the initial fruits of Mei Zhuo’s research on authenticating the Shangshu; instead, it is Shangshu pu that is the mature work that really embodies Mei’s complete theory. Accordingly, the critique in the Siku quanshu zongmu which praises Shangshu kaoyi while disparaging Shangshu pu is contrary to Mei Zhuo’s original intentions; in contrast, Yan Ruoqu’s summary, supported by Chen Di 陳第and Huang Zongxi’s 黃宗羲preference for Shangshu pu during the Ming-Qing transition, is closer to the development of Mei’s scholarship, and thus Yan cannot be said to have deliberately tried to conceal Mei’s influence.