學界討論清代《尚書》學，多聚焦於今、古文真偽問題；真偽問題，必論及閻若璩與毛奇齡。學界對毛奇齡《尚書》學的看法，往往譏其與閻若璩爭勝，於是忽略毛奇齡《尚書》學的內容，更不會注意到其考辨〈舜典〉的過程。經本文研究發現，毛奇齡於《古文尚書冤詞》、《舜典補亡》二書對〈舜典〉的考辨，說法上有調整轉變。本文提供學界幾個觀察：（1）毛奇齡《古文尚書冤詞》初步提出今所見〈堯〉、〈舜〉的分篇有誤，因為透過《史記》〈堯〉、〈舜〉二紀可以得知，並且以為《史記》所載是孔安國古文《尚書》本。（2）及其撰《舜典補亡》則一改前說，以為《史記》〈堯〉、〈舜〉二紀是據伏生《尚書》本而來。至於伏生不分〈堯〉、〈舜〉二典，何故古文分為二典？毛奇齡以〈書序〉分為二篇可知。（3）毛奇齡前後說法的轉變，打開「古文」界線，《舜典補亡》一書中，將「孔安國古文」及「伏生今文」同視為先秦舊文，皆「古文」之屬。毛奇齡替梅賾所獻古文《尚書》辯護，其說有不甚合理之處，於是學界多以批評的角度出發，也因此未能審視其論點的轉變，殊為可惜。本文細究毛奇齡考辨〈舜典〉歷程，指出其對「古文」之說是有所調整。此研究成果，當有助於學界重新檢討毛奇齡《尚書》學。

Research on Qing 清 dynasty Shangshu 尚書 studies has focused on the problem of determining the authenticity of the New and Old Text versions of the work. This article discusses the Guwen Shangshu yuanci 古 文尚書冤詞 written by Mao Qiling 毛奇齡, which asserted that there was a mistake made in separating the chapters on Yao 堯 and Shun 舜. This error became evident by reading the chronicles of Yao and Shun in the Shijii 史記, which was thought to have been based on Kong Anguo’s 孔安國 version of the Shangshu. However, in “Recovering the Lost Shundian,” 舜典補亡Mao changed his opinion, arguing that the Shiji’s two chapters on Yao and Shun were derived from Fu Sheng’s 伏生 version of the Shangshu. As for the question of why Fu Sheng combined Yao and Shun together, instead of separating them, Mao believed that the answer could be found in the “Shuxu” 書序, which divided the accounts on Yao and Shun into two chapters. The differences between Mao’s early and late opinions offered a new viewpoint on the Old Text Shangshu 古文尚書. In “Recovering the Lost Shundian,” he asserted that the versions of Kong Anguo and Fu Sheng were both pre-Qin 先秦, and as such both were properly classified as Old Text. This article analyzes Mao Qiling’s study of the “Shundian” 舜典and demonstrates that he changed his opinion, which should lead us to reconsider his view of the Shangshu.