古籍中與「函」字有關的訓解問題

Problems in the Interpretation of the Character ''han'' (函) in Classical Texts

甲骨文函字有兩種用法，一為地名，一為矢函之函。金文也有兩種用法，一為氏名，一假借作陷。清以來的學者們利用金文函字假借作陷的此一用法，更進一步指出《逸周書‧祭公篇》的「險」字可假借作「陷」，但高本漢反對此說。本文從《國語‧吳語》中和〈祭公篇〉有平行的句子作「陷」再加上《左傳》中也有「險」假借作「陷」的用法，證明〈祭公篇〉的「險」確可讀作「陷」，而《國語‧楚語》也有和金文函假借作陷相同的例子。但清以來學者以為《國語‧楚語》的「函」是臽的訛誤，或以為函臽一字，但從古文字字形來看，函陷二字字形相去甚遠，二者相似是隸變以後的事，既然從聲音上函可謂作臽，金文中尚有此用法，就不必把〈楚語〉的「函」字說成是「臽」字的訛誤。

In the oracle bones, the character ''han'' (函) had two types of usages, as a place name, and as a quiver or sheath, as for carrying weapons. In bronze inscriptions, it also had two types of usages, as a personal name, and in place of ''xian'' (陷) (to sink, to submerge). Scholars since the Qing have noted this usage of ''han'' (函) for ''xian'' (陷) in bronze inscriptions, and have inferred from this that in the ''Zi Kung'' (〈祭公〉) chapter of the Yi Zhou shu (《佚周書》) the character ''xian'' (險) (dangerous) could be substituting for ''xian'' (陷) (to sink). Bernhard Karlgren (高本漢) , however, opposes this view. In this paper, using evidence of word usage in the other sources, I demonstrate that the xian (險) used in the ''Zi Kung'' (〈祭公〉) chapter and elsewhere, and han in the Chu Yu (〈楚語〉), can be read as standing for themselves rather than substituting for another character.