洪迈《野处类稿》自宋以来广为流传,为诸种文献书目所著录,多种诗文总集所收编,然除其中二首诗外,其馀八十二首诗与朱松《韦斋集》卷一、卷二中的作品重出互见。清洪汝奎增订钱大昕编《洪文敏公年谱》时,曾注意到《野处类稿》之伪,钱钟书先生亦曾提到这一问题,惜均未予以考辨证实,亦未引起世人注意和重视。至王德毅重编《洪容斋先生年谱》时,在《野处类稿》真伪问题上,不仅未能进一步证伪,反而认为洪汝奎“所言近于武断”。而后世各种文学史与诗文总集均仍然相沿为误,讹误流传至今而未止。因而本文拟就宋代以来文学史上这一罕见的伪案予以考辨,以证伪于既往,免传讹于将来。 Hongmai’s Wild Manuscripts have been widely circulated since the Song Dynasty. They are recorded in various bibliographies and compiled by various poetry collections. Apart from two of them, the other 82 poems and Zhu Song’s “ Wei Zhai set ”volume one, volume two works out of mutual understanding. When Qing Hongru Kui revised Qian Hongxin’s “Hong Wenmin’s Gregorian Biography”, he noticed the falsity of the “draft of the wild style” and Mr. Qian Zhongshu mentioned this issue. However, he failed to verify his findings and did not cause it The world pay attention and attention. When Wang Deyi re-wrote the “Yearbook of Mr. Hong Rongzhai”, he not only failed to further falsify the issue of the authenticity of the “Wild Draft,” but held that Hong Rukui “was almost arbitrary.” However, all kinds of literary history and poetic anthologies in later generations are still in error, and the errors have not yet been circulated. Therefore, this article intends to examine the rare case in the history of literature since the Song Dynasty in order to verify the past and avoid the spread in the future.