傳奇是盛行於唐朝的一種文人小說。在後代學者的眼裡，它的娛樂消遣功能，幾乎要被「行卷」所取代了。不過，這種情形應該是出現在南宋趙彥衛的《雲麓漫鈔》之後。因為，在此之前的書籍裡尚未發現有同樣或類似的記載。更奇特的是，趙氏之後，歷經將近七百年，從未有人再提及以傳奇行卷的說法。直到民國前七年，劉師培先生又在〈論文雜記〉裡提到趙氏的說法，語意之間十分肯定。多年後，陳寅恪先生在〈韓愈與唐代小說〉，不但也引用了趙氏的說法，更以此為基礎，進一步提出古文運動對傳奇產生推動作用的觀點。由於劉、陳二位先生擁有崇高的學術地位，他們這種學術意見自然影響後代甚鉅。不過，仍然有學者深不以為然而加以反駁。筆者也同樣持反對意見，企圖以前脩的反對意見為基礎，再加入個人觀點，從「傳奇與史傳文學的關係」、「傳奇與古文運動無關」、「傳奇與科舉行卷無關」三個角度，以釐清文學史的真相。
Chuanqi was a kind of scholar's novel prevailing in Tang Dynasty. In the eyes of scholars of the later period, its function of recreation has been almost substituted by the use of ”fashionable examination papers”. But such a situation shouldn't have happened until the book ”Yun Lu Man Tan” by Zhao Yan Wei was published in South Sung Dynasty. For such a statement as that of Zhao's has never been found in any book which was antecedent to ”Yun Lu Man Tan”. What is more curious is that there have been no scholars to ever mention the statement of ”using chuanqi for examination papers” for almost seven hundred years since the death of Zhao Yan Wei. Until about 1905, Liu Shi Pei quoted Zhoa's statement in his article ”Lun Wen Za Ji” and seemed to believe in it firmly. Many years later, Chen Yin Ke in his article ”Han Yu and Ancient Prose Movement”, not only quoted Zhoa's statement but also basing on which inferred a conclusion that Ancient Prose Movement gave an impetus to Chuanqi. Owning to supreme academic statuses, Mr. Chen and Mr. Liu had a huge effect on scholars of the later period. But there have been still many scholars writing articles to express an oppositional opinion. I am also on the opposite side and try to make clear this historical phenomenon in three directions as follows: ”the relation between Chuanqi and Historical Biography Literature”, ”Chuanqi irrelevant to Ancient Prose Movement”, and ”Chuanqi irrelevant to fashionable examination papers of Imperial Examination”.
