This article examines Ch'ien Hsuan-t'ung's and Ku Chieh-kang's views on problems of traditional scholarship as revealed in the correspondence between the two scholars. In investigating ancient texts and their authenticity, Ch'ien Hsuan-t'ung thought that identifying “false events” was more important than identifying “false texts.” He encouraged Ku Chieh-kang to collate sections of ancient texts that identify false events and publish them as a book-length study. This idea provided much inspiration for Ku's “layer accretion” theory of ancient history. In their researches on the Six Classics, the two scholars were followers of neither the Old Text nor the New Text school. They believed that Confucius neither composed nor edited the classics. In their studies of the Shih Ching and the Ch'un Ch'iu, they held that the Shih Ching is simply a collection of poems and songs, not a classic work of the sages. Thus readers should approach the Shih Ching simply by seeking to understand the words of the poems, rather than by reading philosophical messages into them. Ku and Ch'ien also held that the Ch'un Ch'iu is not the work of Confucius, and the Tso Commentary is simply part of the Kuo yu. Ku's renowned “layer accretion” theory of ancient texts grew out of his study of accounts of Yao, Shun, Po Yi, and Shu Ch'i. In early sources, Ku contended, these figures were associated with very few historical deeds; later texts then gradually embellishd and augmented their careers. Ku's hypothesis was that, as these examples show, the content of ancient history typically accumulates in a layer-by-layer fashion. Ku and Ch'ien's views on certain scholarly issues were not completely correct, but they provide fruitful material for tracing developments in the scholarly thought of their time.