在晚明的眾多經學家當中，郝敬是十分特殊的一位，他遍解諸經，留下了大量的著作，然而世人對他的學術評價，卻有兩極化的現象，褒者稱其為明代經學巨擘，貶者則斥其繆種流傳。何以致此？值得深入探究。本文即選擇郝敬的《毛詩原解》，予以析論，希望實際瞭解他的學術要旨，並做一公允客觀的評價。 郝敬的《毛詩原解》是其《九經解》之一，此書尊信《詩序》，力駁朱熹《詩集傳》不用《序》說的不當。全書重要論點，幾乎都是圍繞著朱子而批判的。只是郝敬過於尊信《詩序》，有時不免拘泥執拗，反而不能客觀的說解。由於郝敬說《詩》的重點，仍在義理部分，其中有不少獨到的識見，只是這種個人的體會，見仁見智，並非任何人都能接受，所以毀譽並至，勢所難免。因此，在明末希望突破傳統的風潮下，郝敬敢於提出新見的注經方式，自然容易受到稱譽。而清代乾嘉時期興起的考據學風，解經重尚實據，對於抒發一己之見，以義理見長的經解，便很難受到他們的青睞。郝敬就在這種學術風潮的轉變下，接受頌揚與唾棄的起伏對待，其間的落差，確實令人悵歎。

Hao Ching was very unusual among scholars of the late Ming period. He was well-versed in the classics, and left a great deal of writings, but commentators have held opposite views about his scholarship. Some have seen him as a stronghold of the Ming study of classics. Others have criticized him for spreading false ideas. What has contributed to these divergent comments is a problem worthy of in-depth examination. This author has thus chosen Hao Ching's Mao-Shih yuan-chieh for a closer analysis, which aims at helping understand the essence of Hao's study and give a more judicious evaluation of his work. 　　Mao-Shih yuan-chieh is one of Hao Ching's Chiu-ching chieh. Hao Ching in this work followed Shih hsu and refuted, with all he could, Chu Hsi for not using Shih hsu in Shih chi-chuan. Almost all the important points made therein focused on criticizing Chu. As Hao Ching relied so much on Shih hsu, he sometimes was over-bound by this work and failed to make an objective observation. In addition, Hao Ching in his study of Shih ching emphasized interpreting the meanings of the text and made a number of unique points. These personal reflections have been open to question and criticism. 　　The appraisals of Hao's work thus have varied. In the iconoclastic climate of the late Ming, it was easier for Hao Ching, who dared to suggest new ways of approaching the classics, to be admired. In contrast, in the midst of the philological emphasis rising at the Ch'ien-Chia period of the Ch'ing dynasty, the prevailing concerns for positive evidence made it difficult to think highly of those who were noted for interpreting classics with their own views. In other words, Hao Ching was at one time highly valued and at the other time criticized depending on the contemporary intellectual climate. Seeing such differences in judgment, one cannot but sigh with sorrow.