本文針對日本江戶時代懷德堂朱子學派的代表人物中井竹山的重要著作《非徵》，探討其中批判荻生徂徠《論語徵》的表現。竹山展現出的批判策略，包括指出徂徠曾剽竊他人之說以為己說，解經有不一致之處，造成矛盾，執著於固定字義以致有窒礙難通之處，某些地方實不出朱子學之範圍，或是不能撼動朱子學的解釋，以及徂徠學本身的缺陷處，將會造就錯誤的解讀和不良的理論效應。竹山認為，徂徠的最大問題根源來自於他好立新解，強自為說以求名求勝，從而影響一時學風，吸引眾多浮淺之徒，廢棄修身之功。筆者認為，《非徵》的思想史意義在於，竹山所處的大坂町人環境，需要的是可以提供町人環境所需之修養資源的學說。主張由士來養民的徂徠學，在非武士階級中無法真正被實踐，反而容易合理化為人情的過度放縱，故竹山有必要捍衛朱子學而對抗徂徠後學的學風，保障町人社群所需的教化素養。因此《非徵》的思想史意義，可在此武士儒學與庶民儒學的對照關係中得見。

This paper focuses on the Hicho, a text written by Nakai Chikusan, one of the major representatives of Confucianism of the Kaitokudo School during the Edo Period in Japan. Particular attention is paid to how Nakai Chikusan criticizes the Rongocho, written by Ogyu Sorai (1666-1728). Nakai Chikusan points out that the Rongocho plagiarizes interpretations of Chinese Confucians. He notes that the Rongocho’s views are also self-contradictory. In addition, he points out that Ogyu Sorai does not effectively criticize Zhu Xi, and that he is not able to offer alternatives to Zhu Xi’s views. According to Nakai Chikusan, all the defects found in the Rongocho are due to Ogyu Sorai’s competitiveness and his desire to establish new, but unfounded, interpretations. In the view of the present author, Osaka, where Nakai Chikusan lived, was a commercial city for commoners. That is why Nakai Chikusan criticized Ogyu Sorai’s political Confucianism and defended Zhu Xi. We can locate the significance of the Hicho in the history of thought in the contrast between Ogyu Sorai’s Confucianism for samurais and Nakai Chikusan’s Confucianism for commoners.