平日因講授經學歷史，余對於歷朝治經之士，大致因熟諳而能詳；獨有后倉一人，則彷彿識知又不能盡言其學術，甚有遺憾之感。余嘗思考其中之故，殆因前人皆將后倉列在群經師之間不特為表出，亦不言其特殊之貢獻，以致後學無以知其在經學之地位。實則后氏不僅在兩漢之前朝能遍通《五經》之學，於群經師間既為佼佼者，且為漢代禮說之巨擘，為漢代禮家之所從出，可謂偉然不群之士。本篇因此嘗試由后氏之學術傳承與其著作、其弟子之禮學分派、石渠禮論之論辯，與后氏禮學在兩漢時期之實踐等問題進行討論，藉以顯示后氏禮學在兩漢文化方面之貢獻，並表彰其學術成就。

During my career of teaching the history of classics studies, I have gained familiarity with almost all the classics scholars throughout Chinese dynasties, with the only exception of Hou Cang (70 BC), whom I seem to know yet, to my regret, fail to have a complete grasp of his academic domain. I have pondered the reason why it is so. Plausibly it is because previous scholars used to incorporate Hou Cang in the classics scholars camp without singling him out for respective study, or mentioning the special contribution he had made to the classics studies, which subsequently resulted in the oblivion of his scholarly position in the field of classics studies. In fact, the comprehensive knowledge Hou Cang had of the Five Classics had not only toped him as one of the few outstanding scholars, but also established him firmly as the landmark of ritual studies and the birthplace of ritual school in the Han dynasty. He may, of course, well be regarded as a distinguished and nonpartisan figure in his era. This study intends to, by exploring Hou Cang's scholastic lineage and work, the diversified ritual schools led by his disciples, the arguments proposed by Dai Sheng in Shi Qu Li Lun 《石渠禮民主化》, and the practices of ritual studies in the Han dynasty, give due credit to his cultural contribution to the Han dynasty and commend his academic accomplishment.