本文追溯方孝孺師從宋濂時期的經歷，以洪武九年拜師至洪武十六年面見明太祖為斷限。透過重構這段經歷，處理三個現有洪武朝士人思想研究中未得到解決的問題：一、錢穆指出，宋、方師徒二人對明代開國有著不同的態度，若真如此，這對師徒的理念可說是完全相反，到底他們在當時是如何互動？二、不少學者認為方孝孺的父親方克勤、老師宋濂先後因明太祖而死，使孝孺對洪武朝廷產生反抗意識，促成他限制君權的思想，這種說法是否合乎孝孺當時的語境？三、在《明儒學案》中，劉宗周與黃宗羲都將方孝孺定位為「有明之學祖」，但孝孺當時是否真的被時人視為道學或心學的開創宗師？本文對這三問題的解答，或能為明初思想史帶來一些新的思考。

This article traces the experiences of Fang Xiaoru (方孝孺, 1357-1402) from 1376, when he became Song Lian's (宋濂, 1310-1381) disciple immediately after his father's death, to 1383, the year he was summoned by Ming Taizu 明太祖 after the death of Song Lian. By reconstructing Fang's interaction with his mentor and other students of Song, this study tackles three unsolved questions in the studies of literati in the Hongwu reign (洪武, 1368-1398). First of all, Song and Fang, as stated by Qian Mu 錢穆, had different attitudes toward Ming Taizu and the founding of Ming Dynasty. If Qian's account is valid, was there any clash of views between them? How did the mentor and the student, whose values were at such a polarity, interact with each other? Secondly, did Fang blame Ming Taizu for the death of his father and mentor, and express his grievances in his writings, as contended by scholars of Ming history and thought? Finally, in the famous Ming ru xue an 明儒學案, Liu Zongzhou (劉宗周, 1578-1645) and Huang Zongxi (黃宗羲, 1610-1695) regarded Fang as the Founding Master of Ming Learning, but was Fang really regarded as a grandmaster and the pioneer of Ming daoxue 道學, or just an inheritor of Song's literature by his coevals? The answers provided in this study may shed new light on the intellectual history of the Hongwu reign.