本文考察郝懿行的為學及撰作歷程，以解釋其《書說》與《爾雅義疏》所 表現對古文《尚書》觀點不一的情形。大體言之，乾隆五十九年之前，郝氏著 作中完全看不到考據學∕ 漢學的色彩，在多次赴京師應試，總結前期治經心得， 撰成《詩說》、《書說》等五部發揮經義的經學專著後，郝氏始有尊古、尊漢、 尊鄭及偽古文《尚書》的觀念，此後，不但他對古文《尚書》的看法，有由真 至偽的重大轉變，對經文中各別字詞的訓解、對前人注疏之評價等，亦有相應 的調整。其為學歷程及古文《尚書》觀點的變化，是觀察清代考據學／漢學及 偽古文《尚書》說流傳情形的一個極佳例證。然由其至乾隆末年才受到考據學 ／漢學風氣及偽古文《尚書》說的影響，可見考據學／漢學及偽古文《尚書》 說的流布，可能比我們以精英人物為據所描繪的學術史發展還要慢，範圍也小 得多。但仍需更多的個案研究，才能更深入了解考據學／漢學及偽古文《尚書》 說流布的多樣性。

This study investigates Hao Yi-Xing’s researching and writing process and explains why his Interpretation of the Book of Documents and Erya with Annotations display different viewpoints toward the old-text Book of Documents. Hao did not write works of textual criticism and Han studies before the 59th year of Emperor Qian-Long’s reign. After taking the entrance exam multiple times in Beijing and writing books on five of the classics, including the Interpretation of the Classic of Poetry and the Interpretation of the Book of Documents. After passing the exam, finishing his first five classical books and moving to Beijing, we can see that Hao began to follow the ideas of Gu, Han, Zheng and viewed the old-text Book of Documents as apocryphal rather than authentic. He then dramatically changed his interpretation of the old-text Book of Documents and his remarks on the annotations of previous scholars. These changes of his study process and his view are a good example of how textual criticism, Han studies, and the idea that old-text Book of Documents is fake spread in the Qing dynasty. That this spread did not happen until the late years of the Qian-Long period reveals that textual criticism developed slowly and influenced less widely than the academic history centered on elite. More case studies are needed for a deeper understanding of textual criticism, Han studies, and the diversity of the concept of the apocryphal old-text Shangshu’s dissemination in the Qing dynasty.