本文將黎貴惇《書經衍義》與蔡沈《書集傳》對堯、舜、禹三位聖人的理解作比較，冀能對越南經學及中、越《尚書》學比較研究，有緜薄之助。本文先略述黎貴惇的成學背景，指出《書經衍義》為黎貴惇學術思想成熟後的作品，同時也是以《書集傳》為基礎，在越南進一步發展的成果。至於對黎貴惇與蔡沈聖人觀的比較，是以蔡沈解《尚書》所用體／用、本／末、內／外的架構為基準，比較的主題則有三個：一者，〈堯典〉「欽明文思安安」；二者，聖人的教與刑；三者，十六字心傳。據本文所分析的三個主題，可見承朱學強調體／用之別、以體為本的觀點，卻含糊於體、用之分，並往偏重「用」層面發展的傾向，為黎貴惇《尚書》學的特色之一，亦即越南經學的特色之一，至於越南經學的其他特質，尚需以更多的相關研究為基礎，方能全面見之。

Based on Shujing yanyi and Shu jizhuan, I compare Li Guidun’s and Cai Chen’s interpretations of the three sages, Yao, Shun and Yu, for comparative research on Chinese-Vietnamese study of Shangshu. Li Guidun’s academic progress indicates that Shujing yanyi is a work written during Li’s maturity stage of writing career, and it also is an example of advanced Vietnamese scholarship based on Shu jizhuan. The comparative criterion is the framework of Cai’s Shu jizhuan: ti vs. yong, fundamental vs. incidental, and inside vs. outside. There are three comparative topics: Yaodian “qingming wensi anan,” the enlightenment and penalty of the sages, and sixteen-word xinchuan. According to the analysis of these three topics, one of the features in Li Guidun’s classical study is that he accepted the tradition of Zhu Studies, distinguished ti from yong, and took ti as the basis, but deviated from Zhu’s in his inclination to pragmatism. That is also a feature of Vietnamese classical study. The future research is needed to distinguish further characteristics of Vietnamese traditional scholarship.