呂祖謙的《呂氏家塾讀詩記》是宋代《詩經》學「舊派」中的名著，此書有戴溪為之續作，從書名《續呂氏家塾讀詩記》觀之，戴書的寫作目標不外是在為呂書進行補充、修訂，或者是延伸的工作，但兩書除了對於《詩序》的解經方向大致看法相同之外，著書體例與對傳統經解的態度都有不小的差異，這就使得正續《讀詩記》之間的關連與成績有了比較的空間。目前學界對於呂祖謙的《詩經》學頗有充分的認知，但少有專研戴溪《續呂氏家塾讀詩記》的論述，本文運用實證分析的方法，歸納戴書的表現內涵，研析其解經特質，並針對其訓詁特色與缺陷提出檢討與解釋，此外也將《續呂氏家塾讀詩記》回置到其著作的時空，將之與南宋新舊兩派《詩經》學名著對照觀察，並指出戴溪遊走於新舊兩派之間，《續讀詩記》與呂書從裡到外，同其血脈精髓者其實不多。戴溪對新舊兩種不同的解經路線與觀點，採取的是折衷的立場；新舊兩派的爭議在《續讀詩記》中並未出現，因為它們在形式與內容上並存。

Lu Zuqian's Lushi Jiashu Dushiji (A Record of Reading Shijing at the Home Teaching Place of the Lu's Family) is a representative work of the old school of the learning of Shijing in the Song Dynasty. Dai Xi wrote a supplementary work to Lu's work entitled A Complementary Work of Lu's A Record of Reading Shijing at the Home Teaching Place of the Lu's Family. Judging from the title of Daixi's work, the goal of Dai's work should be a supplement to, revision of or a further study of Lu's work. However, apart from sharing similar understanding in the approach of interpreting the Prefaces of the Shijing, there are substantial differences over the forms of writing and attitudes towards traditional interpretations in these two books. These differences made an important field of comparison in the connection and achievements of these two books. Current scholarship provides substantial understanding towards Lu Zuqian's learning of Shijing. However, special monograph on Dai's work has yet to come out. This paper not only studies the characteristics of Dai Xi in interpreting Shijing, it also puts Dai's work back to the historical context from which it grew out. It has also been compared with the representative works of both the old and the new schools in interpreting Shijing in the Song Dynasty. This paper identifies the fact that Dai Xi took a syncretistic position drawing ideas from both the old and the new schools. These two works do not have much in common in their essence. Daixi adopted a syncretistic position towards the two different approaches and perspectives in the old and the new schools. The disputes of the two schools did not appear in Dai's work, because in which these two schools co-existed in both form and content.