清朝乾嘉年間的崔述以《考信錄》奠定其在中國史學上的崇高地位，又以《讀風偶識》之作在經學史上佔有一席之地。崔述與姚際恆、方玉潤並稱清代獨立治《詩》三大家，姚、方二氏的《詩經通論》、《詩經原始》是《詩經》學史上的名著，兩書都是針對三百篇進行全面析解的《詩經》完整文本，崔述的《讀風偶識》則僅針對部分〈風〉詩進行論述，卻也可以跟姚、方之書相提並論，足見其另有獨到之處。不過，胡適等人對於《讀風偶識》的評價委實過高，亦不需深信。本文考察《讀風偶識》的解《詩》動機與特質，檢查崔述對於《詩經》漢、宋之學的接受與批評，從而說明《讀風偶識》在《詩經》學史上的定位與意義。透過本文的論述，吾人可知，「以史觀詩，以詩興史」正是《讀風偶識》之最大特色，而崔述雖然強烈批評傳統《詩經》學，但傳統《詩》教的影響無遠弗屆，治學風格與方式特立獨行的崔述，其解《詩》依然在傳統的籠罩中。

The Qing dynasty scholar Cui Shu’s 崔述 work Kao xin lu 考信錄 established his reputation in Chinese historiography, while he owes his position in the history of Confucian classics studies to another work, Du feng ou shi 讀風偶識. Cui Shu, Yao Jiheng 姚際恆 and Fang Yurun 方玉潤 are known as the three great independent Qing scholars of the Shijing 詩經 . Yao’s Shijing tong lun 詩經通論 and Fang’s Shijing yuan shi 詩經原始 are masterpieces of Shijing studies, both works providing analysis and interpretation of the more than 300 poems that constitute the full-length text of the Shijing. Despite only discussing the Songs (feng 風) from the Shijing, Cui Shu’s Du feng ou shi is still held on a par with these works, serving to show that it is a work of great originality in its own right. However, it is not necessary to believe the excessive praise heaped on Du feng ou shi by scholars such as Hu Shi 胡適 . This paper identifies the motivations behind Cui Shu’s interpretation of the poems in Du feng ou shi and its characteristics, examines his acceptance and criticism of Han and Song studies of the Shijing, and so explains the position and significance of Du feng ou shi in the history of Shijing scholarship. This paper shows that the most distinguishing feature of Du feng ou shi is that it “observes the Shijing from the point of view of historical studies, and promotes the value of historical studies through the Shijing” 以史觀詩，以詩興史. Although Cui Shu strongly criticizes traditional Shijing studies, the influence of traditional Shijing teaching is deep and far-reaching. Indeed, Cui Shu’s interpretation of the Shijing is still unable to escape these traditional influences, despite his unique and independent style and methods of scholarship.