在莊學史上，羅勉道的時代一直是個爭議的問題，「莊子循本」則為不受到重視的書。究其原因無非研究莊學史者少，而研究的題材大多選擇被廣泛討論的著作，故而羅勉道雖提倡註解「莊子」應回歸原典的方向，頗得明代的焦竑與楊慎的看重及清人徵引，卻未得到當代研究者的重視，一般「道家思想史」等著作甚至未嘗措一辭。本文首先從原典入手，尋找材料證明羅勉道為明人，推翻嚴靈峰等人主張羅氏為宋人之說。繼而從「辨偽」、「義理」、「詞章」、「古學」諸方面綜合論述羅勉道的觀點，隨文評其得失，使羅勉道「莊子循本」一書的「洞見」與「不見」，各有充分的說明與客觀的評價，進而以「循本」一詞說明「莊子循本」的特點與影響，期望透過此一探討使羅勉道「莊子循本」能獲得應有的重視以及持續的研究。

　　　　　In study of Chuang's philosophy, There was always a controversial argument to Lou Mian-Tao period as “Chuang Tzu Originals” were less mentioned. In fact, the study of Chunang's philosophy were not so many. Yet those essays engaged in its concerned were widely discussed, therefore, though Lou Main-Tao claimed the explanation of chuang's philosophy should be backed up with its Originals, it drew only with Chiao Feng and Yang Shen's attention of Ming Dynasty and that of Chin's, However, there were no responses from contemporary scholars and even without any footnotes from those essays on “Tao Philosophy History”. We therefore take Originals to find evidence to support that Lao was of Ming Dynasty instead of Yuen Lin-feng's study saying that Lao was that of sung Dynasty. In follow, we take “Truth”. “Thought”. “Literature”. “Ancient study” as a whole to express Lou Main-Tao's viewpoints; Giving comments on it, make “chung Tzu Originals” with full descripion and objective appraisal on “creativity” and “oversight”, and use “orginal” torelease the characteristic and effect of “Chuang Tzu Originals”, we hope with such an approach, Lou Mian-Tao's “Chuang Tzu Originals” can deserve their own respect and further study.