長久以來，人們一直不明白胡適(1891-1962)為河晚年專注，《水經注》。這是 否代表其思想趨於保守呢？他是否自困象牙塔呢？旭為河如此努力證明戴震(1724-1777) 沒有竊書呢？ 本文透過對《水經注》懸案的分析，試圖解笞一些有關胡適、《水經注》及清朝學風 的問題。《水經注》懸案的焦點是戴震有否抄襲趙一清(1709-1764)或全祖望(1705- 1756)。胡氏力主三家因使用同一研究法，所以得出類似的結論。 本文指出胡適研究《水經注》的主要目的不是捍衛家鄉安徽的文化傳統，不是要證明 其對中國古典的造詣，不是要逃避現實，也不是要為別人抱不平。他是利用這問題作為與 保守學者思想鬥爭的工具。他要藉此鼓吹清朝學風所表現的客觀性及科學精神。胡氏認為 戴震所代表的優良文化傳統應加以鼓吹，以祈在當代中國引起認知論及方法論的革命。 胡適的《水經注》研究毀譽參半。其最大貢獻為對六十餘種版本作了精細的校勘，無 人比他對，《水經注》懸案花上更大的功夫。可是他對《水經注》。研究並沒有作出真正 的突破。他沒有將研究成果寫成專書或學術性論文。其有關《水經注》的手稿零亂及潦草 、難於整理。此外，胡氏將學者們的注意引進這本屬枝節問題的《水經注》懸案也引人詬 病。胡氏雖鼓吹客觀的治學態度及方法，但其《水經注》的研究卻未盡公允。他是明顯地 偏袒戴震，對戴震的批評者卻極之苛刻，而旦也沒有正面回應他們所提出的論點。

　　　　　For a long time, people do not understand why Hu Shih (1891-1962) spent his last twenty years studying the Chinese classic work, Shui-ching chu (Commentary on the Classic of the Waterways). Was this ambitious academic project a departure from his early mission as a westernizer? Was the Shui-chi@g chu his ivory tower? Why did he try so hard to prove that Tai Chen (1724-1777) was innocent of plagiarism? This paper will attempt to answer a number of such questions which have puzzled scholars about Hu Shih, the Shui-ching chu, and Ch'ing scholarship through a case study of the Shui-ching chu controversy. The focus of the controversy is the question of whether Tai Chen plagiarized Chao I-Ch'ing ( 1709-1764) or Ch'uan Tsu-wang (1705-1755). Hu argued that Tai arrived at identical results as Chao and Ch'uan independently because these three mid- Ch'ing scholars employed the same research method of textual criticism. This research indicates that Hu's main intention in studying the Shui- ching chu was not to defend the cultural heritage of his homeland, to prove his ability in reading classics, to hide himself from the punishing reality, or to fight for justice. Rather, he used this issue as an ideological weapon to fight with cultural conservatives and to advocate the aspects of modernity, such as objectivity and scientific spirit, that he found in Ch'ing scholarship. Tai Chen was a hero to Hu because he represented a cultural heritage which could be utilized in modern China for an epistemological and methodological revolution. Hu's scholarship on the Shui-ching chu is controversial. His collation and examination of more than sixty different editions of the text was perhaps his most important contribution to Shui-ching chu studies. No one has examined the Shui-ching chu controversy more comprehensively than Hu. However, Hu did not make a real breakthrough. His handwritten manuscripts are loosely organized and badly written. He shifted the attention of scholars away from more important areas in Shui-ching chu studies. His research was also far from being neutral and objective. He was too lenient toward Tai Chen and too harsh on Tai's critics. He also failed to respond directly to the unfavorable arguments raised by Tai's critics.