本文分析東亞儒學經典詮釋史所蘊藏的一個方法論問題：經典以及經典的解釋者都是特定時空的產物，各有其「歷史性」。為了有效地解釋經典，經典解釋者是否必須經過解構自己的「歷史性」才能進入經典的思想世界?何以故?這個問題既具有東亞儒學的特殊性，又具有詮釋學的普遍意涵。本文扣緊這個問題，以《論語》與《孟子》等儒學經典的解釋為例，探討經典詮釋者與經典之間的複雜關係。 本文指出儒家經典詮釋學是一種體驗之學，詮釋者與經典之間構成「互為主體性」( inter-subjectivity )之關係。經典解釋者的「歷史性」之所以重要，乃是因為它是開發經典中之潛藏涵義的動力。但是，解釋者的「歷史性」卻又是一把「兩刃之劍」，它常常也會扭曲經典之意涵。因此，如何適當安頓解釋者的「歷史性」就成為一個方法論問題。 本文認為：經典的「超時間性」正是在時間性之中才能建構完成。但是經典以這種方式建構其「超時間性」，卻又涉及經典作者意旨是否可知，以及經典中的歷史敘述與普遍理則之間的緊張性問題。 本文之結論指出：解經者固然不應也不可能完全解消自己的「歷史性」，而以一個「空白主體」的姿態進入經典的世界；但也不可過度膨脹解經者的「歷史性」，以致流於以今釋古，刑求古人。因此，解經者必須在完全解消自己的「歷史性」與過度膨脹自己的「歷史性」之間，獲致一個動態的平衡。

The present paper attempts an analysis of the "historicity" of the interpreters and its related problems as seen in the history of Confucian hermeneutics. We have argued that the Confucian hermeneutics is primarily an "experiential" learning, reading the classics is for the sake of reader's self-cultivation in longing admiration of the ancient sages. Therefore, in the unending dialogue between the classics and their interpreters, the interpreter's "historicity" plays a very important role. It is the interpreter's "historicity" that excavates tacit meanings from the classics. However, it is also the interpreter's "historicity" that twists the meanings in the classics. Moreover, we have argued that the "supra-temporality" of the classics is deeply imbeded in the temporality. This is to say, the interpreters constantly "read in" new meanings and, therefore, keep the classics alive. However, this approach to the classics also creates a tension between the classics themselves and their interpreters. This paper concludes that the interpreters should neither "deconstruct" nor over-emphasize their own "historicity." We insist that the interpreters must maintain a dynamic equilibrium between these two extremes.