本文旨在探討《四庫全書總目》評價經學根據的內涵意義。資料除《四庫全書總目》的文本外，又結合〈論《四庫全書總目》對明代詩經學的評價〉一文所得為基礎，再進一步分析，而獲得最後之結論。 《四庫全書總目》評價經學的依據，根據前述資料之分析所得為︰一、時間之先後；二、考證之良窳；三、國運之盛衰；四、科舉之內容；五、帝王之態度等。以此五點共同來論斷經學發展和盛衰的情況。其結論則漢代經說近聖人之時代，故較為可信；考證越詳明，越能得經書之義理；國家初興之盛與滅亡之衰，在無形中影響經學之盛衰；明代科舉僅考「經義」，又拘守《五經大全》之說，對經學研究造成不良的影響；清代諸帝表章經學，因而促進清代經學的發展。再則清代不但居於「衰極而盛生」的時代，且儒者多注重考證稽古之事，故為歷代經學之盛；明代則帝王不重經學、國運不盛、科舉內容訛誤、離聖人時代太遠、又考證不興，故為歷代經學之極弊。 《四庫全書總目》固然以考證為「本」，但也強調義理為「佐」；故謂其較重考證則可，詬其僅重考證而摒棄義理則謬。本文以實證的工夫，分析實際的資料，所得結果，相信對「四庫學」、「乾嘉學術」、「經學史」等的研究，當有實質的助益焉。

　　　　　The purpose of this essay is to investigate the significance of the grounds used to assess the value of the study of classical texts (ching-hsueh), according to the criteria contained in the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu tsung-mu. Other than the material in the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu tsung-mu, this essay also makes use of an article entitled, “On the value of Ming period ching-hsueh as seen from the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu tsung-mu”; it furthers the analysis and conclusions of that article. The criteria which influence the Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu tsung-mu in its assessment of the value of various classical research, on the basis of the material just mentioned, can be stated to include the following: (1) chronological priority; (2) the quality of the philology; (3) the state of the nation; (4) the contents of the national examination; (5) the attitude of the Emperor, and so forth. These five criteria were used together, to determine the condition of the development and vigor of classical research. The respective results were: since Han period classical research was closer to the time of the sages, it was more reliable. The higher quality philology could achieve, the better the research was able to accede to the philosophical meaning of the text. The special periods of vigor at the beginning of a dynasty, and of decline at its end, had an intangible effect on the quality of the classical studies at that time. Ming Dynasty national examinations were aimed at testing knowledge of the significance of the classical texts, and were limited to the explications of the Wu-ching ta-ch'uan commentaries; this fact had a deleterious effect on classical studies. The Emperors of the Ch'ing Dynasty promoted classical studies, and thus assisted the development of Ch'ing Dynasty classical research. Too, the general feeling of Ch'ing times was that, having weathered the worst kind of decline, they were once again in florescence; moreover, Confucians of the time mostly focused on philological exegesis. They were at the zenith of classical studies. On the other hand, in the Ming Dynasty the emperors did not value such research, the fortunes of the nation were ebbing, the examination system was full of distortions and errors, the times were too far removed from the era of the sages, and philology was moribund. This was the nadir of classical studies. The Ssu-k'u ch'uan-shu tsung-mu certain is based on philology, but it also finds auxiliary support in philosophical considerations. Therefore, it is acceptable to say that it favors philology, but it is ridiculous to accuse it of exclusively emphasizing philology and thus discarding philosophical thought. This essay is based on positive work, analyzing actual evidence, thus assuredly it should offer real assistance in the research on the Ssu-k'u repository, the scholarship of the Ch'ien-lung period, and the history of textual scholarship.