本文旨在闡述朱子（1130-1200）《詩序辨說》的觀點及寫作目的與原因。朱子在該文中認為《詩序》本單獨成篇，附在《詩》的經文之後，西漢初的毛公將它冠於經文之前，導致後人誤認《詩序》是和經文連成一體的。朱子又以為《詩序》雖有傳承，但並非聖賢之言，實多後人臆度之私見，經東漢初的衛宏增廣潤色後，猶有人再加附益，最終的完成者有可能是鄭玄。 《詩序辨說》批評《詩序》的錯誤，主要有三︰一則誤解孔子「思無邪」的意思，以為是作者以無邪之思作詩，不知此係從讀者方面立說，謂讀者讀後可得思無邪的效果；其次是將閭巷小民自述的淫奔詩，誤判為刺奔詩；三是違反「善則稱君，過則稱己」的尊君卑臣的詩教，並混淆了「男女正位」的教化。因此《詩序》的觀點，不合聖人的本旨。 　　「淫詩說」的詮解方式，擺脫《詩序》的束縛，似乎讀者有更大的思考詮釋空間，實則又落入了《詩集傳》的牢籠。《詩序辨說》的完成，代表朱子自信「一家之言」的完全確立，然朱子固激烈批評《詩序》及其信從者，但《詩集傳》中卻也有相當多的篇章，採用了《詩序》的觀點，所以正確的說，朱子是主張「離《序》詮《詩》」（或云「舍《序》言《詩》」），而非如趙沛霖等所言的廢《序》。

　　　　　This essay examines the contents of Shih hsu pien-shuo by Chu Hsi (1130-1200). According to Chu Hsi, Mao kung (ca. 100 B.C.) had dismantled the book entitled Shih hsu and left each part in front of its corresponding text of Shih ching. Later scholars, in consequence, mistook Shih hsu as the interpretation given by the authors of Shih ching. Rather than Confucius or Tzu-hsia, Chu Hsi argued, it was Wei Hung, who had composed the existing Shih hsu by incorporating views and those of earlier scholars. 　　Chu Hsi's Shih hsu pien-shuo has pointed out three major mistakes in Shih hsu. The first is being unaware that“ssu wu hsieh”implies“readers read Shih ching with innocence”and thus failing to see that a few poems in Shih ching were actually love poems from those who eloped. The second is being unaware that officials and the populace could not directly criticize the monarch and thus acting against Shih ching's teaching of“being soft and gentle”in speaking to the authorities. The third is over-exaggerating the influence of women in history. King Wen of Chou (ca. 1027-1025 B.C.), for example, received support from people from other areas, because the King had been able to exert influence with his virtues. This was not because the King's wife, being virtuous, had kept the harem in order; the moral cultivation of King Wen's wife resulted from, instead of contributing to, the King's influence. 　　Chu Hsi's view of those love poems has made it possible for scholars to interpret Shih Ching in a freer spirit. In addition, instead of discarding Shih hsu, Chu Hsi treated the work as a reference. There is no ground of asserting that Chu understood Shih ching without any regard for Shih hsu.