本文以諸橋轍次《詩經研究》〈詩經總說〉為探究對象，旨在究明其六義、二〈南〉、正變、小大、四始、《詩序》、配列、篇次、刪詩、四家《詩》、《詩經》之注疏等《詩經》學基本問題。研究結果：諸橋轍次以新學解說六義；以事多出於偶然，而不置其重，看待二〈南〉；以子無言、經無載，古人又急於自圓其說，於是後有正變、小大之說，故在某條件之下，各家之說都可成立；四始就是四種正詩；《詩序》為衛宏所作，故可自由自在地批判；《詩經》之篇次、配列，今已無法知其真意；在新文獻出現之前，相信孔子曾刪詩；四家《詩》都有〈序〉，因解《詩》立場不同，而有差異，三家《詩》之亡失，非關長短而在權威性；繼承歷來學說的《詩經》注疏等觀點。

The aim of this paper is to investigate the continuation, innovation, and influence of scholarship during the Meiji and Taishō periods on the history of the Book of Odes learning as seen through Tetsuji Morohashi’s view of the Odes. Primary to this study is Morohashi’s Shikyō kenkyū, with references made to his other writings on the Odes found in his collected works. Specific attention is given to what he wrote on the six meanings, the “Zhounan” and “Shaonan” chapters, original and variant versions, the minor and greater odes of the kingdom, the four beginnings, the preface to the Odes, the arrangement of the anthology, the table of contents, deleted poems, the four versions, and the commentaries and subcommentaries on the Odes.
Findings in this paper include: Morohashi used new learning to explain the six meanings; he did not emphasize the importance of the “Zhounan” and “Shaonan” chapters, nor did he think the difference among variant versions or the minor and grater odes had any deep significance; he mentioned the four beginnings but did not elaborate on them; he felt the preface to the Odes had holes in it; the true meaning behind the arrangement and the table of contents cannot be known; the issue of Confucius deleting poems is very nuanced and does not lend itself to quick and absolute denial; the transmission of the four versions did not depend on length; he also accepted many historical views expressed in commentary on the Odes.