馬王堆漢墓與郭店楚墓儒家文獻相繼出土後，學界在數十年間引發了對「子
思其人其學」與「子思學派」等學術問題之探討，希冀建構子思思想體系，以補
足先秦儒學孔、孟之間的儒學史空缺。本文以文本解讀與思想史之研究角度切
入，對傳世文獻「子思四篇」—〈中庸〉、〈緇衣〉、〈表記〉、〈坊記〉之
「文本形式」加以探析，思考「子曰」話語與「稱引《詩》、《書》」此文本現
象背後所蘊含之思想意義，發現子思四篇的這種特殊文本形式，實是子思有意
為之。言必稱「子曰」，是基於他作為孔子親孫的特殊身份，基於「孔子」形
象在子思所處的戰國初年還有權威性，足以發揮相當程度的言說效力；證必以
《詩》、《書》等先王經典，則係為彰顯孔子與子思皆遵仁義之道而行，荷担紹
承先王志業，追求「復禮」的根本立場。孔子所言、子思所述、先王經典所證的
文本形式，開創出一套專屬於子思的原創性表述模式，即「三段論式」，亦建構
起專屬於子思的言說特色—「引而述之，以述為作」。

Following the successive discovery of Confucian texts from the Mawangdui Han
and Guodian Chu tombs, academic circles have been spurred to explore scholarly
issues related to Zisi and his teachings, as well as the Zisi School, over several
decades. The aim has been to construct a comprehensive system of Zisi’s thought that
fi lls the historical gap in Confucianism between Confucius and Mencius during the
pre-Qin period. This study approaches the subject from the perspectives of textual
interpretation and intellectual history. It analyzes the form of the four transmitted
essays attributed to Zisi — namely, the Zhongyong (Doctrine of the Mean), Ziyi
(Black Robes), Biaoji (Record on Example), and Fangji (Record of the Dykes).
The study investigates the philosophical signifi cance behind the textual phenomena
of “the Master said” discourse and citations from the Shijing (Book of Poetry) and
the Shujing (Book of Documents). It discovers that the unique textual form in these
essays is deliberate. The frequent use of “the Master said” stems from Zisi’s special
status as the direct grandson of Confucius, leveraging Confucius’s authoritative
image, which held considerable persuasive power during Zisi’s era in the early

Warring States Period. The consistent use of classics such as the Shijing and the
Shujing for verification is also notable. It serves to emphasize that both Confucius
and Zisi upheld the path of benevolence and righteousness, continuing the legacy
of the former kings and pursuing the fundamental goal of “restoring the rites.” The
textual form, comprising Confucius’s words, Zisi’s elaborations, and evidence from
the classics, establishes an unique mode of expression unique to Zisi — a three-part
argumentative form. This also constructs a distinctive rhetorical feature of Zisi’s work
— elaborating on citations from classic works as a means of exposition.