清乾隆期之有戴震，乃當時學界風氣變衍一重要影響因素。錢大昕初見戴氏即歎以為天下奇才。後戴氏因大昕之延譽，漸為世重。然章學誠言彼曾往見戴氏館舍，詢其所學，戴為粗言崖略，學誠當時即疑時人之言不足以盡其底裡。後學誠在朱筠門，見其推重戴氏，亦但云訓詁名物，六書九數，用功深細而已。及舉《原善》諸篇，則群惜其耗精神於無用之地。然依學誠之見，戴氏誠所謂「近代鉅儒」，其學蓋真能見古人之大體者。惟學誠之衡論戴氏，稱賞之外，亦頗有針砭之意，大旨見於其所著《文史通義》之〈朱陸〉篇；後則有〈書後〉之文，補敘其作意。然另有一關係密切者，即是其所草之〈浙東學術〉一篇，學誠於其中將當時最為關鍵之學脈，畫分浙東、浙西，以戴氏屬之浙西，而己所傳承，則謂出於浙東。蓋學誠之所以重視於戴氏，不唯因彼於戴氏學術，能洞見其微，且在彼之整體論述中，戴氏之學術，實亦足以反映清初以來中國學術發展之某一潛在之趨勢。至於學誠之最終所造，則與戴氏形成對比。雖則如此，戴氏之學術觀點，對於學誠，實具有極重要之影響。本文之論旨，即在依據二人之著作，一方面將其思想之共同基礎，加以釐清；另方面，亦將其結構形態之差異，作出對比；並指出此種對比性，於二人學術性格之形塑上，所曾產生之關鍵性作用。

As we have known, both Dai Dongyuan(1724-1777) and Zhang Shizhai(1738-1801) were widely recognized for their great contributions to Qing scholarship. Yet there remain quite a few undiscovered particulars and essentials about their academic work which need to be reinterpreted, especially the formation of their scholarships and the nature of their philosophical systems as a whole. The aims of this thesis are set to explore the aforementioned issues and to compare their differences. Basing on these studies, the author also tries to discover some clues that might lead to a new interpretation of Qianjia scholarship.