本文以中華書局1977年影印的胡克家刻本作為底本，以寫本、奎章閣本等刊刻本為參 校本，首先初步淺析李善注引禮記的主要注釋體例，進而側重於考證相關注釋來辯明 禮記各家注及其逸文等相關文獻的來龍去脈。據考察得知，李善是以鄭玄注爲主，以其 他各家注為輔注引禮記各家注。而經部禮記相關文獻及其各家注，即有皇侃禮記 注、馬融禮記注、禮記明堂陰陽錄、孔子三朝記、阮諶三禮圖、禮記·逸禮 等。其中黃侃禮記注恐非李善原注，馬融禮記注乃前人舊注的可能性較大。禮記明 堂陰陽錄、孔子三朝記相關注釋恐非出自其單行本。阮諶三禮圖之注，最早即見於 文選李注，後人皆引之，疑此出自阮諶三禮圖。禮記·逸禮兩條注釋，恐爲禮緯 文，並非出自禮緯本書，而是李善轉引自其他文獻史料。

Li Shan’s work on Wenxuan is dominated by Zheng Xuan’s notes and supplemented by notes from other schools citing Lij’. The book is based on the book Liji and its various commentaries, including Huang Kan’s The Book of Liji’, Ma Rong’s The Book of Rites, LiJi Mingtang Yinyanglu, Kong Zi Sanchaoji, Ruan Chen’s Sanlitu, and Liji – Yili. It is more likely that Huang Kan’s note on the Book of Liji is not Li Shan’s original note, and Ma Rong’s note on the Book of Liji is an old note of his predecessor. It is possible that the relevant commentaries in The Book of Liji, Liji Mingtang Yinyanglu, and Kongzi Sanchaoji are not from his single-volume edition. The first of these is the Ruanchen’s Sanlitu, which was first seen in the Wenxian, Li’s notes, and later cited by others, and is suspected to be from the Ruanchen’s Sanlitu. The two commentaries on Li Ji - Yili, which are probably from Li Wei, are not from the original Li Wei book, but are cited by Li Shan from other documents and historical sources.

1. 李善注引禮記體例
    1）李善引禮記之數據考
    2）李善引禮記內容考
2. 李善注引禮記各家注
    1）皇侃禮記注
    2）馬融禮記注
    3）禮記明堂陰陽錄
    4）孔子三朝記
    5）阮諶三禮圖
    6）禮記·逸禮
3. 結論
【参考文献】
【논문초록】

• 吳相錦(韓國外國語大學中國語言文學系特任教授) | 오상금