學者所提〈弟子問〉18 與22 號簡牘的歸屬問題，經詳細論證後，筆者認為此二支簡牘不歸屬於〈君子為禮〉，而對於竹書字詞的考釋、通讀、訓解，則逐一辨析諸家異說，一方面彰顯學者灼見，一方面嘗試提出個人淺見，希望通過細微的思辨之後，取得較正確的釋文。此外，〈君子為禮〉包含禮學、文獻流傳、儒家思想議題，前者涉及君子儀容，應是臣子面見國君時，由「面容」乃至「行走」的詳細禮節，另一為卿大夫在「祭祀」、「朝廷」不同場合中，所持「行」之儀容；其次可見竹書內容中所提及的「孔子形象」，應是在戰國初期百家爭鳴之下的產物，這部分已被傳世文獻承襲與深化；後者則是體現戰國時期，楚地孔門後學對於「仁」、「禮」、「義」三者關係的傳承與闡述。

Regarding the attribution issue of slips NO.18 and 22 of “Di Zi Wen” that have been widely discussed by scholars, I find that the two slips are not attributable to the “Jun Zi Wei Li”. In the paper, I analyze the differences among varieties of schools, ranging from the bamboo textual words and readings to wording explanations. While the profound findings
of researchers are sufficiently revealed and my personal opinions are proposed, I look forward to make more accurate interpretation for the text after this detailed verification. In addition,the “Jun Zi Wei Li” includes three main subjects: science of “Li”, spread of literature and
the issues of Confucianism. The former involves gestures of men,
especially the details for their appearances and movements in the occasion when the courtiers are to meet with the monarch. Moreover, the other is related to the appearances of the bureaucrats in specific
occasions, such as the sacrifice and court. Furthermore, the “image of Confucius” mentioned in the contents should originate from the early years of Warring era. The concept has also been passed down and deepened through long-lasting literatures. The latter expresses the
inheritance and description of “Ren”（仁）, “Li”（禮） and “Yi”（義）by the followers of Confucianism in Chu in the Warring Period.