本文以新的證據重新檢討〈經義述聞〉、〈經傳釋詞〉的作者問題。首先，本文據現藏臺灣中央研究院傅斯年圖書館的王念孫〈呂氏春秋〉校本原書，證明劉盼遂稱〈呂氏春秋雜志〉中凡「引之日」者在校本皆原作「念孫案」的說法不可信，並結合前賢相關論證，駁正劉氏疑〈經義述聞〉原為王念孫所著之說不成立。其次，本文據現藏上海圖書館的王念孫〈管子〉校本原書，證明〈管子雜志〉中稱「引之日」的文字原皆為王引之的意見，藉此說明王引之雖根抵經學，但肄經之餘，旁訂群籍，偶有所得，條錄成文，部分更為王念孫徵引於〈讀書雜志〉中。最後，本文據現藏臺灣國家圖書館的王引之〈尚書訓詁〉鈔本，證明〈尚書訓詁〉是王氏撰作〈經義述聞〉、〈經傳釋詞〉的長編資料之一，二書淹貫了王氏個人早年的研究成果。準此，本文認為〈經義述聞〉、〈經傳釋詞〉為王引之自著而非王念孫託名歸美之作。

This paper revisits the authorship of Jingyi Shuwen經義述聞 and JingzhuanShici經傳釋詞 by looking at new sources of evidence. The first set of evidencecomes from comparing the annotations of Wang Yin-zhi 王引之 (1766-1834) inLushi Chunqiu Zazhi 呂氏春秋雜志 with the original version of Wang Nian-sun 王念孫 (1744-1832)’s collated Lushi Chunqiu 呂氏春秋, now in the Fu Ssu NienLibrary of Academia Sinica. The findings, together with the arguments made by otherscholars, lead us to doubt Liu Pan-sui’s theory that it was Wang Nian-sun who wroteJingyi Shuwen. The next evidence comes from reviewing Wang Nian-sun’s collatedGuanzi 管子, now preserved in the Shanghai Library, and it confirms that WangYin-zhi’s annotations in Guanzi Zazhi 管子雜志 are undoubtedly his own. Thisfinding proves that, although Wang Yin-zhi’s classical research is mainly focused onConfucian classics, other texts were not excluded. He sometimes made his ownannotations, and some were even cited by his father in Dushu Zazi 讀書雜志. Thisindicates that Wang Yin-zhi’s Shangshu Xungu 尚書訓詁, now preserved at theNational Central Library, is an important resource for Jingyi Shuwen and JingzhuanShici. The paper concludes that Wang Yin-zhi is the author of Jingyi Shuwen andJingzhuan Shici.