本文析論二則《文選注》中關於漢代《詩》學的重要問題：一，《敦煌本文選注》有所謂「伏生所誦《詩》」之說，為古今論究伏生者所未見，本文舉所謂伏生傳《詩》與〈移讓太常博士書〉前後文、《敦煌本文選注》皆不合、各家《漢書》注《文選》注於〈移讓太常博士書〉未云伏生傳《詩》、見存典籍未云伏生傳《詩》、駁「《詩》、《書》古多互稱」為伏生傳《詩》說之可能、《敦煌本文選注》「《書》」誤「《詩》」試解五證，證成其誤。並指出最可能的致誤理由為《敦煌本文選注》前文有七「詩」字，因次數頻繁，致本應書「書」而誤書為「詩」。二，唐抄本《文選集注》之現代編制索引者在重重誤讀下無中生有而得「《毛詩》孔安國《注》」，本文舉《文選集注》此處前尚有「《鈔》曰」，非承上文李善注引《詩》、傳世文獻無孔安國注《詩》說、《文選集注》所謂「孔安國云……」出自《尚書．君牙》孔安國《傳》之「冬大寒」、《詩》類著作書名有「孔」字者四證，證成其誤。並考不見今本《尚書》孔安國《傳》之「孔安國云：『祁，大也』」訓詁義項之出處。

This paper analyzes the two questions on the han dynasty "The Book of Songs" important issues: First, the " Dunhuang Wen xuan annotation," （《敦煌本文選注》）the ancient writers mistakenly copied as "Fu Sheng chanting poem ",（「伏生所誦《詩》」） this article cited five cards, proved to be wrong. These five points are "Fu Sheng chanting poem "and “Yi rang tai chang boshi shu” （〈移讓太常博士書〉） contradictory, every kind of " han shu”（《漢書》）and ”Wen xuan "anthology do not have this argument, there is no such thing in the literature, refute " The Book of Songs "（《詩》） with " The book" （《尚書》） in ancient times have the same name,the word " The book" （《尚書》）is written as " The Book of Songs "（《詩》）. And pointed out that the word "book" （書）is written as "poem"（詩） most likely reason. Second, Tang copy of the " The Wen xuan jizhu "（《文選集注》） modern indexers were born out of nothing "The Book of Songs " Kong Anguo "Note" , （「《毛詩》孔安國《注》」）this article cited four certificates to prove its mistakes. The four points are this paragraph before the text there are "notes said,"（ 「《鈔》曰」） the word, that is not quoted "The Book of Songs " （《詩》）, there is no such argument in the literature, The " Wen xuan jizhu " " Kong Anguo said " （「孔安國云……」） From " The book " （《尚書》）, The Book of Songs is known as the word "hole"（「孔」）. And simply examine the source of this meaning that is not seen in " The book " （《尚書》）.