法國耶穌會士馬若瑟 (Joseph Prémare, 1666-1736) 在十七世紀末抵達中國，開始傳道；十八世紀初被清廷流放於廣州時，撰寫了《漢語劄記》(Notitia linguæ sinicæ) 一書，希望透過它幫助洋人學習漢語。此書完成後，馬氏將稿本寄回巴黎，請傅爾蒙 (Étienne Fourmont, 1683-1745) 替他在歐洲刊行。可惜所托非人，出版願望要在一個世紀後才得以在亞洲實現。近年來中外學者對《漢語劄記》的不同稿本和刊本頗感興趣，在此課題的各個範疇裡發表了不少文章甚至專著，補充早年主要出自外國漢學家相當豐富的論述。根據相關的一手和二手資料，本文首先重新梳理第一份原始稿本的背景歷史，然後審閲現藏於大英圖書館的另一份原始稿本，並就稿本數量、流傳歷史及稿本內容的幾個問題，提出一些發現和觀點，充實或修改現有著作在這些方面的結論。

French Jesuit Joseph Premare (1666-1736) arrived in China in the late 17th century as a missionary; and in the early 18th century, while exiled to Canton by the Qing court, he drafted Notitia linguæ sinicæ, his magnum opus intended to help Europeans learn Chinese. His hope to have this published in Europe was realized a century later and only in Asia, partly due to efforts to sabotage it by Etienne Fourmont (1683-1745), to whom Premare had sent the manuscript. In recent years, scholars East and West have shown interest in the various manuscripts and publications of the work and have issued articles and even monographs with different approaches to this topic, supplementing the already rich studies of earlier, mostly Western, sinologists. This paper first sorts out the history surrounding the original manuscript sent to Fourmont; then examines the original manuscript currently held by the British Library; and offers alternative views and fills knowledge gaps in past studies by Henri Cordier (1849-1925), Knud Lundbak (1912-1995) and Li Zhen 李真 on various aspects of manuscript studies related to this work. Specifically, this paper 1. concludes that the British Library manuscript is not an incomplete version of the one received by Fourmont, as contended in earlier research, but fragments of a distinct third manuscript; 2. deduces that this British manuscript comes between the copy received by Fourmont, i.e., the most recent, and that which is currently held in the Bibliotheque nationale de France, i.e., the oldest; 3. identifies Francois Montigny (1669-1742) as the earlier owner of the British manuscript, before it was owned by Heinrich Julius Klaproth (1783-1835), and then purchased by the British Museum; and 4. suggests that the British manuscript can enrich the known texts of this work, with a new chapter and some improvements, and can provide a better manuscript for a possible new translation of the book.