本文將《復初齋文集》兩個稿本及兩個刻本作比對，指出四個版本之間的關係：《文稿》保存了翁氏生平多數文章的初稿；《文集》稿本則為翁氏親自整理《文稿》，並加以抄謄、分類、修改，且增入新撰之文的結果；初刻本則以《文集》稿本為底本作校刊，但部分文章的安排未依《文集》稿本及翁氏批語；重校本據《文稿》對初刻本作糾誤，但卷目及文章安排大抵依循初刻本，故初刻本之缺點亦沿承之。本文以具體例證，指出許多研究翁方綱生平、撰作歷程以及學術觀點等，非常關鍵性的資料，到了初刻本、重校本都不復存在。因此，即使《復初齋文集》已有兩個刻本，且使用非常方便，但兩個稿本仍具不可忽略的價值。

In this paper, I compare the two manuscripts with two carving copies, and find the relationship between the four versions: Wenggao preserve most of Wong Fanggang’s drafts; Wengjigaoben is the fruit of Wong Fanggang’s rearrangement, classification, revise and supplement of Wenggao; the first carving copy is based on Wengjigaoben, but some arrangement of essays are not in accordance with Wong’s headnotes and the form of Wengjigaoben; the catalog and essay arrangement of the second carving copy follows the first one, so that the errors of the first carving copy are also inherited, although the second one correct many mistakes of the first one. By giving specific examples, I show it clearly that many critical materials of Wong Fanggang’s lifetime, the process of writing and intellectual viewpoints don’t exist in two carving copies any more. Therefore, it’s convenient to use two carving copies though, the two manuscripts still have very important values.