本文旨在考述衛湜及其《禮記集說》在清代官方與私人著作中之接受實況，透過搜閱清人「提及」或「徵引」湜書之相關內容：首先勾勒《集說》之流傳情狀；次則梳理衛湜在清代士人間之正、負面評價；繼而考察衛氏《禮記集說》與《欽定禮記義疏》之實質引用關係；最終分析清代《禮記》著作徵引《集說》之學術意義。研究所得，清代計有114位學者在147部著作中述用湜書355條，《集說》入清之初，流傳不廣、評價不一；《通志堂經解》既刻、《欽定禮記義疏》頒行以後，方奠定衛氏《集說》在清代之學術地位，而以乾隆五十八年科場改制、《五經》全考為分水嶺。由於《義疏》的纂修取自湜書者，不僅只書中所錄之宋人禮說，更羅括衛氏裁緝之鄭孔《注》《疏》，儼然《集說》之「薈要」，此纔是《總目》所謂「取於湜書者特多」之實情。清人之《禮記》著作徵引《集說》者，主要用以校正經文、補證注疏與擴充集解；引述之經說出自宋人者多達108條，則又象徵清代禮學中所蘊涵之宋學成分，因衛湜《集說》之接受而彰顯。

This article aims to discuss how official and private works in the Qing dynasty accepted Weishi’s Commentaries on the Book of Rites in terms of investigating how Qing scholars mentioned or cited Weishi’s work. This article first sketches how Wei’s Commentaries was circulated, examines positive and negative feedback on Weishi by the Qing scholarsdynasty, finvestigates the relationship between Wei’s Commentaries and Emperor Qianlong’s Version of Commentaries on the Book of Rites, and finally analyzes the importance of Wei’s Commentaries on the Book of Rites study in the Qing academic circle. It is found that, in their 147 works, 114 Qing scholars cited 355 entries from Weishi’s book. At the beginning of the Qing, Wei’s Commentaries was not widely circulated, and the opinions about it were sepatated from other’s. Not until the release of Tongzhitang Jingjie and Emperor Qianlong’s Version was the academic status of Wei’s Commentaries established. The fifty-eighth year of the Qianlong period (1793) was a watershed, when the imperial examination was reformed and the Five Classics were all covered. From Wei’s book, Emperor Qianlong’s Version was cited not only by the Song scholars in Ritual studies, but also by Wei’s compilation of Zheng’s Zhu and Kong’s Shu. Commentaries on the Book of Rites captures the gist of Wei’s book, and this is what Sikuquanshuzongmu means by commenting that Wei’s book was indeed widely cited. What Qing scholars cited from Commentaries on the Book of Rites was mostly was used to correct the scripture and supplement evidence for notes, and to expand interpretations. Up to 108 entries were cited from classical studies in the Song dynasty. This reflects that the Song academia accepted the development of thetitual studies in the Qing because Wei’s Commentaries provided interpretations.