傳世《四庫全書總目》的版本雖多，主要可分為兩個系統：一為武英殿本（殿本）系統，一為浙江杭州刊刻本（浙本）系統。前者為朝廷的最後定本，流通較少，世間罕睹；後者為浙江地方官府刊刻，廣泛傳播於各界，影響也較大。其他各本大抵由此二本而出，幾無例外。二者的關係究竟如何，浙本的底本是否即為殿本？就成了近數十年來文獻學界關心的一個問題。本文之作，並未預設立場，基本上係依據新出現的文獻資料，對此一問題的代表性意見進行檢視，試圖得出信而有徵的看法，以提供學界的參考。本文的初步結論是：「浙本出於殿本」說不能成立。文瀾閣抄本《四庫全書總目》應是浙本的底本之一，但並非唯一的底本。浙本刊刻時，同時也參考了其他較新的《總目》修訂稿。

The ”General Index to the Siku Quanshu” can be generally divided into two systems: the Wuyingdian edition and the woodblock Zhejiang version of Hangzhou. The former is officially accepted as the standard by the imperial court, but very few copies survive. The latter, carved for bureaucrats of the Zhejiang area, is the more influential edition due to its wide circulation. Critics believe that other editions are mostly derived from the two, but what concerns us most is whether the Zhejiang version is based on the Wuyingdian edition, a debate which has been around for several decades. This paper seeks to examine how the recently discovered textual materials are to shed light on this issue and affect our view of it. I contend that the assumption that the Zhejiang version is derived from the Wuyingdian edition is untenable. The Wenlange manuscript of the Siku Quanshu is more likely to be the primary (though not the sole) source of the Zhejiang edition, which also uses other revisions of the ”General Index” later than the Wuyingdian edition.