《呂氏春秋》不是一部先定了一個大綱然後按照計畫編纂而成的作品。 　　首先，〈十二紀〉似乎是獨立成書的，理由是：一、從〈序意篇〉檢討內容的先後和它在全書的位置可以推斷〈十二紀〉曾經單獨出版。二、〈十二紀〉有一節文字重見於〈八覽〉，從避諱的角度看此兩部分在傳承上有所不同；這情形在高誘作注時就是如此。三、所有在「解在乎」一語之後出現的故事都不見於〈十二紀〉，原因可能是〈十二紀〉的成書年代在〈八覽〉之前。 　　其次，〈八覽〉原來的編纂計畫似乎是「經」「解」配合的，但這一計畫並未付諸實行。原來打算用在「解」的材料分散到全書各處，其中一部分收在〈六論〉裡。從此可見今本《呂氏春秋》〈紀〉、〈覽〉、〈論〉的次序，反映了這三部份的成書先後。

　　　　　The Lu-shih ch’un-ch’iu 呂氏春秋 wasnot a collection compiled according to a preconceived plan . The first point made in the article is that the twelve chi 紀（schemata） seem to have been a separate work . The evidence is as follows : first , the position of the postface entitled “Hsu yi” 序意篇 in the whole work , together with its contents , points to the twelve chi having been published separately ; second , in a passage paralleled in the eight lan 覽（surveys） , the difference in the observance of taboo characters points to a separate transmission and this was to down to the time of Kao Yu’s 高誘 exegesis of the Lu-shih ch’un-ch’iu ; third , none of the illustrative stories introduced by the formula chieh tsai hu 解在乎（the explanation lies in） is to be found in the twelve chi , probably because they were composed before the eight lan . The second argument is that the eight lan seem to have been conceived on the plan of ching 經（classic） and chieh 解（commentary） , and this plan was apparently abandoned . The material meant to be used as chieh was used freely in later books . Part of such material found its way into the six lun 論 . From here we can conclude that the order of chi , lan , lun in the existing Lu-shih ch’un-ch’iu reflects the order in which the three parts were compiled .