大、小《戴記》傳自漢儒，俱《禮經》之羽翼。及馬融、盧植、高誘、鄭玄詁《禮》，陸德明釋文，咸取小戴《禮記》，其學始顯。至唐撰定《五經正義》，而《禮》尊鄭注，利祿所在，學者慕焉。至於《大戴》，兩漢經師不爲傳注，其學晦而篇卷缺。清代以前，注解《大戴》全書者，僅北周盧辯一家而已。盧辯之撰《大戴禮記注》，於《大戴》之流傳，功用甚大。傳世本盧辯《大戴禮記注》雖非完帙，然盧辯乃注解《大戴》全書之第一人，且其書未經後人刻意刪削，頗近原始，不僅為探究南北朝《大戴》學，及其時學說風尚之津梁，亦爲後人研治《大戴禮記》之明鑒。本篇之撰，欲比對盧辯《大戴禮記注》與鄭玄、王肅經說之同異，以見盧辯對二家論說之取捨，進而旁窺南北朝學術風貌。或能釐正前說之未備，冀有助於盧辯《大戴注》及南北朝經學之研究。

Handed down by scholars of the Han dynasty, the Da Dai Liji and the Liji were both books of rites, of equal scholarly importance until Ma Rong, Lu Zhi, Gao You, Zheng Xuan and Lu Deming wrote commentaries on the Liji, which immediately gained popularity among students of rites. In the Tang dynasty, the Liji, along with Zheng Xuan's commentary, became the standard text, included in the classical canon Wujing zhengyi. The Liji once established, the Da Dai Liji came to be neglected by Confucian scholars of the Han dynasty, its text receiving little attention afterwards. From the Han to the Qing, the only commentary on the Da Dai Liji was by Lu Bian of the Northern Zhou dynasty. Although the Commentary on the Da Dai Liji we have today is not free from corruption, it nevertheless preserves the major part of what is believed to be the original version. The extant version accordingly can be seen as the best text available for not only research into Lu’s Commentary on the Da Dai Liji, but also as insight into the different schools of Confucian classics of the period under study. This thesis is in essence a study of Lu Bian's Commentary on the Da Dai Liji, with reference to his life and social milieu. Based on textual analysis, it aims to compare and contrast the commentaries of Lu, Zheng and Wang Su. It also hopes to shed light on the different aspects of Confucian classics of the Northern and Southern Dynasties.