經書非聖人手訂，亦非史官實錄，而是經由長年多人之主觀編修，逐漸成形。經學家探索三禮制度，各自運用不同主觀標準，進行推論。標準不同，學說隨之而不同，於是對前人學說隨意取捨，往往不理解、沒讀懂前人論述，而斷定其觀點之是非。清人發展主觀考據學，自有其魅力與價值，而經書文本之歷史面貌、鄭玄注文之確切意義，反被忽視甚至誤會。如今讀經書、鄭注，不宜繼續清人主觀考據之法，而要用文獻學之讀書方法。筆者認爲，清代學者用文獻學之讀書方法閱讀經注者，顧千里一人而已。本文分校勘、鄭學兩門，評述顧千里之精義。

Zhengxuan's annotations on Sanli, including Zhouli Yili and Liji, have been the standard interpretation in the history for about 2000 years and were always high valued. However, during the transformation of the classical text there are various changes on the original text. And these changes could do harm to the meanings of Zhengxuan. Since the Qianlong Period, there was an atmosphere of studying Zhengxuan's annotation. Many scholars paid great attention to the annotations, and some were from a perspective of textual criticism. But some of the scholars neither understood the transformation of the classical literature nor tried to analyze the structure of the annotations. In spite of these studies the meaning of Zhengxuan didn't emerge. Among these scholars GU Qianli was the only exception. This article focuses on the outstanding achievement of GU's masterpiece Fubenlijikaoyi.