考漢《注》近古，其存於今者，以量言之，首推群經鄭玄《注》，其次則為《淮南子》、《呂氏春秋》、《戰國策》三書高誘《注》矣。高誘為學質樸，訓解多有依循，彌足珍貴。前人校釋《呂覽》，著作甚豐，惟多著力於《呂覽》正文，高《注》則注意者少，良為可惜；蔣維喬《呂氏春秋彙校》初取傳世諸本高《注》參伍比度，勝義甚多；惟就校勘之方法而言，蔣氏多據版本、類書為證，所見恐仍有未備。嘗思考證之學，首在以經證經；高誘熟讀古書，尤好背誦，有一事而兩見者，高《注》每多類同，足為本證。本文試以三書高《注》為據，再考版本所見異同，心勘斠證，以見今本《呂覽》高《注》之正訛。

　　　　　Kao Yu of the Eastern Han, was the author of commentaries on the Huai-nan tzu, the Lu-shih ch'un-ch'iu and the Chan-kuo ts'e. As he tended to couch similar comments as well as glosses in similar wording, we can collate them to arrive at more reliable readings. 　　Extant editions of the Lu-shih ch'un-ch'iu, including those published in the Yuan or the Ming, are not free from corruption. Kao Yu's commentary is no exception. This article attempts to compare Kao Yu's commentaries where there are duplications in the other two works. It is hoped that this will be helpful to students of Han commentaries to early works.