楊衒之「洛陽伽藍記」今存以明刋如隱堂本、吳琯本為最古。吳氏「集證」、唐氏「鉤沈」，大率衍顧廣圻之依水經注改析本文子注之緒論，以改明刻本，分析本文子注，且據各本，校正文句，補注事實。唯吳氏所定本文，僅得子注廿分之一；唐氏正之，本文子注，亦不過十與一之比。近人張宗祥因謂：『集證本遂起而分之，然極簡略，恐非楊氏之舊，如楊氏舊文，果如吳氏所述，則記文寥寥，注文繁重，作注而非作記矣！楊氏具史才，當不如此。唐氏復因吳氏之簡，鉤沈本起而正之，……亦未為盡合也。』張氏以為『此書子注之難分，實非水經注之比，……苟無如隱以前之古本可以勘正，實不必泥顧氏之說，强為分析，致蹈明人竄改古籍之覆轍也。』於是有「合校」之作。張氏此書，卽依舊第，唯取各本，記注文字異同，間加考釋；附錄序跋一卷，錄四庫全書總目提要、毛晉、王謨、毛扆、顧廣圻、朱貲貴、吳若準、李葆恂、袁廷檮、唐晏諸人關於伽藍記之序跋；又附吳若準「集證」一卷，於衒之自序，別為補正數事；又附正文二卷，則集吳、唐二氏書所析出之本文而成，間加案語，以糾其失。張氏以本文子注釐析不易，吳唐二書俱有違失，乃循舊本篇第，校正文句而已，有此而後各本得失，展卷瞭然矣！張氏所取校者，大率限於伽藍記各本，有如隱堂本、吳琯本、綠君亭本、照曠閣本、漢魏叢書本、集證本、鉤沈本等互校，又旁取水經注、晉書、魏書、太平寰宇記、開元釋敎錄等參校。所取校諸籍，未能廣採六朝舊籍及釋經、僧傳、金石文字，為闕憾焉。張氏此稿成於民國十九年（一九三〇），商務印書館據張氏鐵如意館原稿本影印，茲據影本景印，俾學者比觀焉。
The earliest extant copies of Yang Xuanzhi's *Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Luoyang* are the Ming dynasty Ruyin Hall edition and the Wu Guan edition. Both Mr. Wu's *Collected Annotations* and Mr. Tang's *Recovered Fragments* largely follow Gu Guangqi's method—itself derived from the *Commentary on the Waterways Classic*—of re-parsing the main text and its sub-commentaries. They use this to revise the Ming printed editions, distinguish between the main text and sub-commentaries, collate the text against various editions, and supplement factual annotations.
However, Wu's version identifies only one-twentieth of the text as sub-commentary; Tang's revision gives a ratio of only about one sub-commentary passage for every ten of main text. Modern scholar Zhang Zongxiang thus observes: "The *Collected Annotations* makes distinctions between main text and sub-commentaries, but it is extremely simplistic and likely does not reflect Yang's original. If Yang's old text were truly as Wu describes, then the narrative would be sparse while the commentary would be heavy and cumbersome—making it a work of commentary rather than of record. Yang, who had a talent for history, would surely not have written that way. Tang's work seeks to correct the deficiencies of Wu's text, yet it too is less than fully accurate." Zhang argues that "distinguishing the sub-commentaries of this book is truly more difficult than for the *Commentary on the Waterways Classic*... Unless we have a pre-Ruyin Hall ancient edition for verification, we should not stubbornly adhere to Gu's theory, forcing an analysis that would repeat the Ming dynasty's mistake of tampering with ancient texts." Hence he produced a *Collated Edition*.
Zhang's work follows the original chapter sequence, only gathering variant readings from various editions and occasionally adding interpretive notes. It includes an appendix of prefaces and colophons—one volume collecting those by Mao Jin, Wang Mo, Mao Yi, Gu Guangqi, Zhu Zigui, Wu Ruozhun, Li Baoxun, Yuan Tingshu, and Tang Yan—along with a volume of Wu Ruozhun's *Collected Annotations*, providing supplementary corrections to several passages in Yang's own preface. Another two volumes of appendix present the main text extracted by Wu and Tang from their analyses, with occasional case notes correcting their errors. Zhang, aware of the difficulty in reliably distinguishing main text from sub-commentaries—and of the faults in both Wu's and Tang's works—simply follows the original chapter arrangement and collates the text. With this, the strengths and weaknesses of each edition become immediately clear upon opening the book.
Zhang's collation is largely limited to various editions of *Record of the Buddhist Monasteries of Luoyang*: the Ruyin Hall, Wu Guan, Lüjunting, Zhaokuangge, *Han-Wei Series*, *Collected Annotations*, and *Recovered Fragments* editions. He also consults sources such as the *Commentary on the Waterways Classic*, the *Book of Jin*, the *Book of Wei*, the *Universal Geography of the Taiping Era*, and the *Kaiyuan Era Catalog of Buddhist Teachings*. A significant shortcoming is that he does not draw more widely from Six Dynasties-era texts, Buddhist scriptures, monk biographies, or epigraphic materials. Zhang completed this manuscript in the nineteenth year of the Republic (1930), and the Commercial Press reproduced it from his original manuscript from the Iron Wish Studio. This edition is a photo-reprint of that facsimile, provided for scholars to compare and study.