吳大震所編《廣豔異編》，目前曾作考源者，以陳寶琳《吳大震《廣豔異
編》研究》與趙素忍《《豔異編》及其續書研究》二家之說，最為重要。其中陳
寶琳利用上海圖書館藏本補足缺漏錯簡條目，並根據來源的互見情況，逐一判斷
取材來源的可能性，考證頗為詳實，可惜的是並未將所有篇目逐一標記，完整呈
現《廣豔異編》各篇之來源，難免有所缺憾。趙素忍「附錄二：《廣豔異編》故
事源流」則詳列逐篇出處，但似未參考陳寶琳的研究，導致考源此有彼無的情
況，殊為可惜。本文則試圖在二家研究的基礎上，略作補說，考述二家所缺之來
源，並從《緝柳編》中找到若干資料來源，據以說明〈晁采外傳〉的來源與《廣
豔異編》特有的綴合手法。

The major existing studies on the sources of Guang Yanyi Bian, compiled by
Wu Da-zhen, are Chen Bao-lin’s A Research of Guang Yan Yi Bian by Wu Da-Zhen
and Zhao Su-ren’s A Study of Yanyi Bian and Its Continuations. Among these, Chen
Bao-lin utilized the Shanghai Library edition to fi ll in missing or miscopied entries,
and, by comparing cross-references among sources, carefully assessed the possible
origins of each story. His research is highly detailed, yet regrettably, he did not mark
the sources for every single entry, leaving the overall picture of the work’s textual
origins somewhat incomplete. Zhao Su-ren’s ‘Appendix II: The Sources of the Stories
in Guang Yanyi Bian’ lists the provenance of each tale in detail, but does not appear
to have consulted Chen Bao-lin’s study, resulting in certain inconsistencies where
one identifi es sources overlooked by the other. This is rather unfortunate. Building on
these two scholars’ research, this paper seeks to provide supplementary observations
by identifying additional sources not covered by them, and by locating relevant
materials in Jiliu Bian. On this basis, it further examines the origins of the tale Chao
Cai Waizhuan and highlights the distinctive method of textual recombination found in

Guang Yanyi Bian.