本文从文献学和语言学的视角试着论证了《御制满蒙文鑑》与《蒙语类解》之间的关系。《蒙语类解》作为18世纪朝鲜司译院蒙学教科书之一，其编纂体例及所收录的蒙古语词语在多方面沿袭了清代蒙古语辞书的特点。韩国和日本的学者在开展此项研究时也充分认识到了朝鲜朝蒙学文献与清代辞书文献之间存在的关联性，就“蒙学三书重刊序”中提及的“蒙文鑑”的问题，提出了自己的观点。如，李基文、郑堤文、金芳汉、菅野裕臣等。而中国学者对该类文献的关注度较低，研究成果及其缺乏。学者乌云高娃从史学的角度对《蒙语类解》进行过研究，在“蒙文鑑”的问题方面基本认同韩国学者李基文的观点。学者呼日勒巴特尔也对《蒙语老乞大》与清代官修的多部满语文系列辞书“御制清文鑑”进行过语言学视角的比较研究。前人学者的研究视角多集中于蒙学书所体现的近代蒙古语的本体研究，未对蒙学书与满文文献的关系进行仔细的论证，本文即为该方面的补缺。
This article attempts to demonstrate the relationship between qaγan-u bičigsen manǰu mongγol ügen-ü toli bičig and MONG Ŏ YU HAE from the perspectives of philology and linguistics. As one of the 18th century Mongolian textbooks of the Korean Translation Institute(Sa YŎK Won), the compilation style and inclusion of Mongolian words in MONG Ŏ YU HAE follow the characteristics of Qing Dynasty Mongolian dictionaries in many aspects. When conducting this study, scholars from South Korea and Japan also fully recognized the correlation between Mong Hak Sam SŎ and Qing Dynasty dictionaries. They put forward their own views on the issue of “Mong Mun Kam” mentioned in the “Preface to the Reissue of the Three Books of Mongolian School” . Chinese scholars have a low level of attention to this type of literature, and there is a lack of research results. The research perspectives of previous scholars have mostly focused on the ontology research of 18th century Mongolian language reflected in Mongolian textbooks, without carefully demonstrating the relationship between Mongolian textbooks and Manchu literature. This article is a supplement to this aspect.
1. 引言
2. 文献学视角的观察
3. 语言学视角的观察
4. 结论