本文以《刘子》的成书与作者问题为研究对象，从《刘子》成书时代、《刘子》作者问题、刘昼事迹辨析、刘昼行年考等方面，延续北齐刘昼为《刘子》作者的讨论。就《刘子》成书时代，指出《刘子·贵农》的籍田礼制，与北齐文宣帝高洋于东郊籍田的记载相合。《刘子·和性》的水旱失节和西门豹事例，亦可对应文宣帝破坏西门豹祠冢的事迹。思想方面，《刘子》强调“圣贤”与“众庶”命相的区别，以及主张依照善名命名，均与北朝的思想相符。词语方面，《刘子》采用了“机妙”和“休明之世”，有北朝用语特色。就《刘子》作者问题，指出《刘子》与《文心雕龙》出自同一作者的可能性较低。《刘子》与《文心雕龙》的古乐曲排序并不相同。《刘子·文武》的“文”是儒士，而《文心雕龙·程器》说的是文士。《刘子》与《文心雕龙》就“形器易写”、如何知人、才学关系，亦持有相反看法。就刘昼与《刘子》的关系，指出唐代袁孝政《刘子》注序说的是《刘子》流传到南朝梁，亦符合南北朝的交聘情况。《刘子》不提佛家，在形神问题上，与佛教思想有抵触，加上《刘子》以“赋”来代“文”，相比南朝梁刘勰，曾反佛和学赋的刘昼较有可能是《刘子》的作者。刘昼事迹方面，提出刘昼应在东魏向高欢上书批评佛教。刘昼在北齐时没有反佛行为，故以《刘子》没有反佛思想否定刘昼为作者的说法难以成立。通过分析刘昼《六合赋》的记载，指出“古拙”并不能概括刘昼的文风，《六合赋》行文“古拙”，出于刘昼以集句形式创作，较难据此否定刘昼作《刘子》的可能。刘昼主动求仕，与李铉、宋世良、魏收、邢子才等人有交流，这与《刘子》积极求仕的内容没有矛盾。行年方面，就李铉教授刘昼《三礼》、刘昼担任宋伯宗博士、李玙以刘昼应诏，以及高孝瑜召见刘昼的时间，提出了新的意见，亦就刘昼的生卒年作补证。此外，通过分析本传的“暑月唯着犊鼻裈”，指出刘昼未能入仕，与衣着不合礼度有关，而刘昼自称“博物奇才”，则是想以自己的作品与魏收《魏书》相比。

This study aims to examine the origin of Liuzi 《刘子》. After analyzing the age of Liuzi, the authorship of Liuzi, the life of Liu Zhou刘昼of Northern Qi Dynasty 北齐, and the biography of Liu Zhou, our study concludes that Liu Zhou is the author of Liuzi. The time when Liuzi was written could be suggested by Gui Nong 《刘子·贵农》, in which it stated that the ritual of the emperor farming籍田. This was consistent with Emperor Wenxuan of Northern Qi 北齐文宣帝(r. 550-559), who held the farming ritual in the east side of the capital. He Xing 《刘子·和性》described the cause of floods and droughts, and mentioned Ximen Bao 西门豹, which could correspond to the deeds of Emperor Wenxuan of Northern Qi, who destroyed the temple and grave of Ximen Bao. On one hand, Liuzi emphasized the differences in the body features of the ordinary individuals and the sage, and advocated naming after moral concepts, which were consistent with the culture of the Northern Dynasty. The word “Ji Miao” 机妙and “Xiuming Zhi Shi” 休明之世was used in Liuzi, these words were first used in the Northern Dynasty period.By analyzing the authorship of Liuzi, there is no significant evidence to prove that the Liuzi and Wenxin diaolong 《文心雕龙》were written by the same author. The order of the ancient emperor’s ritual and music 古乐曲in the two books were different. Also, the “wen” 文in Wen Wu 《刘子·文武》referred to the Confucian scholar, while the “wen” in Cheng Qi 《文心雕龙·程器》referred to the writer. The two books have distinct standpoints ranging from describing certain objects, to how to understand people and how talent develops through learning. On the other hand, there was a record that argues Liuzi is the work of Liu Zhou. The Preface to Liuzi by Yuan Xiaozheng 袁孝政of the Tang Dynasty 唐代stated that Liu Zhou is the author of Liuzi. After analyzing the statement of Yuan Xiaozheng, our study indicates that the “Boqian Jiangbiao” 播迁江表, which means that Liuzi was circulated in the Southern Dynasty 南朝when the Northern Dynasty and the Southern Dynasty were in good relation. On the view of Form and Spirit 形神问题, Liuzi valued the Form, while Buddhism valued the Spirit. However, Liuzi did not mention Buddhism. The view of Liuzi was consistent with Liu Zhou’s attitude toward Buddhism, Liu Zhou had criticized Buddhism and Buddhist. In Liuzi “fu” 赋was used as a representative literary genre, and “fu” was the only literary genre that Liu Zhou learned.By analyzing the time of Liu Zhou criticizing Buddhism, the writing style of Liu, and the attitude of Liu toward seeking an official position, there is no contradiction between the life of Liu Zhou and the thought of Liuzi. In the Eastern Wei Dynasty 东魏, Liu Zhou wrote a letter to Gao Huan 高欢criticizing Buddhism and Buddhist. There were no further records that Liu Zhou criticized Buddhism in Northern Qi Dynasty; therefore, if Liuzi were the work of Liu Zhou, it should not have suggested idea against Buddhism. The style in Liuhe fu 《六合赋》of Liu Zhou was “Guzhou” 古拙because Liu followed the rules of writing “Jiju” 集句to produce Liuhe fu, so he could create works with words other than “Guzhou”. Liu Zhou took the initiative to seek an official position, which can be seen in the exchanges with Li Xuan 李铉, Song Shilang 宋世良, Wei Shou 魏收, and Xing Zicai 邢子才, so there is no contradiction between the life of Liu Zhou and the thought of actively seeking official position in Liuzi.By analyzing the biography of Liu Zhou, there are different opinions on the time of events in Liu Zhou’s life, which includes when Liu learned three ritual classics 《三礼》, taught Song Bozong 宋伯宗, and the time Li Xuan 李玙offered Liu an employment opportunity, as well as the time Gao Xiaoyu 高孝瑜contacted Liu. Also, there is more evidence to analyze the year of the birth of Liu Zhou. Liu Zhou wore “Dubi Kun” 犊鼻裈during summer, which was deemed improper and led to Liu’s failure to seek an official position. Liu Zhou often claimed himself as a “Bowu Qicai” 博物奇才, which reflects Liu’s desire to compare his works with Weishu 《魏书》of Wei Shou.