清代的史學大師章學誠 (1738~1801) 曾說過：「史之大原，本乎《春秋》，《春秋》之義昭乎筆削......」《春秋》一書是中國史學的起源及最具代表性的著作，且是孔子唯一所寫的經典，兩干年來不少學者對此書有相當多的研究；而《左傳》是否是對《春秋》經的解釋也有不同的說法，或謂其為解經之書，也有是說乃《左氏春秋》，遭後人加入解經之內容，晉朝的杜預對於《左傳》的註解是歷史上最著名也最權威的注，但歷來也有不少補充及修正。本文擬就明末清初的大儒顧亭林(1613~1682 ) 對《春秋》及《左傳》的認識及其解讀、補充進行深入的探討，就其在《日知錄》第四卷及《「左傳」杜解補正》二書中對於《春秋》、《左傳》二書的解讀予以分析，更重要的是要探討顧氏在這些詮釋中所蘊涵的一些對於明亡清興以及當時學術的看法。另外，也就顧氏之解經來反省中國經典的再詮釋所蘊涵的意義。

The Annals of the Spring and Autumn was the origin of the Chinese historical book, and is most representative. It is said that among the Classics, it is the only one that Confucius himself wrote. For over two thousand years, many scholars has interpreted and written about it. The writing and author of the famous The Zuo Commentaries has been controversial, but it is surely related to The Annals of the Spring and Autumn. Du Yu of the Jin Dynasty wrote authoritative commentaries on both. They has been amended and criticized by many later scholars. Gu Yanwu was one of them. This essay tries to analyze and discuss the writings of Gu on The Annals of the Spring and Autumn, The Zuo Commentaries and Du Yu’s writings. It is to show, in Gus reading and re-interpretation of the Classis, what messages are to be revealed? In what way was Gu’s re-interpretation of the Classics in accordance with the hermeneutics in the West? Above all, it is to help us understand better, not only the Classics, but also Gu Yanwu himself.