《楚漢春秋》是《史記》敘述秦亡漢興之際的重要史料之一，於南宋亡佚。既然散失已久，時至今日，我們是否能比前人輯得更多佚文？是否能瞭解原書談論內容？是否能確定作者身份？《史記》、《漢書》是否曾經大量引用？本書的史料特色為何？透過解答上述種種疑惑，希望能澄清《楚漢春秋》的面貌。 本文透過電腦檢索發現清代學者茆泮林所輯佚文已得十之八九，由現存條目可見《楚漢春秋》乃雜記秦漢大事。透過陸賈生平事蹟與佚文比對，作者應為陸賈無誤。以佚文為基礎與《史記》、《漢書》兩相對勘之後，推得《楚漢春秋》的特色為一主觀歷史，與班馬欲撰寫的客觀歷史的目標有別，所以二人未大量採用；但也因為是來自歷史現場的第一手報導，所以二書並未全然捨棄。

When the fall of Qin and the rise of Han, Spring and Autumn Annals of Chu and han is an important source of this period for the Record of the Historian. This text was lost during the Southern Song. Since it was lost for such a long time, can we collect more fragments than the scholars do before? Can we understand what the text talk about? Can we know who is the author exactly? If the Record of the Historian and History of the Han draw much from Spring and Autumn Annals of Chu and Han? And as a historical source, what is the most important quality of it? After answer these questions, We hope to gain more idea about the true face of the book. The fragments we can collect through computer index is almost the same with Mao Panlin. From the extant text, we can understand what the book says is about the events during the Qin and Han. Because Lu Jia’s life corresponds with those fragments, he should be the very author. Compare the three books, we can see clearly the Record of the Historian and History of the Han didn’t draw much from Spring and Autumn Annals of Chu and Han. The reason should be that the Spring and Autumn Annals of Chu and Han is a subjective history, differrant from the Record of the Historian and History of the Han, so Sima Qian and Ban Gu didn’t draw much from it. But it is also because the Spring and Autumn Annals of Chu and Han is a record right on the spot, Sima Qian and Ban Gu didn’t abandon it either.