清代紀昀等人秉乾隆帝之意，費了近二十五年的時間撰寫的《四庫全書總目》雖獲得歷代眾多學者們的正面肯定，但近代相關研究已點出館臣們所持的評價標準其實是存在著若干問題，干擾學術的客觀性，但也因為具有的權威地位使然，其論斷評價之言，往往根深蒂固地影響並左右後代閱讀者的學術觀點，既便於初學者藉由《總目》的介紹與評價，直接判斷該書的性質與價值，作為閱讀與使用與否的指引，但反面來說，這樣指導性過於強烈的提要，也造成了使用者消極性的被動接受，缺乏懷疑的精神，這當然不是要讀者接受「盡信書不如無書」的矯枉過正，但近年來學界對是書其實是有相關的研究討論，雖然依舊無法撼動其學術指導地位，卻也昭示所謂的學術客觀標準，也只是另一立場的舉手發言，「權威」性的不易之論雖然值得初學者予以信任，但也同樣值得學者們審慎理解，合理懷疑啊。本文的研究目的即是在探究代表當時清朝官方立場的《總目》，對於明代《春秋》學著作所總結出的評價問題，並進一步分析歸納其評價所持的標準原則為何？揭示其中所隱含的意義是否具有客觀公正性存在。

Although Siku Quanshu Zongmu, which officials of Qing Dynasty led by Ji Yun spent almost 25 years compiling at Qianlong’s command, is valued highly by many scholars from generation to generation, the modern studies on Zongmu highlight the issue that the authoritative Siku editors, with ingrained influence on the scholarly views of future readers, have evaluation criterion interfering with the objectivity of scholarship. The introduction and evaluation of Zongmu guide the novice readers to judging the value and nature of ancient classics and deciding whether to read or cite them. However, the forcible guidance of Zongmu makes readers passive and less suspicious. It is overdone to ask readers to follow the Chinese idiom“Better not to read at all than to believe all one reads,”but the academic researches into Zongmu, whose scholarly dominance has not been undermined yet, uncover the official stance behind what is called objective standard Zongmu bears.The authoritative discourse of Zongmu deserves not only the novice readers’ reliance but the scholars’deliberate understanding and reasonable suspicion. The dissertation aims to explore how Zongmu speaking for Qing authority evaluates and sums up the Study of the Spring and Autumn Annals in Ming Dynasty, to further analyze what evaluation criterion Zongmu holds for the classic and to disclose if there is objectivity and justice in the evaluation of Zongmu.