關於《春秋》書法的經學意義與史學意義，學術史上長久以來糾結於「聖人筆墨」的論辯，本文則從人們的歷史書寫意識觀察《春秋》書法的歷史處境，指出：（一）《春秋》之前已有書法，這原是諸侯史記的書寫規範，不論是魯史《春秋》還是孔子《春秋》，其中的書法意識都含有傳統的因素，也都不可能憑空產生。（二）專記孔子言行的《論話》言五經而獨獨對《春秋》隻字不提，不論是有意還是無意，都反映了纂輯者對孔子《春秋》的認知，這種認知在漢代的學術環境中顯得非常不可思議。（三）對孔子作《春秋》之旨言之鑿鑿的孟子在引史論事時從未引過《春秋》經文，似乎他並未見過《春秋經》，他引述《左傳》與其他史事時所呈現的歷史書寫也並非《春秋經》式的。（四）其他先秦諸子稱引「春秋」之名，多非指孔子《春秋》；引述史事詩文體自然，亦非《春秋經》式的；（五）史學造詣深厚的司馬遷、班固寫史不襲《春秋經》體式，同時對「孔子春秋說」看法也與今文家不盡相同。從而得出結論：從歷史書寫的發展過程觀察，屬辭謹嚴內容極簡的敘事風格所代表的乃是先秦時期「古典」的歷史書寫傳統，表達自然文豐事明的敘事風格在戰國秦漢時期已逐漸取而代之成為歷史書寫的「今典」；不論《春秋》有無孔子的特識，它的書法意識是時代的產物，同時也受時代的侷限，即使今文家將其上綱為「經」，賦予永恆的經義，也不能改變它是歷史書寫的「古典」而非「今典」的事實。

With regards to the meaning behind the Spring and Autumn Annals in terms of studies on the Confucian Classics and historiography, there has long been debate in the history of learning on the "writing of the Sage (Confucius)". However, the present essay takes the historical situation of the writing style of the Spring and Autumn Annals into consideration from the view of the consciousness found in historical writings. Of the resulting observations, the first is that the writing style evident here had already existed before the Spring and Autumn Annals, for it originally had been; the model for the style of Chu Liang. Whether it be the annals of the kingdom of Lu in the Spring and Autumn Annals or the Spring and Autumn Annals of Confucius, the consciousness of the writing style therein contain traditional elements that could not have been produced out of thin air. Second, The Analects of Confucius, which specifically records the sayings of Confucius, refers to the Five Classics, but makes no mention about the Spring and Autumn Annals. Whether not, it reflects a form of acknowledgement on the part of the compiler in terms of Confucius' Spring and Autumn Annals. This form of acknowledgement in the academic environment of the Han Dynasty is obviously difficult to conceive. Third, regarding Mencius' claim with certainty as to the purpose of Confucius in writing Spring and Autumn Annals, when he refers to historical matters, he never quoted from classic text of the Spring and Autumn Annals, as if he had never even seen this classic. Rather, the historical writing that he quotes from in the Commentary of Tsuo and other historical events reveals something different from the format in Spring and Autumn Annals. Fourth, other pre-Ch'in philosophers who mention the name "Spring and Autumn" usually do not refer to the Spring and Autumn Annals of Confucius. When they quote from historical events, their style of writing is natural and different from that of the Spring and Autumn Annals. Fifth, and finally, such ancient historians of profound achievement as Ssu-ma Ch'ien and Pan Ku did not copy the style of the Spring and Autumn Annals when they wrote, and the view of "Confucius in the Spring and Autumn Annals said:" is not quite the same as that of the New Text School. The conclusion that can be derived from these observations are as follows: judging from the development of the style of historical writing, the extremely simplified narrative manner with its concise diction still represents the "Old Tradition" of historical writing from the pre-Ch'in period. A natural form of elaboration in narrative style in the Warring States and Ch'in-Han period gradually replaced it and became the "New Tradition" of history writing. Whether or not the Spring and Autumn Annals has the mark of Confucius, the significance of its writing style is that it is a product of its period and also limited by the times it was made. Even though those of the New Text School have promoted it as a "Confucian Classic", imbuing it with a sense of a canon for eternity, they cannot change the fact that its historical writing style is of the "Old Tradition" and not the "New Tradition".