中國史學源遠流長，史家常在歷史敘述之後撰寫史論，以提煉歷史教訓或道德命題，從《左傳》的「君子曰」、《史記》的「太史公曰」、《漢書》之「論贊」、《三國志》之「評」，《資治通鑑》的「臣光曰」，到王夫之的《讀通鑑論》、《宋論》，都即「事」以言「理」，循跡以求本，沿波以討源，呈現中國傳統學術中史學與哲學之貫通。本文之主旨在於析論中國史學著作的「史論」中的「事」與「理」之複雜關係，並探討「史論」所發揮之融貫史哲、亦史亦哲之功能。本文共分五節，除第一節前言之外，第二節分析中國「史論」中「理」「事」關係之發展，指出在公元第十世紀北宋以前之中國史著中，史「理」多半寄寓於史「事」之中。宋代理學興起之後，史「理」逐漸凌駕於史「事」之上，此與宋代以降史學思考浸潤在儒學價值理念之氛圍之中，有其深刻之關係。本文第三節分析中國「史論」所發揮的第一種作用，乃在於從歷史事實的「特殊性」（particularity）中提煉出其具「普遍性」（universality）之涵義，使中國史論作品中之「共相」，呈現近似黑格爾（Georg W. F. Hegel，1770-1831）所謂「具體性的共相」（concrete universals）。本文第四節分析中國史論作品所發揮第二種作用，在於融貫史家之「事實判斷」與「價值判斷」或「道德判斷」。中國的歷史敘述多半具有余森（Jörn Rüsen）所謂「例證式敘述」（exemplary narrative）之傾向，史家充分肯定歷史行為者之「自由意志」，對歷史當事人及其行為之後果，課以歷史之責任。在中國文化中，中國史學家以「歷史的審判」取代猶太基督宗教文化中之「最後的審判」。本文第五節則綜論本文主旨，申論中國學術之文史哲融貫之一體之特質，在歷史寫作之「史論」作品最能透露其消息。

During the long course of Chinese history, Chinese historians always added comments after narrating historical events in order to draw didactic lessons from the forge of history. From ＂the gentleman says＂ of the ＂Zuozhuanto＂ the ＂Grand Historian says＂ of Historian's Records, the ＂measured discourses＂ of the official Han History, the ＂assessments＂ of the Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms, the ＂Your Servant Sima Guang says＂ of the Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government to Wang Fuzhi's (1619-1692) Reading the General Mirror of Historical Discourses and Discourses on Song History, these historians all examined the concrete ＂events＂ of history in detail in order to discourse on the ＂principle＂ or ＂moral norm＂ at stake. They thus followed the traces of history in order to seek the root causes; they followed upstream in order to reflect on the well-spring, the source, thus producing the synthesis of history and philosophy that characterizes traditional Chinese scholarship. This paper examines the complex relationship between ＂events＂ and ＂principles＂ in traditional Chinese historical writings, and discusses how traditional Chinese historiography orchestrates a synthesis of history with philosophy in which history operates as the function of philosophy. The present paper consists of five sections: besides section one, the introduction, section two traces the development of the relationship between ＂events＂ and ＂principles＂ in Chinese historiography, stressing that before the 10^(th) century CE (Northern Song), principle was regarded as parasitic on real events, i.e., as not really essential for understanding. After the rise of Song Neo-Confucianism, the principles identified in history gradually came to be viewed as the driving forces of historical events. This change reflected the gradual immersion of Confucian values into historical reflection, by which events and principle became ever more intimately connected. Sections three and four analyze two main uses that Chinese historical discourses started to have. Section three discusses how the forge of historical particularity was thought to produce universal significances, thus making the generalities in the works of Chinese history start to take on the appearance of Georg W. F. Hegel's (1770-1830) so-called ＂concrete universals.＂ Section four discusses the second use of the discourses in Chinese historiography; that is, the synthesis of the historian's ＂factual judgments＂ and ＂value judgments＂ or ＂moral judgments.＂ Chinese traditional historical narratives mostly tended to be what Jörn Rüsen calls ＂exemplary narratives.＂ The Chinese historians fully approved of the notion that the actors in history were exercising their free will, that the movers and shakers in history held ultimate historical responsibility for the fruits of their actions and the broader historical impact. In Chinese culture, historians used historical judgment in place of the Final Judgment which is fundamental in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Section five summarizes the main points made in the paper, stressing the special feature of the unity of literature, history, and philosophy in traditional Chinese learning, through which the traditional discourses of Chinese historiography revealed a Gospel for their own tradition.