The historical events concerning the aristocratic class are the main subject of the historical writing in the Annals and Commentaries of the Spring and Autumn Annals.However,there are significant differences in the compilation and interpretation of historical materials between the Annals and the Commentaries.The author of the Commentary of Zuo presupposed an explanation for the reasons behind the continuity and discontinuity of the aristocratic class and sought to reveal this causal relationship through the connections between historical events.In contrast,the Gongyang Commentary abandoned the historical materials provided by the Commentary of Zuo when constructing its historical interpretation.Instead,it built a chain of informational causality through a vague interpretation of the Spring and Autumn Annals,thereby proposing the historical understanding that"the aristocratic class is against propriety".Historians after the Western Han Dynasty mostly inherited the historical perspective of the Gongyang Commentary.In their selection of evidence for historical writing,they extracted examples from the overall narrative of the Commentary of Zuo to validate the reasonableness of the Gongyang Commentary's view that"the aristocratic class is against propriety".Both the Commentary of Zuo and the Gongyang Commentary completed their writing on the aristocratic class based on their respective presupposed historical interpretations.These different writing methods not only reflect the differences in historical interpretation between ancient Chinese Confucian classics and historiography but also provide a perspective for understanding the epistemological differences in the formation paths of ancient Chinese Confucian classics and historiography.
维普
万方数据
