《春秋》原为鲁国的编年史书，或曾经过孔子的编订和笔削。作为史书意义上的《春秋》，它的记载中本身就分为两个方面：一是事情本身的事实，这是反映客观历史的；二是史官的主观判断，这是反映主体意识的。文本是主体（作者）与对象（所记客观事实）的结合，这两个方面既互相矛盾，又密不可分，它们之间存在着一种张力。而史官的主观判断又分为两个层次：一是对事实的认定，即客观事实首先要经过史官主观的分析与判断；一是史官的书写规则，即把经过分析认定的事实选择合适的语言表达出来，这种语言的选择在《春秋》中也就体现为所谓的“书法”，而“书法”也正是史官的主观意识在历史传统中客体化了产物。《春秋》中那些看似隐讳的地方，其实有时只是讳而不隐，有时“隐”也正是一种“显”，并非单纯的掩饰，而只是用他的方式记录历史。如果了解了史官的书写规则，一定程度上也就理解了他所认定的事实。在此认识前提下，我们发现其实三传无疑将这种历史记载中存在的张力进一步发展了。《左传》对史事的详细记载使得《春秋》中客观层面的历史事实表现得更为清晰明了。而《公羊》、《穀梁》二传偏重以义解《春秋》，其实正是对《春秋》中主观层面的史官判断和书法规则或孔子微言大义的进一步阐发。当然，《公羊》、《穀梁》对《春秋》的解释确有不少臆断之辞，对书法规则的阐发也多穿凿附会，然而他们的立场和出发点却是十分清楚的，即他们并没有否认自己的主观，并极力发扬了自己的主观。这也启发我们，历史的写法离不开作者，用什么样的语言来表达事实有着十分重大的意义。再反过来看，《左传》虽然以记录史事为主，但客观史事的记载中亦蕴含着作者的主观想象和思想倾向；而《公羊》、《穀梁》阐释的微言大义，须借事明义，又离不开客观史实的基础。所以，在历史记载中，主客这两方面总是矛盾却又不可分离的。总之，《春秋》中存在的客观事实与主观判断之间的张力对立统一于对历史的记载中，并为三传所继承发展，给后世的中国史学带来了不可磨灭的影响。

The Spring and Autumn is the annals of Lu state’s at first, which then may have been edited by Confucius. As a history book, its record contain two aspects: One is the historical facts themselves, which reflects the objective history; the another one is the historian’s subjective judgments, which reflects the subjective consciousness. A text is a combination between subject(author) and object(objective facts). There is a tension between these two contradictory but inseparable aspects. The historian’s subjective judgment also has two aspects: The first one is the asserting of facts, which means the objective facts need to be judged by the historian. The second is the historian’s writing principles, which means to write down the cognizance facts by proper words. Such proper words in the Spring and Autumn are called writing style, which is objectification of historian’s subjective consciousness in historical tradition. These records which seem to hide the facts sometimes are only avoid mentioning. And sometime the hiding is a kind of reveal not purely covering. If we understand the historian’s writing principles, then we can find the facts he is telling us in a certain degree. On the premise of this recognition, we can see that the Three Commentaries definitely develop the tension in the historical records. Tso Chuan records the facts in detail, which makes the objective facts in the Spring and Autumn to be more clear. The Gongyang Zhuan and Guliang Zhuan tend to explain the meanings in the Spring and Autumn, which is explication of the historian’s subjective judgment, writing principles and the Confucius’s subtle meanings. Although the interpretation on the Spring and Autumn by Gongyang Zhuan and Guliang Zhuan are sometime purely subjective conjecture, but their standpoints are definite. They never deny their subjection and even carry forward it. It tells us that the way of historical writing is always connected with the author and the choosing of specific speech is significant. When we look back to Tso Chuan, we will see its objective recording also contains the author’s subjective imagination and tendency. Meanwhile, in order to explain the subtle meanings, Gongyang Zhuan and Guliang Zhuan need the objective facts as their bases. So in the historical writing, the subject and object aspects are always contradictory but inseparable.In a word, there is a tension between subjective judge and objective facts in the Spring and Autumn, which is developed by Tso Chuan, Gongyang Zhuan and Guliang Zhuan and also has a great influence on the later historiography in China.