【摘要】 我国早期图书没有凡例，需要读者去总结它文字背后的意义，有时要超越文本本身，进而推导出作者言外之意。《春秋》经“例”成为经学义理阐释最为显著与重要的内容。杜预明确提出《春秋》《左传》都为史记，否定所谓的时月日例，批评一字褒贬说，认为《左传》除日食、大夫卒而外别无他例，提出新凡旧凡说。在刘师培之前，对杜《注》的批评主要在训诂、章句与辑录汉说方面，而义例方面的成果很少，《左传》“例”学亟待突破。刘师培否定杜预的凡例说，同时将《左传》与《公羊传》《穀梁传》划分界限，系统地归纳总结《左传》传例。刘师培在解释《左传》与《春秋》关系和体例特色时体现出通变观念，但经学观念限制了他在古史研究方面进一步深入发展。更多还原

【Abstract】 The early books in our country have no notes on the use of a book,which need readers to sum up the meaning behind the text,sometimes even go beyond the text itself and deduce the meaning of the author.“Example”in the Chunqiu(Spring and Autumn) has become the most significant and important content of the interpretation of Confucian classics. Du Yu made it clear that both Chunqiu and Zuo Zhuan were records of the history,denying the so-called notes of time,moon and day,criticizing a word of praise and depreciating,believing that Zuo Zhuan has no other example except solar eclipse and Dafu’s(a senior official)death,and put forward the new and old notes theory.Before Liu Shipei,the criticism of Du’s Notes was mainly in terms of exegesis,chapters,sentences and compilation of Chinese,while there were few results in the meanings,and the study of“examples”of Zuo Zhuan urgently needed to be broken through. Liu Shipei denied Du Yu’s notes thoery,divided Zuo Zhuan from Gongyang and Guliang,systematically summarized the notes system of Zuo Zhuan. In explaining the relationship between Zuo Zhuan and Chunqiu,Liu Shipei embodied the idea of flexibility,but the idea of Confucian classics limited his further development in the study of ancient history.更多还原