本文是〈史記如何繼春秋〉的前篇與基礎研究研究，係就《史記》中的記述論史公所認知的孔子與《春秋》。從孔子在《史記》中的出現次數、分佈情況、引述類別以及人物評析，可見史公對孔子的重視與眷念，實超過任何其他歷史人物。史公明白記述孔子作《春秋》，作《春秋》不是為修史，而是「以制義法」、「當一王之法」；從作《春秋》的背景、動機、目的、方法、特色，可以推斷《春秋》一書的性質－－《春秋》是孔子明志、傳道、立法之書，似史而實為經；《春秋》借事明義、假事示法，而義在口受。《公》、《穀》傳義，《左氏》傳事，《史記》之於三《傳》實為「義主《公羊》，事採《左氏》」，故《史記》所言與所欲繼之《春秋》應為《公羊春秋》。〈十二諸侯年表序〉言左丘明懼弟子各安其意，「失其真」，而作《左氏春秋》，此「真」字作「本事」解；足證左氏傳《春秋》之本事，而不傳《春秋》之口義。此一基本問題，至此應獲一徹底之解決與正確之認識。

　This paper serves as a preliminary study and the foundation of the study on "How did Shiji (Historical Records) continue the tradition of Chunqiu (Records of Spring and Autumn)." It focuses on firstly: a complete study of the Confucius in Shihji; secondly: what kind of book Chunqiu is in the mind of the Grand Historian Sima Qian; thirdly:whether Shiji continues the tradition of Gongyang's commentary of Chunqiu or Zuoshi's commentary of Chunqiu; fourthly: are the words "lost the reality" as were recorded in the "preface to the annual table of the twelve princedoms" a proof or rebuttal of the assertion that Zuoshi Commentary did continue the tradition of Confucius' Chunqiu