論贊不單是歷史評論，更屬於表達作者意圖的一種方法。正史講求以實錄的形式記載史事，論贊本來只是主體的補充，卻慢慢成為歷史的重要部分，甚至是解讀史書（和撰述者）的主要依據。本文擬探討論贊體裁的特點、撰寫態度並與傳統史學的觀點比較，欲指出論贊的「含混屬性」，它一方面與史學實錄的要求不符，一方面作者又無法不對史事進行討論；它既是傳記文的附錄，卻又是文本的靈魂載體。

Historical commentaries (lun and zan) are not only reviews of history but also a sensible method of expressing. Official histories are normally required to record the facts in plain language, and at the same time historical commentaries are interpreted as supplements to the main body of biography, yet they are the keys to let us explore the main body in history as well as a thorough understanding of the authors. This paper attempts to discuss the features of the genre of lun and zan and their writing attitudes, in order to point out that the “ambiguous attribute” of historical commentaries. On one hand lun and zan are contradictory to the principle of “to record history faithfully”; on the other hand, the authors need to comment on the past for lun and zan are the appendices, most importantly, they are the soul carrier of the aforementioned works.