《左传》为《春秋》三传之一,因为其中大量记载了灾异学说,常被古代学者冠以“怪”、“巫”的评价。本文主要将《左传》与《春秋》的灾异记载进行对比分析,探讨《左传》作为一部具有相对独立性的史书在选择灾异记载中的独特性,并适当浅析一下其作者选择灾异记载的动机和立场。本文以为《左传》作者在选择灾异材料时是有意将历史史实与当时灾异预言结合,但这种结合并不是作者的牵强附会,而是当灾异与人事的结合逐渐成为一种社会常态时,人们对灾异观的普遍认同。然而《左传》在记载当时的灾异观的同时也记录当时有识之士对灾异观的质疑之词,这说明作者的灾异记载是对当时社会的客观反映,也是基于现实的客观书写。 “Zuo Zhuan” is one of the three literary works of “Spring and Autumn”, because a large number of records of catastrophe theory are often appraised by ancient scholars as “strange” and “witch”. This paper mainly carries on the contrastive analysis of the disastrous records of Zuozhuan and Chunqiu to discuss the uniqueness of Zuozhuan as an independent history book in the selection of disaster records, Record motives and positions. The author thinks that Zuozhuan’s writer intends to combine the historical facts with the catastrophic prophecy at the time of choosing disastrous materials, but this combination is not the author’s forced attachment, but when the combination of disasters and human resources gradually becomes a social normal, People generally agree on disaster outlook. However, “Zuo Zhuan” recorded the disastrous view of the disaster at the same time and at the same time recorded the disputants’ words of disparagement. This shows that the disastrous record of the author is an objective reflection of the society at that time and also an objective writing based on reality.