From Zhu Zi to Fang Bao, methods of explanation of Chun Qiu change continually. Meaning of classics were constructed and deepened during the process. The paper used these contrast method to discuss the change of meaning of classics. Fang Bao discriminated and connected the difference of classics and history. During the process, what’s the concrete content? Did the construction were meaning of classics or the purpose of sage or just interpretation of Fang Bao? These questions were discussed in the paper. Fang Bao divided Chun Qiu into two parts. One was the old Lu’s history, the other was new classic of sage. He named them articles of old history and method of Chun Qiu separately. The old history focuses on real story but full of small events. The new classic focuses on rituals. Obedience and disobedience of rituals would be recorded detail. The first purpose is to express curiosity, the second purpose is to express change. From Zhu Zi, Chang Zi-chao to Fang Bao, they all treat Chun Qiu’s methodology was to base on events and record directly. But Zhu Zi had doubted that Chun Qiu were not just the record of history. Chang Zi-chao asserted that Chun Qiu’s nature was between duplicate and correction of Lu’s history. Fang Baosucceeded the method to base on events and record directly. He discriminated Lu’s history and Chun Qiu and expressed the differences of history and classic. But he was on the way to the writing mode, which Zhu Zi opposed. He used a set of writing mode and say them coming from sage. In methodology, he had no difference with traditional scholars expertise on Chun Qiu.