The synopsis of the story is that Duke Ling of Jin has no way to hurt Zhao Dun (Zi Xuan), and Zhao Dun escapes. Zhao killed in Taoyuan. At this time, Zhao Dun had not crossed the mountain boundary of the State of Jin. After hearing the news, he returned to the capital to continue to take power. Tai Shi Gong Dong wrote "Zhao Dun regicide" and announced it in the court. Zhao Dun retorted that he didn't kill himself. Taishi believes that Zhao Dun, an official, was killed when he fled the border of Jin, but he didn't punish the rebels after he came back. Who are you? Confucius commented that Taishidonggu was an excellent historian in ancient times, because he wrote history without concealing the truth.
"Calligraphy is not hidden" literally means truthfully recording the real situation. But judging from this incident, Dong Gu's historical records seem to be just the opposite, because the fact is that Zhao killed him, not him. Of course, some people may "speculate" that Zhao Chuan is Zhao Dun's brother, that Zhao Chuan's kingslaying behavior was instigated by Zhao Dun, and that Zhao Dun's escape was just a scene he played, because Zhao Chuan was not held accountable after returning to Beijing, and they were obviously accomplices. This kind of "speculation" is completely logical, but can the writing of history be "brain-filled" based on reasonable speculation? No matter how reasonable, all the stories of "brain-nourishing" cannot be regarded as facts without actual evidence, which is not only considered by people today, but also recognized by Donggu. We don't know if Tengku suspects that Zhao Dun and Zhao Chuan are plotting to kill the king. Even if he really thought so, he didn't criticize Zhao Dun directly on this ground. Tengku criticized Zhao Dun mainly because of political responsibility. As an official of the State of Jin, it is Zhao Dun's political responsibility to protect the monarch. However, he failed in his duty. It is driven by this sense of political responsibility that Tengku thinks it is "Zhao Dun regicide". It can be seen that both Dong Gu and Confucius understand that the role of historiography is mainly at the political level, that is, the writing of history should play a role in safeguarding the national political system and values. Therefore, China's ancient historiography is centered on princes and generals. While recording historical facts, it also needs to comment on the figures and sum up the experience and lessons of governing the country. This tradition runs through China's ancient historiography.
Modern historiography demands itself according to academic standards, and has high requirements for the authenticity of historical events. According to this requirement, "calligraphy is not hidden" in ancient China is a purposeful and subjective writing, which has nothing to do with the word "objective".