漢末儒者何休與鄭玄在六朝史家范曄的論述中，形成了《後漢書》裡的〈何休傳〉與〈鄭玄傳〉，其中所述說與評論的何、鄭二人問答《春秋》異傳一事，被范曄認為是兩漢經學風尚的消長關鍵，在後世被進一步論述為漢代最後一次經今古文之爭。
按何休與鄭玄身處時代的歷史背景，二人一起遭遇的黨錮事件，應當視為《春秋》學在漢末發生變化的主要因素，並與何休在禁錮期間質難《春秋》異傳、注解《公羊》等作為，有深刻關連。
在各種後漢歷史論述的競爭中，范曄《後漢書》憑藉出色的歷史評論得到不少認同，個人的家學淵源亦幫助他修撰後漢學術歷史。本文針對其他書寫何休、鄭玄二人的個人傳記與相關記載，檢視范曄如何撰述二人傳記，及其評論雙方對立關係所抱持的態度。
後世根據范曄《後漢書》呈現的漢末經學歷史與評論，逐漸形成對何休與鄭玄的歷史評價，其影響力擴大到國家祭祀、學術研究等相關領域，縱有質疑之意見，仍未得脫離范氏之史筆，應有一反省再思的空間。
This article is the study of how to compose Fan Ye how to write the academic disputes between He Xiu and Zheng Xuan. Two of them for the "Spring and Autumn Annals" differences of opinion, is considered to be the last major classical controversy in Later Han Dynasty. According to the prevailing Partisan prohibitions occurred, actually stimulating classical changes. Let He Xiu reflection the purpose of "Spring and Autumn Annals". On the other hand, Fan Ye wrote excellent historical commentary in his "Book of the Later Han", but this is not the only historical conclusion, just one of many ideas. For He Xiu and Zheng Xuan, Fan Ye wrote the historical evaluation and the views of classical studies, influenced the understanding of the scholars, but they do not belong to an unshakable conclusion.
