西方著名史家，包括一些中國通在內，稱中國傳統史學為「儒家史學」，是一種以道德裁判為政治服務的史學，所成的史書只不過是由官員寫給別的官員看。西方史家根據此一認識，斷言中國傳統史家既不知歷史的客觀性，也不具真正的歷史意識。 此種認識顯然基於西方的偏見以及對中國傳統史學缺乏深入的研究。本文指出，中國傳統史家從司馬遷與班固始，並未使用春秋筆法，直到北宋的歐陽修和南宋的朱熹，才講義類凡例，只是少數的例子而已。殊不足以春秋褒貶來概括中國傳統史學。即使春秋筆法，固然標榜儒家倫理，為尊者諱，並未漠視歷史真相，可為諱而不隱的筆法。 西方史家對於中圓史官制度，也多誤解，認為官修既代表官方立場，必具官方的偏見，乃是官方的傳聲筒，無個人獨立的觀點與立場，專為儒家教條與官僚體系服務。本文指出，較有組織的官修始於唐朝，歷朝隔代修史，固有政治意義，如正統的繼承，然絕非貶前朝而褒今朝，而是為了隔代較為客觀。官修掌握大量史料絕非私修可及，其理想仍然是尊直筆，責曲筆，更何況尚有「天子不觀史」的傳統，亦欲保持歷史的真相。若以史官制度貶但中國舊史的真實性，更忽略了中國史家曾表現出來的烈士性格。求其仍是史官莊嚴的職責，未必會犧牲史職。 至於說中國傳統史學有史而無學，只能收編史料，殊乏辨別真偽的能力，沒有綜合與解釋的技墓，也非公平之論。編排史料絕非中國傳統史學的範式，劉知幾所謂才學識乃是典範。若僅編排史料，何須才學識？以正史為主的中國舊史固重敘事，但別有豐富的釋史、評史與考史之作。 西方史家之偏見，一方面由於以近代史學的標準論中國舊史，另一方面由於對中國舊史認識之不足。前者顯然不公，後者則中國傳統史學之研究顯然不足，中國近現代史家亦有職焉。

Prominent historians in the West, including some distinguished China specialists, often label traditional Chinese historiography as “Confucian historiography,” which they consider a history written by officials for officials and a virtual moral tool to serve political purposes. In this judgment, as many Western historians claim, the Chinese knew nothing of objective historiography and historical consciousness. But, this judgment, it seems, is based on an ethnocentric prejudice without looking into the traditional Chinese historiography as a whole in any depth. This paper argues that most traditional Chinese historiographers, with a few exceptions, such as Ouyang Xiu and Zhu Xi, never wrote their history in the mold of Confucian morality, known as the “Annals style” (春秋筆法). Even the Annals style, while encouraging morality, stiI1 made an honest attempt to respect the principle of truthful record. Nor does it seem fair to denounce the officially commissioned historical writings, known as “standard history” (正史), as the means for passing moral judgments and, even worse, serving state propaganda. In fact, organized historical writing under the auspices of official historiography bureau began from Tang China (618-907), and the “standard histories” prior to Tang, including the works of Sima Qian, Ban Gu, and Chen Shou, were written by private hands with access to state records. The so-called “standard histories,” twenty-four of them that do not necessarily follow dynastic order, actually represent better works in traditional Chinese historiography. The official historians, though employed by government, were not all dutifully bound to follow the state line. Quite a few of them showed remarkable courage in maintaining their intellectual integrity, and most of them upheld the principle of truth seeking. Moreover, the state for the sake of maintaining factual truthfulness and preventing political interference set the famous rule that even the emperor himself should not be allowed to read the contemporary events recorded by official historians. Even though not every emperor could be restrained, the tradition nonetheless had been cherished. Under these circumstances, private individuals who had little access, if any, to historical sources could produce only less accurate “coarse history” (野史). It is an undeniable fact that in traditional Chinese historiography official histories were normally better written than private histories. Still another Western misconception is that the traditional Chinese historians knew nothing more than collecting and compiling raw historical sources. As a matter of fact, the distinguished historiographer Liu Zhiji of the Tang had set the high standard for traditional Chinese historians: skills, erudition, and insight. Various interpretations and criticisms of historical events and personalities can be found in numerous monographic works; other than standard histories, which are mainly chronological and narrative with little authorial opinions. With all its shortcomings, traditional Chinese historiography gives due respect to historical truth and objectivity. Like their Western counterparts, however, they could not always meet the standards that they had set for themselves.