錢茂偉教授新著《中國傳統史學的範型嬗變》一書，凡39萬言，皇皇鉅製也；內容細分為上、中、下三篇。作者綜觀中國三千年傳統史學的發展，在三篇中，分別以「敍事史學」、「義理史學」、「考據史學」三主軸來概括中國史學的發展歷程。此固係錢氏獨具隻眼之慧解卓識而構成該書之優點無疑。然而，一書之優點又往往係該書之缺點。一言以蔽之，敍事史學不能乖脫史學求真之本旨；而求真不得不有賴考據（廣義的）。此其一。再者，中國數千年之史學，究其旨歸，乃以經世致用為要務；而義理之申述、闡明又恆為經世致用之一端。然則敍事史學，究其內涵，考據與義理已隱含其中。至於義理史學、考據史學，又恆以敍事方式為之。換言之，敍事史學、義理史學、考據史學，實難斷然遽分為三，蓋三者有彼此牽繫互聯之處。筆者的意思是說，錢教授把中國傳統史學釐析為三種範型是相當可取的，但行文之際則不宜過滿，否則三者相互重疊牽繫之處，反而被忽略了。這是比較可惜的。

The Transition of the Paradigms of Traditional Chinese Historiography, by Professor Qian Maowei, is a voluminous work. It constitutes three different parts, of which the first part deals with narrative historiography, the second part deals with moral and practical orientated historiography, while the last part treats the textual criticism historiography. These three sorts of historiography which represent the three different eras of Traditional Chinese historiography are named by Professor Qian as the three different paradigms of Traditional Chinese historiography. Such a conception is quite unique, hence remarkable. However, such an idea of demarcation has its weakness too. In a word, these three historiographies coincide or overlap with one another, at least to certain extent. In consequence, drawing a line of clear demarcation in Traditional Chinese historiography is not quite appropriate.