周中孚以一己之力撰《鄭堂讀書記》,評述自先秦至清代中期的史家與史書,與他多年的積累和目錄學、文獻學功底有關。但周中孚所撰史部提要,實亦有所憑借。《鄭堂讀書記》史部提要關于作者生平、仕履、在目錄書中的著錄情況、版本等,參考了《四庫全書總目》等目錄書,也有一些是自己經眼、泛覽與稽考所得。關于史書編纂旨趣和思想、學術價值的評鑒,不少是抄錄原書序跋、凡例和趙翼、王鳴盛等人的評論。周中孚評騭古今史書的標準大體不離資政和考證。至于史書的文字表述、斷限等問題,則不是他論史的重點。周中孚雖也肯定過一些明代學人,間或批評清人著述,但總體傾向則是褒獎清朝史學而貶低明代史家。周中孚斥明與崇清的史評傾向并不是皇朝易代在史學批評上的折射這么簡單,而是清代中期漢宋之爭在史學批評上的一次回響。在周中孚看來,宋學系統中的史書乏善可陳,而代表漢學正宗的清人撰述多超邁前代,雖片言可取亦極力表彰。這是周中孚在《鄭堂讀書記》中制造的一個學術陷阱,是今人閱讀和使用時應當予以特別留心的。

ZHENGTANG DUSHUJI, commenting on historians and historical books from the Pre-Qin to the middle Qing Dynasty, was wrote by Zhou Zhongfu, and it is based on his accumulated experience and knowledge of bibliography and philology. However, the summary of the History Branch written by him has a basis. The content on authors’ lives, official experiences, records of books in library catalogues and their editions comes from general summary of SIKUQUANSHU and Zheng’s experience, reading and research. Some comments on the purpose, thought and academic value of historical books are copied from the prefaces and notes of the historical books and the comments of Zhao Yi and Wang Mingsheng. Zhou Zhongfu’s comments on historical books is on the basis of their practical value and textual research. However, he didn’t concern with the text and periodization in books. Although Zhou Zhongfu rated achievements of some scholars of Ming Dynasty high and occasionally criticized some authors of Qing Dynasty, he inclined to praise the historiography of Qing Dynasty and depreciate the historians of Ming Dynasty. It is not only because of the change of dynasties, but also because of the debates between Schools of Han and Song in the middle of Qing Dynasty. In Zhou Zhongfu’s view, the historical books under the influence of the School of Song are not up to much, while historical books of the Qing, as the representative of the school of Han, are commendable. This is an academic illusion created by Zhou Zhongfu in his book, and people who read it should be careful.