本文以呂格爾與傅柯對於歷史研究的詮釋理論為討論主軸，分別針對「文本」與「檔案」兩個觀念進行討論，在討論中分別發展有關「歷史詮釋」與「歷史分析」的比較，呂格爾的「歷史詮釋」建立在文本的中介作用，並進而藉由歷史痕跡的存有學，將歷史時間當作宇宙時間跟意識時間的中介，最終，將歷史詮釋理解為通過歷史的自我認識。傅柯則反對一般詮釋學的基本預設，而採取「歷史分析」的方法，順著考古學的要求，針對由聲言與論述的形成體系──檔案──進行分析，傅柯注重歷史的「不連續性」、「匿名性」，導入一種重視差異與拉出域外思考的分析線索。這兩種方法正顯露出歷史的詮釋意識中的深刻鴻溝。

　　　　　This paper takes the interpretation theory of Paul Ricoeur and Michel Foucault as the discussion focus, in which the two themes text and archive occupy an important position. Through the contrast between the interpretation of history and the analysis of history, this paper shows that the interpretation of history assumed by Ricoeur is based on the mediation of text, furthermore this method develops an ontology of historical trace to execute by the historical time a mediation between the cosmic time and the time of consciousness; finally, the interpretation of history is taken as a self-understanding through history as the other. As for the idea of Foucault, contrary to the hermeneutical method, the analysis o/history takes into account the system of statements (enonce) and of discourse ─ i.e. archive ─, according to the demand of archaeological method. Thus Foucault insists on the discontinuity and the anonymity in history, and finds a clue to the concept of the difference and to the existence of the exteriority. This methodological contrast shows a deep cleavage in the ways of studying history through hermeneutical consciousness.