經、史關係問題一直是今人研究章學誠的盲點。論者習以歷史哲學或史學理論的觀念來詮釋章氏的「六經皆史」說，鮮能反省今天所謂歷史哲學與史學理論所預設的知識觀念，非但難以切合傳統史學的本質與特性，而且易於導致我們將經、史誤認為兩種對立的學術。筆者認為，錢穆以「專家與通識」之說總結章氏學術的要旨，特別有助於我們釐清上述問題。「專家」是章氏在「辨章學術，考鏡源流」上提出的重要學術觀念，章氏著述中許多言及經、史之處，其實是就經、史著作之中所蘊含的特定「專門家學」來討論，而非泛指經、史兩部而言。這些專門家學既用於治經，也用於治史，實即互通於經、史兩部，所以章氏論為學之道當本於專家，進而又講求擴充治學門徑，以期各門專業能交相為功，通達於學術大體。因此，錢穆指出《文史通義》最有價值的地方，正在章氏能從學術之整體來講一切學術。此即章氏所謂「道欲通方，而業須專一」，兼重專家與通識的學術思路。

The issue of the relationship between Jing (經, the Classics or classical scholarship) and Shi (史，Traditional historiography or historical scholarship) has been the blind spot in contemporary studies of Zhang Xuecheng’s (章學誠) scholarship. Researchers, who are scarcely able to reflect on the concepts of knowledge that are presupposed by modern philosophies of history or theories of historical science, are inclined to interpret Zhang’s doctrine “The Classics are all the governmental documentation in high antiquity (六經皆史, Liujing jie shi)” by employing ideas they derive from modern philosophies of history or theories of historical science. Those ideas, however, do not dovetail with Chinese traditional historical scholarship in terms of intellectual essence and properties. By pitting one against another, they inevitably mislead us about Jing and Shi as opposed intellectual points of view. Qian Mu’s (錢穆) interpretation of Zhang’s scholarship, in my opinion, is most conducive to resolving the above-mentioned issue because Qian Mu properly and profoundly grasps the main ideas of Zhang’s scholarship by appealing to Zhang’s own contentions about “specialties (專家, Zhuanjia) and comprehensive understanding (通識, Tongshi).” “Specialties” is a fundamental intellectual idea that Zhang formulates through his clarifying the essence and characteristics of every kind of traditional scholarship, and his working out their identical origin and diverse developments and changes of later times. In fact, in many paragraphs referring to “Jing and Shi” in his writings, Zhang does discuss the various “specialties” contained within Jing or Shi scholarly writings, not the so called Categories of Jing or Shi of later times. These various “specialties,” through which scholars study not only Jing writings but also Shi writings, are actually shared by the two Categories of Jing or Shi. Because writings of diverse Categories share these specialties, Zhang pursues and argues for a principle of thinking and learning according to which men of learning should try studying various kinds of specialties, making use of one another in order to widen their scope of learning and extend their horizon of thinking, ultimately comprehending scholarship as a whole. What is most valuable in the writing of “General Principles of Literaure and History” (《文史通義》，Wenshi tongyi), Qian Mu remarks, is that Chang can interpret and illuminate the meaning of every kind of scholarship from the viewpoint of scholarship as a whole. This underscores what Chang asserts: “Comprehending Dao requires learning scholarship as a whole, and meanwhile, learning itself requires specializing in one certain kind or some different kinds of specialties,” (道欲通方，而業須專一) which reveals that Zhang’s approach to scholarship stresses the importance both of “specialties” and “comprehensive understanding.”