本文旨在分析比較司馬光與胡寅史論之數量、形式及題旨異同，以《讀史管見》與《資治通鑑》「臣光曰」為主要文本，運用文本分析法、統計法及比較法，期能管窺通鑑學義理化發展的概況。首先統計《資治通鑑》及《讀史管見》史論數量，「臣光曰」計119則，引論35家99則，偏重漢代；胡寅史論1870則，偏重唐代。就史論形式而言，「臣光曰」論由史出，與引論相得益彰；胡寅以經斷史，引論為議論之資，呈現經史義理融合的趨勢，提升史論的義理程度及獨立性。司馬光主張「王霸無異道」，不辨正閏而帝魏，胡寅卻認為「王霸異道」，尊蜀而明辨正閏。可知胡寅《讀史管見》以春秋經旨評論《資治通鑑》，既有辨義與修正，也有豐富與發展。

This article analyzes the differences in the quantities, forms, and themes of Sima Guang and Hu Yin’s historical comments. The main texts used in this analysis were "DuShiGuanJian" and "History as a Mirror". Text analysis, statistics and comparative methodwere used to obtain a glimpse into the development of the historiography. As to the number of historical comments, there are 119 articles of "Chen Guang Says", and he quotes 35 citations and 99 articles, focusing on the Han Dynasty; Hu Yin's 1870 historical comments focuses on the Tang Dynasty. As to the form of historical comments, "Chen Guang Says" and the citations complement each other; Hu Yin uses Confucianism as the source of discussion, and performs the fusion trend of historical comments. He enhances the theoretical level and independence of historical comments. As to the theme of historical comments, Sima Guang does not advocate orthodoxy, but Hu Yin does. It can be seen that Hu Yin's historical comments on "History as a Mirror" not only distinguishes and revises, but also enriches and develops.