章学诚在钱穆的学术成长中有着重要的地位。钱穆曾说：“我可以告诉诸位，我学历史有许多聪明是欣赏章氏而来的，他能从无问题中间发现问题”。可是钱穆对章学诚的论述并非一成不变，而是有着变化的。这变化明显见于钱穆对章学诚提出的“浙东学术”、“六经皆史”的论述。对于章学诚提出的“浙东学术”。钱穆曾认为这是章学诚自述其学术渊源，在其早期的著作如《国学概论》和《中国近三百年学术史》对此并无异议。可是后来他却反对此说。对于章学诚提出的“六经皆史”，钱穆在前期认为“六经皆史”说是针对当时的考据学而发，有着矫正学风的积极意义。可是钱穆后期对“六经皆史”说的意义有所缩减，并认为其对于清代学术主流而言是一种倒退而非进步。本文主要以钱穆对章学诚“浙东学术”、“六经皆史”说的前后转变作为切入点，将钱穆对这两种说法的前后论述加以比较，从中探索这种转变所涉及的不同问题。概括而言，钱穆对章学诚“浙东学术”、“六经皆史”论述的前后转变，与其对阳明学、对章学诚的学术主旨及对中国学术发展的认识有关。同时，在某程度上亦反映了钱穆对史学的认识与理解。另外，《中国近三百年学术史》虽然是钱穆论述清代学术史的名著，但是在某些问题上，例如对章学诚的论述，并不能视为钱穆有关清代学术的定论之作。

Zhang Xuecheng is a significant figure in Qian Mu’s academic career. Qian once commented that he drew upon many important points from Zhang, because Zhang is able to find out many academic issues that are often neglected by other researchers. However, Qian Mu did not blindly follow Zhang’s road. He further developed and innovated many academic points, such as the questions concerning “East ZheJiang School” study and the view that “Six Classics are all History” put forward by Zhang. With regard to the issue of “East-ZheJiang School” study, Qian is of the view that Zhang, by such effort, is intended to recount his own academic origin. Qian agreed such view in his early works such as Introduction to Chinese Studies and Chinese Academic History of the Past Three Hundred Years. However, in his later works Qian disagreed with Zhang on this question. As for the questions concerning “East-ZheJiang School” study and the view that “Six Classics are all History” put forward by Zhang, Qian initially believed that such a view by Zhang is intended for the textual criticism at that time. In his later period Qian indicated that Zhang’s proposal on this issue is a reaction to the academic research style of Qing dynasity. This paper will focus on the shift of Qian Mu’s academic points on the two issues abovementioned. This paper will conduct contrapuntal reading the texts that Qian Mu wrote in different period of times and tries to come to a conclusive opinions on the relevant issues. Generally speaking, the transformation of Qian Mu’s view is related to his understanding of YangMing School, as well as his understanding on the development of Chinese academic development and Chinese history. Finally, the book Chinese Academic History of the Past Three Hundred Years is a monumental work of Qian Mu in his study of Qing dynasty academic history. However, with regard to certain issues, such as the comment on Zhang Xue Cheng, for instance, this book cannot by regarded as a conclusively work of Qian Mu on these topics.