無論是司馬遷、或者班固，均以史家的立場，肯定了晁錯為國遠慮的事實。然而晁錯的忠心，卻換得身著朝衣、斬於東市的下場。因此，筆者希望透過《史記》與《漢書》的記載，來暸解晁錯的一生事蹟。最後探索為什麼司馬遷與班固對晁錯會有不同的評價。本文共分四個部分。第一部分在探討晁錯之思想淵源，用以暸解其人言行背後的思想背景；第二部分在探討晁錯之政論主張。首敘時代問題以暸解晁錯為什麼要提出這種種建言。而這些建言，是否得以實行？如果有，又產生了什麼樣的影響？第三部分則探討晁錯究竟具有什麼樣的人格特質，因而導致自己的危亡？又景帝具什麼樣的人格特質，以致不能力保這個自太子時期，便侍其左右的智囊？最後探討為什麼司馬遷與班回對於晁錯一生事蹟，會有不同的評價？

Both Sz Ma-chian and Ban-gu being historians confirmed the fact Chau-chuo had thought about the future of the Han dynasty. Although Chau-chuo was loyal to Han dynasty, he was killed in an execution ground. Therefore I want to know the life of Chau-chuo by Shr-Ji and the History of Han. Lastly I try to find out why the evaluation of Sz Ma-chian to Chau-chuo is different from that of Ban-gu. The article has four chapters. Chapter one tries to know the background of Chau-Chuo's words and deeds by discussing the origin of Chau-Chuo's thinking. Chapter two discusses Chau- Chuo's political comments in order to know why Chau-Chuo offered these suggestions about the politics and the influence of these suggestions. Chapter three discusses the personality of Chau- Chuo made him died and the personality of Han Jing-Di made him died in tragedy. Finally I want to discuss why Sz Ma-chian and Ban-gu had a different of evaluation to Chau-chuo's life.