對於中國近代史學的起源，大致有兩種意見。一種以一八四○年的鴉片戰爭為起點，另一種則強調梁啟超《新史學》的重要性，視其為中國近代史學的開端。前一種意見將中國近代史與近代史學的起始相提並論，體現了馬克思主義史學的影響，但其支持者也有非馬克思主義的史家。後一種意見則主要由海外的中國史研究者所主張，但在近年也逐漸為大陸的史家所接受。本文從歷史觀和世界觀的角度入手，比較了中日兩國自十九世紀中期以降對於西方入侵的不同態度。作者指出，這一不同態度所導致的世界觀和歷史觀的不同，是中日兩國近代化道路不同的主要原因。而這一不同的道路的結果，集中表現為清朝在甲午戰爭中的慘敗。甲午戰後，清朝官員張之洞、改革人士康有為和梁啟超都注意到了日本近代化的成功。於是，一個留日的熱潮便在中國興起。百日維新失敗後也流亡日本的梁啟超，為福澤諭吉和田口卯吉所提倡的「文明史學」所吸引。雖然許多人認為梁啟超在一九○二年發表的《新史學》，借鑒了浮田和民的《史學通論》，但其實兩書有很大的區別。梁啟超的《新史學》，還是受福澤諭吉《文明論之概略》的影響為多。像日本的文明史家一樣，梁啟超在《新史學》中，號召「史界革命」，主張歷史的寫作應以描述民族的進化和社會的進步為中心。這一「史界革命」，為章太炎等其他留日的人士所支持。因此，研究清末「史界革命」與日本「文明史學」的聯繫，不但更清楚地揭示了梁啟超「史界革命」的內涵，而且也讓我們認識到這一「革命」對于中國近代史學起源的重要作用。

There have been two opinions with respect to the origin of modern Chinese historiography. One regards the Opium War of 1840 as a watershed in marking the modern period of historical study in China and the other credits the epoch-making influence of Liang Qichao’s New Historiography (Xin shixue) in 1902 and considers it the beginning of modern Chinese historiography. The first opinion extends the Marxian periodization of Chinese history to the study of historiography, although its supporters are not necessarily Marxist historians. The second opinion is endorsed mostly by overseas Chinese scholars, although it seem also to have appealed to mainland scholars. Having compared the trajectories of historical development in both China and Japan from the mid 19th century on, this article analyzes their differences in dealing with the intrusion of the West and how the differences were reflected in the historical outlooks and worldviews subscribed to by the intellectuals of the two countries. It further argues that these different historical outlooks and worldviews contributed to a different outcome of the two countries’ experiment with modernization, as shown by the result of the Sino-Japanese War in 1895, in which China was tragically defeated. This defeat drew the attention of Chinese officials (e.g. Zhang Zhidong) and reformers (e.g. Kang Youwei and Liang Qichao) to Japan’s success in Westernization/modernization. It also brought a number of Chinese students, scholars and politicians to Japan wherein they absorbed knowledge of Western learning via Japanese translations. Liang Qichao’s exile in Japan during the period exposed him to the influence of “civilizational history” (bunmeishi), promoted by Fukuzawa Yukichi and Taguchi Ukichi a few decades before. Though Liang’s New Historiography seemingly resembled Ukita Kazutami’s General Introduction to History (Shigaku tsuron), a closer analysis reveals their marked differences and Liang’s indebtedness to Fukuzawa’s ideas in the latter’s Outline of a Theory of Civilization (Bunmeishiron no gairyaku). Sharing the intentions and interest of the Japanese civilizational historians, Liang, in his New Historiography, called for a “historiographical revolution” and advocated a nationalist and positivist approach to historiography, emphasizing the need of describing the growth of the Chinese nation and adumbrating the trends of social progress in historical writing. This “revolution” received support from Zhang Taiyan and other Chinese scholars; all of them too had sojourned and studied in Japan at the turn of the 20th century. By revealing this Japanese connection, the author provides a detailed study of Liang Qichao’s important role in initiating modern Chinese historiography and extends support to the argument that Liang’s call for the “historiographical revolution” helped usher in a new period of historical study in China.