日本明治維新時期，在西方學術的引進下，東京大學代表了西方學術的移植；京都大學的成立，則代表不同學風與之抗衡的企圖。內藤湖南是近代日本中國學京都學派創始人之一，本文擬透過梳理內藤的思想，窺探近代日本知識界的東洋意識之一側面。內藤最著名的「宋代近世說」與「文化中心移動說」似乎隱約透露出借用西方史觀之餘，仍以中國為主體、日本為目的的思維。進行內藤與東京大學東洋史學創始人之一白鳥庫吉的比較，梳理出其轉折與繼承，便能發現其實兩者分享同一時代氛圍，借用橘樸的批判，說明中國主體性的失落，並未因為內藤的努力而拾回。

In the period of Meiji Restoration and the domestication of western
scholarship, Tokyo Imperial University represented the transplant from
western academic circle, while the establishment of Kyoto Imperial
University reveals the attempt to counter the over-westernized academic
atmosphere. This article will examine the thoughts of Naito Konan, one
of the initiators of Kyoto School, to explore one face of the multi-meaning “Orient.” Naito’s noted theories reveal his using western historical view without abandoning China as the subject of study.
However, comparing Naito with Shiratori Kurakichi, one of the beginners
of Oriental historiography, using the critique from Tachibana Shiraki, we
could conclude that although Naito centered China in his theories, the
loss of Chinese subjectivity is underway drastically.