儘管睡獅符號經常出現在當代中外的公共論述中，而所謂拿破崙的中國睡獅論更是中外政要口中所津津樂道的歷史典故；可是嚴謹的歷史學研究成果，卻是和一般大眾的認知有相當大的落差。首先，國內外對於睡獅議題有深入研究的代表性學者均一致地指出，現存的文獻資料並無法佐證拿破崙曾經以「睡眠」或「睡獅」的比喻談論過中國。此外，學界在2016年以前的研究，也幾乎都指梁啟超才是首先在1899年提出以「睡獅」來比喻中國的看法。然而，在拙作〈從「眠獅」到「睡獅」：梁啟超睡獅說淵源新論〉(發表於2016年)，我發現日本人大澤龍早在1898年即曾提及曾紀澤以睡獅喻中國的講法，進而指出明治日本時期的中國觀和國家動物符號想像，和「中國為睡獅」論述的出現有密切關連性。但是，很遺憾地，國內外後續的研究均還是集中就梁啟超的文本來探討「睡獅」的淵源課題；相對地，我的後續研究發現有更多明確的日文文獻證據可證明「睡獅」出現在明治日本的甲午戰爭時期。因此，本文的前半段將檢討商榷若干「睡獅」新研究，因糾結於梁啟超文獻而造成詮釋上之盲點和缺點。後半段的重點則是引介分析若干重大意義的日本文獻資料，說明所謂「中國為睡獅」的說法，最早乃見於甲午戰爭時期的日本公共論述；並深入剖析以明治日本的另類「東方主義論述」模式，如何在日本原先關於中國的「獅子」比喻的背景下，造就「中國是睡獅」的說法誕生於此特殊的時空背景。本研究對於「睡獅」淵源課題的重大發現和詮釋，不僅說明它曲折且富戲劇性的符號意涵演變史，更充分展示了跨語境和跨文化的知識符號傳播的高度複雜性和曖昧性。

It has long been said that Westerners, Napoleon in particular, have characterized China as a “Sleeping Lion,” which is destined one day to become a rising power. However, numerous examples of critical historical research on this issue have all pointed out that no piece of solid evidence has been found to support the popular idea that Napoleon referred to China as a “sleeping lion.” Instead, it has been suggested that Liang Qichao might have been the first thinker to characterize China in terms of the sleeping lion symbol in 1899. However, my own study on this issue, published in 2016, has demonstrated that Liang might have been inspired by earlier Japanese discourses in using the sleeping lion symbol. Unfortunately, many follow-up studies are still occupied in the “Liang Qichao trap,” attempting to no avail to figure out the origin of the symbol by focusing mainly on issues related to Liang’s own discourses. In this study, I have critically examined the shortcomings of these arguments centering on Liang Qichao. Moreover, I have presented a number of pieces of solid textual evidence in Japanese to reveal that the “China as a sleeping Lion” metaphor actually originated from discourses in Meiji Japan during the period of the First Sino-Japanese War. Most importantly, I have argued that both Marquis Tseng’s discourse on China and the triumph of a rising Japan played significant roles in contributing to the birth of the “Sleeping Lion,” which was utilized within Meiji “Orientalist” discourses to symbolize the “paper tiger” façade of the Qing empire. By clearly tracing the birth and development of the sleeping lion symbol in trans-lingual and trans-cultural context, this study illuminates the complexities and ambiguities in the dissemination of ideas and symbols.