梁启超的《戊戌政变记》在两个方面对戊戌维新史研究产生重大的影响：一是帮助了解戊戌变法的具体细节，二是确立了以康有为为中心的戊戌变法史宏观叙述模式。对上述第一方面人们已经作了反思和清理，对于第二方面却鲜有研究。《戊戌政变记》是戊戌维新史宏观叙述模式问题的起源和焦点，人们对它的直接研究也异常模糊和薄弱。本文以《戊戌政变记》的内容和性质为切入点，试对此宏观叙述模式进行初步的检讨。一般认为，梁启超的《戊戌政变记》是一本纪实的史书，但是本文联系康梁等人在成书期间的政治活动，全面研究了此书的内容，得出了新的结论。《戊戌政变记》的宏观叙述结构包含两个主题，政变的原因和新政的本末，本文对此分别进行了研究。第一节探讨政变的原因，揭示出梁启超有关政变之总原因的陈述是为了游说日本政府援救光绪皇帝和反击舆论的批评而构思和确定的；而关于政变的直接原因的文本分析则表明梁启超为了否定他们有政变计划的传闻和报导，在关键细节上进行了刻意的安排，从而证明这一部分内容是康梁政治活动的产物和工具。《戊戌政变记》的第二个主题，戊戌新政的“本末”则建立了一个以康有为为主线的戊戌变法的宏观叙述结构。本文第二节揭示出，梁启超建立这一结构除了游说和申辩这两个目的，还意在强调康有为是中国唯一进步的维新力量的唯一领袖，从而阻止日本政府驱逐康有为，与清政府及其地方督抚加强关系。本文证明《戊戌政变记》是梁启超等人流亡日本时期政治活动的一个组成部分。梁启超采取以局内人的身份说明戊戌政变真相的形式，刻意安排一系列重大问题和关键细节的内容，来达到他们的现实政治目的，使这本书成为康梁维新派一份较系统完整的政治宣言和一个有力工具。以该书为基础建立戊戌维新史的宏观叙述模式也因此是不合适的。本文还附带讨论了康梁与袁世凯的关系和《戊戌政变记》八卷本的修订时间问题，提出戊戌政变后数年内康梁对于袁世凯持着基于利用的友善态度，而随着双方成为敌手后关系恶化，梁启超于1909年将袁世凯写成戊戌政变的祸首。
Liang qjchao’s Wuxu Zhengbian Ji or Reform Movement of 1898 has exerted great influences on the study of reform movement during the past 100 years in the two following aspects: first, to help people know exact detail of the Reform movement, and second, to foster a Kang-youwei-centered macroscopically structure of the event based on that of the book. While the influences in the first aspect has been reflected and scrutinized in recent years, the second has kept unquestioned all along. So this thesis is a preliminary touch upon the rationality of present basic structure of Reform Movement. Usually considered as an objective, thus dear, record of true history, Wuxu Zhengbian Ji was the origin and focus of the second aspect of influences on which people’s understanding was unexpectedly blurry and illegible, this thesis devotes to the re-understanding of the meanings and properties of the text in whole and puts forward a new idea after a thorough study of the whole text with close connections found between liang’s work and political activities of Kang-headed reformers’. The thesis devides into two sections according to the two main topics of Wuxu Zhengbian Ji, namely the reason of the coup and the ins-and-outs of the reform movement, and demonstrates that they both were deliberately conceived and fabricated by Liang to meet their political needs. In Section One it is proved that the general accounts for the coup was constructed, in the first place, to canvass the Japanese government for rescuing Emperor Guangxu, and, in the second place, to deny of the reports and rumors that Kang’s reform group had a plot to putsch for the sake of reform. And the direct cause of the coup was a case in point to verify that Liang Qichao had make up crucial details to assure their own innocence in the matter. Section two confirms that Liang had created a general line of Reform Movement based on Kang’s activities and thoughts to convince Japanese that Kang was the only leader of the only progressive reform group in China, so as to prevent Japanese form casting aside Kang for keeping good relations with Governor Zhang-Zhidong and Qing government. Ina word, both main dieas and details of Wuxu Zhengbian Ji have made it clear that this work was an effective instrument for Kang-and-Liang to reach their political ends, so the present basic structure of the Reform Movement based on Liang’s story seems unfit for depicting the whole event and need to be reconsidered. There is an additional section at the end of the thesis with the views that the Kang’s opinion on General Yuan-shikai, the accused betrayer, was more complicated that ever realized and was by no means malicious until they became real rivals after 1907, and that the accurate time for Liang to rewrite and recense Wuxu Zhengbian Ji in which Yuan was described as prime culprit would be in 1909.
