本文旨在──以西方史學──檢視現代化論述在黃仁宇（1918-1999）史學論著中所佔的重要地位。本文指出黃仁宇的現代化論出現於《十六世紀明代中國之財政與稅收》（英文版，1974）發表之後。為了讓歷史主義平衡現代論中的目的論，黃仁宇以強調社會結構，拒斥道德評斷為史家職志。但是，本文論道，關心中國現代化的黃仁宇，將中國傳統社會描述成與現代性截然不類的社會。他的晚期作品著重於凸顯目的論，壓抑早期作品中歷史主義態度，並且逐漸缺少敘述的深度。尤其與清末以來的西化論歷史相比，黃仁宇的現代化論顯得失去歷史真實。若以史學寫作而論，《萬曆十五年》（1983）仍是黃氏史學最佳的典範。隱藏於該書背後的現代化理論其實是解釋明朝鼎覆的史觀。可是，即使讀者未及發現此一史觀，他仍舊可以享受黃仁宇因著現代化史觀而對明代人物與歷史所發出的同情之嘆與精采的史事描述。此外，本文提出黃仁宇現代化史學的不足。黃仁宇的技術主義讓他傾向於相信現代性與資本主義乃是二為一之物。本文提出布克哈特文化史學的傳統，認為現代性是（個體）精神的發展。本文最後論述道，黃仁宇或布克哈特的現代史儘管以洞視見長，卻不免忽略歷史的連續發展。

　　　　　This essay is meant, form a western historigraphical point of view, to discuss the development and importance of the discourse of modernization in the historical accounts of Ray Huang (Huang Jen-Yu, 1918-1999). It points out that Huang's discourse of modernization gets its momentum only after the publication of Taxation and governmental Finance in Sixteenth-Century Maing China (1974). In order to balance the powers of historicism and teleology co-existing in his writings, Huang urged historians to undo moralist judgment of historical agents, but only to figure out the structure of traditional society in China. Never the less, such a balance based on his structuralism is only to shift in favour with teleology in his later publications. Besides, this essay argues that as Huang was preoccupied with the concept of modernization or ontology-accordingly, Huang's representation of Chinese ancient society is despised as a non-existence of modernity- his history of modern China is guilty of the lack of historical descriptions or historicity, particularly in comparison with the historiography of Chinese westernization introduced in the late Ch'ing Dynastyl. This essay concedes, however, that in terms of historiography 1587, A Year of No significance (1981) remains the best among Huang's later writings. Although, in that work, the theory of non-presence of modernity in China reminds readers of the rationalist historiography of the philiosphes, Hung did not reduce history to a theory as he was apt to do in later publications. Readers can certainly find themselves enjoying the brilliant stories about the late Ming society, if they do not conceive the clandestine theory of the non-existence of modernity that, in turn, helps Huang to take a stance of sympathizing with the ancient society of China. Furthermore, while this article admits merit to Huang's comparative studies of capitalism and Chinese traditional society, it argues that modernity can be well beyond the parameter of capitalism. For Huang, odernity was little more than that embodied in the rationality of calculating and technological devices of capitalism. By introducing the writings of Burckhard and his critics this article raises readers' attention to humanist tradition of modernity discourse. It maintains that both Burckhardt's Kulturgeschichite of the Renaissance and Huang's historiography of capitalism modernity are stimulating and insightful but at the grave expense of the historical continuity.