”early modern period”這個詞，在歐洲史中一般是指從文藝復興、宗教改革到產業革命，即15、16世紀到18世紀末三百多年的時期。如果我們試著在圖書館檢索一下帶”early modern”這個詞的書名，就會知道從20世紀80年代以來書名中帶有”early modern”這個詞的著作出版數量急劇增加。以往這三百年被作為”modern”的一部分，如今它作為一個具有獨自意義的時代重新引起了人們的關注。目前不少西方學者圍繞在歐洲以外地區”early modern”這一時代劃分是否也有意義進行討論，但他們採用的”early modern”概念不盡相同，因此結論也因人而異。 ”early modern”這一詞現在漢字文化圈一般翻譯為「近世」。但目前的中國史學界，關於「近世」一詞的內容似乎還沒有形成一致的看法。「近世」從甚麼時候開始？「近世」是「早期近代」還是「晚期傳統社會」？中國的「近世」與歐洲的「近世」有甚麼異同？在中國歷史上「近世」這一時代劃分到底有甚麼意義？在今天的報告中，我並不企圖對這些大問題提出「正確」的答案。在這裡我想討論問題如下：(1)「近世」這一詞是經過怎樣的途徑作為中國史上的時代劃分術語而固定下來？(2)目前「近世論」所面臨的主要方法問題是甚麼？(3)我們怎樣能夠描繪出中國「近世」的宏觀形象？我對這些問題的看法還未成熟，如蒙各位不吝指正，我將十分感激。

In European history, the term ”early modern period” generally refers to the period of time from Renaissance, Reformation, till industrial revolution, which is, from the fifteenth, sixteenth centuries till the end of the eighteenth century. If we try to check the books with the title of ”early modern,” we will learn that books of this fields have boosted since 1980s. In the past, the period was termed as a part of the ”modern” period, yet nowadays, it has its own unique significance and also arouses the concern and interest of people. Many Western scholars try to discuss if the period of ”early modern” is still meaningful in other areas beside Europe. Yet their opinions on ”early modern” are not exactly the same, thus the results are quite different. ”Early modern” is translated as the ”recent period” in the field of Chinese culture. It seems, however, the scholars of history do not have identical opinions upon what ”recent period” actually means. When did the ”recent period” begin? Does the ”recent period” refer to ”the early recent period” or the ”later traditional society?” What are the differences between the ”recent period” of China and of Europe? What is the significance of the ”recent period” in Chinese history? In the report today, instead of proposing a ”correct” answer, I would like to discuss the issues as follow: 1. How does the ”recent period” become a specific term in Chinese history? 2. What are the moan problems ”the studies of the recent period” have to confront? 3. How could we figure out the image of the ”recent period?” Since my opinions might not be mature enough, I would appreciate any comment.