自一八四○至一八四二年之鴉片戰爭以來，中國在國力與外交兩方面，逐漸暴露其弱點，迨一九○一年辛丑條約之簽訂，其喪權辱國，達於高峰。在檢討中國近代化失敗之原因時，史家注意到中日兩國改革模式之不同：一八六八年後，日本展開了明治維新，且基本上獲得成功；而一八九八年之戊戌維新，則不僅遲到，且歸於失敗。 張蔭桓在戊戌維新扮演相當重要的角色；政變發生後，慈禧太后及其党羽，大肆逮捕維新志土。在逮捕名單中，張蔭桓名列「戊戌六君子」之前。在英國大使竇樂納及日本大使林權助的營救下，張蔭桓得免一死。惟二年後，拳亂興起，張終遭處決。世人僅知戊戌六君子之名，而不知張蔭桓。設若外國使節不救張，使張得與六君子並死於難，則其名或可與六君子同垂後世。 戊戌維新之發生，因素甚多，但張蔭桓與光緒之支持改革，則為最重要因素之一。值得注意者，是光緒對張蔭桓的充份信任，使光緒樂於採行康有為的改革政策。世人皆以為引導光緒改革者，為翁同龢；但作者強調，鼓勵光緒從事改革者，賞為張蔭桓，而非翁同龢。 作者指出，在思想封閉之滿清宮庭中，張蔭桓敢於提倡以漢語宣詔、賜座予外國皇子，行握手禮，備西洋菜，奏西洋樂，必其人有大勇大智，否則必不敢為此大不諱。 此外，作者對。清末中國宮庭內部之各種衝突與鬥爭，有平實之分析，如滿漢之爭、帝后之爭、南北之爭和英日之爭等，凡此皆為研究十九世紀末中國政治史，不可不知者。

　　　　　After the Opium War, China showed weakness regarding both national and foreign affairs. Weakness reached its zenith in 1901 when troops of eight foreign powers, including Japan, occupied Peking. In examining the reasons for China's failure to compete with Japan, historians frequently point to differing patterns of reform in Japan and China. Japan's 1868 Meiji restoration was early and successful, whereas China's 1898 reform came late and failed. Chang Yin-huan's role in the 1898 reform was important. His name headed the list of seven reformers arrested and executed once the Empress Dowager Tz'u-hsi and her clique initiated the coup. Two foreign ministers in Peking, MacDonald and Hayashi, momentarily rescued him from execution, although not long after he too joined the other martyers. The other six reformers along with Chang achieved a state of grace in the eyes of the Chinese people, as manifested in their epitaph, the Six Virtuous Men. Had Chang died with the other reformers he too would have been remembered as a martyr for reform. The 1898 reform was precipitated by many factors, not least of which was Chang's belief in the need for change. Important to note is the trust placed in him by the Emperor Kuang-hsu, leading to the early involvement of K'ang Yu- wei inthe reform, as recommended by Chang who was considered an important initiator of the reform movement. The author emphasizes that Chang's role in accelerating reform ideas was significant and that his advocacy of Western protocol for the Ch'ing palace demonstrates his courage and determination in the reform of Chinese traditional culture. When one studies late nineteenth-century China he should not ignore factionalism. The author points out that Chang was forced into the conflict between the Empress Dowager's faction and that of Emperor's. In addition the antagonism between the Empress Dowager and the Emperor related to the racial conflict between Manchus and the Han Chinese and to the provincialism between northerners and southerners.