本文主旨在於探討二十世紀著名學者陳垣（1880-1971）史學的前後變化及其對現代中國史學發展中的影響。從兩方面言之，陳垣可稱之為「推陳出新」的史學家。一方面，在二十世紀上半葉的重要史學家中，他受到外國學術影響最少，繼承傳統史學最為直接。但是他對乾嘉考證史學方法的現代化作出重要貢獻。另一方面，陳垣的史學並非一成不變，而是與時俱進，與政治環境變化之間的關聯尤為密切。陳垣史學的發展經歷三個主要階段：第一，考證史學：抗戰以前陳垣致力於中國傳統史學的現代化，並運用現代化的考證史學方法開闢宗教史、中外交通史及元史等研究範疇，貢獻甚大。第二，抗戰史學：在對日抗戰期間，身處日軍侵占之下北京的陳垣由考證史學轉治經世史學，寫出幾部發揚愛國精神，伸張民族氣節的專著。此一階段之著作雖仍以堅實的考證為基礎，但過分強調民族大義，不免在擇題與論斷上有所偏失。第三，馬克思主義史學：一九四九年中共進入北京後，陳垣公開揚棄考證史學，擁抱馬克思主義史學，並且欲以史學研究作為「改造社會」、服務人民的工具。但是由於馬列史學與中國傳統史學全無淵源，陳垣史學之馬列化僅止於公開表態之層次，並未付諸實踐。總之，陳垣對中國史學發展的主要貢獻在於促進傳統考證史學的現代化。近年來，由於意識型態的淡化，考證史學重新成為中國大陸史學研究的主流，陳垣等早期考證史學大師將繼續具有影響。

Chen Yuan (1880-1971) was a preeminent historian in the early 20□ century when the foundation of modern Chinese historical research was laid. This paper examines the main developments in his scholarship to assess his contribution to modern Chinese historiography. He is termed a “renovating historian” in this paper for two reasons. First, among the important historians in his generation he received very little influence from foreign scholarship and inherited the tradition of Chinese historiography in a most direct way. He played a leading role in modernizing the methodology of the evidential historical scholarship of the Qianlong and Jiaqing periods. Second, his historical scholarship was not static but actually went through three stages of develoment in terms of methodology and ideology, closely relating to the changes in political environment, as follows: (1) Evidential historical research: before the Japanese invasion of China in 1937 he devoted himself to the modernization of traditional Chinese historiography and applied the modernized evidential methods to his research. He fruitfully pioneered several new areas of research. (2) “Resistance War historiography”: during the eight years of War of Resistance against Japan (1937-1945) he completed several books to promote patriotism in the spirit of the Chinese traditional historiography of statecraft. Although all these books were based on solid research, they were less objective than his earlier works because of the strong influence of nationalistic sentiment on his writings. (3) Marxist historiography: After the Communists' capture of Beijing in 1949 Chen immediately and publicly renounced the evidential method of research and embraced Marxist historiography, intending to use his historical writing as a tool to “reform society and serving the people.” However, since Marxist historiography was incompatible with the Chinese tradition, Chen's conversion to Marxist historiography was no more than a political gesture that produced no practical results. In sum, in spite of these vicissitudes, Chen Yuan made his greatest contribution to the development of modern Chinese historiography as a modernizer of evidential scholarship in his early years. Because of the decline of Marxist influence in Chinese academic circles and the reestablishment of the evidential school in the mainstream of mainland Chinese historical research in recent years, Chen Yuan, with other pioneering modern evidential masters, will continue to exert much influence on the development of Chinese historical studies.