论文部分内容阅读
伯里在1903年就任剑桥大学近代史钦定教授的演讲中,提出了“历史是一门科学,不多也不少”的著名论断。另一方面,伯里也清醒地意识到,历史学应有自己的独立性。他以历史偶然性为切入点,探讨历史偶然事件与因果规律之间的关系,以揭示历史思想与自然科学思想之不同。伯里认为,神学和思辨哲学逻辑演绎的路数,无法运用于史学实践。他采用“历史综合”的路数,从历史经验中提出一个具有普遍性意义的假说1(历史思想具有独立性),然后归纳大量的史事来验证。由于体现人类自由意志的极为复杂的历史现象,存在无数的偶然事件,存在无数断裂的因果链条,所以伯里没有也不可能完成对其假说的证明。伯里的历史偶然性研究,对于思考史学理论研究的不同路数及其局限性,具有重要的参考价值。
In his speech in 1903 as a professor of modern history at Cambridge University, Burley put forward the famous assertion that “history is a science, not more, less”. On the other hand, Bury also soberly realized that history should have its own independence. With historical contingency as the starting point, he explores the relationship between historical contingencies and causality in order to reveal the difference between historical thought and natural science thought. Bury argues that the number of logical deductions of theology and speculative philosophy can not be applied to historical practice. He adopts the number of “historical synthesis”, proposes a universal hypothesis 1 from the historical experience (independence of historical thought), and then summarizes a large number of historical facts to verify. Due to the extremely complicated historical phenomenon that embodies the free will of human beings, there are countless contingencies and innumerable breaks in the chain of causality, so it is impossible for Burry to complete the proof of his hypothesis. Bury’s historical contingency study has important reference value for thinking about the different ways and limitations of historical theory research.