Troeltsch and his time

德国历史学家兰普雷希特（K.Lamprecht）尝试将自然科学的方法应用到历史研究中，关于历史科学方法的争论主要是在19世纪90年代在德国由此产生的。后来海德堡大学的神学教授Ernst Troeltsch（1865-1923）也对这一争论感兴趣。这对他有什么了不起的？在本研究中，我考察了这一点，并明确了他在第一次世界大战之前的科学立场。在1897年和1898年，Troeltsch在宗教和神学科学的年度报告中提到了这场争论，他对Lamprecht的两本书进行了负面的批评。另一方面，他欣赏拉斯普雷希特的对手g.v.贝洛在1899年的一份年度报告中提出的题为“新历史方法”的论文。值得注意的是，特罗勒奇从他的神学立场上提到了这些著作。他意识到，基督教的绝对价值正受到基督教宗教史研究的威胁。彼时，贝洛的观点不足以满足他的神学命题，在这一点上，里克特的哲学观对他更有启发意义。1899年，争端暂时结束。但Troeltsch也从那时开始关注了Lamprechtian学派的研究工作，并批评了Kamprechtian学派学者Gunther的一篇文章。于是，争论重新开始。重要的是，在他的杰作“Soziallebren”（1912）中，Troeltsch提到了他自己的方法，与Lamprecht的方法形成对比。从这个意义上说，我们可以把特罗勒奇对这一争论的态度与他的基本科学立场相一致。

K.Lamprecht, a German historian, tride to apply the method of natural science to history and the dispute about the method of historical science arose through it mainly in the eighteen-ninties in Germany. Then Ernst Troeltsch (1865-1923), a theological professor of Heidelberg university, also was interested in this dispute. How was it remarkable to him? In this study I examined this point and made his scientific position before the first World War clear. In 1897 and 1898 Troeltsch mentioned this dispute in annual reports of the religious and theological sciences and he criticized two books of Lamprecht negatively. On the other hand he appreciated the thesis named " New Historical Method " by G.v.Below, an adversary of Lasprecht, in an annual report of 1899. It is remarkable , that Troeltsch mentioned those writings from his theological standpoint. He had an awareness, that the absolute value of Christianity was threatened by the study in religious history of Christianity. At that time Below's point of view was not enough for his theological proposition and in this point the philosophical view of H.Rickert was more suggestive to him. In 1899 the dispute ended Provisiously. But Troeltsch attended to the research-works of Lamprechtian school also since then and criticized a writing of Gunther, a scholar of Kamprechtian school. So the dispute revived. It is important, that in his masterpiece " Soziallebren " ( 1912 ) Troeltsch mentioned his own method in contrast with Lamprecht's method. In this sense we can conform Troeltsch's assntial scientific position in his attitude to this dispute.