Pontianus Polman, in his classic study L'élément historique dans la controverse religieuse du XVI^e siècle, was critical of the historical abilities of the earliest Catholic opponents of the Reformation, regarding the efforts of the likes of Johann Eck and Johann Cochlaeus as mediocre and superficial. His verdict, that the use of history in religious controversy achieved maturity only much later in the sixteenth century, has proved influential. But a review of Reformation‐era treatments of the Council of Constance (1414–18) shows that Polman underestimated the work of the early Catholic controversialists in this regard. Writing against Luther after the Leipzig Disputation of 1519, Eck emphasized the importance of using primary sources when discussing the decrees of church councils. Cochlaeus, in a series of writings on Constance and the execution of Jan Hus, showed a similar concern for the importance of consulting original documents, of citing them correctly and of quoting them accurately. While one looks in vain to the early controversialists for a recognizably modern, critical approach to history‐writing, we do see a nascent interest in the importance of primary sources, of accurate citation, and a relative openness to new interpretations – the building blocks of history as a critical discipline.

中文翻译：

---

重新讨论了早期宗教改革争议中的历史论点：埃克和科克劳斯著作中的康斯坦茨理事会

Pontianus波尔曼，在他的经典研究L'元素历史之丹斯拉controverse religieuse杜十六^Ë末世对于约翰·埃克（Johann Eck）和约翰·科克劳斯（Johann Cochlaeus）等人的平庸而肤浅的努力，他批评了最早的天主教反对改革派的历史能力。他的断定是，在宗教争议中使用历史仅在16世纪后期才达到成熟，这已证明是有影响力的。但是，对康斯坦茨理事会改革时期的待遇（1414至18年）的回顾表明，波尔曼低估了早期天主教有争议者在这方面的工作。埃克（Eck）在1519年莱比锡争执之后反对路德（Luther），他在讨论教堂理事会法令时强调了使用原始资料的重要性。科克劳斯（Cochlaeus）在关于康斯坦斯（Constance）和扬·胡斯（Jan Hus）被处决的一系列著作中，也对参考原始文件的重要性表示了类似的关注，正确地引用它们并准确地引用它们。尽管对于早期争议论者而言，寻求一种公认的现代，批判性的历史写作方法是徒劳的，但我们确实对新生事物的重要性产生了初生的兴趣，这些事物的主要来源，准确的引文以及对新解释的相对开放性–是构建新知识的基础。历史作为一门重要学科。