Philosophical history became the Enlightenment genre of historical writing par excellence supposedly by “defeating” established humanist erudite history and antiquarianism. This article argues that, contrary to established perceptions, philosophical history developed out of a concern expressed by early eighteenth-century erudite historians about the nature of historical evidence: both David Hume—leading philosophical historian—and the members of the French erudite Académie des inscriptions et belles lettres shared a broadly Lockean approach to historical evidence, choosing verisimilitude to common experience as the key criterion of certainty. Indeed, Hume likely drew directly from the académiciens. Historical certainty is achieved, both sides concluded, by providing a verisimilar chain of causes of historical events, rather than mere lists of historical facts. Philosophical historians like Hume departed from the reformulated eighteenth-century version of erudite history by making causes the main object of history rather than merely a foundation of trustworthy factual accounts.

中文翻译：

---

大卫·休谟，铭文学院和 18 世纪早期历史证据的性质

哲学史通过“击败”既定的人文主义博学历史和古物主义而成为卓越的启蒙运动类型的历史写作。本文认为，与既定看法相反，哲学史的发展源于 18 世纪早期博学的历史学家对历史证据的性质所表达的关注：大卫·休谟——领先的哲学历史学家——以及法国博学的铭文学院的成员。 et belles lettres 分享了广泛的洛克式历史证据方法，选择对共同经验的真实性作为确定性的关键标准。事实上，休谟很可能直接来自学术界。双方总结说，历史确定性是通过提供一系列历史事件的起因链来实现的，而不仅仅是历史事实的清单。像休谟这样的哲学历史学家背离了重新制定的 18 世纪博学历史版本，将原因作为历史的主要对象，而不仅仅是可靠的事实说明的基础。