This article undertakes a comparative study of the conjectural histories of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Ferguson, focusing on the convergences in the moral and political ideals expressed and grounded in these histories. In comparison with Scots like Adam Smith and John Millar, the conjectural histories of Ferguson and Rousseau follow a similar historical trajectory as regards the development and progress of commercial, political and cultural arts. However, their assessment of the moral progress of humanity does not, or in a much more limited way than in Smith and Millar, correlate with this trajectory. Rousseau and Ferguson see a candour and vigour in savage and barbarian societies that is much less easily supported by the complex socio-economic framework of modern, commercial societies. It is argued that the convergences in their conjectural histories arise from a similar fusion of these histories with Stoic and republican perspectives. While Rousseau and Ferguson do not see history as cyclical, they think that the forces that push towards moral decline are strong and can, on the political level, only be countered by firm republican policies. Furthermore, their shared Stoic ideal of the life lived according to nature informs their solutions for modern societies.

本文对让·雅克·卢梭（Jean-Jacques Rousseau）和亚当·弗格森（Adam Ferguson）的猜想历史进行了比较研究，着眼于在这些历史中表达和立足的道德和政治理想的趋同。与亚当·史密斯和约翰·米勒这样的苏格兰人相比，弗格森和卢梭的猜想历史在商业，政治和文化艺术的发展和进步方面遵循相似的历史轨迹。然而，他们对人类道德进步的评估与史密斯和米拉尔没有这种联系，或者以比史密斯和米勒尔更为有限的方式进行评估。卢梭和弗格森认为，野蛮社会和野蛮社会充满坦率和活力，而现代商业社会复杂的社会经济框架却很难为其提供支持。有人认为，其推测性历史的趋同是由于这些历史与斯多葛和共和党的观点相似的融合而产生的。尽管卢梭和弗格森不认为历史是周期性的，但他们认为，推动道德沦丧的力量很强大，在政治层面上只能通过坚定的共和政策予以抵制。此外，他们共同的斯多葛式的自然生活理念，为现代社会提供了解决方案。