Troeltsch and his time

Research Project

Project/Area Number	01510236
Research Category	Grant-in-Aid for General Scientific Research (C)
Allocation Type	Single-year Grants
Research Field	History of Europe and America
Research Institution	Kunitachi College of Music
Principal Investigator	SATO Shinichi Kunitachi College of Music Assistant professor, 音楽学部, 助教授 (10154056)
Project Period (FY)	1989
Project Status	Completed (Fiscal Year 1989)
Budget Amount *help	¥200,000 (Direct Cost: ¥200,000) Fiscal Year 1989: ¥200,000 (Direct Cost: ¥200,000)
Keywords	Ernst Troeltsch / The Dispute about the method of historical science / The absolute value of Christianity / K.Lamprecht / G.v.Below / H.Rickert
Research Abstract	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.