史学与法学印证方法:比较研究与当代镜鉴

Corroboration in the sciences of history and law:comparative study and contemporary references

史学与法学均面临查验印证材料、重建事实叙述的重要任务,但有关二者印证方法的比较研究和互鉴相对较少。本文从三个方面做了分析:其一,我国史学印证方法的实践与研究整体上呈现出印证材料范围由单一简约转向多样厚绰,印证材料类型从文字向实物、地上向地下拓展,印证方法由真伪阙疑转向方法建构的演变轨迹;其二,史学与法学印证方法既有相通之处,但在印证材料的技术规范、印证标准与阐释方法、印证时效、印证后果以及对模糊术语阐释等方面亦存较大差异;其三,近代以来法学与史学研究呈现出互鉴趋势,法律实践可从史学印证方法获得诸多建设性启示与借鉴。

Checking corroborative materials and reconstructing factual circumstances are important tasks in both the science of history and the science of law, but there’s rarely any study on corroboration in the two sciences and their mutual reference. This article analyzes this problem from three aspects. First, the practice and study of corroboration in the science of history shows the following trend: the scopes of corroborative materials change form unitary and simple materials to diverse and complicated materials;the types of corroborative materials change from written materials to concrete objects, from overground materials to underground materials;and the means of corroboration changes from distinguishing the truth and falsity to construction of approaches.Second, there are similarities between corroboration in the science of history and corroboration in the science of law, but they are quite different in technical norms of corroborative materials, standards and interpretive methods of corroboration, time limit of corroboration, effect of corroboration and interpretation of vague terms, etc.. Third,in modern times, the study of history and the study of law make references from each other, and in legal practice we can gain useful enlightenment and references from corroboration in the science of history.