“What was wrong with the historical reaction at the end of Victoria's reign, was not the positive stress it laid on the need for scientific method in weighing evidence, but its negative repudiation of the literary art, which was declared to have nothing whatever to do with the historian's task.” Writing in 1945, G.M. Trevelyan was overly pessimistic in assuming that this “negative repudiation” had completely destroyed “literary” history in an age of professionalization; John Osborne uses Trevelyan's own success to convince us of the continued vigor of the belletristic tradition in the twentieth century. Both Trevelyan's anxieties and the fact that they proved unfounded are significant, however, for they help us to focus on important issues in the emergence of professional historiography in England.

中文翻译：

---

从业余到专业：牛津剑桥历史学家的案例

“维多利亚统治末期的历史反应的错误之处不在于它积极强调需要科学方法来权衡证据，而在于它对文学艺术的消极否定，宣称文学艺术无事可做。历史学家的任务。” 特里维廉 (GM Trevelyan) 在 1945 年撰文，过于悲观地认为这种“消极否定”已经彻底摧毁了职业化时代的“文学”历史；约翰·奥斯本利用特里维廉自己的成功让我们相信，二十世纪的文学传统仍然充满活力。然而，特里维廉的焦虑以及它们被证明毫无根据的事实都很重要，因为它们帮助我们关注英国专业史学兴起过程中的重要问题。