Abstract
All the types of reflection on history which have been analysed here thus far were marked by formulations of specified guidelines which advanced the science of history. As shown above, the process was extremely complex and did not at all follow any constantly rising path of progress. Usually a development of reflection on history in one sphere was accompanied by stagnation in the remaining ones, which in turn resulted in an excessive focusing of attention on those fields which had been neglected previously. It might be said that methodological reflection on historical research was developing in accordance with the principles of dialectics: disproportions in reflection on the various fields hampered the general progress of methodological reflection on historical research, and this in turn yielded tendencies to level off the disproportions, which meant development through inner contradictions.