We defend a realist account of history: past facts are discoveries not creations. We show how ‘moderate’ realists, who admit the critical role of perspective, while insisting on history’s metaphysical independence from historians, can accommodate Paul Roth’s arguments in favor of irrealism. Moreover, our position is consistent with a dynamic past: as history unfurls past events gain new properties. Realism is necessary, we argue, to capture substantive disputes within history. It also grounds history’s reflexivity: the point of the continual re-examination of history (and history’s history!) turns in part on there being mind-independent past facts to be had.

我们捍卫对历史的现实主义描述：过去的事实是发现而不是创造。我们展示了承认透视的关键作用，同时坚持历史的形而上学独立于历史学家的“温和”现实主义者如何能够适应保罗罗斯支持非现实主义的论点。此外，我们的立场与动态的过去是一致的：随着历史的展开，过去的事件获得了新的属性。我们认为，现实主义对于捕捉历史中的实质性争议是必要的。它还为历史的反身性奠定了基础：不断重新审视历史（以及历史的历史！）的重点部分取决于存在独立于思想的过去事实。