External Criticism (Authenticity) - History PDF

Topic 1: External criticism (Authenticity) Forged or Misleading Documents Forgeries of documents in whole or in part without being usual, are common enough to keep the careful historian constantly in guard. “Historical documents” are fabricated for several rea...

Topic 1: External criticism (Authenticity) Forged or Misleading Documents Forgeries of documents in whole or in part without being usual, are common enough to keep the careful historian constantly in guard. “Historical documents” are fabricated for several reasons: Sometimes they are used to bolster a false claim or title; Sometimes it is due to less mercenary considerations (e.g., political propaganda); Sometimes quite genuine documents are intended to mislead certain contemporaries and hence have misled subsequent historians. Occasionally misrepresentations of the nature of printed works results from the editors’ tricks. The circumstances of the forgery or misrepresentation of historical documents may often themselves reveal important political, cultural, and biographical information — but not about the same events or persons as if they were genuine. Analysis: External (Authenticity) and internal criticisms (Credibility) Content and contextual analysis Two mental process in which students have to practice in order to analyze the importance of a historical information in a document Test of authenticity To distinguish a hoax or a misinterpretation from a genuine document, the historian has to use tests that are common also in police or legal detection. Historian examines the materials to see whether they are not anachronistic (Belonging to a period other that that being portrayed) Anachronism - a person, thing, or idea that exists out of its time in history, especially one that happened or existed later than the period being shown, discussed, etc. Experts who are familiar with contemporary writing can identify anachronistic style (idiom, spelling, or punctuation). Forgeries can frequently be detected by spelling, proper names, signatures, and incorrect grammar. Fraud is revealed by anachronistic references to events that are either too early, too late, or too far removed, or by dating a document at a time when the supposed author could not have reasonably been in the specified location (the alibi). Forged or misleading Documents Historians examine the materials to see whether they are not anachronistic (Belonging to a period other than that being portrayed). Garbled Document (Reproduced documents) - supporting documents used In a wrong way ○ A document that in its entirety is the result of a deliberate effort to deceive may often be hard to evaluate, but it sometimes causes less trouble than does the document that is unauthentic only in a small part. ○ For such parts are usually the result, not of studied falsehood, but of unintentional error ○ They occur most frequently in copies of documents whose originals have disappeared, and are generally due to that kind of error of omission, repetition, or addition with which anyone who has ever made copies soon becomes familiar. ○ Sometimes they are the result, however, not of carelessness but deliberate intention to modify, supplement, or continue the original. ○ Such a change may be exerted to indicate the differences between the original text and the glossary or continuations, but future copyists are often less careful or more confused and make no such distinctions. ○ The historians borrowed the technique of textual criticism from the philologists and Bible critics. Restoration of texts - Historians produce many Copies of documents being analyzed (Dated, signatures.. etc) ○ The technique is complicated but can be briefly described; the first task is to collect as many copies of the dubious text as diligent search will reveal. Then they are compared.  ○ It is found that some contain words or phrases or passages that are not contained in others. ○ The question then arises: Are those words, phrases or passages additions to the original text that have found their way into some copies, or are the omissions from the others? ○ When the style and contents of passages under discussion may be attributed to the author, it is safe to assume that they were parts of his original manuscript but were omitted by later copyists; and when they cannot be attributed to the author, it is safe to assume that they were not parts of his original manuscript. ○ In some cases, a final decision has to await the discovery of still more copies. In many instances the original text can be approximately or entirely restored. Identification of Author and of Date Some guesses of the approximate date of the document and some identification of its supposed author obviously form an essential part of external criticism. Otherwise it would be impossible to prove or disprove authenticity by anachronisms, handwriting, style, alibi, or other tests that are associated with the author’s milieu, personality, and actions. Having established an authentic text and discovered what the author really intended to say, the historian has only established what the witness’ testimony is. He has yet to determine whether that testimony is at all credible, and if so, to what extent. That is the problem of internal criticism.  Topic 2: Internal Criticism (Credibility) What is a Historical Fact? The problem of credibility (internal criticism of testimony) - Examines the eyewitness as source as evidence instead of The problem of credibility is not what actually happened, but that is close to what actually happened as we can learn from a critical examination of the best available sources. The elementary data of history is subject to proof. A historical “fact” may be defined as a particular derived directly or indirectly from historical documents and regarded as credible after careful testing in accordance with the canons of historical method. Even some apparently simple and concrete statements, however, are subject to question. Doubt regarding concrete particulars is likely to be due, however, to lack of testimony based on first-hand observation rather than to disagreement among the witnesses. General Rules For the historian, as a judge, any single detail of testimony is credible provided it can pass four tests: 4 test Was the primary witness able to tell the truth? Was the primary witnessWilling to tell the truth? Is the primary witness Accurately reported with regard to the detail under examination Is there any independent corroboration (supporting evidence) of the detail under examination?  Any detail (regardless of what the source or who the author) that passes all four tests is credible historical evidence. Background of witnesses Obviously all witnesses even if equally close to the event are not equally competent as witnesses. Competence (If the primary witness is capable of telling the truth) depends upon degree of expertness, state of mental and physical health, age, education, memory, narrative skill, etc. The ability to estimate numbers is especially subject to suspicion. Hearsay and Secondary Evidence In cases where the historian uses secondary witnesses, however, he does not rely upon them fully. On the contrary, he asks: 3 Questions: 1. On whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his statements? 2. Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as a whole? 3. If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony? Note: Satisfactory answers to the second (b) and third (c) questions can establish the credibility of the secondary witness. Thus hearsay evidence would be discarded by the historian. It is unacceptable only insofar as it cannot be established as accurate reporting of primary testimony. 5. When is corroboration (supporting evidence) accepted? A primary particular that has been extracted from a document by the processes of external and internal criticism so far described is not yet regarded or altogether established as historical fact. General rule: Accept as historical only those particulars which rest upon the independent testimony of two or more reliable witnesses.