Understanding History by Gottschalk, Louis

C H A P T E R III

WHAT ARE THE “HISTORY” AND “HISTORICAL

SOURCES”?
The Meaning of “History”
The English word history is derived from the Greek noun
iotopia, meaning learning. As used by the Greek philosopher
Aristotle, history meant a systematic account of a set of natural
phenomena, whether or not chronological ordering was a
factor in the account; and that usage, though rare, still prevails
GOTTSCHALK, LOUIS, (1969). Understanding history: a in English in the phrase natural history. In the course of time,
primer of historical method. New York: A.A Knopf. however, the equivalent Latin word scientia (English, science)
came to be used more regularly to designate non-chronological
systematic accounts of natural phenomena: and the word
history was reserved usually for accounts of phenomena
(especially human affairs) in chronological order.
By its most common definition, the word history now
means “the past of mankind.” Compare the German word for
history – Geschichte, which is derived geschehen, meaning to
happen. Geschichte is that which has happened. This meaning
of the word history is often encountered in such overworked
phrases as “all history teaches” or “the lessons of history.”
It requires only a moment’s reflection to recognize that
in this sense history cannot be reconstructed. The past of
mankind for the most part is beyond re-
42 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY

[41]
call. Even those who are blessed with the best memories cannot A vulgar prejudice exists against “subjective” knowledge
re-create their own past, since in the life of all men there must as inferior to “objective” knowledge, largely because the word
be events, persons, words, thoughts, places and fancies that “subjective” has also come to mean “illusory” or “based upon
made no impression at all at the time they occurred, or have personal considerations,” and hence either “untrue” or
since been forgotten. A fortiori, the experience of a generation “biased.” Knowledge may be acquired, however, by an
long dead, most of whom left no records or whose records, if impartial and judicially detached investigation of mental
they exist, have never been disturbed by the historian’s touch, images, processes, concepts, and precepts that are one or more
is beyond the possibility of total recollection. The steps removed from objective reality. Impartiality and
reconstruction of the total past of mankind, although it is the “objectivity” to be sure, may be more difficult to obtain from
goal of historians, thus becomes a goal they know full well is such data, and hence conclusions based upon them may be
unattainable. more debatable; but such data and conclusions, if true, are not
necessarily inferior to other kinds of knowledge per se. The
“Objectivity and Subjectivity” word subjective is not used here to imply disparagement of any
Sometimes objects like ruins, parchments, and coins sort, but it does imply the necessity for the application of special
survive from the past. Otherwise, the facts of history are kinds of safeguards against error.
derived from the testimony and therefore are facts of meaning. Artifacts as Sources of History
They cannot be seen, felt, tasted, heard, or smelled. They may
be said to be symbolic or representative of something that once Only where relics of human happenings can be found –
was real, but they have no objective reality of their own. In a potsherd, a coin, a ruin, a manuscript, a book, a portrait, a
other words, they exist only in the observer’s or historian’s stamp, a piece of wreckage, a strand of hair, or other
mind (and thus may be called “subjective”). To be studied archeological or anthropological remains – do we have objects
objectively (that is, with the intention of acquiring detached other than words that the historian can study. These objects,
and truthful knowledge independent of one’s personal however, are never the happenings or the events themselves. If
reactions), a thing must first be an object; it must have an artifacts, they are the result of events; if written documents,
independent existence outside the human mind. Recollections, they may be the results or the records of events. Whether
however, do not have existence outside the human mind; and artifacts or documents, they are raw materials out of which
most of history is based upon recollections-that is, written or history may be written.
spoken testimony.
“HISTORY” AND “HISTORICAL SOURCES” 43
To be sure, certain historical truths can be derived immediately by Incompleteness of the Records
from such materials. The historian can discover that a piece of
pottery was handwrought, that a building was made of Unfortunately, for most of the past we not only have no
mortared brick, that a manuscript was written in a cursive further evidence of the human setting in which to place
hand, that a painting was done in oils that sanitary plumbing surviving artifacts; we do not even have the artifacts. Most
was known in an old city, and many other such data from human affairs happen without leaving vestiges or records of
direct observation of artifacts surviving from the past. But such any kind behind them. The past, having happened, has
facts, important though they are, are not the essence of the perished forever with only occasional traces. To begin with,
study of history. The historian deals with the dynamic or although the absolute number of historical writings is
genetic (the becoming) as well as the static (the being or the staggering, only a small part of what happened in the past was
become) and he aims at being interpretative (explaining why ever observed. A moment’s reflection is sufficient to establish
and how things happened and where interrelated) as well as that fact. How much, for example, of what you do, say, or think
descriptive (telling what happened, when and where and who is ever observed by anyone (including yourself)? Multiply your
took part). Besides, such descriptive data as can be derived unobserved actions, thoughts word, and physiological processes
directly and immediately from surviving artifacts are only a by 2,000,000,000 and you will get a rough estimate of the
small part of the periods to which they belong. A historical amount of unobserved happenings that go on in the world all
context can be given to them only if they can be placed in the time. And only a part of what was observed in the past was
human setting. That human beings lived in the brick building remembered by those who observed it; only a part of what was
with sanitary plumbing, ate out of the handwrought pottery, remembered was recorder; only a part of what was recorded
and admired the oil painting that were mentioned above might has survived; only a part of what has survived has come to the
perhaps easily be inferred. But the inference may just as easily historians’ attention; only a part of what has come to their
be mistaken, for the building might have been a stable, the attention is credible; only a part of what is credible has been
piece of pottery might have been from a roof-tile, the painting grasped; and only a part of what has been grasped can be
might have been a hidden-away relic with no admirers expounded or narrated by the historian. The whole history of
whatsoever; and an infinity of other suppositions is possible. the past (what has been called history-as-actuality) can be
Without further evidence the human context of these artifacts known to him only through the surviving record of it (history-
can never be recaptured with any degree of certainty. as-record), and most of history-as-record
Historical Knowledge Limited

is only the surviving part of the recorded part of the was different from today in some ways as well as the same as
remembered part of the observed part of the whole. Even when today in others, and (2) that his own experience is both like and
the record of the past is derived directly from archeological or unlike other men’s. It is not alone his own memories
anthropological remains, they are yet only the scholars’ selected interpreted in the light of his own experience that he must try
parts of the discovered parts of the chance survivals from the to apply to the understanding of historical survivals; it is the
total past. memories of many other people as well. But one’s own
memories are abstract images, not realities, and one’s
In so far as the historian has an external object to study reconstructions of others’ memories, even when reinforced by
it is not the perished history that actually happened (history-as- contemporary records and relics, are likely to be even more
actuality) but the surviving records of what happened (history- abstract. Thus the utmost the historian can grasp of history-as-
as-records). History can be told only from history-as-records; actuality, no matter how real it may have seemed while it was
and history as told (spoken-or-written-history) is only the happening, can be nothing more than a mental image or a
historians’ expressed part of the understood part of the credible series of mental images based upon an application of his own
part of the discovered part of history-as-record. Before the past experience, real and vicarious, to part of a part of a part of a
is set forth by the historian, it is likely to have gone through part of a part of a part of a part of a part of a vanished whole.
eight separate steps at each of which some of it has been lost;
and there is no guarantee that what remains is the most In short, the historian’s aim is verisimilitude with regard
important, the largest, the most valuable, the most to a perished past – a subjective process – rather than
representative, or the most enduring part. In other words the experimental certainty with regard to an objective reality. He
“object” that the historian studies is not only incomplete; it is tries to get as close an approximation to the truth about the
markedly variable as records are lost or rediscovered. past as constant correction of his mental images will allow, at
the same time recognizing that that truth has in fact eluded him
History as the Subjective Process of Re-creation forever. Here is the essential difference between the study of
From this probably inadequate remainder the historian man’s past and of man’s physical environment. Physics, for
must do what he can to restore the total past of mankind. He example, has an extrinsic and whole object to study – the
has no way of doing it but in terms of his own experience. That physical universe – that does not change because the physicist
experience, however, has taught him (1) that yesterday is studying it, no matter how much his understanding of it may
change; history has only detached
and scattered objects to study (documents and relics) that do
not together make up the total object that the historian is
“HISTORY” AND “LHISTORICAL SOURCES “ 47 studying –
the past of mankind – and that object, having largely this limited effort, however, the historian is handicapped. He
disappeared, exists only in as far as his always incomplete and rarely can tell the story even of a part of the past “as it actually
frequently changing understanding of it can re-create it. Some occurred,” although the great German historian Leopold von
of the natural scientists, such as geologists and paleozoologists, Ranke enjoined him to do so, because in addition to the
in so far as the objects they study are traces from a perished probable incompleteness of the records, he is faced with the
past, greatly resemble historians in this regard, but differ from inadequacy of the human imagination and of human speech
them, on the other hand, in so far as historians have to deal for such an “actual” re-creation. But he can endeavor, to use a
with human testimony as well as physical traces. geometrician’s phrase, to approach the actual past “as a limit.”
For the past conceived of as something that “actually occurred”
Once the historians understands his predicament, his places obvious limits upon the kinds of record and of
task is simplified. His responsibility shifts from the obligation to imagination that he may use. He must be sure that his records
acquire a complete knowledge of the irrecoverable past by really come from the past and are in fact what they seem to be
means of the surviving evidence to that of re-creating a and that his imagination is directed toward re-creation and not
verisimilar image of as much of the past as the evidence makes creation. These limits distinguish history from fiction, poetry,
recoverable. The latter task is the easier one. For the historian drama and fantasy.
history becomes only that part of the human past which can be
meaningfully reconstructed from the available records and
from inferences regarding their setting.
Imagination in Historiography
The historian is not permitted to imagine things that
Historical Method and Historiography Defined could not reasonably have happened. For certain purposes that
we shall later examine he may imagine
The process of critically examining and analyzing the
records and survivals of the past is here called historical 1 some confusion arises from the use of the term historical
method. The imaginative reconstruction of the past from the method by practitioners in other disciplines (economics and
data derived by that process is called historiography (the theology especially) to mean the application of historical data
writing of history). By means of historical method and ” and illustrations to their problems. It will simplify our
discussion to restrict the term to the method by which historical
historiography (both of which are frequently grouped together testimony is analyzed for authentic and credible data. Courses
simply as historical method) the historian endeavors to by historians in “historical method” however, generally include
reconstruct as much of the past of mankind as he can. Even in not only instruction in such
“HISTORY” AND “HOSTORICAL SOURCES” 49 50 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY
analysis but also the synthesizing of such data into reliable Historical method, however, not only can be made the
historical expositions and narratives. subject of rules and regulations; for over two thousand years it
has been. Thucydides, who in the fifth century B.C wrote his
things that might have happened. But he is frequently required famous history of the Peloponnesian War, conscientiously told
to imagine things that must have happened. For the exercise of his readers how he gathered his materials and what tests he
the imagination in history it is impossible to lay down rules used to separate truth from fiction. Even when he invented
except very general ones. It is a platitude that the historian who speeches to put into the mouths of contemporaries, he tried to
knows contemporary life best will understand past life best. make them as like the originals as his sources of knowledge
Since the human mentality has not change noticeably in permitted. He hoped to conform both to the spirit of the
historic times, present generations can understand past speaker and the letter of the speech; but since stenographic
generations in terms of their own experience. Those historians reports were not available, he had sometimes to supply the
can make the best analogies and contrasts who have the speaker’s words, “expressed as I thought he would be likely to
greatest awareness of possible analogies and contrasts – that is, express them.”
the widest range of experience, imagination, wisdom, and
knowledge. Unfortunately, no platitude tells how to acquire a Since Thucydides’ day, many historians have written,
wide range of those desirable qualities and knowledge or how briefly or at length, upon historical method. Outstanding
to transfer them to an understanding of the past. For they are examples are Lucian, Ibn Khaldun, Bodin, Mably, Voltaire,
not accumulated alone by precept or example, industry and and Ranke, though sometimes their studies have dealt with the
prayer, though all of these may help. And so historiography, scope rather than the techniques of history. With Ernst
the synthesizing of historical data into narrative or expositions Bernheim’s Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der
by writing history books and articles or delivering history Geschichtsphilosophie (1st ed., Leipzig, 1889), the modern and
lectures, is not easily made the subject of rules and regulations. the more academic discussion of the subject may be said to
Some room must be left for native talent and inspiration, and have begun. Since Bernheim’s exposition a number of other
perhaps that is a good thing. But since percepts and examples textbooks have been published. Although none of them surpass
may help, an effort will be made (see especially Chapters VII- his masterpiece, peculiar merits intended for particular kinds of
XII) to set forth a few of them. readers are found in
2 confusion arises here too from the fact that historiography is sometimes used to 3 Thucydides Translated into English by Benjamin Jowett, I (Oxford, 1900), 16 (Bk.
mean the critical examination of history books already written, as, for example, I, 22).
in college courses on “historiography”
not, however, need to be original in the legal sense of the word
History of Historical Method original – that is, the very document (usually the first written
draft) whose contents are the subject of discussion – for quite have been lost (in the sense that Livy is an “original source” for
often a later copy or a printed edition will do just as well; and some of our knowledge of the kings of Rome). In using the
in the case of the Greek and Roman classics seldom are any but phrase historians are frequently guilty of looseness. An effort
later copies available. will be made to use it here only in the two senses just defined.
“Original” is a word of so many different meanings that Primary sources need not to be original in either of
it would have been better to avoid it in precise historical these two ways. They need be “original” only in the sense of
discourse. It can be, and frequently is; used to denote five underived or first-hand as to their testimony. This point ought
different conditions of a document, all of which are important to be emphasized in order to avoid confusion between original
to the historian. A document may be called “original” (1) sources and primary sources. The confusion arises from a
because it contains fresh and creative ideas; (2) because it is not particularly careless use of the word original. It is often use by
translated from the language in which it was first written, (3) historians as a synonym for manuscript or archival. Yet a
because it is in its earliest, unpolished stage, (4) because its text moments reflexion will suffice to indicate that a manuscript
is the approved text, unmodified and untampered with, and (5) source is no more likely to be primary than a printed source,
because it is the earliest available source of the information it and that it may be a copy rather than the “original.” Even
provides. This five meanings of the word may overlap , but where it is primary source, it may deal with a subject upon
they are not synonymous. which earlier information is already available. Hence a
manuscript source is not necessarily “original” in either of the
Unfortunately, the phrase “original sources” has two relevant senses of that word. It should be remembered that
become common among historians, and it is desirable to define the historian when analyzing sources is interested chiefly in
its usage accurately. It is best used by the historian in only two particulars and that he asks of each particular whether it is
senses – (1) to describe a source, unpolished, based on first-hand or second-hand testimony. Hence it makes
uncopied, untranslated, as it issued from the hands of the small difference to him whether a document I “original” in the
authors (e.g., the original draft of the Magna Carta) or (2) a sense of “as written by its actual author” or a copy, except in so
source that gives the earliest available information (i.e., the far as such originality may aid him to determine its author and
origin) regarding the question under investigation because therefore whether it is primary or, if secondary, from what
earlier sources more independent testimony it is derived. Students of history
readily depend upon specialists in editorial skills in archival
techniques to publish
4 Cf. John H. Wigmore, Student’s Textbook of the Law of Evidence (Chicsgo,
19365), pp. 225-6 collections of manuscript and are willing to use them in printed
from.
Primary Particulars Rather than Whole Primary Sources The Document
Sought
The word document (from docere, to teach) has also
As has just been indicated, the historian is less concerned with a been used by historians in several senses. On the one hand, it is
source as a whole than with the particular data within that sometimes used to mean a written source of historical
source. It is easy to conceive of a source essentially primary that information as contrasted with oral testimony or with artifacts,
will contain secondary (and therefore less usable) data. The pictorial survivals, and archeological remains. On the other, it
general writes a communique thereby provides a source that is sometimes reserved for only official and state papers such as
may be for the most part primary but for many details treaties, laws, grants, deeds, etc. Still another sense is contained
secondary, because he must necessarily depend upon his in the word documentation, which as used by the historian
subordinates for information regarding much that he reports. among others, signifies any process of proof based upon any
The newspaper correspondent may, like Aeneas, tell about kind of source whether written, oral, pictorial, or archeological.
things “all of which he saw and part of which he was” and yet For the sake of clarity, it seems best to employ the word
may also have to depend upon “an official spokesman” or “a document in the last, the most comprehensive meaning, which
source usually considered reliable” for some of his information. is etymologically correct, using written document and official
The careful historian will not use all the statements of such document to designate/ the less comprehensive categories.
military communiques or newspaper dispatches with equal Thus document becomes synonymous with source, whether
confidence. On the other hand, should be find, as he frequently written or not, official or not, primary or not.
does, that a book that is essentially secondary (like a biography
or even a work of fiction) contains, for example, personal letters The “Human” and the “Personal” Document
or touches of directly observed local color, he may well use The human document has been defined as “an account
them as first-hand evidence if they are genuine and relevant. of individual experience which reveals the individual’s actions
Sources, in other words, whether primary or secondary, as a human agent and as a participant in social life.” The
are important to the historian because they contain primary personal document has been defined as “any self-revealing
particulars (or at least suggest leads to primary particulars). The record that intentionally or unintentionally yields information
particulars they furnish are trustworthy not because of the book regarding the structure, dynamics and functioning of the
or article or report they are in, but because of the reliability of author’s mental life.” The first definition is by sociologist and
emphasizes “experience . . . in social life” as an element of the
human document. The
“HISTORY” AND “HISTORICAL SOURCES” 57 58 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY
the narrator as a witness of those particulars. This point will be second definition is by a psychologist and emphasizes “the
elaborated later (see pp. 139-44). author’s mental life” as an element of the personal document.
Yet the words human document and personal document have document is in fact first-person (as, for example, the Memoires
been used interchangeably. The two kinds of documents seem of Lafayette or the Education of Henry Adams). (2) Genuinely
to have one essential characteristics in common; a human, third-person documents in so far as they are “historicable”
personal reaction to the events with which they deal. To both must ultimately rest on first-hand observation (whether by the
sociologist and psychologist it is the author or by someone consulted by the author). (3) Every
5 Herbert Blumer, An Appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki’s The Polish Peasant in
document, no matter how thoroughly the author strove to be
Europe and America’ (Critiques of Research in the Social Science,” Vol. I; New impartial and detached, must exhibit to a greater or lesser
York, 1939), p.29 extent the author’s philosophies and emphases, likes and
6 Gordon W. Allport, The Use of Personal Documents in Psychological Science dislikes, and hence betrays the author’s inner personality.
(New York, Social Science Research Council, 1941), p.xii Edward Gibbon’s Decline and fall of the Roman Empire,
7 Robert Redfield, “Foreword” to Blumer, p viii. Cf Allport, pp. xii-xiv. Allport syas Johann Gustav Droysen’s Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen
that for the psychologist methods of evaluation differ for first person and third or Hippolyte Taine’s French Revolution
person documents. They revolve around “sources of materials, observer reliability,
and techniques of presentation.” For the historian, who as nearly as possible limits 8 Allport, p. xiii; Blumer, p. 29
his elementary data to primary particulars, these are likely to be quantitative rather
9 I have had to invent this word to designate “capable of critical examination by the
than qualitative differences. That is to say, a participant in a battle will probably
historian.” Please note that it is not synonym for true, reliable, or probable, but
have more numcrous first-hand data to give than a newspaper correspondent (who,
means only subject to inquiry as to credibility.
incidentally, may be less mistaken than the participant). Still, a first-person account
by a participant is valuable, as evidence, only for the particulars which that 10 See note 7 above
participant gives on first-hand testimony or for leads to first-hand testimony; and a
third person account of the same battle by a newspaper correspondent is valuable, as 11 Cf. Havelock Ellis, Dance of life (Boston, 1923), pp.8-12, where the different
evidence, only for the same kind of data. Allport agrees that “the first-person and interpretations of Napoleon by H. G. Wells and Elie Faure are attributed to the
third-person documents. . .both deal with the single case and on this question will difference between Wells and Faure.
stand or fall together.” See also Alllport, pp. 19-20.
may be regarded as secondary, third-person accounts of remote
degree of subjectivity in these documents that distinguishes history, or they may be (and indeed have been) regarded as
them from other documents. The best examples seem to be autobiographical writings of Gibbon, Droysen and Taine.
documents written in the first person like autobiographies and Scholarly reviews of scholarly books bought to be among the
letters – or documents written in the third person but least likely places to hunt for personal reactions (except, as
describing human reactions and attitudes – like newspaper sometimes happens with best reviews, the reviewer deliberately
accounts, court records, and records of social agencies.
sets out to present his own point of view); and yet how often
To the historian the difference between first-person and third- private philosophies, attitudes, likes, and dislikes are
person documents is not of major significance. That is true for unintentionally betrayed by the most sober reviewers! Whether
at least three reasons. (1) Often an apparently third-person a document is to be examined for what it reveals about its
subject or for what it reveals about its author – whether, in historian may learn more about the author than the author
other words, it is a third-person or a first-person document – intended that he should.
thus depends upon the examiner’s rather than the author’s 13 Cf. Allport, pp. 111-12, where the “unintentional personal document” is
intention. discussed.
For the same reason the term personal document is to

the historian synonymous with the term human document.
These terms were invented by social scientists. The historian is
not likely to employ them. To him they appear tautalogous. All
documents are both human and personal, since they are the
work of human beings and shed light upon their authors as well
12 Cf. J. W. Swain, “Edward Gibbon and the Decline of Rome,” South Atlantic
Quarterly, XXXIX (1940), 77-93; John R. Knipfing, “German Historians and
Macedonian Imperialism,” American Historical Review, XXXIX (1921), 659-61;
Louis Gottschalk, “French Revolution: Conspiracy or Circumstance” in Persecution
and Liberty, Essays in Honor of George Lincoln Burr (New York , 1931), pp. 445-
52. Cf. J. H. Randall and George Haines, “Controlling assumptions in the Practice
of American Historians,” Merle Curti et at., pp. 17-52, and H. K. Beale, “What
Historians Have Said about the Causes of the Civil War.” Ibid., pp.55-92.
as upon the subjects the authors were trying to expound.

Sometimes, indeed, they betray the author’s personality,
private thoughts, and social life more revealingly than they
describe the things he had under observation. Here, too, a
document’s
significance may have a greater relationship to the intention of

the historian than to that of the author. Sometimes the [118]
C H A P T E R VI that it had been forged. At other times documents are
counterfeited for sale. Counterfeit letter Queen Marie
THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY, OF EXTERNAL Antoinette used to turn frequently. A Philadelphia autograph
CRITICISM dealer named Robert Spring once manufactured hundreds of
skillful forgeries in order to supply the demand of collectors. A
recent notorious example of forgery was the “correspondence”
So far it has been assumed that the documents dealt of Abraham Lincoln and Ann Rutledge, palmed off on the
with have been authentic. The problem of authenticity seldom Atlantic Monthly in 1928.
concerns the sociologist or psychologist or anthropologist, who
generally has a living subject under his eye, can see him as he Sometimes fabrication is due to less mercenary
prepares his autobiography, and can cross-examine him about considerations. Political propaganda largely accounts for the
doubtful points. Even in the law courts the question of Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a “document” pretending to
authenticity of documents becomes a difficult problem only on reveal a ruthless Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.
rare occasions, when the writer or witnesses to the writing Sometimes historical “facts” are based only on some practical
cannot be produced. But for historical documents those joke, as in the case of H. L. Mencken’s much cited article on
occasions are not rare. They are in fact frequent from the “history “ of the bathtub, or of Alexander Woollcott’s
manuscript sources; and if doubt as to authenticity arises less mocking letter of endorsement of Dorothy Parker’s husband (of
often for printed sources, it is because usually some skilled which he never sent the original to the supposed addressee,
editor has already performed the task of authenticating them. although he did send the carbon copy to the endorsee). The
Memoires of Madame d’Epinay are striking example
Forged or Misleading Documents
2 Lord Action, Lectures on the French Revolution (London, 1910), pp. 361-4
Forgeries of documents in whole or in part without 3 See J. S. Curtis , An Appraisal of the Protocols of Zion (New York, 1942).
being usual, are common enough to keep the careful historian
constantly on his guard. “Historical documents” are fabricated 4 Cf. C. D. MacDougall, Hoaxes (New York, 1940); pp.302-9; Dorothy Parker,
Reviewing A. Woollcott: His Life and His World by S. H. Adams (New York, 1945)
for several reasons. Sometimes they are used to bolster a false in the Chicago Sun Book Week of June 10, 1945.
claim or title. A well-known example is the Donation of
Constantine, which of fabrication of a whole book that has beguiled even
respectable historians.
1 Wigmore, pp. 326-36
THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY 119
Sometimes quite genuine documents are intended to mislead
used to be cited on occasion to bolster a theory that the popes certain contemporaries and hence have misled subsequent
had a wide territorial claim in the west. In 1440 Lorenzo Valla historians. A statement supposed to be that of Emperor
proved, chiefly by means of anachronisms of style and allusion, Leopold II’s views on the French Revolution misled Marie
Antoinette and subsequently even the most careful historians Upon which, in one’s leisure,
until it was exposed in 1894 as a wishful statement of some
French emigres. In days when spies were expected to open mail One had jotted down an inaccurate pamphlet;
in the post, writers of letters would occasionally try to outwit And forever thereafter
them by turning their curiosity to the advantage of the one
spied upon rather than to that of the spy or his employer. And To be quoted by all post-Vincentian borrowers
when censors might condemn books to be burned and writers In a pertinacious footnote.
to be imprisoned, authors could hardly be blamed if they
sometimes signed other’s names to their work. For instance, it is Occasionally misrepresentations of the nature of printed works
hard to tell whether some works actually written by Voltaire result from editor’s tricks. It is still a matter of dispute which of
are not still ascribed to others. It is thus possible to be too the many writings attributed to Cardinal Richelieu were in fact
skeptical about a document which may be genuine though not written or dictated by him; and little of the so-called Memoires
what it seems. Bernheim has provided a list of documents that de Jean de Witt and Testament politique de Colbert were in
were once hypercritically considered unauthentic but are now fact written by John de Witt and Colbert. The memoirs
accepted. Perhaps it was hypercriticism of this attributed to Condorcet and to Weber, foster-bother of Marie
Antoinette, and several works ascribed to Napoleon I are by
5 The “cheating document” is discussed with a wealth of absorbing detail in Allan
Nevins, Gateway to History (Boston, 1938), ch. V, pp. 119-37. others than their alleged authors. Even issues of daily
newspaper have been manufactured long after the dates they
6 Acton, French Revolution, p. 119
bear. The Moniteur furnishes some good examples (see p. 107
7 Cf. Lafayette to William Carmichael, March 10, 1785, quoted in Louis Gottschalk, above). Several Diaries of Napoleon have been made up by
Lafayette between the American and the French Revolution (Chicago, 1950), pp.
156-7
others from his writngs. The circumstances of the forgery or
misrepresentations of historical documents may often
8 Ernst Bernheim, Lehrbuch der Historischen Methode und der themselves reveal important political, cultural, and
Geschichtsphilosophie (6th ed,; Leipzig, 1908), pp. 367-91.
biographical information – but not about the same events or
kind that led Vincent Starrett to write his verse entitled “After persons as if they were genuine.
Much Striving for Fame”: 9 Qouted by permission of Mr. Starrett
THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY 121 122 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY
It would be rather jolly, I think, Tests of Authenticity
To be the original authority To distinguish a hoax or a misrepresentation from a
On some obscure matter of literature or faith genuine document, the historian has to use tests that are
common also in police and legal detection. Making the best
guess he can of the date of the document (see below pp.138 and historical sources and his product becomes too obviously a
147-8), he examines the materials to see whether they are not copy in certain passages; or where, by skillful paraphrase and
anachronistic: paper was rare in Europe before the fifteenth invention, he is shrewd enough to avoid detection in that
century, and printing was unknown; pencils did not exist there fashion, he is given away by the absence of trivia and otherwise
before the sixteenth century; typewriting was not invented until unknown details from his manufactured account. Usually,
the nineteenth century; and India paper came only at the end however, if the document is where it ought to be – for example,
of that century. The historians also examines the ink for signs in a family’s archives, or among a business firm’s or lawyer’s
of age or for anachronistic chemical composition. Making his papers, or in a governmental bureau’s records (but not merely
best guess of the possible author of the document (see below pp. because it is in a library or in an amateur’s autograph
144-7), he sees if he can identify the handwriting, signature, collection) – its provenance (or its custody, as the lawyers call
seal, letterhead, or watermark. Even when the handwriting is it), creates a presumption of its genuineness.
unfamiliar, it can be compared with authenticated specimens. 10 Cf. Marcel Cohen, “Comment on parlait le francias en 1700,” L’Europe, XXV
One of the unfulfilled needs of the historian is more of what the (1947), 18-23.
French call “isographies” – dictionaries of biography giving
11 Cf. They Knew the Washingtons; Letters from a French Soldier with Lafayette
examples of handwriting. For some periods of history, experts and from his Family in Viginia, tr. Princess Radziwill (Indianapolis, 1926); and
using techniques known as paleography and diplomatics, first Henri Beraud, My Friend Robespierre, tr. Slater Brown (New York, 1928).
sytemized by Mabillon in the seventeenth century (see p. 127 12 Wigmore, pp.330-1
below), have long known that in certain regions at certain times
handwriting and the style and form of official documents were
more or less conventionalized. Seals have been the subject of
special study by sigillographers, and experts can detect faked
ones (see below, p. 128). Anachronistic style (idiom,
orthography, or punctuation) can be detected by specialists
who are familiar with contemporary writing. Often spelling,
particularly of proper names and signatures (because too good 124 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY
Garbled Documents
or too bad or anachronistic), reveals a forgery, as would also A document that in its entirety or in large part is the result of a
unhistoric grammar. Anachronistic references to events (too deliberate effort to deceive may often be hard to evaluate, but it
early or too late or too remote) or the dating of the document sometimes causes less trouble than does the document that is
at a time when the alleged writer could not possibly have been unauthentic only in small part. For such parts are usually the
at the place designated (the alibi) uncovers fraud. Sometimes result, not of studied falsehood, but of unintentional error.
the skillful forger has all too carefully followed the best They occur most frequently in copies of documents whose
originals have disappeared, and are generally due to that kind from the others? To answer that question it is necessary to
of error of omission, repetition, or addition with which anyone divide the available copies into one or more “families” – that is,
who has ever made copies soon becomes familiar. Sometimes groups of texts which closely resemble each other and therefore
they are the result, however, not of carelessness but of seem to be derived, directly or indirectly, from the same master
deliberate intention to modify, supplement; or continue the copy. Then by a comparison of the texts within each family an
original. Such a change may be made in good faith in the first effort is made to establish the comparative age of each in
instance, care being exerted to indicate the differences between relation to the others. If the members of the same family are
the original text and the glossary or continuations, but future largely copied from each other, as this arrangement in families
copyists are often less careful or more confused and make no frequently shows, the oldest one is in all probability (but not
such distinctions. necessarily) the one nearest the original. This process is
continued for all the families. When the copy nearest the
This problem is most familiar to classical philologists and Bible original in each family is discovered, a comparison of all of
critics. For they seldom have copies less than eight centuries these “father” copies will usually then reveal words and
and several stages of reproduction removed from the original – passages that are in some but not in others. Again the question
that is to say, copies of copies of copies, and sometimes copies arises: Are those words and passages additions to the copies
of translations of copies of translations of copies, and so on. that have them or omissions from the copies that do not? The
The philologist give to this problem of establishing an accurate most accurate available wordings of the passages added or
text the name textual criticism, and in Biblical studies it is also omitted by the respective copyists are then prepared. Changes
called lower criticism. The historian has borrowed his in handwritings, anachronisms in style, grammar, orthography,
technique from philologists and Bible critics. or factual detail, and opinions or errors unlikely to have been
those of the original author frequently reveal additions by a
later hand.
When the style and contents of passages under discussion may
The Restoration of Text be attributed to the author, it is safe to assume that they were
The technique is complicated but can be briefly described. The parts of his original manuscript but were omitted by later
first task is to collect as many copies of the dubious text as copyists; and when they cannot be attributed to the author, it is
diligent search will reveal. Then they are compared. It is found safe to assume that they were not parts of his original
that some contain words or phrases or whole passages that are manuscript. In some cases, a final decision has to await the
not contained in others. The question then arises: Are those discovery of still more copies. In many instances the original
words, phrases or passages additions to the original text that text can be approximately or entirely restored.
have found their way into some copies, or are they omissions
By a similar method one can even guess the contents, at least in original wording and of explaining as fully as possible the
part, of a “father” manuscript even when no full copy of it is in Hebrew and Hellenistic civilizations which they reflected.
existence. The historian Wilhelm von Giesebrecht, a student of Philology, as already explained, deals among other things with
Ranke, attempted to reconstruct a text that he reasoned must the derivation from variant texts of the most authentic ones
be the ancestor of several eleventh-century chronicles in which (especially of classical literature). The classical epigrapher
he had noted striking similarities. By adding together the restores and edits the texts of Greek and Latin inscriptions
passages that appeared to be “descended” from an unknown found on the gravestones, monuments, and buildings of ancient
chronicle, he made a guess as to its contents. Over a quarter of Greece and Rome. The paleographer, since the time that
a century later the ancestor chronicle was in fact found, and Mabillon (see p. 122) first formalized the principles of
proved to be extensively like Geisebrecht’s guess. paleography an diplomatics, has been able to authenticate
medieval charters and other documents by their handwritings,
Sciences Auxiliary to History which have been found to vary from place to place and from
The problem of textual restoration does not frequently disturb time to time, and by their variant but highly stylized
the present-day historian, chiefly because many experts, conventions and forms, and to publish easily legible printed
engaged in what the historian egocentrically calls “sciences versions of them. The archeologists excavates ancient sites and
auxiliary to history,” provide him with critically prepared texts. provides the historian with information derived from artifacts
Since Jean Francois Champollion in 1822 learned to decipher such as statues, mausoleums, pottery, build.
hieroglyphics, part of the work of Egyptologists and
papyrologists has been to provide the historian with texts and
translations of inscriptions and papyri found in the ancient.
Nile

tional form to motives he had imperfectly analyzed, that she
Valley, whether in Egyptian hieroglyphic or in cursive hieratic laid bare features in his character he had never realized.” If
and demotic or in Greek. The Assyriologists, since Sir Henry Morris R. Cohenis right, “To widen our horizon, to make us
Rawlinson in 1847 deciphered Old Persian cuneiform and in see other points of view than those to which we are
1850 Babylonian cuneiform, have been publishing and accustomed, is the greatest service that can be rendered by the
translating the texts found on the clay tablets of the ancient historian, and this he can do best by concentrating on the
Tigris-Euphrates civilizations. Biblical criticism, even before special field which he studies to understand.”
Erasmus, was directed to the effort of bringing the text of both
the Old and the New Testament as close as possible to the Identification of Author and of Date
Some guess of the approximately date of the document and concerned with is the analysis of documents for credible details
some identification of its supposed author (or, at least, a to be fitted into a hypothesis or context.
surmise as to his location in time and space and as to his habits,
attitudes, character, learning, associates, etc.) obviously form an What Is Historical Fact?
essential part of external criticism. Otherwise it would be In the process of analysis the historian should constantly keep
impossible to prove or disprove authenticity by anachronisms, in mind the relevant particulars within the document rather
handwriting, style, alibi, or other tests that are associated with than the document as a whole. Regarding each particular he
the author’s milieu, personality, and actions. But similar asks: Is it credible? It might be well to point out again that what
knowledge or guesses are also necessary for internal criticism, is meant by calling a particular credible is not that it is actually
and therefore the problem of author-identification has been left what happened, but that it is as close to what actually
for the next chapter (pp. 144-8). happened as we can learn from a critical examination of the
Having established an authentic text and discovered what its best available sources. This means verisimilar at a high level. It
author really intended to say, the historian has only established connotes something more than merely not being preposterous
what the witness’s testimony is. He has yet to determine in itself or even than plausible and yet is short of meaning
whether that testimony is at all credible, and if so, to what accurately descriptive of past actuality.
extent. That is the problem of internal criticism. 1 See Chapter X.
17 January 21, 1881, Herbert Paul (ed.), Letters of Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone 2 Cf. above pp. 45-9
(new York, 1904), p.159
18 The meaning of Human History (La Salle, III., 1947), p. 28.

[139] In other words, the historian establishes verisimilitude rather

than objective truth. Though there is a high correlation
CHAPTER VII between the two, they are not necessarily identical. As far as
mere particulars are concerned, historians disagree relatively
THE PROBLEM PF CREDIBILITY, OR INTERNAL
seldom regarding what is credible in this special sense of
CRITICISM
“conforming” to a critical examination of the sources.” It is not
The Historian first aims in the examination of testimony to inconceivable that, in dealing with the same document, two
obtain a set of particulars relevant to some topic or question historians of equal ability and training would extract the same
that he has in mind. Isolated particulars have little meaning by isolated “facts” and agree with each other’s findings. In that
themselves, and unless they have a context or fit into a way the elementary data of history are subject to proof.
hypothesis they are of doubtful value. But that is a problem of
synthesis, which will be discussed later. What we are now
A historical “fact” thus may be defined as a particular derived Doubt regarding concrete particulars is likely to be due,
directly or indirectly from historical documents and regarded as however, to lack of testimony based on first-hand observation
credible after careful testing in accordance with the canons of rather than to disagreement among the witnesses. In general,
historical method (see below p. 150). An infinity and a multiple on simple and concrete matters where testimony can usually be
variety of facts of this kind are accepted by all historian: e.g., submitted to tests of reliability that will be convincing either
that Socrates really existed; that Alexander invaded India; that pro or con to most competent and impartial historians. As soon
the Romans built the Pantheon; that the Chinese have an as abstractions, value judgments, generalizations,
ancient literature (but here we introduce a complexity with the generalizations, and other complexities enter into testimony the
word ancient, which needs definition before its factual quality possibility of contradiction and debate enters with them.
can be considered certain); that Pope Innocent III ex- Hence, alongside the multitude of facts generally accepted by
communicated King John of England; that Michelangelo historians, exists another multitude debated (or at least
sculptured “Moses”; that Bismarck modified the dispatch from debatable) by them.
Ems of King William’s secretary; that banks in the United
States in 1933 were closed for four days by presidential The Interrogative Hypothesis
proclamation; and that “the Yankees” won the “World Series” In analyzing a document for its isolated “facts,” the historian
in 1949. Simple and fully attested “facts” of this kind are rarely should approach it with a question or a set of questions in
disputed. They are easily observed, easily recorded (if not self- mind. The questions may be relatively noncommittal. (E.g.:
evident, like the Phanteon and Chinese literature), involve no Did Saul try to assassinate David? What were the details of
judgments of value (except Catiline’s life? Who were the crusading companions of
Tancred? What was
THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 141

with regard to the antiquity of Chinese literature), contradict
no other knowledge available to us, seem otherwise logically the date of Erasmus’ birth? How many men were aboard De
acceptable, and avoiding generalization, deal with single Grasse’s fleet in 1781? What is the correct spelling of Sieyes?
instances. Was Hung Hsui-chu’an a Christian?) It will be noted that one
Even some apparently simple and concrete statements, cannot ask even simple questions like these without knowing
however, are subject to question. If no one disputes the enough about some problem in history to ask question about it,
historicity of Socrates, there is less agreement regarding Moses and if one knows enough to ask even the simplest question, one
and earlier figures of Hebrew folklore. If no one doubts that already has some idea and probably some hypothesis regarding
Michelangelo sculptured his “Moses,” a few still think that it, whether implicit or explicit, whether tentative and flexible or
Shakespeare’s plays were in fact written by Francis Bacon. formulated and fixed. Or the hypothesis may be full- fledged,
though still implicit and in interrogative form. (E.g.: Can the even false or mistaken testimony has relevance to an
Jews be held responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus? Did the understanding of one’s problem.
medieval city develop from the fair? Why did the Anabaptists
believe in religious liberty? How did participation in the Having accumulated his notes, the investigator must now
American Revolution contribute to the spread of liberal ideas separate the credible from the incredible. Even from his
among the French aristocracy? Why did Woodrow Wilson “notes” he has sometimes to extract still smaller details, for
deny knowledge of the “secret treaties”?) in each of these even a single name may reveal a companion of Tancred, a
questions a certain implication is assumed to be true and single letter the correct spelling of Sieyes, a single digit the
further clarification of it is sought on an additional working exact number of De Grasse’s crew, or a single phrase the
assumption. motives of Wilson’s denial. In detailed investigations few
documents are significant as a whole; they serve most often
Putting the hypothesis in the interrogative form is more only as mines from which to extract historical ore. Each bit of
judicious than putting it in declarative form if for no other ore, however, may contain flaws of its own. The general
reason than that it is more noncommittal before all the reliability of an author, in other words, has significance only as
evidence has been examined. It may also help in some small establishing the probable credibility of his particular
way to solve the delicate problem of relevance of subject matter statements. From that process of scrupulous analysis emerges
(see Chapter X below), since only those materials are relevant an important general rule: for each particular of a document
which lead directly to an answer to the question or indicate that the process of establishing credibility should be separately
there is no satisfactory answer. undertaken regardless of the general credibility of the author.
THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 143 Identification of Author

The Quest for Particular Details of Testimony As he already been pointed out (p. 138), some identification of
the author is necessary to test a document’s authenticity. In the
As has already been pointed out, every historical subject has subsequent process of determining the credibility of its
four aspects – the biographical, the geographical the particulars, even the most genuine of documents should be
chronological, and the occupational or functional. With a set regarded as guilty of deceit until proven innocent. The
of names, dates, and key-words in mind for each of these importance of first establishing the author’s general reliability is
aspects, the historical investigator combs his documents for therefore obvious. Where the name of the author can be
relevant particulars (or “notes,” as he is more likely to call determined and he is a person about whom biographical data
them). It is generally wise to take notes on relevant matter are available, identification is a relatively every task. Because,
whether or not it at first appears credible. It may turn out that
in most legal and social science investigations, the witness or fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense,
the author of a document is personally known and available to we cannot dedicate – we cannot consecrate – we cannot hallow
the investigator, that question generally presents no – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled
insurmountable difficulties to lawyers and social scientists. here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or
detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we
The historian, however, is frequently obliged to use documents say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us
written by persons about whom nothing or relatively little is the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work
known. Even the hundreds of biographical dictionaries and which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It
encyclopedias already in existence may be of no help because is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining
the author’s name is unknown or, if known, not to be found in before us, - that from these honored dead we take increased
the reference works. The historian must therefore depend upon devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure
the document itself to teach him what it can about the author. of devotion – that we here highly resolve that these dead shall
A single brief document may teach him much if he asks the not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall have
right questions. It may, of course, contain explicit biographical a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people,
details, but to assume that would be begging the question. Even by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
where it is relatively free from first-person allusions much may
be learned of the author’s mental processes and personal
attitudes from it alone.

Even a hasty examination will suffice to make clear that the
Let us take the usual text of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, and author, at the time of writing, was planning to use it as a speech
assume for the sake of example that we have no knowledge of it (“we are met.” “what we say here”), that he wrote English well,
except for what its own contents may reveal: that his address was a funeral oration (“we have to come to
dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place”), that he
Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this was probably a prominent citizen, that he presumably was an
continent a new nation, conceive in liberty, and dedicated to American (“our fathers,” “this continent,” “new nation,” “four
the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are score and seven years ago”), that he was an advocate of liberty
engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any and equality (or at least desired his hearers to think so), that be
nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are lived during the American Civil War, that he was speaking at
met in a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate Gettysburg, or possibly Vicksburg (“great battlefield,” “four
a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who score and seven years ago”), and that he wanted his side in the
here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether war to be thought of as fighting for democracy (“government of
the people, by the people, and for the people”). If we forget the within the document itself. If the date 1863 were not implicit in
controversy among historians as to whether the words under the Gettysburg Address, other references within the speech
God were actually delivered or were only afterward inserted, could point obviously to the beginning of the American Civil
we may assume that he subscribed, or wished to appear to War as its terminus non ante quem, and since the war was
subscribe, to the belief in a Supreme Being. obviously still going on when the document was composed, its
terminus non post quem would be the end of the Civil War.
From a short document, it would thus appear, it is possible to Hence its date could be fixed approximately, even if the first
learn much about the author without knowing who he was. In sentence had been lost, as somewhere between 1861 and
the case of the Gettysburg Address a trained historian would 1865;and if we were enabled by other data to guess at “the
probably soon detect Lincoln’s authorship, if it were unknown. great battlefield,” we might even narrow that margin. Some
But even if he had never heard of Lincoln, he would be able to documents might not permit even a remote guess of their
tell that, in attempting to judge the truth of the particulars termini, but where the author is known, one has at least the
stated in that address, he would have to consider it as probably dates of his birth and date to go by.
a public exhortation by a prominent antislavery Northerner
after a major victory over the Confederate States in the
American Civil War. Many documents, being less modest and
less economical of
The Personal Equation

This analysis of the Gettysburg Address (under the false
words than the Gettysburg Address, give their authors away
assumption that its authorship is unknown) indicates the type of
more readily.
question the historian asks of both anonymous and avowed
Determination of Approximately Date documents. Was the author an eyewitness of the events he
narrates? If not, what were his sources of information? When
It would be relatively easy, even if the Gettysburg Address were did he write the document? How much time elapsed between
a totally strange document, to establish its approximately date. the event and the record? What was his purpose in writing or
It was obviously compose “four score and seven years” after the speaking? Who were his audience and why? Such questions
Declaration of Independence, hence in 1863. But few strange enable the historian to answer the still more important
documents are so easily dated. One has frequently to resort to question: Was the author of the document able to tell the truth;
the conjectures known to the historian as the terminus non ante and if able, was he willing to do so? The ability and the
quem (“the point not before which”) and the terminus non post willingness of a witness to give dependable testimony are
quem (“the point not after which”). These termini, or points, determined by a number of factors in his personality and social
have to be established by internal evidence – by clues given situation that together are sometimes called his “personal
equation,” a term applied to the correction required in testimony in its favor and if the other side presents all the
astronomical observations to allow for the habitual inaccuracy permissible testimony in its, the truth
of individual observers. The personal equation of a historian is 3 Wigmore, p. 181.
sometimes also called his “frame of reference,” but it probably
will be found more expedient to restrict the latter term to his 4 Ibid., pp.238-25
conscious philosophy or philosophies of life in so far as they can 5 Ibid., pp. 125-34 and 354-60.
be divorced from personality traits and biases of which he may 6 Preliminary Treatise on Evidence at the Common Law (Boston, 1896), pp. 3-4.
or may not be aware.
will emerge plainly enough for judge and jury from the conflict
General Rules or harmony of the testimony, even if some kinds of testimony
In a law of court it is frequently assumed that all the testimony are not permissible; and possibly where much and recent
of a witness, though under oath, is suspect if the opposing testimony is available, the innocent suffer less often by such an
lawyers can impugn his general character or by examination assumption than the guilty escape.
and cross-examination create doubt of his veracity in some
regard. Even in
The historian, however, is prosecutor, attorney for the defense,
modern law courts the old maxim falsus in uno, falsus in judge, and jury all in one. But as judge he rules out no evidence
omnibus tends to be overemphasized. In addition, hear-say whatever if it is relevant. To him any single detail of testimony
evidence is a general rule excluded; certain kinds of witnesses is credible – even if it is contained in a document obtained by
are “privileged” or “unqualified” and therefore are not obliged force or fraud, or is otherwise impeachable, or is based on
to testify or are kept from testifying; and evidence obtained by hearsay evidence, or is from an interested witness provided it
certain means regarded as transgressing the citizen’s right – can pass four tests:
such as “third degree,” drugs, wire-tapping, or lie-detector –
are ruled out of some courts. The legal system of evidence, says (1) Was the ultimate source of the detail (the primary
James Bradley Thayer, “is not concerned with nice definitions, witness) able to tell the truth?
or the exacter academic operations of the logical faculty. . . . Its (2) Was the primary witness willing to tell the truth?
rules . . . are seeking to determine, not what is or is not, in its (3) Is the primary witness accurately reported with regard
nature, probative, but rather, passing by that inquiry, what to the detail under examination?
among really probative matters, shall, nevertheless, for this or (4) Is there any independent corroboration of the detail
that practical reason, be excluded, and not even heard by the under examination?
jury.” Courts of law, in the Angolo-Saxon system at least, go on
Any detail (regardless of what the source or who the author)
the assumption that if one side presents all the permissible
that passes all four tests is credible historical evidence. It will
bear repetition that the primary witness and the detail are now march through the Thermopylae Pass even unopposed.
the subjects of examination, not the source as a whole. More recently by a similar computation doubt was
thrown upon the veracity of a newspaper report from
Ability to Tell the Truth Moscow that one million men, women, and children
(1) Ability to tell the truth rests in part upon the witness’s paraded through the Red Square in celebration of the
nearness to the event. Nearness is here used in both a thirty second anniversary of the October Revolution
geographical and a chronological sense. The reliability (November 7, 1949) in a five and one-half hour
of the witness’s testimony tends to vary in proportion to demonstration, for it would require more than fifty
(a) his own remoteness from the scene in time and persons a second to march abreast past a given point to
space, and (b) the remoteness from the event in time complete a parade of one million in five and one-half
and space of his recording of it. There are three steps in hours. With some notable exceptions, such as the
historical testimony: observation, recollection, and Domesday Book of William the Conqueror, historians
recording (not 152 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY
have been warned against using any source of number

THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 151 before the end of the Middle Ages. The careful keeping
of vital statistics was a relatively late innovation of the
to mention the historian’s own perception of the end of the eighteenth and the beginning of the
witness’s record). At each of these steps something of nineteenth century. Previous to that time tax rolls and
the possible testimony may be lost. Geographical as well incomplete parish records of baptisms, marriages, and
as chronological closeness to the event affects all three burials were the best indications. Even battle casualty
steps and helps to determine both how much will be lost statistics before the nineteenth century are suspect, and
and the accuracy of what is retained. historians still disagree on the cost in human life of wars
(2) Obviously all witnesses even if equally close to the event up to and including those of Napoleon I, and, in some
are not equally competent as witnesses. Competence instances, beyond.
depend upon degree of expertness, state of mental and (3) Degree of attention is also an important factor in the
physical health, age, education, memory, narrative skill, ability to tell the truth. A well-known story, no less
etc. The ability to estimate numbers is especially subject illustrative if it be apocryphal, tells of a psychology
to suspicion. The size of the army with which Xerxes professor who deliberately staged a fight in his
invaded Greece in 480 B.C. was said by Herodotus to classroom between two students, which led to a free-for-
have numbered 1,700,000, but it can be shown to have all. When peace was restored, the professor asked each
been considerably less by the simple computation of the member of the class to write an account of what had
length of time ;it would have taken that many men to happened. There were, of course, conflicting statements
among the accounts, but, what was most significant, no forcing all writers to tell about radicalism and
student had noticed that the professor in the midst of conservatism in their lives,” and who from those
the pandemonium had taken out a banana and had biographies almost (but fortunately not quite) came to
peeled and eaten it. Obviously the entire meaning of the conclusion that “radicalism-conservatism constitutes
the event rested upon the one of those first-order variables of which all
7 Letter of John E. Frazer, November 9, 1949, New York Times, November 15,
personalities are compounded.”
1949. (5) In the last instance the investigator barely
8 Seignobos, Methode historique appliquee aux sciences socailes, pp. 204-5. 9 Cf. Wigmore, pp. 147-50 and 160-2.
unnoticed act; it was an experiment in the psychology of 10 Allport, p. 137.

attention. Because each student’s interest had been fixed upon 154 UNDERSTAINDING HISTORY
THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 153 missed reasoning in a circle – form premise back to premise
his own part in the drama, each had given an erroneous again. It has been contended also that one of the reasons why
interpretation of what had occurred. Magicians similarly religious problems and events receive so much attention in the
depend upon their ability to divert attention from things they history of the Middle Ages is that its principal sources were
are doing to perpetrate some of their tricks. The common written by clergymen. If medieval architects, landowners,
human inability to see things clearly and whole makes even the soldiers, or merchant had written more, they might have asked
best of witnesses suspect. and answered different kinds of questions and given a different
picture of medieval life. Possibly, if the writings of our own
(4) We have already discussed the danger of the leading intellectuals should prove to be the major source for future
question (p. 104). Such questions, by implying the accounts of our age, future historians will be misled into
expected answer, make it difficult to tell the whole thinking that intellectuals had a greater influence upon human
truth. Lawyers also count the hypothetical question affairs in our time than they actually have. This sort of circular
(“Supposing you did agree with me, would you act as argument must be especially guarded against when an effort is
I?”), and the argumentative or “loaded” question being made to ascribe unsigned writings to a supposed author,
(“Have you stopped beating your wife?”), and the for it is easy to assume that the ideas of the writings are
coached answer as belonging to kindred categories. characteristics of the supposed author if those very articles are
Such questions are especially liable to be misleading if the basis of the assumptions regarding the author’s
they have to be answered “Yes” or “No.” Allport gives characteristics.
a striking illustration of the kind of misinformation that
can be derived from the witness whose narrative is (6) One almost inescapable shortcoming of the personal
circumscribed by the questioner. He mentions an document is its egocentrism. It is to be expected that
investigator who “secured fifty topical autobiographies, even a modest observer will tell what he himself heard
and what he himself did as if those details were the most untruthfulness and against which the experience of
important things that were said and done. Often it is mankind has armed lawyers, historians, and others who
impossible for him to tell his story in any other terms, deal with testimony.
since that is the only way he knows it. This observation 11 Cf. F. M. and H. D. Fling, Source Problems of the French Revolution (New
is more or less inevitable corollary of the caution with York, 1913), p. 129; cf. also pp. 123,139, 144, and 148
regard to attention dicussed above. The famous speech
12 Wigmore, pp. 176-90
of the Comte de Mirabeau after Louis XVI’s Royal
Session of June 23, 1789, provides a pat illustration of
how easily such egocentrism may mislead the historian.
Mirabeau (though speaking in the third person) told
how he had said something about the necessity of force:
“For we shall leave our seats only by the power of the (1) One of the most elementary rules in the analysis of
bayonet.” He failed to mention that several others were testimony is that which requires the exercise of the caution
expressing a similar determination at about the same against the interested witness. A witness’s interest is obvious
time, though probably in more moderate language. when he himself may benefit some one or more cause dear to
Therefore historians trusting too confidently to him. Certain kinds of propaganda are perhaps the worst
Mirabeau’s testimony have sometimes made him the example of deliberate perversion of truth out of desire to
heroic center of a desperate crisis; still it is more benefit a cause. In the seventeenth century the word
probable that he was not conspicuous or the situation so propaganda was applied to Catholic missionary work without
dramatic as he implied. disparagement. Since the nineteenth century, however, it has
been used more or less derogatorily to designate any kind of
In general, inability to tell the truth leads to errors of
concerted movement to persuade and the instruments of such
omission, rather than commission, because of lack of
persuasion. The word may be modern, but propaganda and its
completeness or lack of balance in observation, recollection,
methods have been familiar since efforts were first made to
or narrative. Such errors may give a picture that is out of
influence public opinion.
perspective because it subordinates or fails to include some
important things and over emphasizes those it does include. (2) Often the benefit to be derived from s perversion of the
Willingness to Tell the Truth truth is subtle and may not be realized by the witness himself. In
such a case the cause of prevarication probably is bias. If the
The historian also has to deal with documents whose witness’s bias is favorable to the subject of his testimony, it is
authors, though otherwise competent to tell the truth, frequently designated studium. If it is unfavorable, it may be
consciously or unconsciously tell falsehoods. There are designated odium or ira. The Latin words are derived from a
several conditions that tend especially toward declaration by Tacitus that he would write history sine ira et
studio (thereby setting a standard that few historians, including 13
Paul Harsin, Comment on ercit l’histoire (Paris, 1933; English adaptation,
Berskeley, 1935) contains an appendix that cites a number of other examples with
Tacitus, have been able to achieve). Studium and odium, bias critical analysis of their origin.
for and bias against, frequently depend upon the witness’s social
circumstances and may operate in a fashion of which he himself for private amusement, may feel tempted to state as fact what is
may not be aware. It becomes important to the historian to only hearsay or tradition or even fiction; and frequently
know what the witness’s Weltanschauung (or “frame of narrators and reporters (especially if they hope for large
reference”) may be, as well as his religion, political, social, audiences) seek to appear omniscient rather than to use the less
economic, racial, national, regional, local, family, personal, and vigorous word, the less striking phrase, the ifs and buts, the
other ties (or “personal equation”). Any of these factors may there-is-some-reason-to-believe and the it-is-perhaps-safe-to say
dictate predilection or a prejudice that will shade his testimony of more precise discourse.
with nuances that otherwise might have been absent.

(3) The intended hearers or readers of a document, it has
already been remarked (p. 90), play an important part in The anecdote is especially suspect. Much too often it is a
determining the truthfulness of a statement, the desire to please subsequent invention to throw into humorous or striking relief
or to displease may lead to the coloring or the avoidance of the some spectacular figure or episode. The more apposite the
truth. Speakers at political rallies and at banquets, writers of anecdote, the more dubious it is likely to be without
wartime dispatches and communiques, makers of polite letters corroboration. And yet the existence of an especially pat
and conversation are among the numerous producers of anecdote has a historical significance of its own --- as showing
documents that may subtly pervert fact for that reason. Akin to the sort of thing believed of or imputed to the subject. A well-
and often associated with interest and bias, which are often known Italian proverb describes sich anecdotes as felicitous (ben
socially determined, this motive is nevertheless different from trovato) even if untrue.
them, being usually personal and individual. It may occasionally
stand alone as an explanation of prevarication. (5) Laws and conventions sometimes oblige witnesses to
depart from strict veracity. The same laws of libel and of
(4) Literary style sometimes dictates the sacrifice of truth. good taste that have encouraged the hiding of the
Epigrams and --- notoriously --- slogans of ware and politics “resemblance to persons now living or dead” in fiction
(“L’etat c’est moi”; “Millions for defense but not one cent for and moving pictures have precluded complete accuracy
tribute”; “The Old Guard dies but never surrenders”),13 if in some works of history. Some of the notorious
properly discredited in the interests of accuracy and truthful inaccuracies of Jared Sparks as a historians were due to
reporting, would be robbed and pithiness and color. Authors of his writing of living characters from testimony by living
autobiographies and letters, especially when they write witnesses who requested him not to use certain data. 14
Etiquette in letters and conversation, conversations and not reading their letters, which are signed by a rubber stamp or
formalities in treaties and public documents require a secretary, may make it very difficult for future biographers to
politeness and express trace their itineraries.
Louis Gottschalk, Lafayette and the Close of the American Revolution
14
15
Carl Becker, Declaration of Independence (New York,1922), pp. 184-5.
(Chicago, 1942), p.252.
Bank checks, having the city of the bank’s location printed on
ions of esteem that are obviously false or empty. A successful them, may also prove misleading as to the signer;s whereabouts.
comedy, James Montgomery’s Nothing but the Truth (7) Expectations or anticipation frequently leads a witness
(1916), was written around the valiant effort of a young man astray. Those who count on revolutionaries to be bloodthirsty
to go through a whole day without saying anything that was and conservatives gentlemanly, those who expect the young to
untrue; it nearly cost him all his friends. Religious concepts be irreverent and the old crabbed, those who know Germans to
like the Christians Scientist’s interpretation of the ideas of be ruthless and Englishmen to lack humor generally find
evil, disease, and death may lead to misunderstanding. bloodthirsty revolutionaries and gentlemanly conservatives,
Corporations, commisions, and societies are sometimes irreverent youth and crabbed old-age, ruthless Germans and
required by their humorless Englishmen. A certain lack of precision is found in
such witnesses because their eyes and ears are closed to fair
observation; or because, seeking, they find; or because in
articles of incorporation ir constitutions to meet periodically, recollection, they tend
but when their numbers are small, the minute of their 160 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY
meetings may be much more formal than the actual settings.
to forget or to minimize examples that do not confirm their
(6) Closely akin to this catergory are the many instances of prejudices and hypotheses. (This sort of attitude is only a special
inexact dating of hsitorical documents because of the kind of bias and might be regarded merely as a subdivision of
conventions and the formalities involved. For example, the Paragraph 2 above.)
official text of the Declaration of Independence is dated “In
Congress, July 4, 1776’.” To the unwary reader it would appear * * *
that those who signed it were present and did so on that day. In Unwillingness to tell the truth, whether intentional or
fact, the formal signing took place on August 2, 1776, and some subconscious, leads to misstatements of fact more often than
members did not sign until a still later date.15 some medieval omissions of fact. When the same witness is both unable and
rulers used to date documents as of certain townd though they unwilling to tell the truth (as is mostly the case to some degree at
were not at those towns on dates indicated. The modern least), the historians has before him a document that commits
official’s and businessman’s habit of sending lettes on office errors both of omission and commission. Yet he must continue
stationery regardless of where they may be or of dictating but
to bear in mind that even the worst witness may occasionally tell be mistaken or to lie about them: viz., whether it rained
the truth and that it is the historian’s business to extract every last night, whether a prominent
iota of relevant truth, if he can. 16
Wigmore, pp.305-6
Conditions Favorable to Credibility
citizen was assasinated last Tuesfay, whether a famous bishop
Fortunately there are certain conditions especially favorable was a notorious philanderer, whether a well-known lord had the
to truthfulness, and the students of evidence easily recognize largest herd of sheep in the country, etc. Whenever the
them. They are frequently the reverse of the conditions that implications of such testimony suggest that such matters are
create an inability or an unwillingness to tell the truth. common knowledge – and especially when they are also
commonplaces – the absence of contrdictory evidence in other
(1) When the purport of a statement is a matter of sources may frequently be taken to be confirmation. For
indifference to the witness, he is likely to be unbiased. example, it is a commonplace that old soldiers are grumblers,
(2) More dependably, when a statement is prejudicial to a and, besides, many persons had a abundant chance to observe
witness, his dear ones, or his causes, it is likely to be this phenomenon in particular armies; hence we are prepared to
truthful. That is why confessions, if not forcibly extracted believe the tradition that many of Napoleon’s veterans were
and if deposed by those in good mental health, are grognards even on otherwise inadequate testimony. If that kind
considered excellent testimony, sometimes acceptable in of statement had been incorrectly reportes, it would in all
law courts without other direct testimony.16 The historians probability have been challenged by other contemporaries
must be careful, however, to make sure that the statement writing subsequently.
really is
This process of reasoning rests, however, upom a sort of
argumentum ex silentio (“Silence gives consent”), and such can
THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILTY 161
easily be abused. Care must be taken to ascertain whether,
considered by the witness to be prejudicial to himself. Cases like though
that Charles IX’s claim of responsibility for the St. Bartholomew 162 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY
Massacre, Bismarck’s satisfaction with his revision of the Ems
dispatch, and ex-Nazis’ or ex-Communists’ contrition over apparently commonly known or commonplace, the matter
youthful errors come all too readily to mind. In such cases the under examination was in fact so regarded by other
deponent may be engaged in a subtle and perhaps unconscious contemporaries, and whether they ever had a chance to learn of
form a self-pity or even of boasting rather than in confession, and to contrdict the earlier testimony. In times of panic, for
and other tests of trustworthiness must be sought. instance, it is easy to exaggerate the number of enemies of the
state, and the very existence of the panic may lead to silence on
(3) Often, too, facts are so well-known, so much matters if the part of those who do not share it. Where, on the other hand,
common knowledge, that the witness would be unlikely to
there is any reason to believe a matter extraordinary, though incidental and the probable. Such a statement in a propaganda
commonly known, the argument from silence would work the leaflet as: “Our aitcraft easily overcome the enemy’s,” would be,
other way: the very fact that a statement of something without be confirmation from more reliable sources, thoroughly
extraordinary was not corroborated in other sources that might suspect with regard to the inferiotity of the enemy. Yet it may be
have been expected to mention it would render it suspect. The taken at its face value as evidence that the enemy have airplanes
ambivalence of the argumentum ex silentio makes it a weak test (especially since it is not only incidental and probable but also
for most purposes. It is not the silence of other possible witnesses contraty to interest in that regard). And the statement may also
but whether an event was considered commonplace or have some value as evidence that “we” have airplanes (though
extraordinary that lends credibility to or removes credibility that value is not as great as if the evidence were here also
from single statements on matters of common knowledge. contratry to interest). When in a war or a diplomatic
controversy one side takes the trouble to deny the propaganda
(4) Even when the fact in questions may not be well-known, of the other, neither the propaganda nor the denial may be
certain kinds of statements are both incidental and certified thereby, but it becomes clear that the propaganda has
probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems seemed worthy of some attention to the other side.
unlikely. If an ancient inscription on road tells us that a (5) When the thought patterns and preconceptions of a
certain procunsul built that road while Augustus was witness are known and yet he states something out of
princeps, it may be doubted without further keeping with them – in other words, if statements are
corroboration that proconsul really built the road, but it contrary to the witness’s expectations or anticipations,
would be harder to doubt that the road was built during they have a high degree of credibility. Thus, a statement
the principate of Augustus. If an advertisement informs by a Soviet observer regarding instances of working-class
readers that “A and B Coffee may be bought at any contentment in a capitalist country or by a capitalist
reliable grocer’s at the unusual price of fifty cents a observer regarding instances of loyalty in a Soveit country
pound,” all the inferences of the advertisement may well would especially impressive.
be doubted without corroboration except that there is
brand of coffee in the market called “A and B Coffee.”
Although the opinion that “William Jones’ widow is a
more charming lady than Mrs.
THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 163 164 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY
Brown” may have no validity as testimony regarding the relative It must always be remebered that the skillful liar can sense these
merits of the two ladies, it is probably good evidence on the conditions favorable to credibility as well as most historians.
physical condition of William Jones. Hence he can manufacture an air of credibility that may easily
Even the boldest propaganda may be made to yield credible take in the unwary investigator. The existence of conditions
information by a careful application of the rule regarding the
favorable to credibility such as these must first be established statements? (2) Did the secondary witness accurately report the
and never taken for granted in any given instance. primary testimony as a whole? (3) If not, in what details did he
accurately report the primary testimony? Satisfactory answer to
be second and third questions may provide the historian with
the whole or the gist of the primary testimony upon which the
secondary witness may be his only means of knowledge. In such
cases the secondary source is the historian’s “original” source, in
the sense of being the “origin” of his knowledge. In so far as this
“original” source is an accurate report of primary testimony, he
tests its credibility as he would that of the primary testimony
itself.
Thus hearsey evidence would not be discarded by the historian
as it would be by law court, merely because it is hearsay. It is
unacceptable only in so far as it cannot be established as
accurate reporting of primary testimony. A single example will
perhaps suffice to make that clear. A White House
correspondent stating what the president had saidat a press
conference would be a primary source of information on the
THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILTY 165
president’s words.
Hearsay and Secondary Evidence
The historian, let us repeat, used primary (that is, eyewitness)
testimony whenever he can. When he can find no primary
witness, he uses the best secondary witness available. Unlike the The same correspondenttelling a presidential secretary’s version
lawyer, he wishes to discover as nearly possible what happened of what the president had said would be a secondary or hearsay
rather than who was at fault. If he sometimes has to make witness, and probably would be successfully chalenged in a
judgments, he does not have to pass sentence and hence he does courtroom; and yet if the correspondent were a skilled and
not have the same hesitation as a judge to permit evidence that honorable reporter and if the presidential secretary were
practice has ruled out of courtrooms. competent and honest, the correspondent’s account might be a
thouroughly accurate statement of what the president in fact
In cases where he uses secondary witnesses, however,he does not had said. Even the most punctilious historian might retain that
rely upon them fully. On the contrary, he asks: (1) On whose kind of evidence for further corroboration.
primary testimony does the secondary witness base his
Corroboration direct testimony, unless their outward manifestations are
A primary particular that has benn extractes from a sufficiently well understood to serve as a reliable idex. Even
document by the processes of external and internal criticism so when those inner experiences are known from the testimony of
far describes is not yet regarded as altogether established as others to whom the subject may have told them, they rest
historical fact. Although there is a strong presumption that it is ultimately upon his own powers of introspection. The
trustworthy, the general rule of historians (we shall soon note biographer is in this regard no better of than the psychologist –
exceptions, however) it is to accept as historical only those and worse off if his witness is dead and beyond interview. And
particulars which rest upon the independent testimony of two or all history is biographical in part. The biographer does,
more reliable witnesses.17 however, have one advanatge over the psychologist – he knows
The importance of the independence of the witnesses is what his subject is going to do next. He therefore can reason
obvious. from response to sensation, from act to motive, from effect to
17
Cf. e.g., Bernheim, pp. 1965-6 and 544: C. V. Langlois and C. Seignobos, cause. The completed behavior pattern may give confirmation
Introduction to the Study of History, tr. G. G. Berry (London, 1912), pp. 199-205.
to the biographer of the inward psychological processes of his
Independence is not, however, always easy to determine, as the subject.
controversy over the Synoptic Gospels well illustrates. Where
It follows, then, that for statements known or knowable only by
any two witnesses agree, it may be that they do so because they
a single witness, we are obliged to break the general rule
are testifying independently to an observe fact, but it is possible
requiring two independent and reliable witnesses for
that they agree only because one has been induly influenced by
corroboration. Hence we must look for other kinds of
the other, or because both have copied from or been unduly
corroboration. A man’s professed opinions or motives will seem
influenced by a third source. Unless the independence of the
more acceptable as his “honest” opinions or his “real” motives if
ebservers id established, agreement may be confirmation of a lie
they are not in keeping with the pattern of behavior that would
or of a mistake rather than corroboration of a fact.
be “fashionable” in the society in which he moved but at the
same time are in keeping with what otherwise is known of his
general character. The very silence (i.e., absence of
contradiction) of other contemporary
It frequently happens, however, especially in the more remote 168 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY
phases, of history, that diligent research fails to produce two
independent documents testifying to the same facts. It is also sources upon a matter appearing to be common knowledge may
evident that for many historical questions – the kind that would sometimes be a confirmation of it (see above, p. 162). In other
especially interest the student of biography – there often can be cases, a document’s general credibility may have to serve as
no more than one immediate witness. Of the emotions, ideals, corroboration. The reputation of the author for veracity, the
interests, sensations, impressions, private opinions, attitudes, lack of self-contradiction within the document, the absence of
drives, and motivesof an individual only that individual can give cotradiction by other sources, freedom from anachronisms, nd
the way the author’s testimony fits into the otherwise known historian would believe only that Cellini and his corroborators
facts help to determine that general credibility. saw things they thought were salamanders, devils, and halos.
General knowledge of how little effect a thumb in a hole in a
Conformity or agrement with other known historical or dyke would have upon preserving a dyke that had begun to
scientific facts is often the decisive test of evidence, whether of crumble would be sufficient to destroy credence in a well-known
one or of more witnesses. That legend, even if there had been any witnesses to that Dutch
18 Cf. F. H. Knight, “The sickness of Liberal Society,” Ethics, LVI (1946), 90-1 hero’s tale. Doubt can be thrown upon the told story that the
potato was introduced into Ireland by Sir Walter Raleigh and
hence to England by merely pointing to the fact that the Irish
potato is of a different variety from the English potato. What
little we know about the time sequence of cause and effect
induces us to believe that if notable contributions to
anthropology appeared before and around 1895, the birth of
modem anthropology cannot be said to be the result of the
publication of Darwin’s theory of evolution. And, for obvious
reasons, it is difficult to give much credence to a claim of virgin
birth recently made in an English divorce case.
Because the general credibility of a document can rarely be

greater than the credibility of the separate
19 W. H. McNeill, “The Introduction of the Potato into Ireland,” Journal of Modern
History, XXI (1949), 219.
20 Cf. F. J Teggart, Theory of History (New Haven, 1925), pp. 105-6.
Cellini saw fire-dwelling salamanders, devils, halos, and other 170 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY
supernatural phenomena would hardly seem credible to any
modern historian, even if Cellini were otherwise generally details in it, corroboration of the details of a witness’s testimony
truthful, consistent, and un-contradicted. And even of Cellini’s by his general credibility is weak corroboration at best. Likewise
statements were confirmed by independent witnesses, the the argumentum ex silentio and conformity or agreement with
other known facts may be misleading. They are in the nature of
circumstantial evidence, the weakness of which any reader of the more recent the period of study, the more difficult it
court proceedings and detective stories knows. While, in the becomes to say something that will remain long unchallenged;
cases under discussion, these tests are proposed only for for both the intensity of controversy and the likelihood of a new
confirmation of the direct testimony of one witness and not as approach tend to increase with the proximity in time to one’s
exclusive sources of evidence, their circumstantial or own day. Thus a greater degree of consensus and certitude may
presumptive nature renders them suspect even for that purpose. easily exist among historians where the testimony is lacking than
Hence historians usually insist that particulars which rest on a where it is full. Perhaps nothing provides more eloquent proof
single witness’s testimony should be so designated. They should than this that the historian’s “truth” are derived from analytical
be labeled by such tags as: “Thucydides says,” “Plutarch is our evaluations of an object called “sources” rather than of an object
authority for the statement that,” “according to Suidas,” “in the called “the actual past.”
words of Erasmus,” “if Boswell is to be believed,” etc.
Certitude vs. Certainty
Since such precautions are not always taken and these single-
witness statements are not always treated as probanda capable
only of a lower order of proof, a curious paradox results. For
early many periods of history, less disagreement is found among
the sources, because there are fewer sources, than for more
recent periods. On what happened one or two thousand years
ago, despite the steady increase in archeological, epigraphical,
papyrological, and paleographical materials, the sources are few,
fairly generally available and known, and the contradictions
among them relatively familiar if not always reconciled. On
what happened last year, the sources are many and not always
known, and the contradictions among them not yet familiar or
reconciled. It is easier, among the enormous collections of little
exploited or totally untapped materials or happenings of recent
periods to find something unknown to describe or to interpret a

familiar story on the basis of hitherto unused documents than to
do either for events of remote periods. Hence, as a general rule

Understanding History by Gottschalk, Louis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding History by Gottschalk, Louis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Understanding History by Gottschalk, Louis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C H A P T E R III

WHAT ARE THE “HISTORY” AND “HISTORICAL

Historical Knowledge Limited

For the same reason the term personal document is to

as upon the subjects the authors were trying to expound.

“HISTORY” AND “HISTORICAL SOURCES” 61

significance may have a greater relationship to the intention of

138 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY

18 The meaning of Human History (La Salle, III., 1947), p. 28.

[139] In other words, the historian establishes verisimilitude rather

THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 141

144 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY

THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 143 Identification of Author

146 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY

The Personal Equation

have been warned against using any source of number

unnoticed act; it was an experiment in the psychology of 10 Allport, p. 137.

THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 157

Because the general credibility of a document can rarely be

20 Cf. F. J Teggart, Theory of History (New Haven, 1925), pp. 105-6.

THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 169

Certitude vs. Certainty

THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 171

periods to find something unknown to describe or to interpret a

You might also like