GOTTSCHALK , LOUIS. (1464). Understanding history = & primer of istoricgl_ oe » New York A.A, KinopFs tat] CHAPTER IIT WHAT ARE “HISTORY” AND “HISTORICAL SOURCES”? The Meaning of “History” ‘Tux Exist word history is derived from the Greck noun leropic, meaning learning. Asused by the Greek philosopher Aristotle, history meant a systematic ac- count of a set of natural phenomena, whether or not chronological ordering was a factor in the account; and that usage, though rare, still prevails in English in the phrase natural history. In the course of time, however, the equivalent Latin word scientia (English, scierice) came to be used more regularly to designate non-chronological systematic accounts of natural phe- nomena; and the word histary wat reserved usually for accounts of phenomena (especially human af- fairs) in chronological order. By its most common definition, the word history now means “the past of mankind.” Compare the Ger- man word for history — Geschichte, which is derived from geschehen, meaning to happen. Geschichte is that which kas happened. This meaning of the word history is often encountered in such overworked phrases as “all history teaches” or “the lessons of his- toy.” — “TE 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* gpecomes a_goal they know full Zscgnla if [| Hy 2 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY call, Even those who are blessed with the best mem- oties cannot re-create theit own past, since in the life of all men there must be events, persons, words, thoughts, places, and fancies that made no impression at all at the time they occurred, or have since been forgotten. A fortiori, the experience of a generation Jong dead, most of whom left no records or whose records, if they exist, have never been disturbed by ‘he historian’s touch, is beyond the possibility of total ‘fecollection, The reconstruction of the total_past of mankind, althongh itis the goal_of historians, thus well is, in Able, “Objectivity” and “Subjectivity” Sometimes objects like ruins, parchments, and coins survive {rom the past. Otherwise, the facts of history are derived from testimony and therefore are facts of They can ard, or meaning. They cannot be seen, felt, tasted, heard, nell ‘They may be said to be symbolic or repre- sentative of something that once was seal, but they have Tio objective reality of their own. In other words, they exist only in the observer's or historian’s mind (and thus may be called “subjective”). To be studied objectively (that is, with the intention of acquiring detached and truthful knowledge independent of cone’s personal reactions), a thing must fist be an ob- have an dependent existence le ind. Recollections, however, do not have existence outside the human mind; and most of his- tory is based upon recollections — that is, written or spoken testimony. “gustony” AND “‘sustonicaL sources” 43 A vulgar prejudice exists against “subjective” knowl. edge as inferior to “objective” knowledge, largely be cause the word “subjective” has also come to mean “illusory” or “based upon personal considerations,” and hence either “untrue” or “biased.” Knowledge may be acquired, however, by an impartial and judi- cially detached investigation of mental images, pro- cesses, concepts, and precepts that are one or more steps removed from objective reality. Impartiality and “objectivity,” to be sure, may be more difficult to ob- tain from such data, and hence conclusions based upon them may be more debatable; but such data and conclusions, if true, aze not necessarily inferior to other kinds of knowledge per se. The word subjec- tive is not _used here to imply disparagement_of any tion of special kinds of safeguards against error, Fiebees Artifacts as Sources of History “77 Only where relies of human happenings can bé found—a potshérd, a coin, a rain, a_manuscript, a book, a portrait, a stamp, a piece of wreckage, a strand of hair, or other archeological or anthropologicat ie- mains —do we have objects other than words that the historian can study. These objects, however, are never the happenings or the events themselves. If attic facts, they are the results of events; if written docu- iments, they may be the results or the records of events Whether artifacts or documents, they are raw ma- terials out of which history may be written, To be sure, certain historical truths can be derived immediately from such materials. The historian can oi“ UNDERSTANDING HISTORY discover that a piece of pottery was handwrought, that a building was made of moztared brick, that a manu- seript was written in a cursive hand, that a painting was done in oils, that sanitary plumbing was known in an old city, and many other such data from direct observation of artifacts surviving from the past, But ° such fats, important though they aie age BOLT sence oF the study of history. The historian deals with the dynamic or genetic (the becoming) as well as the static (the being or the become) and he aims at being interpretative (explaining why and how things hap- pened and were interrelated) as well as_descriptive (telling what happened, when and where, and who took part). Besides, such descriptive data as can be derived directly and immediately from surviving arti- facts are only a small part of the periods to which they belong. A historical context can be given fo tern aby if they can Be placed in a human setting. That human ‘beings Tived in the brick building with sanitary plumb- ing, ate out of the handwrought pottery, and admired the oil painting that were mentioned above might perhaps easily be inferred. But the inference may just as easily be mistaken, for the building might have been a stable, the piece of pottery might have been fiom a roof-tile, the painting might have been a hidden-away relic with no admirers whatsoever; and an infinity of other suppositions is possible, Without further evidence the human context of these artifacts can never be recaptured with any degree of certainty. “gistoRY” AND “HISTORICAL souRcES” 45 Historical Knowledge Limited by Incompleteness of the Records Unfortunately, for most of the past we not only have no further evidence of the human setting in which to place surviving artifacts; we do not even have the artifacts. Most human affairs happen with- out leaving vestiges or records of any kind behind them. The past, having happened, has perished for- ever with only occasional traces. To begin with, al- though the absolute number of historical writings is staggering, only a small part of what happened in the past was ever observed. A moment's reflection is suffi- cient to establish that fact. How much, for example, of what you do, say, or think is ever observed by any- one (including yourself)? Multiply your unobserved actions, thoughts, words, and physiological processes by 2,000,000,000, and you will get a rough estimate of the amount of unobserved luppenings that go on in the world all the time. And only a part of what was observed in the past was remembered by those who observed it; onlya part of what was remembered Sarecortet a_part_of what was recorded has survived; only a part of what has survived has come to the historians’ attention; only a part_of what has come to their attention is credible; only-a_part-of what is credible has been grasped; and only a part of what hhas_been_grasped_can be expounded or narrated by the_historian. The whole history of the past (what has been called history-as-actuality) can be known to him only through the surviving record of it (history-as- record), and most of history-as-record is only the sur-Sates 46 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY viving part of the recorded part of the remembered att of the observed part of that whole. Even when the record of the past is derived directly from archeo- logical or anthropological remains, they are yet only the scholars’ selected parts of the discovered parts of the chance survivals from the total past. In so far as the historian has an external object to study it is not the perished history that actually hap- pened (history-asactuality) but the surviving records of what happened (history-as-record). History can be told only from history-as-record; and history as told (spoken-or-written-history) is only the historians’ ex- Pressed part of the understood part of the credible Patt of the discovered part of history-as-record, Before the past is set forth by the historian, iti likely to have gone through eight separate steps at each of which Some of it has been lost; and there is no guarantee that what remains is the most important, the largest, the most valuable, the most representative, or the most enduring part. In other words the “object” that the historian studies is not only incomplete; itis markedly variable as records are lost or rediscovered. History as the Subjective Process of Re-creation From this probably inadequate remainder the his torian must do what he can to restore the total past of mankind, He has no way of doing it but in terms of his own experience, That experience, however, has taught him (1) that yesterday was different from to- day in some ways as well as the same as today in “qustory” AND “‘iisroricat sources” 47 others, and (2) that his own experience is both like and unlike other men’s, It is not alone his own mem- ories interpreted in the light of his own experience that he must try to apply to the understanding of historical survivals; it i the memories of many other people as well. But one’s own memories are abstract images, not realities, and one’s reconstructions of ‘others’ memories, even when reinforced by contem- porary records and relics, are likely to be even more abstract. Thus the utmost the historian can grasp of history-asactuality, no matter how real it may have seemed while it was happening, can be nothing more than a mental image or a series of mental images based upon an application of his own experience, real and vicarious, to part of a part of a part of a part of a part of a part of a part of a part of a vanished whole. Tn short, the historian’s aim is verisimilitude with regard to a perished past—a subjective process — rather than experimental certainty with regard to an objective reality. He tries to get as close an approxima- tion to the truth“abont_the_past_as constant _comrec- tion of his mental images will allow, at the same time recognizing that that truth has in fact eluded hi forever. Here is the essential difference between the study of man’s past and of man’s physical environ- ment. Physics, for example, has an extrinsic and whole object to study —the physical universe—that does not change because the physicist 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 togetherRae 8 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY make up the total object that the historian is study- ing — the past of mankind —and that object, having largely disappeared, exists only in as far as his always incomplete and frequently changing understanding of it can re-create it. Some of the natural scientists, such as geologists and paleozoologists, in so far as the objects they study are traces from a perished past, greatly resemble historians in this regard, but differ from them, on the other hand, in so far as historians have to deal with human testimony as well as physical traces. ‘Once the historian understands his predicament, his task is simplified. His responsibility shifts from the obligation to acquire a complete knowledge of thecntecoverble past by iacana of the sarviving ev dence to that aE eereatag a veisimilir image of ig a verisimilar image of as much of the past as the evidence makes recoverable. ‘The Tatter task is the easier one. For the historian history becomes only that part of the human past which can be meaningfully reconstructed from the available records and from inferences regarding their Setting. Historical Method and Historiography Defined ‘The process of critically examining and_analyzing the records and survivals of the past is here called ‘Historical method. The imaginative reconstruction of the past from the data derived by that process is called historiography (the writing of history). By means ol historical method and historiography (both of which are frequently grouped together simply as historical “uistory” AND “sisroRrcaL sources” 49 method)? the historian endeavors to reconstruct as uch of the past of mankind as he can. Even in this Jimited effort, however, the historian is handicapped. He rarely can tell the story even of a part of the past “as it actually oceurzed,” although the great Ger- man historian Leopold von Ranke enjoined him to do so, because in addition to the probable incomplete- ness of the zecords, he is faced with the inadequacy of the human imagination and of human speech for such an “actual” re-creation. But he can endeavor, to use a geometrician’s phrase, to approach the actual past “as a limit.” For the past conceived of as something that “actually occurred” places obvious limits upon the kinds of record and of imagination that he may use, He must be sure that his records really come from the past and are in fact what they seem to_be and that his imagination is directed toward re-creation arid not creation. These limits distinguish history from fiction, poetzy, drama, and tantasy. Imagination in Historiography The historian is not permitted to imagine things that could not reasonably have happened, For certain purposes that we shall later examine he may imagine * Some confusion aries from the we of the term itovzst rethod by practitioners in other dips (econamics’ and the ‘ology especially) to mean the application of historical data and iMlus- trations to tele problems. Tk il simplify ove discussion to restrict {he tum lg the method by wich ions fetinony aarzd ‘Sc enthentie and -relible Has ‘Courses by Ristorians ia “historical sielied?” Towever, generally indude not only instaction in such nals but also the syuthesteng of such date into eeliable historical ‘xpoitions and narcalives.50 things that might have happened. But he is frequently required to imagine things that must have happened. For the exercise of the imagination in history it is impossible to lay down rules except very general ones. It is a platitude that the historian who knows con- temporary life best_will_nnderstand_past_life_hest. Since the human mentality has not changed notice- 4 ably in historic times, present generations can under- stand past generations in terms of their own experi- \ ence. Those historians can make the best analogies and contrasts who have -the greatest awareness of possible analogies and contrasts — that is, the widest i range of experience, imagination, wisdom, and knowl- edge. Unfortunately, no platitude tells how to acquire a wide range of those desizable qualities and knowl- edge or how to transfer them to an understanding of the past. For they are not accumulated alone by pre- cept or example, industry and prayer, though all of : these may help. And so historiography,* the syrthesiz- ; ing of historical data into narrative or expositions by writing history books and articles or delivering history lectures, is not easily made the subject of rules and ; regulations. Some room must be left for native talent i and inspiration, and pethaps that is a good thing. But since precepts and examples may help, an effort willl be made (see especially Chapters VII-XII) to set forth a few of them, [UNDERSTANDING HISTORY + Confusion arses ere too from the fact that itoring is sometimes used to mean the citical exrmination of story books already waite, 3, for example, in elle coures on *hitor ogaphy.” “wastory” AND “HISTORICAL soURcES” 51 History of Historical Method Historical method, however, not only can be made the subject of rules and regulations; for over two thou: sand years it has been. Thucydides, who in the fifth century 8.6. wrote his famous history of the Pelopon- nesian War, conscientiously told _his readers how he gathered his materials and what tests he used to sepa- rate_truth ftom fiction. Even when he invented speeches to put into the mouths of contemporaries, he tried to make them as like the originals as ais sources of knowledge permitted. He hoped to conform both to the spirit of the speaker and the letter of the speech; but since stenographic reports were nat avail- able, he had sometimes to supply the speaker's words, “expressed as T thought he would be likely to express them,” * Since Thucydides’ day, many historians have writ- ten, briefly or at Iongth, upon historical method. Out- standing examples are Lucian, Ibn Khaldun, Bodin, Mably, Voltaire, and Kanke, though sometimes their studies have dealt with the scope rather than the tech- niques of history. With Exnst Bernheim’s Lehrbuch der historischen Methode und der Geschichtsphiloso- phie (1st ed., Leipzig, 1889), the modern and mere academic discussion of the subject may be said to have begun. Since Bernheim’s exposition a number of other textbooks have been published. Although none of them surpass his masterpiece, peculiar merits in- tended for patticular kinds of readers are found in © Thucydides Tronslated into English by Benjamin Jowett, T (Oxford, 2900), 26 (BK. I 22).52 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY : some. Notable examples are the Langlois and Seigno- ! ‘bos volume for Frenchmen; the Johnson and the Nevins volumes for Americans; the Harsin and the Kent booklets for younger students; and the Wolf, the Hockett, and the Bloch and Renouvin books for i students of specialized fields of history. In_all of these works and literally dozens of others i like them there i a stiking degree of unanimity te- | carding the methods of historical analysis. For our purposes these methods will be considered under four | tel hes (2) the selection of a subject for investiga ‘ tion; (2) the ‘collection of probable sources of in- andy formation on that subject; (3) the examination of those_s¢ for genuineness (either in whole or in tae eee ihaoben ‘the sources (or pais GF sources) proved genu- ‘The synthesis of the particulars thus derived is je Cachistoriography, about which there is less unanimity ad among the textbooks. For purposes of clarity we shall an elehave to treat analysis and syathesis as if they were ‘ gnu discrete processes, but we shall see that at various oo stages they cannot be entirely sepatated, Sources ‘The historian's problems in choosing a subject and collecting information upon it (the latter sometimes i dignified by the Greek name of heuristics) will be dis | cussed in Chapter IV. Historical heuristics do not dif- i fer essentially from any other bibliographical exercise in So far as printed Books are concemed. The historian, however, has to_use many materials that are not in a books. Where these are archeological, epigtaphical, “gastory” AND “HISTORICAL souxcEs” 53 ‘or numismatical materials, he has to depend largely on museums. Where they are official records, he may have to search for them in archives, courthouses, gavem- mental libraries, ete. Where they are private papers not available in official collections, he may have to hunt among the papers of business houses, the muni- ment rooms of ancient castles, the prized possessions of autograph collectors, the records of parish churches, ete, Having some subject in mind, with more or less definite delimitation of the persons, areas, times, and functions (ie., the economic, political, intellectual, diplomatic, or other occupational aspects) involved, he looks for materials that may have some bearing upon those persons in that area at that time functicn- ing in that fashion. These materials are his sources. ‘The more precise his delimitations of persons, area, time, and function, the more relevant his sources are likely to be (see Chapter X). The Distinction between Primary and Other Original Sources ‘Written and oral sources are divided into two kinds: primary and secondary. A primary source is the testi- mony of an eyewitness, or of a witness by any other of the senses, or of a. mechan a which was present phone — that is, of one wh¢ at Bie events of which he or it tells (hereafter called simply eyewitness). A secondary source isthe testi. ‘mony of anyone who is not an eyewitness — that is, of one who Was Ti6t present at the.« fw tells. A primary source must thus have been produced by a contemporary of the events it narrates. 1 rr' 54 4 not, however, need to be original in the legal sense of the word original ‘that is, the very document (usu- ally the first written draft) whose contents are the subject of discussion — for quite often a later copy or a printed edition will do just as well; and in the case bt of the Greek and Roman classics seldom are any but later copies available. “Original” is a word of so many different meanings that it would have been better to avoid it in precise 2, of Mugen historical discourse. It can be, and frequently is, used i © to denote five different conditions of a document, all of which ax impotant tothe torian, A document | Drsete Tal be called “original” (1) because it contains fresk : And creative ideas, (2) ee it is not translated Cee from the language in which it was first written, (3) be- paved UNDERSTANDING HISTORY cause it is in its earliest, unpolished stage, (4) because its text is the approved text, unmodified and untam- Oar vaplyeel pered with, and (5) because it is the earliest available Oy, Source ofthe information it provides. These five mean- | geetze J ings of the word may overlap, but they are not syn- ‘onymous. — Unfortunately, the phrase “original sources” has be- Yprugeal come common among historians, and it is desirable to “define its usage accurately. It is best used by the his- ‘ {.[Link] in only two senses — (1) to describe a source, | Queg£F4 onpolished, oncopied, untranslated, as it issued from bi Zap the hands of the authors (eg,, the original draft of ik “%@ the Magna Carta) or (2) a source that gives the earli T ANE. est available information (i.¢,, the origin) regarding 5 the question under investigation becanse earlier sources sehaed ee 2 ides. 0G Joan W. Wigmore, Student's Tetbook of the Low of Evi il fone dence (Chistgo, 1935), BP. 235- “wisroay” AND “HisTosicAL sources” 55 have been lost (in the sense that Livy is an “original source” for some of our knowledge of the kings of Rome). In using the phrase historians are frequent] guilty of looseness. An effort will be made Buse it here only in the two senses just defined, reed wi rrapunnd Primary sources need not be original in either of "2 “SP these two ways. They need be “original” only in the {g-0 a7 sense of undorined or isthand as to their testimony. This point ought to be emphasized in order to avoid confusion between original sources and primary sources. The confusion arisés Kom a particularly care- less use of the word original. It is often used by his torians as a synonym for manuscript or archival. Yet a moment's reflexion will suffice to indicate that a manu- script source is no more likely to be primary than a printed source, and that it may be @ copy rather than the “original.” Even where it is a primary source, it, ‘may deal with a subject upon which earlier informa- tion is uheudy available, Heuce w uuanusctipt source is not necessarily “original” in either of the two relevant senses of that word, It should be remembered that the historian when analyzing sources is interested chiefly in particulars and that he asks of each particular whether it is based on first-hand or second-hand testi- mony. Hence it makes small difference to him whether a document is “original” in the sense of “as written by its actual author” or a copy, except in so far as such! originality may aid him to determine its author and, therefore whether it is primary or, if secondary, from what more independent testimony it is derived. Stu dents of history readily depend upon specialists in edi torial skills and archival techniques to publish collec-56 [UNDERSTANDING HISTORY tions of manuscripts and are willing to use them in printed form. Primary Particulars Rather than Whole Primary Sources Sought As has just been indicated, the historian is less con- cemed with a source as a whole than with the particu- lar data within that source, It is easy to conceive of a source essentially primary that will contain secondary (and therefore less usable) data. The general who writes a communiqué thereby provides a source that may be for the most part primary but for many details secondary, because he must necessarily depend upon his subordinates for information regarding much that he reports. The newspaper correspondent may, like ‘Aeneas, tell about things “all of which he saw and part of which he was” and yet may also have to depend upon “an official spokesman” or “a source usually con- sidered reliuble” fos suuse of his information. The careful historian will not use all the statements of such military communiqués or newspaper dispatches with equal confidence. On the other hand, should he find, as he frequently does, that # book that is essentially secondary (like a biography or even a work of fiction) contains, for example, personal letters or touches of directly observed local color, he may well use them as first-hand evidence if they are genuine and relevant. Sources, in other words, whether primary_or_sec- ondary, are important to the historian because they contain primary particulars (or at least suggest leads to primary particulars). The particulars they furnish “qistory” AND “HISTORICAL souncEs” 57 are trustworthy not because of the book or article or report they are in, but because of the reliability of the narrator as a witness of those particulars. This point ‘will be elaborated later (see pp. 139-44) ‘The Document ‘The word document (from docere, to teach) has also been used by historians in several senses, On the ‘one hand, it is sometimes used to mean a written source of historical information as contrasted with oral testimony or with artifacts, pictorial survivals, and archeological remains. On the other, it is sometimes reserved for only official and state papers such as trea- ties, laws, grants, deeds, etc. Still another sense is con- tained in the word documentation, which, as used by the historian among others, signifies any process of proof based upon any Had of souree whethez wat, oral, pictorial, or archeological. For the sake of clarity, it seems best to employ the word document in the last, the most comprehensive meaning, which is etymo- logically correct, using written document and official document. to designate the less comprehensive cate- gories. Thus document becomes synonymous with source, whether written or not, official or not, primary or not, The “Human” and the “Personal” Document ‘The human document has been defined as “an ac- count of individual experience which reveals the indi- Vidual’s actions as a human agent and as a participant58 [UNDERSTANDING HISTORY in social life.” * The [Link] has been de- fined as “any self-revealing record that intentionally or unintentionally yields information regarding the struc- ture, dynamics and functioning of the author's mental life.” * The first definition is by a sociologist and em- phasizes “experience . . . in social life” as an element of the human document. The second definition is by a psychologist and emphasizes “the author's mental life” as an element of the personal document. Yet the words human document and personal document have been used interchangeably.” ‘The two kinds of documents seem to have one essential characteristic in common; a human, personal reaction to the events with which they deal. To both sociologist and psychologist it is the T Hertet Blame, An Apprat!of Thomas ond Znaieck't ‘The Polish Pazant in Evsope and. America’ ("Critiques of Research in ‘he Social Scisnees,” Val. I, New York, 1939), . 29 “Gordan W. Allport, The Use of Peenal Documents in Poy chological Science (New York, Sais) Science Reexrch Counc 2941), Px ‘Robert Redfield, “Foreword” to Blume, p. vil, Cf Allpct, pp. avai. Allport say that forthe psychologist metheds of eraloa Eon difer foc first pecon and thd pemon documents. ‘They revelve found "toutes of matel, obsiver reality, and techniques of presentation.” For th historian, who 28 neal as posible its his mentary data to primary particulars, these ate likely to be quant tative tther than qualitative dftences. Tht isto, 2 participant ina battle wil probably have more numerous first-hand data to give than a newspaper corepondent (who, inidentally, may be les mis taken than the partcpnnt). Sil, « fustgeson account by 2 par tiipant i alucle, 25 evdence, only forthe pasticlars which that patient gives on fithand testimony or for leads to fist hand Testimony, anda third peron account ofthe seme butle by a news: utble, as evidence, ony for the same kind paper corespondent is Of data, Allport agres that “the fst-perton and third peso docu Ients . . both deal with the single ease and on this question wall stand of fall together.” See also Alport, pp. 19-20. “ntsroay” AND “‘wisToRIcAL sources” 59 degree of subjectivity in these documents that distin- guishes them from other documents. The best exam- ples * seem to be documents written in the first person = like autobiographies and letters —or documents written in the third person but describing human re. actions and attitudes — like newspaper accounts, court records, and records of social agencies. To the historian the difference between first-person and third-person documents is not of major signifi cance. That is true for at least three reasons. (1) Often an apparently third-person document is in fact first person (25, for example, the Mémoires of Lafayette or ‘The Education of Henry Adams). (2) Genuinely third-person documents in so far as they are “histor- icable” * must ultimately rest on first-hand observation (whether by the author or by someone consulted by the author).°* (3) Every document, no matter how thoroughly the author strove to be impartial and de- tached, must exhibit ta a greater or lesser extent the author's philosophies and emphases, likes and dislikes, and hence betrays the author's inner personality. Ed- ward Gibbon’s Decline and Fall of the Roman Em- pire, Johann Gustav Droysen's Geschichte Alexanders des Grossen or Hippolyte Taine’s French Revolution * Allport, p. a; Blumer, p29. # Thave hd to invent this word to designate “eapable of csitcal examination by the historian,” Flease note that itis not a synonjan foc true, reliable, or probable, but means only subject to inguiry os fo credibiity 19 See note 7 above, 1 Ct, Havelock Elis, Dance of Life (Boston, 1923), pp. 8-12, where the diferent interpretations of Napoleon by H. G. Wells and ‘Ble Faure are attributed to the diference between Wells and Faurees BT e TE 60 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY may be regarded as secondary, third-person accounts of remote history, or they may be (and indeed have been) " regarded as autobiographical writings of Gib- bon, Droysen, and Taine. Scholarly reviews of schol- arly books ought to be among the least likely places to hunt for personal reactions (except, as sometimes hap- pens with the best reviews, the reviewer deliberately sets out to present his own point of view); and yet how often private philosophies, attitudes, likes, and dislikes are unintentionally betrayed by the most sober reviewers! Whether a document is to be examined for what it reveals about its subject or for what it reveals about its author—whether, in other words, it is a third-person or a first-person document — thus de- pends upon the examiner's rather than the author's in- tention. For the same reason the term personal document is to the historian synonymous with the term Auman document, These terms were invented by social sci entists. 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 hu- man beings and shed light upon their authors as well 2 Ci. J. W, Swain, "Edward Gibbon and the Decline of Rome,” South Atlantic Quarterly, XXXIX (1949), 77-93: John R. Knipfing, “German Historane and Macedosian Lmperilise,” American His toried Review, XXXI (1921), 659-61; Louis Gottschalk, “French Revolution: Conspicaey or Civcumstance” in Persecution’ and Lib- ‘erty, Essays in Honor of George Lincoln Bure (New York, 1931), PP. 1445-52. OF. J. H. Randall and George Haines, “Controlling Assump. tions in the Practice of American Historians,” Merle Cuti et of, pp. 17-52, and H, K. Beale, "What Historians Have Said about the Causes of the Civil Wat,” Ibd., pp. 55-92. “sqistoRY” AND “HISTORICAL soURcES” 61 as upon the subjects the authors were trying to ex- ound, Sometimes, indeed, they betray the author's personality, private thoughts, and social life more te- Welingly an they ings he had under observation. Here, too, a document's significance may Have a greater relationship to the intention of the his- torian then to that of the author, Sometimes the his- torian may learn more about the author than the au- thor intended that he should. 4 GE. Allport, pp. 113-12, where the “unintentional pesonst ocoment” is ivcuned a etn Td cedin tlocel ot he ehntd s[us} CHAPTER VI THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY, OR EXTERNAL CRITICISM So far it has been assumed that the document with have ben authentic The problem of suthentoty seldom concerns the sociologist or psychologist or an. thropologist, who generally has a living subject under his eye, can see him as he prepares his autobiography, and can cross-examine him about doubtful points, Even in the law coutts the question of authenticity of documents becomes a difficult problem only on rare occasions, when the writer or witnesses to the writin, cannot be produced But for historical documents those occasions are notre. They ae infact Frequent ata led often for pred souroes keene at ally some skilled editor ha o task of authenticating them. ith te A Forged or Misleading Documents Forgeties of documents in whole or in part without being toul, are common enough to hee the cata istorian constantly on his guard, “Historical docu- ments” are fabricated for several reasons. Sometimes they are used to bolster a false claim or title, A well- known example is the Donation of Constantine, which 2» Wigmore, pp. 326-36 i 4 | | | ‘ ‘THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTION'Y 9 used to be cited on occasion to bolster a theory that the popes had a wide tercitoral claim in the west. In a4qo Lotenzo Valla proved, chiefly by means of an- achronisms of style and allusion, that it had been forged. At other times documents ate counterfeited for sale, Counterfeit letters of Queen Marie Antoinette used to turn up frequently.* A Philadelphia autograph dealer named Robert Spring once manufactured hun- dreds of skillful forgeries in order to supply the de- mand of collectors. A recent notorious example of forgery was the “correspondence” of Abraham Lincoln and Ann Rotledge, palmed off on the Atlantic Monthly in 1928. ‘Sometimes fabrication is due to less mercenary con- siderations. Political propaganda largely accounts for the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a “document” pre- tending to zeveal a ruthless Jewish conspiracy to rule the world.* Sometimes historical “facts” are based only ‘on some practical joke, as in the case of H. L. Meuck- ‘en's much cited atticle on the “history” of the bath- tub, or of Alexander Woollcott’s mocking letter of en- dorsement of Dorothy Parker's husband (of which he never sent the original to the supposed addressee, al- though he did send the carbon copy to the endorsee).* ‘The Mémoires of Madame d'Epinay are a striking ex T Loa Action, Lectures on the French Revolution (London, gio), 9. 3514. Pe PF Bch, An Appia! of the Protects of Zion (New York, 2942) TPE, MacDougall, Hoates (New York, 1940), pp. 302-9 Dowothy Parker reviewing A. Wooleots His Life and His World DPS 'HL Alum (Now York, 1995) ia the Chicago Sun Book Week of June 10, 2945:be UNDERSTANDING mistoRY ample of fabrication of a whole book that has beguiled even respectable historians. Sometimes quite genuine documents are intended to mislead certain contemporaries and hence have misled subsequent historians. A statement supposed to be that of Emperor Leopold Il’s views on the French Revolution misled Marie Antoinette and sub- sequently even the most careful historians until it was exposed in 1894 as a wishful statement of some French émigrés.* In days when spies were expected to open mail in the post, writers df letters would occa- sionally try to outwit them by tuning their curiosity to the advantage of the one spied upon rather than to that of the spy or his employer.? And when censors might condemn books to be burned and writers to be imprisoned, authors could hardly be blamed if they sometimes signed others’ names to their work. For in- stance, it is hatd to tell whether some works actually written by Voltaire are not still ascribed to others, It is thus possible to be too skeptical about a document which may be genuine though not what it seems. Bembeim has provided a list of documents that were once hypercritically considered unauthentic but are now accepted.* Perhaps it was hypercriticism of this © The “cheating document” is dicussed with a wealth of absorb ing detail in Allan Nevins, Gateway to History (Boston, 1938), ch. V, pp. 129-37. ' Acton, French Revolution, p. 119 1 CE, Lafayette to William Carmichael, March 10, 1785, quoted in Louis Gotschalk, Lofayette between the American and the French Revolution (Chicago, 1950), pp. 156-7 * Ent Beroheim, Leksbuch der kistonschen Methode und der Gesehieitphilosophie (6th ed; Leipzig, 1908), pp. 376-92. | ‘que PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY at ind that led Vincent Starrett to write his verse en- titled “After Much Striving for Fame’ Te wold be rather ol, oe Fee gencure mater of iterate or faith on vi Gown an ace pamphlet for yal post Vincetan borsowes Ina pertinacious footnote i f the nature of casionally mistepresentations o! ‘ ee works result from editors tricks. Te is a varnatter of dispute which of the many writings 2 ted to Cardinal Richelieu were in fact weitten ot dictated by him; and little of the so-called Méme‘ret de Jean de ‘Witt and ara politique oe ae ‘a fact written by John de Wit E “TES ctmoin atibutel to Condoret and to Webs, fosterbrother of Marie Antoinette, and pt ors ‘ribed to Napoleon I are by others tha Te Ston, Enen sues of ily nevpapes bare he fter the dates they ‘been manufactured long a caer Moniteur furnishes some good exampl a above). Several Diaries of Napoleon have bees ae up by others from his writings. ‘The Ca stances ofthe forgery or mirepresentation oF NSNOe ical documents may often themselves | mp tant politica, cultural, and biographical infomation ‘but not about the same events or persons as if they were genuine 7 Quoted by permission of Mr. Starett,= UNDERSTANDING HISTORY Tests of Authenticity To distinguish a hoax or a misrepresentation from a 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 docu- ment (see below pp. 138 and 147-8), he examines the ‘materials to see whether they are not anachronistic: paper was rare in Enrope before the fifteenth century, and printing was unknown; pencils did not exist there before the sixteenth century; typewriting was not in- vented until the nineteenth century; and India paper came only at the end of that century, The historian also examines the ink for signs of age or for anachto- nistic chemical composition. Making his best guess of the possible author of the document (see below pp. 244-7), he sees if he can identify the handwriting, signature, seal, lettethead, or watermark, Even when the handwriting is unfamiliar, it can be compared with authenticated specimens. One of the unfulélled needs of the historian is more of what the French call “isographies” — dictionaries of biography giving ex- amples of handwriting. For some periods of history, experts using techniques known as paleography and diplomatics, first systematized by Mabillon in the seventeenth century (see p. 127 below), have long known that in certain regions at certain times hand. writing and the style and form of official documents ‘were more or less conventionalized. Seals have been the subject of special study by sigillographers, and ex: perts can detect faked ones (see below, p. 128) Anachronistic style (idiom, orthography, or punctua- } | i | : i i ‘THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY 193 tion) ean be detected by specialist who ave familie with contemporary wsiting* Often spelling, partes: Taey of proper names and signatures (Decause too good or too bad ox anachronistic), reveals a forgery storie grammar. Anachronistic ref- delta evi (on sto tone ton ree) dating of a document at a time when the al- ioe weer ‘ould not possibly have been at the place designated (the alibi) uncovers fraud. omenel 7 skilful forger has all too carefully followed the best historical sours and his product becomes too obvi ously a copy in certain pasages or where by skilful paraphrase and invention, he i shrewd enough avoid detection in that fashion, he is given away by the absence of trivia and otherwise unknown deta! from his manufactured account." Usually, however, JE the document is where it ought to be—for ex: 's business Sere ase ia a goverment) Ba erences to events ample, in fiam’s or lawyer's papers, tal bu reauls records (but not merely because it is im a I brary or in an amateur’ auitograph collection) — its provenance (ot its custody, as the Tawyers call it), ‘ceates a presumption of its genuineness. NE tie ka Be Wego Lees fm Fach Si ie Cetera ttc ah Nine ie324 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY Garbled Documents ‘A document that in its entirety or in lange part i the replt ofa delete elec ty dase tay oe ‘be hard to evaluate, but it sometimes causes less trouble than does the document that is unauthentic only in small past. For such parts are usually the re- sult, not of studied falsehood, but of unintentional error. They occur most frequently in copies of docu- ments whose originals have disappeared, and are gener- ally due to that kind of error of omission, repetition, or addition with which anyone who has ever made copies soon becomes familiar. Sometimes they are the result, however, not of carelessness but of deliberate intention to modify, supplement; or continue the original, Such a change may be made in good faith in the first instance, care being exerted to indicate the differences between the original text and the glossary 2 continuations but future copyists ate often less caf or more confused and make no sich ditine ‘This problem is most familiar i gists and Bible cites For they ttdon have ogi less than eight centuries and several stages of oe duction removed from the original —that is to ca copies of copies of copies, and sometimes copies of ttanslations of copies of translations of copies, and so on. The philologists give to this problem of estab- lishing an accurate text the name textual criticism, sad in Biblia studies i ho called lower criticism, ¢ historian has borrowed lologists and Bible critics, a \ ‘THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY 18 The Restoration of Texts ‘The technique is complicated but can be briefly described, The first task is to collect as many copies of the dubious text as diligent search will reveal. Then they are compared. It is found that some contain swords or phrases ot whole passages that are not con- tained in others, The question then arises: Are those words, phrases or passages additions to the original text that have found their way into some copies, or are they omissions from the others? To answer that ques- tion it is necessary to divide the available copies into fone or more “families” — that is, groups of texts which closely resemble each other and therefore seem to be derived, directly or indisectly, from the same aster copy. Then by 2 comparison of the texts within ‘each family an effort is made to establish the com- parative age of each in relation to the others If the Fhembers of the same family are lagcly copied from each other, as this arrangement in families frequently Shows, the oldest one is in all probability (but not necessarily) the one nearest the original. This process is continued for all the families. When the copy near- est the original in each family is discovered, a com- ‘all of these “father” copies will usually parison of then reveal words and passages that are in some but not in others. Again the question arises: Are those ‘words and passages additions to the copies that have them or omissions from the copies that do not? The most accurate available wordings of the passages added or omitted by the respective copyists are then prepared, Changes in handwnitings, anachronisms in126 ‘UNDERSTANDING HISTORY style, grammar, orthography, 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 be attributed to the author, it is safe to assume that they were parts of his original manu- script but were omitted by later copyists; and when they cannot be attributed to the author, it is safe to assume that they were not parts of his original manu- script. In some cases, a final decision has to await the discovery of still more copies. In many instances the original text can be approximately or entirely restored. By a similar method one can even guess the con- tents, at least in part, of a “father” manuscript even when no full copy of it is in existence. The historian Wilhelm von Giesebrecht, a student of Ranke, at- tempted to reconstruct a text that he reasoned must be the ancestor of several eleventh-century chronicles in which he had noted stniking similarities. By adding together the passages that appeared to be “descended” from an unknown chronicle, he made a guess as to its contents. Overa quarter of a century later the ancestor chronicle was in fact found, and proved to be exten- sively like Giesebrecht’s guess. Sciences Auxiliary to History The problem of textual restoration does not fre- quently distarb the present-day historian, chiefly be- cause many experts, engaged in what the historian egocentrically calls “sciences auxiliary to history,” provide him with critically prepared texts. Since Jean Francois Champollion in 1822 learned to de- ‘THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY 1 cipher 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 Valley, whether in Egyp- tian hieroglyphic or in cursive hieratic and demotic or in Greek, The Assyriologists, since Sit Henry Rawlin- son in 1847 deciphered Old Persian cuneiform and in 1850 Babylonian cuneiform, have been publishing and translating the texts found on the clay tablets of the ancient TigrisEuphrates civilizations. Biblical criticism, even before Erasmus, was directed to the effort of bringing the text of both the Old and the New Testament 25 close as possible to the original wording and of explaining as fully as possible the Hebrew and Hellenistic civilizations which they re- flected. Philology, as already explained, deals among other things with the derivation from variant texts of the most authentic ones (especially of classical liter- ature). The classical epigrapher restores and edits the texts of Greck and Latin inscriptions found on the gravestones, monuments, and buildings of ancient Greece and Rome. The paleographer, since the time that Mabilion (see p. 122) first formalized the prin- ciples of paleography and diplomaties, has been able to authenticate medieval charters and other docu- ments by their handwriting, which have been found to vary from place to place and from time to time, and by their variant but highly stylized conventions and forms, and to publish easily legible printed versions of them. The archeologist excavates ancient sites and provides the historian with information derived from artifacts such as statues, mausoleums, pottery, build-198 [UNDERSTANDING HISTORY tional form to motives he had imperfectly analyzed, that she laid bare features in his character he had never realized.” ** If Mortis R. Cohen is right, “To widen our horizon, to make us see other points of view than those to which we are accustomed, is the greatest service that can be rendezed by the historian, and this he can do best by concentrating on the spe- cial field which he studies to understand.” * Identification of Author and of Date Some guess of the approximate-date of the docu- ment and some identification of its supposed author (or, at least, a surmise as to his location in time and space and as to his habits, attitudes, character, learn- ing, associates, etc.) obviously form an essential part of external criticism. Otherwise it would be impossible to prove or disprove authenticity by anachronisms, handwriting, style, alibi, or other tests that are as- sociated with the author's milieu, personality, and actions. But similar knowledge or guesses are also nec- essary for internal criticism, and therefore the prob- Jem of author-identification has been left for the next chapter (pp. 144-8). Having established an authentic text and discov- ered what its author really intended to say, the his- torian has only established what the witness’s testi- mony is. He has yet to determine whether that testimony is at all credible, and if so, to what extent. ‘That is the problem of internal criticism. 3 January 22, 1881, Herbert Paul (ed), Letters of Lord Acton to Mary Gladstone (New York, 1904), p. 150 1 The Meaning of Human History (La Sale, Ml, 1997), p. 28 [ 189 ] CHAPTER VII ‘THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY, OR INTERNAL CRITICISM ‘Tne austonian fist aims in the examination of tes- timony to obtain a set of particulars relevant to some topic or question that he has in mind. Isolated par- ticulars have little meaning by themselves, and unless they have a contest or fit into a hypothesis they are of doubtful value. But that is a problem of synthesis, which will be discussed later” What we are now concerned with is the analysis of documents for cred- ible details to be fitted into a hypothesis or context. What Is Historical Fact? In the process of analysis the historian shonld con- stantly keep in mind the relevant particulars within the document rather than the document as a whole. Regarding each particular he asks: Is it credible? It might be well to point out again that what is meant by calling a pasticular credible is not that it is actually what happened, but that it is as close to what actually happened as we can learn from a critical examination of the best available sources This means verisimilar at a high level. It connotes something more than merely not being preposterous in itself or even than plausible and yet is short of meaning accurately de- 2 See Chapter X. # CE above pp. 45-940 UNDERSTANDING HISTORY scriptive of past actuality. In other words, the histor- ian establishes verisimilitude rather than objective truth, Though there is a high conelation between the two, they are not necessarily identical. As far as mere particulars are concerned, historians disagree relatively seldom regarding what is credible in this special sense of “conforming to a critical examination of the sources.” It is not inconceivable that, in dealing with the same document, two historians of equal ability and training would extract the same isolated “facts” and agree with each other’s findings. In that way the elementary data of history are subject to proof. A historical “fact” thus may be defined as a partic- ular derived directly or indirectly from historical docu- ments and regarded as credible after careful testing in accordance with the canons of historical method (ee below p. x50). An infinity and a multiple variety of facts of this kind are accepted by all historians: eg., that Socrates really existed; that Alexander in- vaded India; that the Romans built the Pantheon; that the Chinese have an ancient literature (but here we introduce a complexity with the word ancient, which needs definition before its factual quality can be considered certain); that Pope Innocent Iil ex- communicated King John of England; that Michel- angelo sculptured “Moses”; that Bismarck modified the dispatch from Ems of King William’s secretary; that banks in the United States in 1933 were closed for four days by presidential proclamation; and that “the Yankees” won the “World Series” in 1949. Sim- ple and fully attested “facts” of this kind are zarely disputed. They are easily observed, easily recorded (if ‘THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 441 not self-evident, like the Pantheon and Chinese liters: ture), involve no judgments of value (except with regard to the antiquity of Chinese literature), contra- dict no other knowledge available to us, seem other. wise logically acceptable, and, avoiding generalization, deal with single instances, Even some apparently simple and concrete state- ments, however, are subject to question. If no one disputes the historicity of Socrates, there is less agree- ment regarding Moses and earlier figures of Hebrew folklore. If no one doubts that Michelangelo sculptured his “Moses,” a few still think that Shakespeare's plays wore in fact written by Francis Bacon, Doubt regard- ing concrete particulars is likely to be due, however, to lack of testimony based on firsthand observation rather than to disagreement among the witnesses. In general, on simple and concrete matters where test mony of direct observation is available, the testimony can usually be submitted to tests of reliability that will be convincing either pro or con to most competent and impattial historians, As soon as abstractions, value judgments, generalizations, and other complexities en- tet into testimony the possibility of contradition and debate enters with them. Hence, alongside the mul- titude of facts generally accepted by historians, exists another multitude debated (or at least debatable) by them, The Interrogative Hypothesis In analyzing a document for its isolated “facts,” the historian should approach it with a question or a set of questions in mind, The questions may be rela-42. UNDERSTANDING HISTORY tively noncommittal. (E.g.: Did Saul try to assassi- nate David? What were the details of Catiline's life? Who were the crusading companions of Tancred? What was the date of Erasmus’ birth? How many men were aboard De Grasse’s fect in 1781? What is the correct spelling of Sieyés? Was Hung Hsuichu’an a Christian?) It will be noted that one cannot ask even simple questions like these without knowing enough about some problem in history to ask a ques. tion about it, and if one knows enough to ask even the simplest question, one already has some idea and probably some hypothesis regarding it, whether im- plicit or explicit, whether tentative and flexible ot formulated and fixed. Or the hypothesis may be full- edged, though still implicit and in interrogative form. (Exg.: Can the Jews be held responsible for the eruciftion of Jesus? Did the medieval city de- velop from the fair? Why did the Anabaptists believe in religious liberty? How did putticipation in the American Revolution contribute to the spread of lib- eral ideas among the French aristocracy? Why did Woodrow Wilson deny knowledge of the “secret treaties?) In each of these questions a cettain im- plication is assumed to be true and further clatfica- tion of it is sought on an additional working assump. tion, Putting the hypothesis in intetzogative form is more judicious than putting it in declarative form if for no other reason than that it is more noncommittal before all the evidence has been examined. It may also help in some small way to solve the delicate problem of relevance of subject matter (see Chapter X be- ‘THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 3. low), since only those materials are relevant ‘which lead directly to an answer to the question oz indicate that theze is no satisfactory answer. The Quest for Particular Details of Testimony ‘As has already been pointed out, every historical subject has four aspects — the biographical, the geo- graphical, the chronological, and the occupational or functional. With a set of names, dates, and key-words in mind for each of these aspects, the historical in- vestigator combs his document for relevant particulars (or “notes,” as he is more likely to call them). It is generally wise to take notes on relevant matter whether or not it at first appears credible, It may turn out that even false or mistaken testimony has rele- vance to an understanding of one's problem, Having accumulated his notes, the investigator must now separate the credible from the incredible. Even from his “notes” he has sometimes to extract still smaller details, for even a single name may reveal a companion of Tancred, a single letter the corvect spelling of Sieyés, a single digit the exact number of De Grasse’s crew, or a single phrase the motives of Wilson's denial, In detailed investigations few docu- ‘ments are significant as a whole; they serve most often only 2s mines from which to extract historical on Each bit of ore, however, may contain flaws o own. The general reliability of an author, in other words, has significance only as establishing the prob- able credibility of is. paiticlar statements, From that process of scrupulous analysis emerges - a, -, = é- ,_, -44 [UNDERSTANDING HISTORY ment the process of establishing credibility should be separately undertaken regardless of the general credi- bility of the author. Identification of Author ‘As has already been pointed out (p. 138), some {identification of the author is necessary to test a doc: ument’s authenticity. In the subsequent process of determining the credibility of its particulars, even the most genuine of documents should be regarded as guilty of deceit until proven innocent. ‘The impor tance of frst establishing the author's general reli ability is therefore obvious. Where the name of the author can be determined and he is a person about whom biographical data are available, identification is a relatively easy task. Because, in most legal and social science investigations, the witness or the author ‘of a document is personally known and available to the investigator, that question generally presents no insurmountable difficulties to lawyers and social sci- entists. ‘The historian, however, is frequently obliged to use documents written by persons about whom nothing or relatively little is known. Even the hundreds of bio- graphical dictionaries and encyclopedias already in ‘existence may be of no help because the author's name is unknown or, if known, not to be found in the reference works. The historian must therefore de- pend upon the document itself to teach him what it ‘can about the author. A single brief document may teach him much if he asks the right questions. It may, ‘THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 45 of course, contain explicit biographical details, but to assume that would be begging the question. Even where it is relatively free from first-person allusions, much may be learned of the author's mental proc- esses and personal attitudes from it alone. Let us take the usual text of Lincoln's Gettysburg ‘Address, and assume for the sake of example that we have no knowledge of it except for what its own con- tents may reveal: Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and 50 dedicated, can long endure, We are met on a great battle field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fit- ting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger senge, we cannot dedicate— we cannot consecrate — we cannot hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above ‘our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here, Tt is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us,— that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly re- solve that these dead shall not have died in vain — thatus [UNDERSTANDING HISTORY this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom —and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. Even a hasty examination will suffice to make cleat that the author, at the time of writing, was planning to use it as a speech (“we are met,” “what we say here”), that he wrote English well, that his address was a funeral oration (“we have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place”), that he was probably a prominent citizen, that he pre- sumably was an American (“our fathers,” “this con- tinent,” “new nation,” “four score and seven years ago”), that he was an advocate of liberty and equality (or at least desired his hearers to think so), that he lived during the American Civil War, that he was speaking at Gettysburg, or possibly Vicksburg (‘great battlefield,” “four score and seven years ago”), and that he wanted his side in the war to be thought of as fighting for democracy (“government of the people, by the people, for the people”). If we forget the con- troversy among historians as to whether the words under God were actually delivered or were only after- ward inserted, we may assume that he subscribed, or wished to appear to subscribe, to the belief in a Su- preme Being. From a short document, it would thus appear, it is possible to learn much about the author without Knowing who he was. In the case of the Gettysburg Address a trained historian would probably soon de- tect Lincoln's authorship, if it were unknown. But even if he had never heard of Lincoln, he would be ‘THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY 47 able to tell that, in attempting to judge the truth of the particulars stated in that address, he would have to consider it as probably a public exhortation by a prominent antislavery Northemer after a major vic- tory over the Confederate States in the American Civil War. Many documents, being less modest and less economical of words than the Gettysburg Ad- dress, give their authors away more readily. Determination of Approximate Date Tt would be relatively easy, even if the Gettysburg. Address were a totally strange document, to establish its approximate date. It was obviously composed “fourscore and seven years” after the Declaration of Independence, hence in 1863. But few strange docu- ‘ments are so easily dated. One has frequently to re- sort to the conjectures known to the historian as the terminus non ante quem (“‘the point not before which”) and the terminus non post quem (“the point not after which”). These termini, or points, have to be established by internal evidence — by clues given, within the document itself. If the date 1863 were not implicit in the Gettysburg Address, other references within the speech could point obviously to the be ginning of the American Civil War as its terminus fon ante quem, and since the war was obviously still going on when the document was composed, its ter- minus rion post quem would be the end of the Civil ‘War. Hence its date could be fixed approximately, ‘even if the first sentence had been lost, as somewhere between 1861 and 1865; and if we were enabled by other data to guess at “the great battlefield,” we14s [UNDERSTANDING HISTORY might even narrow that margin. Some documents might not permit even a remote guess of their ter- mini, but where the author is known, one has at least the dates of his birth and death to go by. The Personal Equation ‘This analysis of the Gettysburg Address (under the false assumption that its authorship is unknown) indicates the type of question the historian asks of oth anonymous and avowed documents, Was the author an eyewitness of the events he narrates? If not, what were his sources of information? When did he write the document? How much time elapsed be- tween the event and the record? What was his pur- pose in writing or speaking? Who were his audience and why? Such questions enable the historian to an- swer the still more important questions: Was the author of the document able to tell the truth; and if able, was he willing to do so? The ability and the willingness of a witness to give dependable testimony are determined by a number of factors in his per- sonality and social situation that together are some- times called his “personal equation,” a tern applied to the correction required in astronomical observa- tions to allow for the habitual inaccuracy of individ- xual observers. The personal equation of a historian is sometimes also called his “frame of reference,” but it probably will be found more expedient to restrict the latter term to his conscious philosophy or philoso- phies of life in so far as they can be divorced from personality traits and biases of which he may or may not be aware. ‘THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY ug General Rules Ina law court itis frequently assumed that all the testimony of a witness, though under oath, is suspect if the opposing lawyers can impugn his general char acter or by examination and cross-examination create doubt of his veracity in some regard. Even in modern Taw courts the old maxim falsus in uno, falsus in om- nibus tends to be overemphasized.* In addition, hear- say evidence is as a general rule excluded; * certain Kinds of witnesses are “privileged” or “unqualified” and therefore are not obliged to testify or ate kept from testifying; and evidence obtained by certain means regarded as transgressing the citizen's rights — such a5 “third degree,” drugs, wiretapping, or lie- detector —are ruled out of some courts. ‘The legal system of evidence, says James Bradley Thayer, “is not concerned with nice definitions, or the exacter aca- demic operations of the logical faculty. . . . Its rules are seeking to determine, not what is ot is not, in its nature, probative, but rather, passing by that inquiry, what among really probative matters, shall, nevertheless, for this or that practical reason, be ex- cluded, and not even heard by the jury.”* Courts of Taw, in the AngloSaxon system at least, go on the assumption that if one side presents all the permis- sible testimony in its favor and if the other side pre sents all the permissible testimony in its, the truth TS Wigtose, p. 8s © Bid po. 35845 # Toid, pp. 285-34 and 354-60. «Preliminary ‘Treatise on Evidence et the Common Lew (Beston, 1896), Pp. 3-4