Source Criticism

3/3/2019 Discussion What is source criticism?
Page 1
Discussion
What is source criticism?
AN ESSAY ABOUT THE LIFE FROM THE EXPERIENCE AND

THE LANGUAGE REVERSE
OF
S EBASTIAN O LDEN -J EARGENSEN
In the latest issue of Historical Journal , Dorthe Gert Simonsen

(DGS) written a thought-provoking article, »Signs and Observation. Read
Live after 'the linguistic turn', which is one at a time
reflection on the tradition of history science in the form of
bitch and a presentation of the so-called linguistic turn, closer
called the bottling called New Historicism. The following
considerations should not be understood as an opposition to DGS, but rather
as an apropos. In this context, I will concentrate on her
reading Erslev, since I perceive the presentation of New
cism as an appetizer and orientation. The concrete examples, like
DGS brings (Stephen Greenblatt's analysis of Columbus diary and
Mandeville's Travels ) are in the nature of reading fruits. We still have
good to see the impulse from the linguistic turn converted into a fully developed
it analyzes on the basis of Danish material.
Common sense and vision metaphor

Dorthe Gert Simonsen considers in her article Kristian Erslev's Historical Text
nik (Copenhagen 1911, 2nd ed. 1926) as the epitome of the classic source
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 1/13
criticism. 1 Not least for practical reasons it may be appropriate to
1 Thank you to the editors of Historical Journal , who at short notice gave room for this
lay, and to Mads Mordhorst, Bent Egaa Kristensen and Gunner Lind, who
Tender notice gave their opinion. Please refer to Kristian Erslev below: Historical
Technique. The historical study produced in its baselines , 2nd ed. 10th edition with one
postcard by Kai Hørby and Hans Vammen.
Page 2
532 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen
anchor its analysis of a phenomenon (here the classic source criticism) in one
certain text (in this case Historical Technology ), but it always remains one
steps that should be justified. It does not make DGS explicit and it can
perhaps also seems superfluous, since Historical Technology has long had
canonical status and yet used in method teaching at Insti-
for History at the University of Copenhagen. As I will below,
seeking to show, such justification may not be so redundant even,
but first a brief summary of DGS's position with a view to
the issues to be addressed here.
According to DGS, classic source criticism is based on two basic assumptions.
First, the source criticism is basically an expression
common sense and consequently general human and ideological free. Before that
Secondly, the source criticism acts as a "vision prosthesis" because it knows
"Medium Observation" (Erslev) compensates for the lack of direct
observation. This reveals the source criticism that it originates from one
empirical ideal of science, but otherwise passed through Historical Technology
at all levels of vision metaphor, e.g. in the slide from talking about wedge
there to talk about observers. So common sense and vision metaphor are the ones
two components that keep the classic source criticism together. By
using an exciting deconstructive analysis of Erslev's language use
inspiration from modern sign theory reaches DGS to both assumptions
is rhetoric, perhaps not even rhetoric, but the kind of rhetoric called one
discourse and thus far from being "obviously correct" (Hans Vammen &
Kai Hørby in the poster for the 10th edition of Historical Technology 1987) or idea-
ologie free, which is often assumed. Against this background, she advocates
of a "analytic approach to historical sources developed on
background of the linguistic turn "as a way to" seize and shift
a radically historic past '. 2
What in the following should be central is not the end point of DGSs
analysis, for a convincing example of the character analytic approach
We have, as mentioned, benefited. It is, however, her criticism of Erslev
or rather her construction of Historical Technology as the
the sense of classic source criticism, I want to problematize.
Classical Source Criticism?

The adjective classic can be immediately understood in two meanings. Either can
it refers to a period that is particularly glamorous or it may mean
2 Dorthe Gert Simonsen: »Signs and observation. To read Erslev by 'the linguistic friend
'', Historical Journal , 101 (2001), pp. 146-180, citation p. 180.
Page 3
What is source criticism? 533
ne a particularly treasured element of a living tradition. The first definition

On is historically in the strict sense, while the other is historical.
If you ask for the classic source criticism in the first, historical
importance, then it is probably not obsessed with Historical Technology from 1911 (always
used in the second edition from 1926), but Erslev's Foundations for Histo-
Risk Source Criticism (1887 Holography, printed in 1892), which is central
text. These were basics , and not historical technology , which was the
student's Bible in the decades when Erslev with a large pedagogical and
scientific profit left its mark on a whole generation of historical
blockers. 3
When comparing Foundations with Historical Technology
the latter not only as more detailed, but also as a more
mensat writing. It is not just an old, wise man who is involved
great educational sense conveys the sum of a person's research
education and training. It is also a man who, after many years
as a researcher and research politician trying to do away with a series
cognitive and history theoretical challenges, and it characterizes the text.
The show did not only take place in Historical Technology , but also in the
give so-called "1911 writings": the lecture Our family's work in Danish history
rie and the little scripture historiography. Baselines to Some Chapters of History
riens Theori . 4
What is interesting in this context is that both of the DGS are strong
highlighted elements of classical source criticism, common sense
and the visual acuity, not found in the foundations (1892), but only in
Historical Technology (1911). Well, you will find the following quotation in Basics
Heinrich v. Sybel, who, moreover, goes back to Historical Technology and in Erslev's arti-
story of history in both editions of Salmon's Lexicon (1898 and 1921):

"The narrator is the jet-breaking medium, and the critics
foodstuffs become analogous to Astronomer's rectification ". 5
3 About the development in Erslev's source criticism and the radical historians in general see Jens
Chr. Manniche: The Radical History of History , Aarhus 1981, pp. 134-212, 328-337.
4 Kristian Erslev: 'Our family's work in Danish history. Rectortal at the University
tets Aarsfest November 16, 1911, The spectator , 1911, II, pp. 457-468), reprinted in Kr. Erslev:
Historical Theses , Kbh. 1937, II, pp. 208-219; Kristian Erslev: Writing history. Reason-
lines to some Chapters of History Theory , Kbh. 1911; reprinted in Kr. Erslev: Historical
Theses r, Kbh. 1937, II, pp. 220-265, as well as in About History Writing and History Research .
Theses of Kr. Erslev and Povl Bagge , Kbh. 1978. Cf. Manniche, pp. 326-363.
5 Historical Technology , p. 47. Erslev nowhere quotes the source of the quotation, but there must be speech
on a summary of the following paragraphs from Sybels lecture on the Gesetze des historischen
Wissens from 1864, printed in Heinrich v. Sybel: Vorträge und Aufsätze , Berlin 1874, pp. 1-20, quotes
pp. 9-10: »The Personnel of the Reporters is happy with the medium
get the light of the hatred out of the predator, one by one
dium, well, who was like that, the light beam never crawled or crumbled
Page 4
for that dominates principles, however, are not visual prosthesis, but
procedure, namely a purification process. The source criticism is
"The necessary beginning of any historical inquiry"; and
it has "simple main rules". It has a first step of determining
the origin and authenticity of the sources, which are followed by the separation of
secondary accounts and ending with the appreciation of the primary
reports. The latter part is about determining (and eliminating)
the subjective moment, - what belongs to the narrator and does not originate
from the event ". 6
Another favorite metaphor with the same content is the clearing work. IN
Erslev's time, it was outside of the subject, not least the destructive side of
the newly acquired science that stuck in the eye but by choosing
clearing as a symbol, it became understandable and acceptable that source critics
Exceptional studies often resulted in lean or preliminary
results. When the historians themselves had to formulate it, one was often chosen
more positive metaphor, namely the selection and processing of construction
materials. Thus Gustav Bang defined in a popular science
make the source criticism as "searching for the best sources", and
his final result he summed up with the following words: "So then is the dust
boldly collected, cleaned and sifted, weighed and wrecked, tried on criticism
Gold weight, machined according to all the rules of art, stacked up in tiny bits
Theses and in co-operative works, arranged and registered after all
Views so that anyone can easily find their way there ”. 7 You have to
that context does not read that none of these metaphors
the source criticism plays a really constructive role. Source Criteria Sorts,
tries, rejects and cleans, but it does not build. At Erslev's professional
counterpart, Johannes Steenstrup, one finds quite the same understanding
of the function of source criticism - though with a somewhat different assessment
(mechanical, breathless). 8
read through passages. So come and dig, such fractions and connections as well
to calculate, and dazu is the extraordinary premise that is true
Mediums, the ingenious knowledge of the personal nature of any message backers. The
Frequently, however, there is an erroneous resemblance to those of the astronomers who weigh the effect
the atmosphere on the beams of light can be stern in the right place, or substitute
saying knowledge of the atmospheric air calculates and eliminates the error
muß. moreover Volker Dotterweich: Heinrich von Sybel. History science in politics
Intent (1817-1861) , Göttingen 1978, 2. 270-276.
6 Basics , p. 3, 17.
7 Gustav Bang: The cultural history of Europe. In Tales for the People , I-II, Kbh. 1899, the section on
history science in bd. 2, pp. 357-366, citation p. 359, 361. Historical Technology , p. 93.
8 Johannes Steenstrup: The historiography, its development through the ages, its being and
Fork , Kbh. 1915, pp. 117-125. See. the controversy between Erslev and Steenstrup (anonymous) in
The newspaper on March 23 and April 6, 1891.
Page 5
visual prosthesis
However, as mentioned, the visual prosthesis appears in Historical Technology , where
it is near the only piece of explicit theory of knowledge, man
find. Since it has the character of addition to the basic
gives , you could ask where Erslev has it, and I think that
is possible to point to a likely source: the French historical position
bible par excellence, Introduction aux études historiques by Ch.-V.
Langlois & Ch. Seignobos (Paris 1898). Unlike Erslev, where they
actual theoretical considerations are placed in the section 'To conclude'
almost like an apropos, the two Frenchmen start their book with one
section on the general conditions for historical recognition. Here find
you among others the following wording, which is both linguistic and substantive
covers with Erslevs: "But the special thing about" historical facts
is that they are only recognized indirectly by their tracks. The historic one
Recognition is in its essence an indirect realization. 9 What at Erslev
formulated with almost aphoristic shortness, reveals itself by reading
Langlois & Seignobos to be stubborn of a consistently thought out
historical positivism, where the observation (observation) - or rather
The lack of it - is at the center.
In fact, Erslev's vision metaphor must be characterized as relatively restrained
compared to Langlois & Seignobos, for he does not carry it to his
utmost consequence. As DGS documents, Erslev slips in his language
use from "sources" to "observers". However, here is still a watch
subject. Langlois & Seignobos, on the other hand, take the step fully and
transforms through the critical work the sources of observations. Thought-
The following is the following: Every source is the psychologically mediated impact of
facts. The facts have come along
the man's head underwent a series of transformations. Historian
then in mind the same transformations, but with
opposite sign, going from the source to the facts. It does
he answers the key source-critical questions: 1) what wish-
the author to say, 2) he believed in what he said, 3) there is reason
to believe what he thought. When these questions are exhaustive,
right, so "is the source back to the point where it looks like one of them
scientific operations constituting any objective knowledge
closet: it becomes an observation. You just have to deal with it
9 »This is the first thing that is known as the 'n'être connus qu'indirectement, d'après
des traces. The Connaissance of History, par essence, uneconnaissance indirect, "
Ch.-V. Langlois & Ch. Seignobos: Introduction aux études historiques , 3rd ed. Paris 1905,
p. 44 (English overs. 1898, since reprinted several times).
Page 6
according to the objective science method. Any source has value exactly
in the goal that, after studying its origin, has reduced it to
a well-observed observation ”. 10
In other words, at Langlois & Seignobos you will find fully developed
and consistently carried out the vision that DGS has with some difficulty
gets analyzed by the scattered comments in Historical Technology . Seen on
you must immediately ask yourself why Erslev
Leave it at the trenches if the prosthetic prosthesis really constituted his
cognitive theory? A detailed answer would require a closer look
analysis of Historical Technology supplemented with in-depth studies in Erslevs
authorship and personal development. 11 So I have to settle for that
put forward the hypothesis that the final chapter of Historical Technology with
The clear statements about the historical technique as the vision prosthesis reflect it
aging Erslev's scrubs and the resulting need for a recognition
rhetorical fig leaf rather than a fundamental, philosophical basis. Whole
conceptual living is rooted in German historical tradition (Johann
Gustav Droysen, Ernst Bernheim), which also explains its
neutral features. French positivism represents a secondary layer,
which, in my opinion, was never fully integrated with the German
basis. 12
Common sense
The second element, the source criticism that systematized common sense, is
a perception that you also do not find in Foundations or the rest
literature from around 1900, I have had the opportunity to consult. And
No wonder it is because when the historians took the source criticism, it was
to mark their own professionalism and distance themselves from ordinary
deadly. However, there can be no doubt that the performance has since
10 »Sachant ce que l'auteur du document a dit, on demande: 1. qu'est-ce qu'il a fold

lu dire; 2. It's a good thing to do this; 3. You will find yourself in business. A ce dernier
term paper they marry windows with a point and resemble on the site
scientifique par lesquelles se constituere to science science: il devient une observati-
one; The next plus qui rant trainee suivant la méthode des sciences objectives. Tout docu-
intended for the exact exact range, including an avégate étudié la genèse, on l'a
réduit à une observation bien faite, "Langlois & Seignobos, p. 47.
11 This task is unfortunately not solved in Leo Tandrup: Ravn. Kristian Erslev. Human being.
History Researcher. Historical writer , I-II, Kbh. 1979, whose interpretation of Erslev is deformed by
its own existential priorities and great arbitrariness in the source processing; cf. Bent
Egaa Kristensen: '' Ravn '- an Erslev biography', Past and Present , 1981, pp. 36-56.
12 The question of French and German inspiration has been dealt with provisionally in Jens Chr. You-
niche: »German-critical and French-critical school. A contribution to the study of historical theoretical
points in Denmark, " Historisk Tidsskrift , 1975, pp. 39-59.
Page 7
has gone its victorious way. 13 Its origin is, of course, difficult to establish
beat, but if it is the last footnote in Historical Technology , where
Erslev writes: "The English historian, Lord Acton must have said that
the historical method is only a doubling of the healthy human
understanding "? 14 The wording suggests that Erslev did not know the source
this bonmot, but found the comment aptly to
load it.
If you go to Acton yourself, you find that the words come from his
famous introduction lecture on the study of modern history
(ie after 1500). They sound like this in their context: 'Apart from
what is technical, method is only the reduplication of common sense,
and it is acquired by observing its use by the ablest men in every one
variety of intellectual employment «. 15 Acton's opinion must be that
The "method" includes two things, firstly what is "technical" and for
the second is the reduplication of common sense, and that
is best learned through interdisciplinary orientation. There can be in that context
hardly doubt that the source criticism must coincide with
the technical, while it is on the next and higher level that we find it
doubled common sense - an expression that in English is more positive
listed than in Danish. Acton - and Erslev 16 - thus hold source criticism and
common sense separated.
This little spirituality in a footnote should have a long life among dan-
historians, perhaps because it expresses one in its distorted form
typically Danish self-irony and at the same time can act as a guard against theoretical
scruples. When and how the source criticism and common sense became
tied together in this way, might not be completely uninteresting
to track down.
13 Cf. eg. Henrik S. Nissen: "Conclusion from reality", Historical Journal , 1975, p.
76, especially pp. 69-70.
14 Historical Technology , pp. 95-96.
15 Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dahlberg-Acton): »Inaugural Lecture on the
Study of History, John Emerich Edward Dahlberg-Acton: Lectures on Modern
History , London 1952, pp. 1-28, quotes p. 20.
16 Cf. The following quote from Erslev's article on history in the Salmonsen encyclopedia (quoted below
2nd edition 1921, bd. 11, p. 506, but otherwise identical in the first edition. 1898): »While Source Criticism
is peculiar to H. precisely because H.'s Reality is that it pursues the pre-
bigangren, there is hardly under the historian's further work any method that is peculiar
for him. What he can read from the individual facts, he does by a little more
rigorous use of the methods prevailing in the sciences that treat the
me objects in the present as he in the past; he is alternately psychologist, lawyer, economist
etc '. See. also Foundations , p. 3.
Page 8
Source criticism today

The second meaning of the word classic is to refer to a living
dition, ie create an impact historical perspective. The question remains
then not so much what really stands in the classic work, in this case
Historical Technology , but how the source criticism has been perceived, managed
and communicated. A comprehensive answer to this question would blow up
more so I will settle for some motivated point strikes in recent
dardværker.
A moment in Historic Technology , which has proved to have great
Battleship is the negative definition of source criticism. Source Criticism -
or as Erslev said, the historical technique - "must not be confused with
the procedure he [the historian] must follow in order to work
The past scientifically '. 17 Technology was one thing, method and theory
other things. Source criticism was defined as almost the proto-
Scientific, and that is probably why it is so often characterized
as a craft and has been associated with the healthy, but daily
day's understanding of man.
HP Clausen maintained in what is history? (1963) - still using
as a university textbook - explicitly the distinction between
decisive technique and the actual scientific research. He speaks
about "the source-critical procedure" and "source-critical principles", and he
also agrees with the notion of source criticism as common sense. 18 Where
Erslev was content to mark the connection between technology, meto-
they and theory, Clausen emphasizes, however, that "the adaptation of those
source-critical principles in the individual research situations will depend
of the questions the historian asks, and thus of the sources he uses
appears. 19 Clausen celebrated in other words, who has since gone from strength
victory over the concept of functional source vision. 20 Basics
Clausen sticks to the craft metaphor: Source criticism is one
procedure that has a number of clearly formulated principles.
Same combination of a basic procedural understanding
of the source criticism and a functional source view you find The Great Danish
Encyclopedia during the encyclopedia's history (bd. 1997). It defines
Inga Floto's purpose of the source criticism as "to ensure such reliable knowledge of
past as possible ", but adds few lines further down
17 Historical Technology , p. 94; cf. Basics , p. 3.

18 HP Clausen: What is history? , Kbh. 1963, pp. 16-17, 62-63.
19 Clausen, p. 62.
20 Cf. also Helge Paludan: "The functional source concept - an annual home story?", Mads
Mordhorst & Carsten Tage Nielsen (ed.): The tracks of the past, the eyes of the present - the concept of
source for
debate , Frederiksberg 2001, pp. 74-97.
Page 9
is not a given size, but depends on the issues

the rich man seeks the answer in his study ". Later she assures that
"The source criticism itself has undergone ever-evolving development since Niebuhrs
and the days of Rankes, and the relationship between the historian, the sources and
The time is now perceived as far more complicated and problematic than that
here has been suggested ". Nevertheless, history is a "discipline governed by
strictly methodical assumptions, a regular form of recognition ". So is
all mistletoes shown taken in oath.
Clearer and without the big scrubs, the traditional stand
point in the latest shot on the trunk of introductions to the history profession,
Claus Bryld's adaptation of Knut Kjeldstadli's Fortida is not what it is
time was. An introduction to the history subject (Oslo 1992). Here it is named after one
brief mention of the functional source view, that 'source criticism is then a set of
craft rules that say how to treat sources for not
to distort the information that is potentially in them. These rules are
largely systematic common sense '. Even the lively house builder
metaphor is found in slightly hypothetical-deductive dressing: »If history
the subject's goal is to build a building of explanations, we need one
foundation of safe statements about whether something was or was not, if
who did what, where, when ". 21
However, as so many other traditions, our
richer tradition more diverse than you immediately think even when it
these are the kind of concepts that "everyone" knows the meaning of.
Helge Paludan has, for example. in the Preface to Source Critical Text Collection (1999)
chosen to further develop Clausen's approaches and define source criticism as "one
set concepts for criticizing hypotheses about the sources 'representativeness'. 22
So for Paludan there is no longer a procedure, but only
about a number of concepts related to the keyword representativeness and
concentrated on the setting and testing of hypotheses. Behind Paludans
formulation is known by the hypothetical-deductive method and
an inspiration from the comparative social sciences. Kildekri-
The tick is thus not just a preliminary phase that establishes the facts, however
constitutes a central element in the ongoing confrontation between theory and
empiri. 23
21 Knut Kjeldstadli: The past is not what it has been - an introduction to history , Danish
ed. by Claus Bryld, Frederiksberg 2001, p. Historical Technology , p. 93: "Even a genius
al Builder cannot build a solid building of bad material '.
22 Helge Paludan, Jens Chr. Manniche & Jørgen Fink (ed.): Source-critical text collection , 2.
ed. year house 1999, p. 9.
23 For a more consistent integration of a social science, hypothetical deductive
(pop) inspiration and traditional, Swedish source criticism see Arne Jarrick & Johan Söder-
mountain: Practical history theory , Stockholm 1993, 3rd edition 1999.
Page 10
But also from the other side of the science-theoretical spectrum is

there has recently been an alternative bid for the inner essence of source criticism
one. Here, the source criticism is defined as " the critical reflection on the relationship
between the sources and the historian's reconstruction of the past reality . The source
The critique is thus not a technical procedure that can be summarized in
a clear number of concepts and teachings, but rather a pro-
flower awareness and a query horizon that is not with absolute certainty but
surprisingly often proves fruitful ”(the original
looks). 24 Behind this definition lies a hermeneutic view of
the kingdom's work, which not only draws on the
There, but also draws inspiration from literature science.
What understanding of the source criticism is the right one? That question can
hardly be determined as long as the history subject remains a human
rigid, academic discipline and is therefore characterized by still discus-
and principal pluralism. However, I must at your own expense and risk
note that I find the craft metaphor and common sense wild
leading for (at least) two reasons. First, because they insinuate that
Soon any idiot can learn source criticism. It follows not only that
If you cannot understand this distillate of common sense, then you are
really stupid, but also that the professional historian can soon charge
the source criticism behind him to devote himself to higher pursuits. It's doing it
too easy. Source critical reasoning extends from the banal to
The brilliant, and we should not let a fake modesty covert
us to pierce people's eyes. Secondly, the craftsmanship
The Taforce ceaselessly perceives source criticism as something you do
the sources by following some generally accepted standards. But not ale-
These standards are completely inadequate to do justice
much. What matters is that it is not the sources, but
or rather, the relationship between the source material and the answers
One has found on his questions, which is the subject of source criticism.
That seems to me to be the case in the historians
practice at its best.
End
At the end of these historiographical considerations on source criticism
you could return to the starting point and ask,
what significance this has for DGS's perception of the class
24 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen: To the sources! Introduction to historical source criticism , Kbh. 2001
17.
Page 11
Critical source criticism and the linguistic turn. Rhetorically, DGS uses it
classic source criticism as a wall to play its character analytical ball up
ad. If you have to remain in the imagery, then I do not think that the class
The wall of Siska critics is where DGS places it. She doesn't go
dialogue with the Danish source criticism, neither as it was then,
since or now, but with a fragment of a French, historical positivism.
This does not mean that the linguistic turn, the sign analytical inspiration
and New Historicism have nothing to give historians. You need
Just don't construct them as an opposition to let alone a refutation
of classic source criticism.
It does not seem to me to matter in this context
which of the three definitions of source criticism outlined above is
there for. The more one builds on the subject's hermeneutic tradition, the easier
One would be able to relate both positively and critically to the impulse from
the linguistic turn. This proximity to the hermeneutics is DGS itself
inside, although she is most concerned with marking the difference between
hermeneutics and its own post-structuralist standpoint. 25 In fact,
gives her description of the linguistic turn analytical strategies and
premises in many places close to the hermeneutics, such as the one
eg. represented by Paul Ricoeur. 26 It applies to statements such as' source
Meaning depends on relationships that are not designated by themselves but about
is designed in the decoding of the "interest in" how the reference to
and the construction of this world and this narrative unfolds, "and
the concept of "the circulation of the representations". 27 The linguistic turn
In other words, must settle for something more humble, but also more
constructive role to contribute to further developing the source-critical heritage -
in theory and practice.
25 Simonsen, p. 170, note 27.

26 Paul Ricoeur: Temps et récit , I-III, Paris 1983-85 (English ovs 1984-87); Paul Ricoeur:
Hermeneutics & the Human Sciences , Cambridge 1981.
27 Simonsen, pp. 178, 174, 168.

Source Criticism

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

Source Criticism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/3/2019 Discussion What is source criticism?

What is source criticism?

AN ESSAY ABOUT THE LIFE FROM THE EXPERIENCE AND

In the latest issue of Historical Journal , Dorthe Gert Simonsen

Common sense and vision metaphor

532 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen

Classical Source Criticism?

What is source criticism? 533

ne a particularly treasured element of a living tradition. The first definition

story of history in both editions of Salmon's Lexicon (1898 and 1921):

534 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen

What is source criticism? 535

536 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen

10 »Sachant ce que l'auteur du document a dit, on demande: 1. qu'est-ce qu'il a fold

What is source criticism? 537

538 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen

Source criticism today

17 Historical Technology , p. 94; cf. Basics , p. 3.

What is source criticism? 539

is not a given size, but depends on the issues

540 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen

But also from the other side of the science-theoretical spectrum is

What is source criticism? 541

25 Simonsen, p. 170, note 27.

You might also like