138 “UNDERSTANDING HiSTOY tional form to motives ke had imperfectly analyzed, that she laid bare features in bis character he: had never realized." If Mortis R. Cohen is sight, 0 wider our borizon, to make us sce other points of cow than, these to which we are accustomed, is the greatest service that can be rendered by tlie historian, aud this he can do best by concentrating on the spe- cial field which he studies to understond,” * Identification of Author and of Date Some guess of the approximate date of the docu. spout and some ilentification’of 8 supposed author {os, at least, 2 surmise as to his Tocution in time and space and vs to his liabits, attitudes, character, Jeu, ing, associates, ete.) obviously fonm an essentisi past of external criticism, Othonvise it would be impossible to prove of Cisprove authenticity by anacineonisms, handwriting, style, alibi, or other tests that are as. sociated with the authors milice, persowolity, a actions. Iiot similar knowledge or guesses are also a essary for iiterne! critieism, and therefore the prob Jom of authonidentification has been left for the next chapter (pp. 144-8). Joving established an authentic text and discov cred what its author really intended to say, the bis torion bar only established what the witness's test mony is, He has yet to detemine whether thit testimony is at all credible, and if sy, to what extent That is the problem of internal criticism. 3 Jaumery 29, 2882, Tesbert Poul (ed.), Letters of Lond Acts t0 Mozy Gladstone (New You, 2904), p. 159. 2 Tho Meaning of Human History (La Selle, ™., 1947), p38 aren tiomenicrss<.-. ~memmnreamliasn cintsners sons nemiennie sn MA FLORINA Y. ORILLOS Depertemonio ng Kasayseyan [159 J CHAPTER VET THE PROBLEM OF CREDIBILITY, OR INTERNAL CRITICISM ‘Tue wisrontan first aims in the examination of tes. timony to obtain a set of particulars ieicvant to some topic or question that he has in mind. Isolated par + ticuilars have little meaning by themselves, and unless they have a contest or fit into 2 hypothesis they are of doubtful velue, But that is a problem of syrthests, which will be discussed later. What we aie now concerned with & the analysis of documents for cred ible details to be fitted into 2 hrypothesis oF context. What Is Historical Fact? In the process of analysis the Bistorian shontd con- stantly Keep in onind the relevant particulars within the document rather than the document as a whole Regarding each particular he asks: Is it creditie? Tt might be well to point out again that what is meant by calling a particular credible is not that i is actually what happened, but that itis as close to what actudlly happoned es we cen learn frum a critical exemrination of the best evailable sowcas® This waeans verisinaiter at a high level it comates something more thon merely not being preposterous in itself or even fhan plausible-and yet is short of meaning accuretely de- See Chapter TX 2.6 ahve pp. 45-9.140 UNDERSTANDING iNSTORY. seriptive of hast actuatity, Jn other, words, the histor. isn establishes verisiilitude rather than objective iruth. Though there is a high correlation between the thro, they are not niecessanily identical. As far as mere particulars are concemied, historians disagree tclatively seldom regarding what is evedile in this special sense of “conforming tos critical examination of the sources.” It is not inconceivable that, in decking with © F > the same document, two historians of equal ability and training would extract zhe same isolated “facts” and agice with each other's Sadings, In Hhat way the cleincntary data of history are subject to proof, i A historical “fact” thos may be defined a5 a pation} ular derived ditectly oF indircet'y from historical dacie ments and regarded as credible after careful testing | ip accordance with the canoai of historical metliod | {sce below p. 150). An infinity end 2 multiple vasity | of facts of this Kind are occepted by all historians eg, that Sovzates really existed; thot Alexander in: | vaded India; that the Romans built the Pantheon: that the Chinese have an ancient hiterature (but here we introduce a complexity w which needs definition before is factual quality ca be considered cersain); thet Tupe Innocent HI es + communicated King John cf Engtnd; that Mickel} siigelo sculptured “Moses”; that Bismarck modified 4 Kaiser Wiliam T's dispatch from Ems; that banks in | the word ancient, the United States in 2933 were closed for four days Dy presidential proclamation; and that “the Yankees" won the “Werld Series” in 1gjg- Simple and fully attested “fae!s" of this kind are rarely disputed, They are easily observed, eastly recorded (if not selt-evigent, THE PROALEAS OF CREDIBILITY ML like the Pantheon and Chinese liters}, involve no judgments of value (except with regard’ to the ane tiquity of Chinese literature}, contradict no other Imowledge available to us, seem otherwise logically seceptable, and, avoiding genesalication, deal with single instances, Even some appareutly simple and concrete state. ments, however, aro subject to question. If no one Alisputes the historicity of Socrates, Hhere is fess agree- saent regarding Moses and earlier figures of Firhrew folklore. Ifno one doubts that Michelangelo sculptured his “Moses,” a fow still think that Shakespeare's plays were in fact written by Branels Bacon, Doubt rogard. ing concrete particulars is likely to he dne, however, to Jack of testimony Lased on first-hand observation rather than to disagreement among the witnesses, In general, ox simple and conerete matters where testi- mony of direct observation is availsble, the testimony can nsually be submitted to tests of reliability dat will be convincing eithes pro or com te most competent znd inspastial historians. As soon as abstractions, value judgments, generalizations, and other complexities tex into testimony the possibility of conttadition and wth th % is. Venes, algasice She mul Utnde of facts gencialliy accepted by histosions, exists another multitude debated (or at Jeast debatable) by them. The Interrogative Hypothesis Tn analyzing a document for its isolated “acts,” the historian should approach it with 2 question or 4 set of questions in mind. The questions may be sela-12. TNDERSEASOING THSTORY “tively noncommittal, (E.g: Did Saul tre to assassi. nate David? What were the detaiis of Catiline’s tife? Who weré the crusading companions of “Tancred? What wes the date of Tmsmns’ birth? How many mien were aboard De Grasie’s fcet in 1781? What is the correct spelling.of Sicyés? Wes Hung Hsoi-chu'an a Christian?) It will be noted that one caumot ask ‘even simple questions like these without knowing enough about some problem in history to ask a ques tion abont it, and if one knows enough to ask even the simplest question, oné already has some idea and probably some hrpathesis regarding #, whether in- plicit of explicit, whether teniative and flexible o formulated and fixed. Or the hypotiiesis may be full Fedged, though still implicit and in interrogate fom. (Eg Can the Jews be held responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus? Did the mouieval city de velop from the fais? Why did the Anabaptists believe in religious liberty? How did participation in the American Revolution contribute to the vprei’ of Ti fers} ideas among the French aristocracy? Why did Woodrow Wilson deny knowledge of the “secret trcaties"”?) In cach of Hicse questions a certain im plieation i assumed to be tue and further clarifca tion of it is sought on an additional working assum lion, ~ Patting the hypothesis in interrogative forna is mow jodicious than putting it in declarative form if for no other reason than that st is more noncommital before all the evidence has been examined, It may alo help in some small way to solve the delicate problen of relevance of subject matter (see pp. 296-201, be ‘TUE PRORLEAS OF eomnaTy 13, ow}. since only those materials are relevant which lead directly to an answer to the question or indicate that there is no sadsfactory answer The Quest for Particular Details of Testimon As hias already been pointed out, every historical subject has fof aspects — the biographical, the geo graphical, the chronological, and the occupational or functional. With a set of names, dates, and key-vords in mind for each of these aspects, the historical in vestigator combs his document for relevant particulars (or “notes,” as hee is more likely to call them). 7 is genecally wise to take motes ot iclevant matier whether or not it at fist appears credible, It may tum cont that even false or mistaken testimony has rcle- vance to an undesstanding af one’s problem, Having accumolated fis notes, dhe investigator niust now separate the credible from the inerecible Even from Tiis “notes” he has sometimes to extract stil smaller details, for even s single name may zeveal a companion of Taneréd, a single letter the correct spclling of Sieyés, a single digit the exact number of De Grasse's erew, ov a single phrase the motives of Wilson’s denial. In detailed investigations few docu ments are significant as a whole; they serve most often caly as mines from which ta extuact historical ory Lach bit of ore, however, may contain fines af its own, The general rclisbility of on author, in other words, has siguificince only as establishing the prob able credibility of “his particular statements, From that psocess of scrupulous analysis emerges an int portant general rule: for each particular of a docu-