Introduction
History
has been defined as the knowledge of past, the work of historian is to find out
the happenings of the past. When doing so he will collect documents from an
archive which needs authenticity of the documents and its contents. To analyze
the authenticity of documents historical method is used in research
methodology. This method is negative in approach and enables a researcher to
eliminate errors and thus helps to know the truth. This paper traces out the authenticity
of documents through raising questions, brings out objectivity and subjectivity
in historical writing and helps in identifying perspectives and biases.
1.Analytical Operation
The
first task in research is mentioned technically as analytical operation[1]
used to close scrutiny of the material. It has been divided into two branches,
namely external and internal criticism. Its main job is to pronounce whether a
given data is acceptable as a fact or not. Events as presented in the records
may or may not conform to reality, for they might have been distorted, twisted
or misrepresented. The two branches of analytical operation are two different
apparatuses used in methodology to find out truth.[2]
For John C.B. Webster these are two important criticisms for historians, in
interpreting the past.[3]
1.2.External criticism-
Heuristics[4]
Waitz,
Mommsen and Haureau of Germany and Jadunath Sarkar are few who combine the
tasks of external criticism,[5] which
is used to find out the authenticity of the document,[6] it
is also called as ‘lower criticism’ because it is considered to be a negative
operation. The historian is cautioned never to take a document at its face
value. He should begin by suspecting it and should probe deeper to find its
genuineness.[7]
It starts with interrogation. Is this document the same as it claims to be? Is
it what I believe it to be? Is it what I am told it is? These questions should
be asked by historian and find answers. Each time when he finds new trace, new
piece of information or new document these questions must be asked repeatedly.
The answer will give the authenticity of documents.[8]
The duty of the historian is to doubt every document and statement, until its
authenticity is established by critical examination and test.[9]
Prof. Langlois and Seignobos hold that external criticism means, “The first
group of preliminary investigation on the writing, the form, and the source.”[10]
1.3.Functions of External
criticism
External
criticism has mainly three functions: to establish the authorship of the
document, to determine the place of the document and to fix the time of the
document.[11]
1.4.The need for criticism
Finding
out the genuineness of records has become a part of research.[12]
External criticism usually deals with forgeries, garbled documents and partial
texts, ghost writings[13],
interpolation[14]and
plagiarism.[15]
1.4.1.Tampered record
In
Indian history there are instances of epigraphical records which have all been
tampered. Historical records are tampered not for material advantage but other
reasons like pride, vanity, sympathy, antipathy, personal rivalry, political
differences, social distinctions, religious disputes. In such cases the
question to be asked is who could carry out the forgery and why? Sometimes
documents have been faked to be sold for gain or to deceive others if it is a
donation grant. Scholars might fake document to provide a missing link in a
sequence of events.[16]
1.4.2.Forgery
Forgeries
is in fact one of the oldest and commonest of human offences. Politicians used
forgeries to damage their opponents. It is believed that a large number of
forgeries have been placed in all the archives. Documents are often forged to
establish false claims. According to Renier, this is an extremely rare
occurrence because in the raining of historians increasing emphasis is laid
upon the checking documents as to whether they are forged or not.[17]
1.4.3.How to detect a forgery?
Paleography[18]
helps us in this field, ancient Indian history is reconstructed mostly with the
help of lithic and copper plate records. The characters of writing have changed
from time to time. In forged documents the alphabets do not conform to the type
prevalent at that point of time.
Likewise the handwriting, spelling, diction, style and other characteristic
features suggest whether tampering has taken place.[19]
1.4.4.Textual criticism
Textual
criticism raised to a very high level of refinement, is one of the techniques
of determining whether a document is forged or original.[20]
Scholars devote their entire time and life to external criticism in the
restoration of texts, investigation of authorship, fixation of dates
chronology, collection, classification and verification of documents, and hence
they help historians in well authenticated document. Their job is critical
scholarship, a part of external criticism which became popular in nineteenth
century and this task was scientific. Some scholars oppose this method because
it is mechanical but is not interpreting the past and despises critical
scholarship.[21]
The difference between forged letters and original letters can be understood by
comparison. By comparing the texts,
the words, passages, ideas and style of the author can be traced out and those
which does not resemble the style of the author can be grouped as forged
document. Auxiliary sciences are of immense help in carrying textual criticism
in ascertaining the authorship, time and place of the document.[22]
1.5.Methods of external criticism
External
criticism consists of different process or technique which may be divided into
three main heads: 1. Content analysis, 2. Comparing pieces of evidences, 3.
Checking the physical properties of evidence.
1.5.1.Content Analysis
Content
analysis is an examination of the social content of the evidence. An evidence
may speak about the authorship of the document in terms of social culture where
may not be able to point out the particular author a group of authors. E.g. the
seals of the humped bull and Mohanjodaro, discovered in 1922 give an idea about
the Indus valley civilization.[23] Content
analysis is also implies examination of anachronisms. Anarchonisms[24]
are useful in checking the author ship and date of a document. E.g. a historian
who knows Shakespearean anarchoronism can easily find out whether another work
claimed to be Shakespeare’s. The anarchoronism used in a particular period may
differ from those in use at other periods and this will the historian in determining
the date of the evidence. Content analysis also helps to check the authorship
and through reference to religious functions and austral[25]
events. E.g. During vedic age certain religious functions prevailed and that
will identify the date and authorship.
1.5.2.Comparing pieces of
Evidences
Comparing
pieces of evidences helps the historian a lot, in the process of external
criticism. Comparison is made on the basis of language, script, style, etc.
Historian should find out whether the style of the alleged writer resembles
that which he exhibits in documents of known authenticity. The language script
used in a document also throws considerable light on its authorship and date.
1.5.3.Checking or examining the
physical properties of evidence
Spectroscopic[26]
analysis or chemical analysis or Carbon analysis is used to check the paper
because it has information. Made of silk or linen fibre alone and yet contain a
mixture of cotton. Sometimes it purports to be of the linen and cotton periods
and yet which may be made of wood pulp. The ink used in the document can also
lead us to the truth. Old documents have ink containing aniline hues since such
inks were not used prior to 1850. Paper and ink can be subjected to chemical tests,
hand writing can be tested through graphology and microbiology. All these tests
help in determining the date and authorship of the document.[27]
1.6.Internal criticism - Hermeneutics
External
criticism naturally leads to internal criticism one should scrutinize the
contents of the document with the intention of knowing how much of it is true,
and how much false. This operation in methodology is also known as
interpretative criticism. A scholar after examining the external aspects of a
document proceeds to ascertain the trustworthiness. This is obviously a more fundamental and significant task, and
hence it is known as higher criticism. The technique adopted in hermenutics is critical
approach, whereby researcher analyzes the product of the author’s labor in
order to distinguish between operations correctly and incorrectly performed.[28] A
true historian should be interested in lies as well as in truths and he should
try to find out the extent of truth or of falsification in a document. A
document may be genuine but statements contained in it need not be always so.[29]
The
first job in internal criticism is a close and miniute study of each of the
ideas contained in document. As part of analysis the whole document is cut into
parts. Analysis is at the root of interpretation and it is a very important
mental activity, which helps to know the nature of the historical fact.
Analysis isolates the ideas contained in a document and tests its validity
through criticism. Each idea is separately analysed and tested to bring out
which is true and false. It is the business of internal criticism to know which
one is true and which one is false. Analysis is thus necessary for criticism
and criticism begins with analysis.
There
are two operations involved in internal criticism (i) Analysis of the content
of document or Positive interpretative criticism; is to get literal and real
meaning of author’s statement (ii) analysis of the conditions under which the
document is produced or Negative interpretative criticism; to verify whether
what the author has said conforms to what really happened to eliminate the
possibility of error in his statements.[30]
1.7.Sources of Error
In
internal criticism an important fault to be overcome is the source of error.
More of the errors result from ignorance, bias, subjectivity, mutilation of
evidence, cultural differences and misuse by adherence to a dubious system of
interpretation. Two or more of these errors may exist side by side in a
document and present while a historian interpret those documents. It is the
duty of the historian to steer clear of them.
1.7.1.Ignorance
Ignorance
may occur at two levels, from the author and from the historian. The ignorance
on the part of the author’s evidence may seriously affect the preparation of
the document based on the evidence. This may be due to the person’s physical,
mental or social ability or disability. In the case of historian he may not
receive all the facts relating to a particular event or episode and hence the
documents will not contain a truthful account of it.[31]
1.7.2.Bias and subjectivity
Bias
is the act of deliberately taking side or clinging to opinions based on
insufficient examination of evidence. Subjectivity is not a crime and the
historic can never completely avoid it, every historian is conditioned by a
certain element of subjectivity which depends on his psychological matrix. Both
should be eliminated completely so far as historical writing is concerned and
it creates error. Historians should be aware of this and try to eliminate them
as far as possible from their works.
1.7.3.Mutilation of evidence
Historians
are not guilty of mutilation of evidence but there are rare exceptions. A
letter document, or piece of autobiography, originally quite genuine and
candid, all its parts possessing the same general value as evidence, has been
revised emended or otherwise so tampered with that some parts of it become
untrustworthy. Its integrity has been destroyed and the evidence which it
contains mutilated. As researchers we must deal with large class of documents
which are composite in character, proceeding from various hands or sources.
Diary, autobiography or volume of letters should be used without a watchful eye
for intimations the text has been altered or any inserted material which will
reflect the writers’ shrewdness.[32]
1.7.4.Cultural difference
Cultural
differences may exist between the author of the evidence and he who help in the
preparation of the document as well as in the person who actually write about
it. Owing to cultural differences, evidence may be falsified. Writing of an
incident by two persons may present diametrically opposite points of view
depending on their educational or cultural differences.
1.7.5.Falsification of Evidence
A
large portion of the materials contained in a document may be partially false, either
by the intention or by accident. The famous book of Charles beard ‘Economic
Interpretation of the American Constitution’ is an example of international
falsification of evidence. For Beard, American constitution is the result of
conspiracy of the well-to-do but the records do not completely justify the
views of Beard.
1.7.6.Adherence of Dubious system
of Interpretation
Depending
on the school of ideology historians are committed to certain ideals. The historian
should always remember that he is not committed to any person or ideology. His
duty is towards history and to the presentation of facts as they really happened.
Historians belonging to Marxist school always give a materialistic
interpretation to history, emphasizing the socio economic aspect of history.
2.Objectivity in Historical
writing
Objectivity
in historical writing is of capital importance for the growth of historical
studies on healthy lines.[33] Modern
historiography culminated in writing scientific history with objectivity of
facts and interpretation. Ranke laid the foundation of history to be made
objective by presentation of facts which are not subject to controversy. It is
objectivity that elevates history to the discipline of science. According to
E.H. Carr, the facts of history cannot be purely objective. Objectivity in
history cannot be an objectivity of fact but only the relation between facts
and interpretation between past, present and future, and so he gives equal
importance to facts and interpretation. Historical objectivity aims to bring to
light historical truth and is against personal bias, sentimental approach and
partiality. Volatire and the rationalists, Ranke and the positivists
contributed to the development of objectivity in history. Objectivity gives
scientific character to history and disregards philosophical and materialistic
interpretations of history. According to Acton, Ultimate history may not be
possible in this generation and challenged the objectivity in historical
writings. It is impossible to present all the facts. Historical truth is
different from truth in the other disciplines. Becker, Beard and other
historians of twentieth century confessed that history can never be objective
or free from subjectivity. Objectivity is desirable but not attainable.[34]To
Friedrich Nietzsche, objectivity is to be meaningless, impossible or
undesirable.[35]
2.1.Objectivity
To
be objective means not influenced by personal feeling or opinions. Objective is the state of being objective.
Objectivity in historical writing refers to “dispassionate, disinterested and
scientific treatment of all events”. It means unbiased and fair writing.
Scholarly writing is an impartial, unbiased and unvarnished presentation of the
problem “using a tone of scientific impersonality”. Ranke, the father of
scientific History, analyzed the historical sources critically, followed the
principle of unbiased research and sought to write his historical accounts with
‘tranquil objectivity’.[36]
2.2.Hindrances to objectivity
W.H.
Walsh points out certain hindrances to objectivity. They are: Personal likes
and dislikes, Group prejudice, Religious and moral beliefs, Racial and national
prejudices and conflicting theories of Historical interpretation.[37]
2.3.Importance of objectivity
Objectivity
in historical writing is of critical importance and the credibility of the
historical thesis depends on objective presentation. History will degenerate
into fiction in the absence of objectivity. Critical study of history is not
possible without objectivity. The need for objectivity in historical writing is
self evident. Real history is possible only when it is written objectively. It
is a matter of intellectual honesty and moral standards. Systematic methods for
the attainment of objectivity in history must be employed. Objectivity ensures
accuracy, authenticity and acceptability. Due to the varied historical data the
historian must be cautious and careful in handling historical material. He must be as objective as possible.
Objectivity alone will save the historian and his writing from subjectivity
syndrome.[38]History
as a science is to reveal the truth as it is.[39]
2.4.Subjectivity
Subjectivity
is antithesis to objectivity. It exists in the mind of the historian and not
produced by things outside the mind. It refers to the preconceived ideas, feelings,
opinions, notions etc. of the Historian. Subjectivity seems to be inescapable
and is inbuilt in the art of writing history. Mostly historians are affected by
the virus of subjectivity. Subjectivity and bias are not synonymous. Bias
refers to historian’s predisposition. It refers to the feeling that strongly
favors one side in an analysis of a historical problem or one item in a group
or series of facts or events. Bias is the breeding ground of subjectivity. Bias
and subjectivity are like identical twins. [40] Subjectivity
itself is not bad but no writer can completely escape from it. It may be
conscious or unconscious. If the historian is conscious of his subjectivity, he
can avoid it while writing, but may not be completely successful since it is
psychological.[41]
Trevelyan points, when one writes, he is present in his work with his whole
personality, with his temporant, with his reason and with his group
consciousness.[42]
Conclusion
Writing
history should have a scientific approach and modern writers have adopted new
methods to write history, in spite there is no proper method in writing
history. Historical method emerged due to the advancement of science and
technology. It is negative in approach but critically analyzes the document and
content and eliminates the errors and brings out the truth. Bias must be
prevented in writing history until and unless it leads to subjectivity.
Bibliography
Day,
Mark. The Philosophy of History.
London: Continuation International Publishing, 2008.
Krishnan
Nadar G. Book of Historical method and
Historiography. Trivandrum: SPK Offset printing works, 1995.
Majumdar,
R.K. A.N.Srivastva. Histriography. New Delhi: SBD Publishers Distributors, 1991.
Rajayyan,
K. History in theory and method. Madurai;
Madurai Publishing house, 1976.
Sheik
Ali, B. History: Its Theory and Method.
Madras: Mac Milan India Limited, 1978.
Venkatesan,
G. A
Study of Historiography. Rajapalayam: V.C. Publications, 1994.
Webster,
John C.B. Historiography of Christianity in India. New Delhi: Oxford
University press, 2012.
[1] It is analytical because the
whole document is not examined but is split up into its elemental parts, to its
single idea and then its validity is tested. It is an operation because the
document is cut open threadbare like a surgeon opens human body.
[2]B. Sheik Ali, History: Its Theory and Method (Madras:
Mac Milan India Limited, 1978) ,111. (Here after cited as Sheik, History… )
[3] John C.B.
Webster, Historiography of Christianity
in India (New Delhi: Oxford University press, 2012), 68.
[4] Gk word meaning aiding, Inciting
to find out , helping, guiding in discovery
[5] Sheik, History…,115.
[6] Sheik, History…,112.
[7] G.Krishnan
Nadar, Book of Historical method and
Historiography (Trivandrum: SPK Offset printing works, 1995),113. (Here
after cited as Krishnan, Book of
Historical…, )
[8] Sheik, History…, 112.
[9] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 118.
[10] R.K.Majumdar,
A.N.Srivastva, Histriography (New
Delhi: SBD Publishers Distributors, 1991), 57.
[11] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 113.
[12] Sheik, History…, 112.
[13] to write (an autobiographical or other article) on behalf of a person who is then credited as author.
[14] Estimation
of an unknown quantity between two known quantities (historical data), or drawing conclusions about missing information from the available information.
[15] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 113.
[16] Sheik, History…, 112, 113.
[17] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 113.
[18] the
study of ancient writing systems and the deciphering and dating of historical
manuscripts
[19] Sheik, History…, 113.
[20] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 117.
[21] Sheik, History…, 113.
[22] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 117.
[23]Krishnan, Book of Historical… , 115.
[24] The word derives from chronos,
the Greek word for “time,” and ‘ana’-, a Greek prefix meaning “up,” “back,” or
“again.” When it was first used in English in the 17th century, anachronism
referred to an error in the dating of something.
[25] in or coming from regions of the
south; “the southern hemisphere”; “southern constellations” of, relating to, or
coming from the south.
[26] the use of spectroscopy in
determining the chemical or physical constitution of substances
[27] Krishnan, Book of Historical…,116.
[28] Sheik, History…,116, 117.
[29] Krishnan, Book of Historical…,118.
[30]Sheik, History… ,117.
[31]Krishnan, Book of Historical… , 118.
[32] Krishnan, Book of Historical…,119.
[33] K.Rajayyan, History
in theory and method (Madurai; Madurai Publishing house, 1976), 253. (Here
after cited as Rajayyan, History in
theory…, )
[34] Krishnan, Book of Historical…, 50, 51.
[35] Mark Day, The Philosophy of History (London;
Continuation International Publishing, 2008), 156.
[36] G.Venkatesan, A Study of Historiography ( Rajapalayam:
V.C.Publications, 1994), 389. (Here after cited as Venkatesan, A Study of Historiography… )
[37]Krishnan, Book of Historical… ,51.
[38] Venkatesan, A Study of Historiography… , 388, 389.
[39]Rajayyan, History in theory…, 254.
[40] Venkatesan, A Study of Historiography… , 389.
[41] Krishnan, Book of Historical…,51.
[42] Rajayyan, History in theory…, 255.
