Historical criticism

Historical criticism is the critical examination of historiography as a whole or individual elements (e.g. epochs, cultures, actors) of history . It is part of the scientific-critical method of historical science .

It goes back to Pyrrhon von Elis , who postulated that one could not learn anything from history and is expressed in Theodor Lessing's famous formula of history as giving meaning to the meaningless .

Classic criticism of history

Technical questions of historical criticism are, for example:

The clarification of forgeries and incorrect dating, as far as it is relevant in historical research: One example is the attribution of works to masters whose life dates are not exactly known.
Studies on the secondary use of materials that assess absolute dating , e.g. B. with the help of dendrochronology .
The review of traditional rulers' successes and their key data by comparing them with contemporary records of other provenance: It was only through the deciphering of cuneiform texts that some of the ambiguities of the Egyptian pharaohs could be clarified.

Analysis of contemporary falsifications of history : It was - and still is - politically desirable in some cultures to erase memories of defeated dynasties or unpleasant ancestors by removing them from official historiography.

Avoidance of historical confusion through demarcation from myths , legends and other non-scientific forms of traditional culture and ideas.

See also: Historical-critical method of text analysis

Modern criticism of history

The intention of the historical criticism of the late 20th century was originally to subject the methodology and the instruments of the historical sciences to a similarly rigorous examination as the z. B. Physics or mathematics took place in the 1920s - 1930s . The question was whether the axiomatics of historiography does not contain circle references, or whether it is ultimately based on unsecured, but not in doubt, sources .

However, this approach soon got lost in various hypothetical constructs that superimposed the original motivation and lost itself in the same eclecticism that was actually supposed to be questioned. The result is that the established historical science regards this form of historical criticism as a parascience . This subject area operates under the name of chronology criticism .

In the works of Edmund Husserl and Michel Foucault, there are approaches to historical criticism that represent a different approach.