Source criticism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The source criticism tries to determine under which circumstances a historical source was created, in particular who produced it when and with what motivation. This is a central task for historians .

background

The modern, methodical source criticism has two precursors: the philological text criticism from the Renaissance and the somewhat later occupation with old documents in order to determine their authenticity and the validity of the legal claims connected with them. This can also reveal possible falsifications of history .

By comparing one source with another, by checking the plausibility of statements made, or by technical investigations, questions asked can often be clarified; sometimes they cannot be answered unequivocally either, or only with newly developed research methods (see e.g. Vinland map ). Source criticism must be applied equally to non-written sources (e.g. coins , buildings , stamps ) , albeit often with different methods . The historical auxiliary sciences deal with the various types of sources and the methods of criticizing them .

Classification

When criticizing the source, one must distinguish between the recording or finding on the one hand and interpretation on the other. The finding always precedes the interpretation. The interpretation must not be based on the text alone, because the history of origin and the historical circumstances contribute to the meaning. A basic distinction is made between internal and external source criticism.

External source criticism

The external source criticism relates to the physical form of the source: type of production, which can be helpful for determining the place and time of origin, choice of material, text flow, choice of words and style, as well as storage location, state of preservation and other aspects of the traditional context, finally the completeness of the Source, are to be mentioned here as possible objects of external criticism. An older term for external source criticism is "criticism of authenticity", because it provides information on whether the specified issuer or manufacturer of the source is or can be the actual one. But secured counterfeit products also have source value, namely in relation to the forger.

Ernst Bernheim summarizes the external criticism of sources in his introduction to the science of history, which has been reprinted many times, in four questions:

"1. Does the external shape of the source [...] correspond to the shape that is characteristic of the other sources of the same type known to be genuine at the time and place of the alleged or [...] assumed origin of our source [...]?
2. Does the content of the source correspond to what is otherwise known to us from certainly real sources [...]?
3. Do the form [...] and content correspond to the character and the whole milieu of the development within which the source is supposedly located [...]?
4. Are there traces of artificial, falsifying machinations in or at the source, such as implausible, strange ways of finding and transmitting [...]? "

- Ernst Bernheim

Inner source criticism

The internal source criticism relates to the question of the quality of the information contained. Questions about the authorship, the addressee, the context, etc. should clarify in particular how close the source is in terms of location and time to the reported event, since greater proximity is an indication of the quality of the information. In addition, the plausibility of the source content is checked to see whether it is possible at all. Since the "ultimately decisive criterion for a source [...] is its cognitive value for historical research", when assessing sources, the "proximity" to the event is of particular importance:

“An eyewitness report or a photo will always have priority over a later report or investigation protocol. The names of the 'primary' and 'secondary sources' were chosen for this. "

- Klaus Arnold

The question of the originator of a source, "his person, his living conditions, his intention" is particularly important for the inner criticism of the source:

"How much could an author know about the events he reported, and how much did he want to report about them?"

- Klaus Arnold

Ernst Bernheim divides the source criticism as follows:

" Criticism of the sources and data [...]
1. Falsification and misunderstanding of the sources, interpolation [...]
2. Place and time of origin of the sources [...]
3. Determination of the author [...]
4. Source analysis [...]
5. Review and." Edition of the sources […]
6. Checking the reliability […]
7. Establishing the facts […]
8. Ordering the data according to subject, time, place […]. "

- Ernst Bernheim

See also

literature

Web links

  • Source criticism. Learning unit in: History Online of the University of Vienna. - Link out of date

Footnotes

  1. ^ Klaus Arnold: The scientific handling of sources . In: Hans-Jürgen Goertz (Ed.): History. A basic course . 2nd Edition. Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg 2001, pp. 42–58, here p. 5.
  2. ^ Ernst Bernheim: Introduction to the science of history . Göschen Collection, Vol. 270. 3./4. Edition. De Gruyter, Berlin / Leipzig 1936, pp. 140f. (first 1905)
  3. ↑ a b Klaus Arnold: The scientific handling of sources . In: Hans-Jürgen Goertz (Ed.): History. A basic course . 2nd Edition. Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg 2001, pp. 42–58, here p. 44, ISBN 3-499-55688-X .
  4. ↑ a b Klaus Arnold: The scientific handling of sources . In: Hans-Jürgen Goertz (Ed.): History. A basic course . 2nd Edition. Rowohlt, Reinbek bei Hamburg 2001, pp. 42–58, here p. 50.
  5. ^ Ernst Bernheim: Introduction to the science of history . De Gruyter, Berlin / Leipzig 1936, p. 4.