fications of material and to place under each division all possible examples.1

HISTORICAL MATERIALS.

I. CONSCIOUSLY TRANSMITTED INFORMATION.

Written.

Chronicles, annals, biographies, memoirs, diaries, genealogies, certain classes of inscriptions.

Oral Tradition.

Ballads, anecdotes, tales, saga.

Artistic Productions.

Historical paintings, portraits, scenic sculpture, coin types.

II. RELICS, OR UNCONSCIOUS TESTIMONY.

1

Human remains, language, institutions, products of the hand, implements, fine arts, products of the mind, business records, literature.

III. INSCRIPTIONS, MONUMENTS, PUBLIC DOCUMENTS OF CERTAIN CLASSES.

All of these may have also qualities belonging to Class I or Class II.

Compare the table in Bernheim, Lehrbuch der historischen Methode, 258. (Ed. 1908.)

CHAPTER III

EXTERNAL CRITICISM

SINCE the object of history is to establish as nearly as possible the true development of society or of some selected part, it becomes necessary for the historian first to test the data furnished by his predecessors and to determine whether the fragments of information received are themselves true, or what measure of probability should be ascribed to them. These are the duties of historical criticism. Criticism, however, is not the chief end of historical research. The combination of results, the perception of the relations of events, and the final construction of these into narratives are the great objects of the study, yet these are of no value unless based on scientific criticism. Not until the isolated data have been proved and interpreted may the historian draw safe conclusions.

The processes of criticism fall naturally into two Definition. parts. The first important step is to determine whether the given source is at all admissible as evi- X dence, or, in other words, whether the material is genuine or not. Conclusions are worthless and labor is wasted if the document is fraudulent or misjudged. It is necessary to know at the outset whether the chronicle, charter, or relic is in reality what it claims to be, or what it has been esteemed to be. It is

Internal Criticism.

important to determine where and when it originated, who was its author, and where he derived his information. The rules of procedure by which these facts are determined in historical research constitute External Criticism. The propriety of this definition will be more fully observed when the various materials are criticized in detail. The process has to do with those data about a document or relic which relate to forms and appearance rather than to contents.

The second part of the critical process weighs the relation of the testimony to the truth. One must decide whether the statements made are trustworthy and, if not absolutely certain, whether they are probable. The degree of probability or possibility must be determined, or, if necessary, the whole cast out as worthless. This is Internal Criticism, and is often called Higher Criticism, since it deals with more important matter than external form. However, the external facts about a document are often obtained in part by a study of the contents. The date of a paper may be determined sometimes by what it says or by the way it is written, hence external criticism may employ any means at its command to establish the outside data of a source. The definition explains the kind of things to be proved, not the means used to prove them. Owing to their essential importance,

1

1 The term Higher Criticism has in recent years received a popular meaning in connection with Bible study which obscures its real significance. In the minds of some, higher criticism means the rationalization of scripture and designates a class of doctrines at variance with orthodox views. This is an unfortunate use of the words, for they ought to be employed without theological significance.

the processes of external criticism demand attention first.

The labors of the historical student are greatly increased by the fact that materials are frequently placed before him about which there is doubt as to their genuineness. This is not necessarily due to gross forgery, but may come from the absence of proper information, the lack of name or date, or the presence of doubtful statements which throw suspicion on the whole. The investigator of mediæval history is particularly liable to meet questionable material in manuscript, and the student of antiquity is obliged to test carefully what are offered as inscriptions and relics. Modern history is not exempt, but since the invention of printing the forms of difficulty and the process of proof are somewhat different. The necessity for the test of genuineness, however, remains as before.

It is the further misfortune of the historian that Error. his material is subject not only to the variableness and idiosyncrasies of human nature in the first producer, but also to the errors and misconceptions of every writer who has intervened. A large part of his work consists in undoing what his predecessors have conceived. This labor is not due to the supposition that historical writers have had a great desire to give false information because in the course of time a great many mistakes have been made. All kinds of sources from relics to chronicles have been accepted for what they were not, and it has taken a long time to correct the mistakes.

Errors spring chiefly from two evils which beset

Hypercriticism.

all arts and sciences, ignorance and superficiality, and both of these lead to neglect of the rules of evidence. In a simple age where credulity is the rule we may not expect that the origin and character of documents will be carefully scrutinized. The same result occurs when a person who is inadequately prepared attempts to write the history of a period and accepts the materials he finds in the light of his imperfect knowledge. Lack of experience in the testing of documents and neglect of the laws of evidence, because the writer was not aware of the origin and nature of his materials, are fruitful sources of error. The more one knows about a subject the more will he appreciate the quality and significance of documents as they come into view. It is the experience of every investigator that he began to see things only after he had been some time at work.

The evils of haste and superficiality are likely not only to mar the literary style of the historian who succumbs to them, but their effects are to be found at a more fundamental point. A partial or slovenly examination of the materials will perpetuate the errors of the past and engender new misconceptions for the future. The day has gone by when haste will be accepted as an excuse for errors of fact or for mistakes due to inadequate use of available material. Yet all of these troubles must be anticipated and the work of predecessors carefully

scanned.

Occasionally errors are perpetuated through overrefinement of criticism. The ambition to find some