HISTORICAL CRITICISMS

Historical criticism examines the origins of earliest text to appreciate the underlying circumstances
upon which the text came to be (Soulen and Soulen,2001). It has two important goals: First, to discover
the original meaning of the text in its primitive or historical context and its literal sense or sensus
literalis historicus. Second, is to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and
recipient of the text. Historical criticism has two types, external criticism and internal criticism. There are
two parts of a historical criticism. The first part is to determine the authenticity of the material, also
called provenance of the source. The critics should determine the origin of the material, its author, and
the source of information used. External criticism is used in determining these facts. The second part is
to weigh the testimony to the truth. The critic must examine the trustworthiness of the testimony as
well as determine the probability of the statement to be true. This process is called internal criticism or
higher criticism since it deals with more important matter than the external form. As the historian
draws his conclusions and generalizations on the basis of these documents and facts it is essential to
check up the authenticity of the documents and facts. It is the duty of the historian to doubt every
statement until it has been critically tested. This criticism can be of two types, i.e., External and Internal.

(1) External Criticism: The ‘External Criticism’ is of a less intellectual type of criticism of the
documents. It includes examinations of documents like manuscripts, books, pamphlets, maps,
inscriptions, and monuments. The problem of authenticity of document arises more in the case
of manuscripts than the printed documents because the printed document has already been
authenticated by the editor. Historian has to resort to a number of tests to determine the
authenticity of a particular document in his proposed area of research such as— ‘Authorship’
the first question while examining the authenticity of a document is its author. Even the
anonymous writings can provide us useful and important knowledge. But the discovery of an
author’s or writer’s name adds the authenticity of the information because of the character,
connections and trustworthiness of the author determine the authenticity. Secondly, “Date of
Document”, i.e., the time, place of publication of the document must be inquired to determine
the authenticity of the document. In the modern publications year and place of publication is
indicated on the book or document on the title page or backside (overleaf). However, in the old
manuscript where the data and place are absent, it can be found out from the language or from
the date of birth and death of the author. Thirdly, the historian confronts the textual errors
which may be either unintentional or deliberately committed. Unintentional error can take place
in the copies of the documents (originals are not available). These mistakes may be caused by
the scribe, typist or printer. An intention error may creep in when the effort is made to modify,
supplement or continue the original. This problem can be overcome through textual criticism.
Under this technique, the effort is made to collect as many copies of dubious text as possible
and they are compared. If the ideas and style do not match or resemble the idea and style of the
author it can be safely assumed that they were not parts of the original manuscript and were
forged by the later ones. Further’ more, the textual accuracy can be solved with the help of
“sciences auxiliary” to history such as “Paleographists” have authenticated numerous
documents of the medieval period by their handwriting and have published easily legible
printed versions
(2) Internal Criticism: While collecting the material, it must be remembered that a document
contains the idea of the man who wrote it. A historian must analyze the contents of the
documents with a view to determining the real meaning. He must try to avoid the laps such as
avoid the reading into meaning which author did not mean to convey, etc., and make a sincere
effort to find out the facts even if they are contrary to his set notions and theories. He must be
able to understand the literal and real meaning of the document which is termed as ‘Positive
Criticism’. It reveals us with the author’s conceptions and general notion which he represents.
On another hand, historian sometimes comes across documents which contradict each other.
Hence the need for eliminating statements and facts which are obviously wrong and false arises.
Therefore, historians have come to hold the view that all that cannot be proved must be
temporarily regarded as doubtful because of the incompetence and unreliability of the author
which prevents him telling the truth even when he knows. To assess the correctness of the fact,
the historian must ascertain whether the author had the opportunity to know the facts as an
eyewitness or not. What was his source of information and how much time elapsed between
the event and the record? But the dependable testimony depends on a number of factors such
as ability and willingness to tell the truth, the accuracy of the report and independent
corroboration. However, it may be noted that there is a possibility that a skillful liar may
deliberately create the condition, i.e., ability and willingness to tell the truth with accuracy to
establish the credibility of his statements. Therefore, in those cases, the credibility must not be
accepted without proper investigation. Moreover, if there is an agreement between documents,
we cannot draw the conclusion that the facts are definitive but we must ensure that the facts
are harmonious and prove each other are interconnected.