LESSON 1.

3 INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL CRITICISM

Being able to identify primary sources from secondary sources is the first step of
historical method. Historical method refers to the process of probing primary sources
that will be used in writing history. This includes source criticism which studies the
external and internal validity of sources.

According the Gilbert J. Garraghan and Jean Delanglez in 1946, source criticism
asks the following questions:

1. When was the source, written or unwritten, produced?

2. Where was it produced?
3. By whom was it produced?
4. From what pre-existing material was it produced?
5. In what original form was it produced?
6. What is the evidential value of its contents?

The first five questions are considered to be part of external criticism. Historians
determine the authenticity of sources by examining the date, locale, creator, analysis
and integrity of the historical sources. This information must be consistent with each
other. It means, for example, that the materials used in a source must match the time
and place when it was produced.

The last question is treated as internal criticism as it helps the historians determine
the credibility of the source. It studies the content of the source to know its truthfulness.
For a source to be valid, its content must be reasonable and historically precise. One
should now rely on a data which is not supported by evidence.
 What if there are two or more sources to prove a certain historical event?
Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898) have presented the following
procedures to examine contradictory sources:

1. If the sources all agree about an event, historians can consider the event
proved;
2. However, majority does not rule; even if most sources relate events in one
way, that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual
analysis;
3. The source whose account can be confirmed by reference to outside
authorities in some of its parts can be trusted in its entirety if it is impossible
similarly to confirm the entire text;
4. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer
the source with most "authority"—that is the source created by the expert
or by the eyewitness;
5. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances
where the ordinary observer could have accurately reported what
transpired and, more specifically, when they deal with facts known by
most contemporaries;
6. If two independently created sources agree on a matter, the reliability of
each is measurably enhanced;
7. When two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation,
then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common
sense.

Primary sources are mostly accounts of eyewitnesses. As proposed above, they are
generally preferred. In history, however, one should not immediately accept statements
of an eyewitness without evaluation. RJ Shafer had suggested that we ask the following
questions:

✓ Is the real meaning of the statement different from its literal meaning? Are
words used in senses not employed today? Is the statement meant to be
ironic (i.e., mean other than it says)?
✓ How well could the author observe the thing he reports? Were his senses
equal to the observation? Was his physical location suitable
✓ to sight, hearing, touch? Did he have the proper social ability to observe:
did he understand the language, have other expertise required (e.g., law,
military); was he not being intimidated by his wife or the secret police?
✓ How did the author report and what was his ability to do so?
o Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper
time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording
instruments?
 oWhen did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much
later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and
those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.
o What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he
report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest
distortion to the author?
o Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent
on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did
he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not
seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information,
almost certainly not intended to mislead?
✓ Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human
nature, or in conflict with what we know?
✓ Remember that some types of information are easier to observe and
report on than others.
✓ Are there inner contradictions in the document?

In some cases when there is no primary source available to confirm the happening of
one event or history, indirect eyewitnesses or secondary sources may be inquired from.
In these cases, Gottschalk has suggested to ask the following:

1. From whose primary testimony does the secondary witness base his
statements?
2. Did the secondary witness accurately report the primary testimony as
a whole?
3. If not, in what details did he accurately report the primary testimony?

Having reasonable answers from these questions will give the historian a source,
which may be considered original and reliable.

Historians may also look into oral traditions as a source of history. These traditions,
however, may only be accepted if they satisfy the following conditions:

1. Broad conditions: a. The tradition should be supported by an unbroken series

of witnesses, reaching from the immediate and first reporter of the fact to the
living mediate witness from whom we take it from, or to the one who was the
first to commit it to writing. b. There should be several parallel and
independent series of witnesses testifying to the fact in question.
2. 2. Particular conditions:
a. The tradition must report a public event of importance, such as would
necessarily be known directly to a great number of persons.
b. The tradition must have been generally believed, at least for definite
period of time.
c. During that definite period, it must have gone without protest, even
from persons interested in denying it.
 d. The tradition must be one of relatively limited duration (Elsewhere,
Garraghan suggests a maximum limit of 150 years, at least in cultures
that excel in oral remembrance)
e. The critical spirit must have been sufficiently developed while the
tradition lasted, and the necessary means of critical investigation must
have been at hand.
f. Critical-minded persons who would surely have challenged the
tradition – had they considered it false – must have made no such
challenge.

Other traditions may also be proven by presentation of comparable evidence

such as archeological records or remains.

The guidelines presented above may help in the examination of sources, which
may be accepted in writing history. These should be coupled by further
assessments using proper historical reasoning.