Source criticism
The source criticism attempts to determine who made a historical source, and with what motivation. It is thus a central task of historians.
Background
Modern, methodical source criticism has two precursors: the philological textual criticism from the Renaissance and the somewhat later work with old documents to determine their authenticity and adequacy of the legal rights associated with them.
By comparing a source than by checking the plausibility of statements made, or technical investigations Asked Questions can often be clarified; sometimes they can be answered, however, not clear, or only with newly developed test methods ( see, eg, Vinland map). Source criticism must be though often used with other methods to non-written sources ( eg coins, buildings, stamps) to the same extent. With the different types of sources and the methods for their criticism to deal the historical auxiliary sciences.
Classification
The source criticism, we must distinguish between the other hand, recording or finding the one hand and interpretation. The finding is always ahead of the interpretation. The interpretation should not be done solely from the text, because the legislative history and the historical circumstances contribute to the importance. A distinction is made between internal and external source criticism.
External source criticism
The external source criticism refers to the physical shape of the source: type of production that can be useful for the detection of origin and time, material selection, text flow, word choice and style, as well as storage location, condition and other aspects of tradition relationship, and finally the integrity of the source, are to be mentioned here as a possible objects of external criticism. An older term for external source criticism is "Critique of authenticity ", because it gives information about whether the specified exhibitor or the manufacturer of the source is the actual or even can be. But even fakes have secured source of value, namely in relation to the forger.
Ernst Bernheim summarizes the external source criticism in his frequently reprinted "Introduction to the science of history " in four questions together:
" 1 Corresponds to the outer shape of the source [ ... ] of the form, the emergence of other than genuine known sources of the same kind at the time and place of the alleged or [ ... ] adopted our own source is [ ... ]? 2 Do the contents of the source of what we otherwise know of certain real sources [ ... ] is [ ... ]? 3 Compliance form [ ... ] content and the character of the whole milieu of development, during which the source is supposed to [ ... ]? 4 Can be found in or at the source of artificial traces, fälschender Mache, such as implausible, strange way of finding and averaging over [ ... ]? "
Inner Source Criticism
The internal source criticism relates to the question of the quality of the information. Due to questions of authorship, the addressee, with the context, etc. should be especially clear how close the source location and time the event is reported as greater proximity is indicative of the quality of the information. In addition, the plausibility of the source content is tested by whether it is at all possible. Since the " final decisive criterion for a source [ ... ] her cognitive value for historical research " is, when assessing the sources of "closeness" to the events of special value to:
"The report of an eyewitness or a photo is always entitled to priority over a subsequent report or investigation protocol. It has this 'is selected or, secondary sources. ' The names of, primary "
The question of the Creator of a source, " his person, his life circumstances, his intention" is particularly important for the internal source criticism:
"How much could a writer aware of the reported processes it, and how much he wanted to tell them? "
Ernst Bernheim divides the source criticism as follows:
"Critique of sources and data [ ... ] 1 forgery and failure to recognize the sources, interpolation [...] 2 place of origin and time of the sources [...] 3 Determination of the author [...] 4 source analysis [...] 5 review and Edition of the sources [...] 6 tests of reliability [ ...] 7 establish the facts [ ...] 8 order of the data by theme, time, place [ ... ]. "