The main elements of scientific criticism of sources. History of the book (3.1) Views of the methodological school on source criticism

25.11.2019

First of all, it is necessary to find out What does the concept of "historical sources" mean and why is it necessary to be able to work with them?

The historian is completely deprived of the opportunity to personally establish the facts that he studies. No Egyptologist has ever seen pharaohs. No specialist in Napoleonic wars did not hear the guns of Austerlitz. One can speak about previous epochs only on the basis of the evidence left from them. As Mark Blok (who has already been discussed) noted, the historian plays the role of an investigator trying to reconstruct a picture of a crime in which he himself was not present, or a physicist who is forced to stay at home due to the flu and learns about the results of his experience from the reports of a laboratory attendant. Thus knowledge of the past will never be direct. But even a researcher who recreates the history of the recent past, which he himself witnessed, is not in the best position. After all, direct, "direct" observation is almost always an illusion. The historian cannot be a witness to all the events taking place in his time, he can directly observe only an insignificant part of them. In addition, what the researcher "sees" to a large extent consists of what others have seen. The historian studies the state of affairs in the economy on the basis of summaries compiled by economists; public opinion- based on data from sociologists, etc.

Thus, historical knowledge is always not direct, but indirect. Between history as a process and the activity of a historian there are peculiar intermediaries, which are called historical sources. Historical source is a very broad concept. This is all that can give an idea of a person's life in the past. The variety of historical sources dictates the need for their classification. There are several types of such classifications. For example, sources are divided into intentional And unintentional. Unintentional sources include what a person created not with the aim of entering history, leaving a trace about himself in it, but with the aim of simply providing himself with everything necessary for life. These sources usually include material sources. There is a special historical discipline - archeology, which studies the ancient past of mankind on the basis of what remains of dwellings, tools, etc. Intentional sources are usually written sources. Many of them were created with a very specific goal - to declare themselves. This is especially true for the sources studied by political history: these are the programs of political parties; transcripts of congresses, conferences, meetings; speeches and writings politicians and similar documents.

There are other classifications of historical sources: they are classified by period of creation, by type(materials funds mass media, memoirs, etc.), in the areas of historical science, for which these sources may be of interest (sources for economic history, For political history, for cultural history, etc.).

The search for historical sources is the most important component of the work of both a professional historian and a person studying history. But the mere presence of sources is not enough. This is easy to verify with a specific example. Long years in our country, access to a significant part of the sources was difficult, many archives were closed even to specialists. Under these conditions, the idea arose that, one has only to open the doors of special storage facilities and secret funds how all questions related to our past will be answered. Access to sources has now become easier, but the expected breakthrough in historical science has not occurred, since its source crisis has been revealed. It follows from this that without the ability to work with historical sources, an adequate reconstruction of history is impossible.

It should be borne in mind that sources are what is created by people, and therefore they cannot be a reflection of objective truth. They bear both the stamp of the era and the worldview, social, psychological and other orientations of their authors, i.e. they represent a complex combination of objective and subjective factors. To reproduce the point of view of the source without analysis and comments in historical research means to repeat the long-noted mistake of historical science, which sometimes believes in any era, no matter what it says about itself.

Here are the words of Karl Marx expressed on this occasion: “While in everyday life any shopkeeper is perfectly able to distinguish between what this or that person pretends to be and what he really is, our historiography has not yet reached before this trivial knowledge. She believes in the word of each era, no matter what it says or imagines about itself.

Therefore, it is necessary to be able to analyze historical sources. The development of methods for their analysis is carried out by a special historical discipline - source study.

Having found out what historical sources are and what their classifications are, it is necessary to move on to the question: What are the directions of analysis of historical sources and methods of working with them?

Source study contains the concept "criticism of sources"(that is, their analysis). Usually isolated external And internal criticism of historical sources. External criticism establishes the authenticity, time, place of creation of the source, its authorship. (Time, place and authorship are established even when they are indicated in the document, since sometimes they are deliberately distorted). Internal criticism focuses on the content of the source. Its essence lies in the study of the testimony of a source about a historical fact, in determining the reliability, completeness and accuracy of the information contained in the source.

Since students get acquainted with sources through anthologies and collections of documents, which include documents that have undergone external criticism, mastering its techniques for them and for all students of history is not a priority. It is much more important to learn how to analyze a historical source in terms of content.

Main directions internal criticism are:

- establishing the purpose of creating a particular source;

- establishing the place of the source in the context of the era, its

representativeness relative to the most historical

reality;

- establishing the reliability of the source (it should not be

confused with authenticity).

What do these directions mean?

An intentional historical source is created for some purpose. Highlighting this goal will allow a deeper understanding of the content of the source, its logic and argumentation. The realization that the source was created for a specific purpose will allow students to understand that there were other purposes, and, therefore, there are other documents covering the same historical fact from the other side. This will target the search for multiple documents, and therefore their comparison.

Finding out the place of the source in the context of the era involves the solution of several problems at once. First, it is necessary to establish how important this source is for studying the era reflected in it. After all, the real scale historical events does not always coincide with how it is reflected in the documents. More significant facts may be given a glimpse, and less significant ones may be given too much great importance. In other words, it is necessary to understand how the source is representative (representative) for the study of a particular time. Secondly, this is a clarification of the positions from which the document was written. This will answer the question: what other points of view on the event under consideration existed in the past and, thus, will again guide the search for other documents. In addition, understanding that the source belongs to a certain system of views will lead to the fact that his point of view will not be mechanically transferred to historical research as the ultimate truth.

Establishing the reliability of a source involves finding out how correctly it explains the causes of certain events. There are situations when the source will be authentic from the point of view of external criticism (that is, not fake), but will contain unreliable information or interpretation. For example, many speeches by politicians are authentic in the sense that they are speeches of these political figures, and not their doubles or impostors. But this does not mean at all that the information contained in these speeches is true and reliable. Therefore, comparison with other documents is necessary.

What are the rules and techniques for working with historical sources?

There are many methods of working with historical sources that allow you to fulfill the tasks of their criticism. Let us dwell on the basic techniques, without the knowledge of which any meaningful work with historical documents is impossible.

▼ First of all, it is necessary to learn the rule: sources should not be selected for ready-made theories, but theories and conclusions should be formulated based on the analysis of numerous sources. If you break this rule, then the result will be anything you like, but not historical science. There are a lot of historiosophical constructions that operate with specially selected facts, but they cannot be considered historical science; they distort historical reality, proceeding not from documents to theory, but from theory to documents. Sources are not illustrations of pre-constructed theories. The worst scientific crime that a historian can commit is to throw out a fact that does not fit into his historical concept.

▼ From this follows the rule: to study not individual sources (no matter what principle they are selected for), but the whole complex of sources on the topic under study.

▼ The study of the entire complex of sources will inevitably lead to situations where the same historical fact will be covered by different sources, not just from different angles, but from completely opposite positions. It should be treated as a natural phenomenon. Each source reflects the view of one part of society on the event, and there are many views. If we confine ourselves to one source, this will lead to a one-sided vision of a historical event.

What methods of working with sources are necessary in this situation? Not at all the ability to compose various sources something in the middle. This is not possible, nor is it necessary. It is necessary to be able to compare and compare sources, showing the versatility of a historical event and the ambiguity of its perception.

Let's look at this with a specific example. December 6, 1876 in St. Petersburg, on Nevsky Prospekt in front of the Kazan Cathedral, the first demonstration in the history of Russia under the red banner took place. One of its organizers was G.V. Plekhanov, then a student of one of the St. Petersburg universities, later - the first Russian Marxist. It is a fact. Let's see how it is reflected in various sources.

Source one. G.V. Plekhanov himself, a participant in this demonstration, recalls:

“On the morning of December 6, all the “rebellious” workers' circles came to the scene. But there were no outside workers. We saw that we had too little strength and decided to wait. The workers dispersed to the nearest taverns, leaving only a small group at the cathedral porch to observe the progress of affairs. Meanwhile, young students came up in large groups. …

The bored "nihilists" began to go out onto the porch, from the neighboring taverns, the "rebels" who were sitting there - the workers, came up. The crowd assumed quite impressive proportions. We decided to act. …

There were few policemen and gendarmes on Kazanskaya Square. They looked at us and "waited for action." When the first words of the revolutionary speech were heard, they tried to squeeze through to the speaker, but they were immediately pushed back. ... When, after the speech was delivered, the red banner was unfurled, the young peasant Potapov grabbed him and, lifted up by the workers, held him high above the heads of those present for some time. …

“Now let’s all go together, otherwise they will arrest us,” some voices shouted, and we moved in a crowd towards Nevsky. But as soon as we took a few steps, the police ... began to grab those walking in the back rows. …

New and strong reinforcements came to the police. A whole detachment of policemen, accompanied by many janitors, quickly approached the square. … The most severe dump began. ... Those who acted alone were immediately seized and, after brutal beatings, dragged to the stations.

(G.V. Plekhanov. Russian worker in the revolutionary movement. Collection of articles. L., 1989. P. 84 - 88.)

This is the testimony of a demonstrator. Here's a look from the other side. The famous Russian lawyer Anatoly Fedorovich Koni testifies, describing in his memoirs the same day, December 6, 1876:

“I found Trepov in the office of the Minister of Justice, Fuchs, Prosecutor of the Chamber, Comrade Prosecutor Poskochin, and Comrade Minister Frisch. The latter animatedly related that, walking along the Nevsky an hour ago, he had witnessed a demonstration at the Kazan Cathedral, carried out by a group of young people of a "nihilistic sort", which was stopped by the intervention of the police, who began to beat the demonstrators. In view of the undoubted importance of such a fact in the capital, in broad daylight, he hurried to the ministry and found Trepov there, who confirmed that a handful of young people were outrageous and carried in their arms some kind of boy who waved a banner with the inscription "Land and Freedom". At the same time, Trepov said that they were all arrested - one who resisted was tied up, and some were probably armed, because. a revolver was found on the ground. ... Demonstration ... caused a very indifferent attitude on the part of society. Cab drivers and shop clerks rushed to help the police and beat with whips and fists "gentlemen and girls in headscarves [plaids]."

(Koni A.F. Memories of the case of Vera Zasulich // Selected Works. M., 1958. V.2. S. 8, 10.)

And one more piece of evidence that demonstrates a completely unexpected view of these events.

One observer of street life told about a merchant who said: “We went out with my wife and child to take a walk on Nevsky; we see a fight near the Kazan Cathedral. ... I put my wife and child at Milyutin's shops, rolled up my sleeves, climbed into the crowd, and - it's a pity only two of them and I managed to hit them in the neck ... I had to hurry to my wife and child - after all, there were only one left! “But who and why did you hit?” “But who knows who, but how, pardon, suddenly I see, they are beating: do not stand with folded arms ?! Well, he gave it twice to anyone, he amused himself - and to his wife ... ”(The character’s language is preserved unchanged).

(Koni A.F. op. op. P. 10 - 11.)

Let's see what happens if, in the reconstruction of this event, we restrict ourselves to only one source. What will the use of Plekhanov's memoirs as such a source lead to? (After all, it is natural for the participant and organizer of the demonstration to recall it in an upbeat, pathetic tone). Moreover, this demonstration will have to be portrayed as an event of great importance and had a significant impact on the socio-political life of the capital, and even the whole country. So it was in the Soviet historical literature, which used only this source (omitting unnecessary everyday details about taverns). And if you use only the opinions of officials as a source? Then this event will have to be portrayed as a turmoil, completely groundless, which did not cause any resonance in society. If, however, we use only the above opinion of the merchant as a source, then this event should generally fall into the category of a police chronicle or even curiosities of St. Petersburg life. Therefore, the use of a single source will result in an inadequate reproduction of the story. At the same time, it is clear that it is impossible to make something arithmetic mean from these sources. Therefore, the use different sources necessary in order to show the real scale of this historical event, its perception in different sectors of society.

▼ When working with sources, it is necessary to systematize, generalize them, and also compare them with each other to determine their reliability.

For example, source studies teach that memoirs as a historical source can only be used when compared with other sources. This is explained by the fact that a memoirist can fail his memory, he can (even unwittingly) exaggerate his role in historical events, ascribe to himself views that he did not share at that time. Finally, he may be under pressure from the political circumstances of the time of writing his memoirs. It is, of course, so. But would a document written on official letterhead, with a signature and official seal, be more reliable? Many materials of state and former party archives Soviet era are nothing more than reports. You don't have to be a great specialist in source studies to understand that if the historians of the future reproduce the history of our recent past from reports, they will have an absolutely wrong idea about it. But some historians have formed a kind of reverence for official documents. This stereotype needs to be overcome. These documents need to be carefully rechecked and compared with many other historical sources.

This applies to all sources. For example, there is none political party, in the program of which it would be stated that this party wants to do bad things to the people or the country (and the programs of the parties are also a historical source). Alas, there has been enough blood in history. Thus, here again it is necessary to compare programs with other documents.

▼ When working with historical sources, it is necessary to understand that some of the information may be hidden from the researcher. Therefore, methods of working with sources should lead to finding out not only what the authors of documents testify to, but also what they are silent about, to the ability to see the nature of the era behind the individual facts of the document.

Of course, this is not all, but only the basic rules and techniques for working with historical sources. But without owning them, it is impossible to understand history.

So, the above material is an introduction to historical science. It reveals the specifics of history as a science, the methodology historical research, directions and methods of source study analysis. This knowledge is necessary for the formation of historical consciousness, for the meaningful study of specific topics of the university history course.

1. The specifics of history as a science. The problem of objective truth in historical science……..p. 3

2. Methodology of historical research. Main methodological approaches and schools…………………………………………………p.15

3. Historical sources and their criticism…………………………………………………..p.37

First of all, it is necessary to find out What does the concept of "historical sources" mean and why is it necessary to be able to work with them?

The historian is completely deprived of the opportunity to personally establish the facts that he studies. No Egyptologist has ever seen pharaohs. Not a single expert on the Napoleonic wars heard the guns of Austerlitz. One can speak about previous epochs only on the basis of the evidence left from them. As Mark Blok (who has already been discussed) noted, the historian plays the role of an investigator trying to reconstruct a picture of a crime in which he himself was not present, or a physicist who is forced to stay at home due to the flu and learns about the results of his experience from the reports of a laboratory attendant. Thus knowledge of the past will never be direct. But even a researcher who recreates the history of the recent past, which he himself witnessed, is not in the best position. After all, direct, "direct" observation is almost always an illusion. The historian cannot be a witness to all the events taking place in his time, he can directly observe only an insignificant part of them. In addition, what the researcher "sees" to a large extent consists of what others have seen. The historian studies the state of affairs in the economy on the basis of summaries compiled by economists; public opinion - based on data from sociologists, etc.

There are other classifications of historical sources: they are classified by period of creation, by type(materials of mass media, memoirs, etc.), in the areas of historical science, for whom these sources may be of interest (sources for economic history, for political history, for cultural history, etc.).

The search for historical sources is the most important component of the work of both a professional historian and a person studying history. But the mere presence of sources is not enough. This is easy to verify with a specific example. For many years in our country, access to a significant part of the sources was difficult, many archives were closed even to specialists. Under these conditions, the idea arose that, as soon as the doors of special vaults and secret funds were opened, all questions related to our past would be answered. Access to sources has now become easier, but the expected breakthrough in historical science has not occurred, since its source crisis has been revealed. It follows from this that without the ability to work with historical sources, an adequate reconstruction of history is impossible.

Therefore, it is necessary to be able to analyze historical sources. The development of methods for their analysis is carried out by a special historical discipline - source study.

The main areas of internal criticism are:

- establishing the purpose of creating a particular source;

- establishing the place of the source in the context of the era, its

representativeness relative to the most historical

reality;

- establishing the reliability of the source (it should not be

confused with authenticity).

What do these directions mean?

An intentional historical source is created for some purpose. Highlighting this goal will allow a deeper understanding of the content of the source, its logic and argumentation. The realization that the source was created for a specific purpose will allow students to understand that there were other purposes, and, therefore, there are other documents that cover the same historical fact from a different angle. This will target the search for multiple documents, and therefore their comparison.

Finding out the place of the source in the context of the era involves the solution of several problems at once. First, it is necessary to establish how important this source is for studying the era reflected in it. After all, the real scale of historical events does not always coincide with how it is reflected in the documents. More significant facts may be given a glimpse, and less significant ones may be given too much importance. In other words, it is necessary to understand how the source is representative (representative) for the study of a particular time. Secondly, this is a clarification of the positions from which the document was written. This will answer the question: what other points of view on the event under consideration existed in the past and, thus, will again guide the search for other documents. In addition, understanding that the source belongs to a certain system of views will lead to the fact that his point of view will not be mechanically transferred to historical research as the ultimate truth.

What are the rules and techniques for working with historical sources?

▼ From this follows the rule: to study not individual sources (no matter what principle they are selected for), but the whole complex of sources on the topic under study.

What methods of working with sources are necessary in this situation? It is not at all the ability to make something arithmetic mean from various sources. This is not possible, nor is it necessary. It is necessary to be able to compare and compare sources, showing the versatility of a historical event and the ambiguity of its perception.

Source one. G.V. Plekhanov himself, a participant in this demonstration, recalls:

(G.V. Plekhanov. Russian worker in the revolutionary movement. Collection of articles. L., 1989. P. 84 - 88.)

This is the testimony of a demonstrator. Here's a look from the other side. The famous Russian lawyer Anatoly Fedorovich Koni testifies, describing in his memoirs the same day, December 6, 1876:

(Koni A.F. Memories of the case of Vera Zasulich // Selected Works. M., 1958. V.2. S. 8, 10.)

And one more piece of evidence that demonstrates a completely unexpected view of these events.

(Koni A.F. op. op. P. 10 - 11.)

Let's see what happens if, in the reconstruction of this event, we restrict ourselves to only one source. What will the use of Plekhanov's memoirs as such a source lead to? (After all, it is natural for the participant and organizer of the demonstration to recall it in an upbeat, pathetic tone). Moreover, this demonstration will have to be portrayed as an event of great importance and had a significant impact on the socio-political life of the capital, and even the whole country. So it was in the Soviet historical literature, which used only this source (omitting unnecessary everyday details about taverns). And if you use only the opinions of officials as a source? Then this event will have to be portrayed as a turmoil, completely groundless, which did not cause any resonance in society. If, however, we use only the above opinion of the merchant as a source, then this event should generally fall into the category of a police chronicle or even curiosities of St. Petersburg life. Therefore, the use of a single source will result in an inadequate reproduction of the story. At the same time, it is clear that it is impossible to make something arithmetic mean from these sources. Therefore, the use of different sources is necessary in order to show the real scale of this historical event, its perception in different sections of society.

▼ When working with sources, it is necessary to systematize, generalize them, and also compare them with each other to determine their reliability.

For example, source studies teach that memoirs as a historical source can only be used when compared with other sources. This is explained by the fact that a memoirist can fail his memory, he can (even unwittingly) exaggerate his role in historical events, ascribe to himself views that he did not share at that time. Finally, he may be under pressure from the political circumstances of the time of writing his memoirs. It is, of course, so. But would a document written on official letterhead, with a signature and official seal, be more reliable? Many materials of the state and former party archives of the Soviet era are nothing more than reports. You don't have to be a great specialist in source studies to understand that if the historians of the future reproduce the history of our recent past from reports, they will have an absolutely wrong idea about it. But some historians have formed a kind of reverence for official documents. This stereotype needs to be overcome. These documents need to be carefully rechecked and compared with many other historical sources.

This applies to all sources. For example, there is not a single political party whose program states that this party wants to harm the people or the country (and party programs are also a historical source). Alas, there has been enough blood in history. Thus, here again it is necessary to compare programs with other documents.

Of course, this is not all, but only the basic rules and techniques for working with historical sources. But without owning them, it is impossible to understand history.

So, the above material is an introduction to historical science. It reveals the specifics of history as a science, the methodology of historical research, directions and techniques of source analysis. This knowledge is necessary for the formation of historical consciousness, for the meaningful study of specific topics of the university history course.

1. The specifics of history as a science. The problem of objective truth in historical science……..p. 3

2. Methodology of historical research. Main methodological approaches and schools…………………………………………………p.15

3. Historical sources and their criticism…………………………………………………..p.37

Comprehensive analysis of the source or "source criticism", as it is customary to say among source experts, includes determining the type of source, its origin, establishing the time, place, circumstances of its appearance, and the completeness of information. Source criticism is usually categorized into external And internal.

External criticism establishes the time, place and authenticity of the creation of the source, as well as authorship. Time, place and authorship are established even when they are indicated in the document, since these information can be deliberately distorted.

External criticism is largely dealt with by source scholars. Researchers-historians pay much more attention to the analysis of the content side of the historical source (internal criticism).

Internal criticism focuses on the content of the source, on the analysis of the completeness, accuracy and truthfulness of the information contained in the source.

The main directions of internal criticism is the setting:

place of the source in the context of the era, its completeness and representativeness;

the purpose of creating the source;

Reliability of the source (accuracy and truthfulness of presentation).

It is possible to determine the place of the source, how important and fundamental it is for studying the era reflected in it, by establishing how representative it is (how much the most significant facts are reflected in it). In this regard, it is worth quoting the words of the famous American historian L. Gottshock: “People who observed the past saw only a part of what took place, and recorded only a part of what they remembered; of what was recorded by them, only a part has survived; part of what was recorded has reached the historian, but only part of it is trustworthy: and of what is trustworthy, not everything is clear to us; and, finally, only a part of what is understood can be formulated or told. At the same time, he adds that “we have no guarantees that what has reached the end of this path is just the most important, the largest, the most valuable, the most typical and the most durable of the past.”

The researcher needs to remember that any document is created for the realization of some purpose. The realization that the source was created for a specific purpose allows us to understand that there could be other purposes and, accordingly, other sources that illuminate given fact, but in other way. This focuses on the search for other sources, different kind documents and their comparison.

Establishing the reliability of a source involves how accurately a historical source reflects historical phenomena and events. For example, the statements of politicians are authentic in terms of the fact that these are the speeches of these figures, and not impostors, but this does not mean that the information in their speeches is always true and reliable.

In the general context of the study, the language and phraseology of the source is subjected to critical analysis, since the meaning of words does not remain unchanged in different historical epochs.

It is worth paying attention to the fact that between the fact and its reflection in the source there is always a witness who takes certain place in the structure of society, has its own views and is endowed with an individual psyche. All facts, before being deposited in the source, pass through its perception, and this imposes a certain seal on the content of the source.

In each source there are elements of subjectivity, which are transferred to the facts reflected in it, that is, the source is to some extent colored by a personal attitude. The researcher has to do painstaking work in order to “clear” the facts from the plaque of subjectivity and to reveal the true phenomenon of the historical process.

External criticism is largely dealt with by source scholars. Researchers-historians pay much more attention to the analysis of the content side of the historical source (internal criticism).

Internal criticism focuses on the content of the source, on the analysis of the completeness, accuracy and truthfulness of the information contained in the source.

The main directions of internal criticism is the setting:

place of the source in the context of the era, its completeness and representativeness;

the purpose of creating the source;

Reliability of the source (accuracy and truthfulness of presentation).

The researcher needs to remember that any document is created for the realization of some purpose. The realization that the source was created for a specific purpose allows us to understand that there could be other purposes and, accordingly, other sources that illuminate this fact, but from the other side. This focuses on the search for other sources, various kinds of documents, and their comparison.

In the general context of the study, the language and phraseology of the source is subjected to critical analysis, since the meaning of words does not remain unchanged in different historical epochs.

It is worth paying attention to the fact that between the fact and its reflection in the source there is always a witness who occupies a certain place in the structure of society, has his own views and is endowed with an individual psyche. All facts, before being deposited in the source, pass through its perception, and this imposes a certain seal on the content of the source.

Historical criticism

Under the name of historical K. they mean, first of all, the totality of methods that the historian uses in order to distinguish truth from falsehood in historical evidence. The so-called K. text aims to decide the question of the authenticity or falsity of this or that document. For example, one of the founders of historical K. in new Europe Italian humanist of the 15th century Lavrenty Valla (q.v.), wrote a whole essay to prove the forgery of the famous gift of Konstantinov, the authenticity of which was believed throughout the Middle Ages. Further, the document itself may be authentic, but the information contained in it may be incorrect. The author of this or that historical source often conveys what he himself learned from others, entering into his work, without any criticism, known to him only by hearsay. Often the author himself, consciously or unconsciously, intentionally or unintentionally, distorts the facts in relation to which he was a direct witness. Scientific historical work should be based primarily on the elimination from the sources of everything that may contradict the actual reliability. Historical K. gives rules developed through experience on how to relate to news consisting in historical sources different categories. The main common basis of these rules is simple common sense, but successful application they are possible in practice only if known kind a skill, the possession of which indicates a good school passed by the historian. Nevertheless, many scholars have attempted to formulate the rules of historical philosophy as a special methodological discipline; There is an entire literature on this subject. Historical K. is usually divided into external and internal. Under external criticism they understand the study, in relation to each document or monument, firstly, whether it is what it claims to be, and secondly, whether it really represents what it has hitherto been taken to be. When examining the source from the first point of view, for example, either a direct forgery, or any inserts in the original text or other distortions can be found. When examining a monument from the second point of view, incorrect ideas about it, formed and confirmed regardless of the author's intentions, can be eliminated. Science knows a lot of such cases when scientists mistook this or that monument for what it really was not. Once the authenticity of a source has been established, it is very often necessary to resolve questions about the time and place of its origin, about its author, whether it is a primary source or borrowings from some other source, etc. It is necessary to distinguish K from this external K. internal, which consists in resolving the question of the relationship between the news contained in the sources and the actual facts, i.e., can these news be considered completely reliable, or only probable, or should the very possibility of the reported facts be rejected. The main questions are solved here by examining the internal dignity of the sources, which depends on the nature of the sources themselves, on the individuality of the author, and on the influences of place and time. At the same time, it is very often necessary to check the reliability of some sources by others, and many sources about the same fact may, to a greater or lesser extent, either coincide with each other or contradict each other. In all cases of historical K., both external and internal, from the researcher, except common sense and skill, impartiality and close acquaintance with the subject of research are also required. Some theorists of historical criticism also point to the need to keep to the golden mean between gullibility and excessive skepticism. The newest treatise on historical K., with references to the literature of the subject, is the fourth chapter of E. Bernheim's excellent book: "Lehrbuch der historischen Methode" (1889, 2nd ed. 1894). Russian historical literature it is very poor in writings on historical culture. A number of remarks on this subject can be found in the first volume of Bestuzhev-Ryumin's "Russian History" and in the first volume of Ikonnikov's "Experience in Russian Historiography". See also Fortinsky's article: "Experiences in the Systematic Processing of Historical Criticism", in "Kyiv University News" for 1884, as well as the Russian translation of Tardif's pamphlet: "Fundamentals of Historical K." (1894). In more broad sense the name of historical criticism is given to a critical attitude, from a historical point of view, to the very phenomena studied by historical science; but such a usage cannot be considered correct, and it can give rise to great misunderstandings.

N. Kareev.

encyclopedic Dictionary F. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron. - St. Petersburg: Brockhaus-Efron. 1890-1907 .

See what "Historical Criticism" is in other dictionaries:

- (Greek xritikn the art of judging, disassembling) the study, analysis and evaluation of the phenomena of muses. claim. In a broad sense, classical music is part of any study of music, since the evaluative element is an integral part of the aesthetic. judgments. ... ... Music Encyclopedia

THEORY. The word "K." means judgment. It is no coincidence that the word "judgment" is closely related to the concept of "judgment". To judge this, on the one hand, means to consider, reason about something, analyze some object, try to understand its meaning, give ... ... Literary Encyclopedia

- (Greek krittke, from krino I judge). Analysis and judgments about the merits and demerits of any subject, work, especially essays; discussion, evaluation. Dictionary of foreign words included in the Russian language. Chudinov A.N., 1910. CRITICISM of Greek ... ... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

Criticism- Literary criticism is a type of literary creativity, the subject of which is literature itself. Just as the philosophy of science is the theory of knowledge, epistemology is the organ of self-consciousness of scientific creativity, so criticism is the organ of self-consciousness of creativity ... ... Dictionary of literary terms

CRITIQUE, critics, wives. (from Greek kritike). 1. only units Discussing, examining, investigating something, testing something for some purpose. Criticize something. Treat something without any criticism. Criticism of pure ... ... Dictionary Ushakov

Contents 1 Criticism of Jehovah's Witnesses 1.1 Notable critics 1.2 Translation ... Wikipedia

Female search and judgment about the merits and demerits of any labor, esp. essays; parsing, evaluation. Historical criticism, analysis of everyday life, search for events, cleaning them from embellishments and distortions. Human criticism cannot be avoided, gossip, ... ... Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary

- "New chronology" is a non-academic theory that claims that the generally accepted chronology of historical events is generally incorrect, and offers its own version of the chronology and the history of mankind in general. According to the statements of its authors, it is based on ... ... Wikipedia

This term has other meanings, see Historical school. Historical school of law for the first time in jurisprudence half of XIX century. It originated and gained the greatest popularity in Germany. Contents 1 Basic provisions ... Wikipedia

Books

A. Pushkin. Collected works in 6 volumes (set of 6 books), A. Pushkin. The collection of works of the great Russian poet and writer A. S. Pushkin includes all of his most significant works ...

The main elements of scientific criticism of sources. History of the book (3.1) Views of the methodological school on source criticism

See what "Historical Criticism" is in other dictionaries:

Books

Report a typo

Text to be sent to our editors:

Your comment (optional):