Historical Criticism
Refer to my answer on the google drive below.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1kS_7fmdEiSj86qnFmUg0oApNDO1-JfAB
Complete the 4th column in the table provided in the link. Please don’t put here the whole table. only put the 4th column (Internal and external criticism)
if you cant open the URL in the 1st column, you can find another video regarding that topic/
Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVGZxu5pLvw&t=63s
A. Historical Criticism
It is also known as the historical-critical method, Historical criticism is a branch of
criticism that investigates the origin of text or source in order to understand the word behind the
text. The primary goal of historical criticism is to discover the text primitive or original historical
context and its literal sense. The secondary goal seeks establish a reconstruction of historical
situation of the author and recipients of the text. Moreover, in order for source to be used as
evidence in history, basic matters about its form and context must be settled. These are two types
of historical criticism namely: external criticism (investigates the documents form) and internal
criticism (investigates the content of the documents).
B. Additional Goal of Historical Criticism
Historical criticism seeks greater understanding of the texts by analyzing the historical
and social contexts in which they developed. The goal of historical criticism, traditionally, has
been to try to understand the text’s meaning in its original context and to answer questions about
the text, such as: Who wrote it? When was it written? What else what happening at the time of
its writing? How did it come to be in the form we have it today? What did it mean to the people
who first read or heard it?
Historical criticism has also often sought answers to the ever-elusive question of what is
called “authorial intent”: What did the author intend for this text to mean in his or her time and
place? (http://queergrace.com/historical-criticism/)
C. External Criticism
This type of criticism looks for the obvious sign of forgery or misrepresentation. This
type of criticism tests the authenticity of the sources. It is interested in the writing styles of the
eyewitness and his ignorance of the facts. The historian also analyzes the original manuscript; its
integrity, localization and the date it was written. To ascertain if a particular data is fabricated,
forge, fake, corrupted or a hoax, that source must undergo the test of authenticity. Since external
criticism is concern with the explicit sign of misrepresentation, it is the first test the historian
employ to ascertain sources validity.
D. Test of authenticity
The first step to test a source is to determine the date of document to see whether it is
anachronistic. Anachronism means out of time or order, something that could not have been
there at that particular time. It could be a person, thing or idea placed in a wrong time. Being able
to spot anachronism is important because it helps us test the reliability of a source. If a source is
unreliable then we probably should not use it .Example can be found in Rizal’s allegedly first
poem ” Sa Aking Mga Kabata” where we could find the word “kalayaan”. Rizal admitted that he
first encountered the word though a Marcelo H. Del Pilar’s translation of Rizal’s essay ” El Amor
Patrio”. Rizal wrote this essay in 1882 while the poem supposedly was written by him in the
year 1869.
The second step is to determine the author’s handwriting, signature or seal. We can
compare the handwriting of particular author to his other writings. Obvious sign of forgery in
include patch writing, hesitation as revealed by ink blobs, pauses in the writing, tremor causing
poor line quality and erasures. However, some people are highly skilled in imitating others
handwriting. Even a skilled forger can be caught because the act of writing is a skill is learned
through repetition until it becomes a habit. Thus, there is natural variation in everyone
handwriting. In addition, no one can duplicate all of the intricate subconscious writing habits of
another in an extended writing sample. Example of this is the handwriting in the alleged
retraction letter of Jose Rizal.
The third test in determining the authenticity of the source is by looking for the
anachronistic style. In this test we will examine idiomatic expression or the orthography used in
the documents. An idiom is an expression, word or phrase that has a figurative meaning
conventionally understood by native speakers. When we say ‘break a leg’ we all know that it
means good luck. Orthography is a set of conventions for writing a language. It includes norms
of spelling, hyphenation, capitalization, word breaks, emphasis and punctuation. When the poem
Sa Aking Mga Kabata was allegedly written in 1869, most Philippine language was widely
written in a variety of ways based on Spanish Orthography:
Early Tagalog System (taken from Doctrina Christiana,)
Ama namin, nasa Lan͠gitca,
Ypasamba Mo ang N͠galanmo.
Mouisaamin ang pagcaharimo.
Ypasonor mo ang loob mo
Dito sa lupa para sa Lan͠git.
Modern Filipino orthography
Ama namin, sumasalangit Ka,
Sambahín ang Ngalan Mo.
Mapasaamin ang kaharián Mo.
Sundín ang loób Mo
Dito sa lupà, para nang sa langit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filipino_orthography
The fourth test is the anachronistic reference to events. For example if the event cited in
the document is prior to the actual event, then the document must be forge or fake.
The fifth test of authenticity is the provenance or custody of the document. Provenance is
the place of origin of earliest known history of documents. It traces the roots of any source.
The other two test of authenticity is the semantics and hermeneutics. Semantics is the
linguistic study of meaning. In this test semantics determine the meaning of the text and words of
the source. We may ask: is the meaning of the statements different from its literal meaning?
Hermeneutics on the other hand is theory and methodology of interpretation. Hermeneutics is
more than interpretation or method used when immediate comprehension fails. In historical
criticism we determine ambiguities which are a word or expression that can be understood in two
or more possible ways. Historians may look also if the statement is meant to be ironic (i.e. mean
other than what it says).
E. Internal Criticism
This type of criticism looks for deeper or more intense study of sources. Usually
historians first apply external criticism before undergoing the test of credibility because of
internal criticisms implicit character. It is important that the document must be verisimilar or as
close as what really happened from a critical examination of best available resources. It refers to
the accuracy of the content of a document. Internal criticism has to do with what the document
says. It investigates the content or substance of a document and the author’s point of view. This
type of criticism tests the credibility of the source.
F. Test of Credibility
The first step is the identification of the author. It determines if the witness is reliable or
if he is consistent by comparing his other works. In this steps historian also examine the mental
processes of the witness, if he is capable of telling the truth, or if he is mentally challenge.
Finally we will look for his personal attitudes, if he is telling something beyond what he saw or
bragging about it. Many historian use some kind of rubric to test the credibility of the author.
The second step in testing the credibility of the eyewitness is to determine the
approximate date. Example of this is again Rizal’s poem “Sa aking mga kabata”. He wrote that
poem when he is only eight years old and that poem is with rhythm and meter. To think that
when Rizal was 8 years old the primary education in the Philippines was nonexistent.
The third step in testing the credibility of the source is its ability to tell the truth.
Historians examine how near an eyewitness is to the event. The closer a source is to the event
which it purports to describe, the more one can trust it to give an accurate historical description
of what actually happened Historian also look for the competence of the eyewitness. Basically
they look for the background of the author like education, health, age or social status. The last
test for this step is the degree of the attention of the eyewitness. Whether the sources witness the
event only partly or if he witnesses the event from the start to finish.
The fourth step is the willingness to tell the truth. If the eyewitness is coerced, forced or
somebody threaten him to tell something then his account is not valid. If the eyewitness wants to
hide something for personal reason
The last step is to look for corroboration. This particular step rest upon the independent
testimony of two or more reliable sources. The words independent testimony must be emphasize.
For instance, if the soldier who fought the battle, a general who oversaw the battle and a doctor
who treated those wounded who fought the battle, all recorded the same fact or all agree about an
event, historians consider that event proven.
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
