What Is Internal And External Criticism Of Historical Sources?

When attempting to understand a particular issue or event, historians often turn to primary sources as a way to gain insight. Primary sources are documents, photographs, videos, and other artifacts that provide an eyewitness account of an event or period in history. However, primary sources are not always reliable and should be carefully evaluated. Historians often employ two techniques—internal and external criticism—to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of primary sources.

What Is Internal Criticism?

Internal criticism involves evaluating a primary source in terms of its own contents and context. Historians should consider the author’s point of view, background, and any potential biases. They should also look for any inconsistencies or contradictions in the text and determine whether the author has left out any important information. Internal criticism is also used to identify potential forgeries or altered documents.

What Is External Criticism?

External criticism involves evaluating a primary source in relation to other primary and secondary sources. It is used to determine whether the evidence provided by the primary source is supported by other evidence. Historians often look for corroborating evidence to support the accuracy of the primary source. They may also compare other primary sources to identify potential discrepancies or inaccuracies.

Examples of Internal and External Criticism

To illustrate the differences between internal and external criticism, consider a primary source that describes a meeting between two individuals. Internal criticism would involve looking at the document itself to determine the author’s point of view, any potential biases or inconsistencies, and any significant omissions. External criticism would involve comparing the document to other primary and secondary sources to determine whether the evidence it provides is corroborated by other evidence.

Conclusion

Internal and external criticism are two important techniques used by historians to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of primary sources. Internal criticism involves evaluating a primary source in terms of its own contents and context, while external criticism involves evaluating a primary source in relation to other primary and secondary sources. By carefully evaluating primary sources using these two techniques, historians can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the past.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is internal criticism?

Internal criticism involves evaluating a primary source in terms of its own contents and context. This includes looking at the author’s point of view, background, any potential biases, and any inconsistencies or contradictions in the text.

2. What is external criticism?

External criticism involves evaluating a primary source in relation to other primary and secondary sources. This is used to determine whether the evidence provided by the primary source is supported by other evidence.

3. How do historians use internal and external criticism?

Historians use internal and external criticism to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of primary sources. Internal criticism involves looking at the document itself to determine the author’s point of view, any potential biases or inconsistencies, and any significant omissions. External criticism involves comparing the document to other primary and secondary sources to determine whether the evidence it provides is corroborated by other evidence.

4. What is an example of internal and external criticism?

An example of internal and external criticism would be a primary source that describes a meeting between two individuals. Internal criticism would involve looking at the document itself to determine the author’s point of view, any potential biases or inconsistencies, and any significant omissions. External criticism would involve comparing the document to other primary and secondary sources to determine whether the evidence it provides is corroborated by other evidence.

5. How can internal and external criticism help historians?

Internal and external criticism can help historians gain a more comprehensive understanding of the past. By carefully evaluating primary sources using these two techniques, historians can better understand the accuracy and reliability of primary sources.

6. What is the difference between internal and external criticism?

The difference between internal and external criticism is that internal criticism involves evaluating a primary source in terms of its own contents and context, while external criticism involves evaluating a primary source in relation to other primary and secondary sources.

7. What are some tips for evaluating primary sources?

When evaluating primary sources, historians should consider the author’s point of view, background, and any potential biases. They should also look for any inconsistencies or contradictions in the text and determine whether the author has left out any important information. Historians should also compare other primary sources to identify potential discrepancies or inaccuracies.

8. What techniques do historians use to evaluate primary sources?

Historians often use two techniques—internal and external criticism—to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of primary sources. Internal criticism involves evaluating a primary source in terms of its own contents and context, while external criticism involves evaluating a primary source in relation to other primary and secondary sources.

9. What is the purpose of internal and external criticism?

The purpose of internal and external criticism is to evaluate the accuracy and reliability of primary sources. Internal criticism involves looking at the document itself to determine the author’s point of view, any potential biases or inconsistencies, and any significant omissions. External criticism involves comparing the document to other primary and secondary sources to determine whether the evidence it provides is corroborated by other evidence.

10. How can internal and external criticism help historians understand the past?

By carefully evaluating primary sources using internal and external criticism, historians can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the past. Internal criticism involves looking at the document itself to determine the author’s point of view, any potential biases or inconsistencies, and any significant omissions. External criticism involves comparing the document to other primary and secondary sources to determine whether the evidence it provides is corroborated by other evidence.