27 Oct 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.