4. Correcting subjectivity
Fourth, bias can be allowed for, recognized, and dealt with. Nagel declares: “The very fact that biased thinking may be detected and its sources investigated shows that the case for objective explanations in history is not necessarily hopeless.”31 Historians can avoid the damaging effects of partiality. Even though various prejudices can never be completely uprooted, Walsh reminds us that “every reputable historian acknowledges the need for some sort of objectivity and impartiality in his work” in order to separate facts from propaganda, feelings, and personal preconceptions.32
5. Historical Facts
Fifth, the inductive measures that are normally applied in historiography yield knowable conclusions. Even though he reaches a moderate conclusion on the issue, Walsh explains: “Historical conclusions must be backed by evidence just as scientific conclusions must.”33 Beard even agrees here: “The historian . . . . sees the doctrine of relativity crumble in the cold light of historical knowledge.”34
Perhaps surprisingly, historians who are often categorized as relativists actually agree on the ability to obtain past knowledge.35 Karl Mannheim, identified by Gardiner as “[p]erhaps the most forthright proponent of historical relativism in recent times,”36 agrees that the presence of subjective concerns “does not imply renunciation of the postulate of objectivity and the possibility of arriving at decisions in factual disputes.”37 Supporting a case for objective facts, Blake comments that there is a large amount of historical research that is accepted by the entire historical community.38
For reasons such as these, we may conclude that attempts to treat historiography in a relativistic manner are confronted by numerous problems, including more than we have presented here,39 and have failed. Granted, there are undoubtedly subjective factors that often influence the historian’s work. This is not doubted by those who defend the objectivity of historical inquiry.40 But objectivity is also possible in the sense defined above, the result of an accurate investigation of data, followed by an application of the appropriate standards of criticism, including entertaining alternative theses, all within the standards of probability. Any additional challenges need to be answered, entailing further defense and/or adjustment.
Historical Research and Investigation
How does one actually do the work of the historian? How is such research to be conducted?
The occurrence of past events can usually be discovered (within a certain probability) by a careful investigation of the facts. These former events are only accessible by a study of the available historical evidence. Although the historian usually did not personally participate in what he is studying (assuming he wasn’t originally there), he can inspect the relevant data such as the eyewitnesses, written documents, and various other records, structures, and archaeological finds. Upon such confirmation the historian must build his case. Such tools comprise the working principles of historical research.41
Of course, what the existing data reveal is not automatically accepted as true, especially if there are conflicts in the testimony. The historian has the job of critically investigating the available sources in order to ascertain as closely as possible their accuracy. Results can be obtained by determining which conclusions best fit the evidence. The historian builds on such groundwork.42 We therefore decide on the evidence at hand — choosing the most probable conclusion.
Historical data must be available if the historian is to investigate the past in such a manner. These sources are often divided into two types: primary and secondary. Primary sources “are underived, firsthand, or contemporary with the event,” and are much more crucial.43 They may consist of eyewitness testimony given in various forms.
Secondary material witnesses to primary sources, directed to past persons and events. These may take the form of works like textbooks, monographs, edited volumes, and syllabi. As such, they help elucidate and expand the previously existing materials.
Primary sources consist of both literary and non-literary remains. The former include written documents, either official or unofficial. Pliny the Younger’s famous correspondence, penned while he was a Roman governor in Asia Minor during the early second century AD, is an example of writings composed by a state official or representative. An unofficial primary document would include informal works of a firsthand nature, such as books, newspapers, journals, or periodicals. Julius Caesar’s accounts of his battles in Gaul, written before his rule in first century BC Rome, is an example.
Documents written by eyewitnesses or that reflect their influence are, of course, extremely important in historical study, whenever they are available. Examples of such eyewitness sources are provided by American interest in the 1950s and 60s in published interviews with still-living Civil War veterans.44 Literary remains in the form of inscriptions on stone, metal, or other materials (termed epigraphy) are also available in some cases.
Primary non-literary remains include material such as recordings obtained directly from eyewitness interviews, oral tradition, photographs, and archaeological artifacts. Eyewitness testimony using recorded interviews obviously cannot extend much over 100 years, at the most. Tradition, whether oral or written, sometimes reaches back into antiquity, with sources such as reports, legends, heroic stories, and ballads. Reliable traditions grounded in eyewitness testimony would be an important source. On the other hand, Americans are acquainted with George Washington and the cherry tree or the exploits of Davy Crockett. The weakness with this sort of tradition is that it must be trustworthy and not simply hearsay or storytelling.
Archaeological artifacts can be quite valuable as witnesses to our past. Remains like architecture, monuments, grave sites, burial chambers, furniture, artwork, clothes, coins, tools, or other implements can often help determine both historical backgrounds and events. For example, Jewish burial chambers have actually revealed very specific data concerning burial customs, human physical characteristics, and varieties of death inflicted by enemies. Excavations of Qumran near the Dead Sea have uncovered not only the scrolls themselves, but also numerous facts from about the time of Jesus regarding the ascetic and communal lifestyle of the sectarian Essenes. Uncovering Greek cities such as Athens, Corinth, and Ephesus have provided invaluable evidence concerning the art, religious beliefs, and lifestyle of these ancient cultures.
The gathering of the primary and secondary sources does not complete the study; neither does the historian automatically conclude that such a collection of data is synonymous with the facts themselves. Rather, these sources must be organized and subjected to criticism before conclusions can be drawn.45 In the case of written documents, for example, both external and internal historical criticism is implemented.
External criticism is applied for the purpose of checking the writing itself and is divided into two parts. Higher criticism assesses the authenticity of the document regarding elements such as its background, authorship, date of writing, place of composition, the audience, and reason for writing. Further, is the text reliable? Does it bear signs of corresponding to fact? Lower criticism concerns the question of whether we essentially have the text as it was originally composed. It involves questions of manuscript evidence: the dates of existing copies, their comparison to the original, and the presence of any documentary interpolations or omissions.
Internal factors are also helpful in assessing a document’s reliability. They include the competence and character of the author, as well as his ability to separate facts from feeling, opinion, or other subjective distortion.