Internal Criticism

The Historical criticism of the sources is one of the most important duties of a historian in research. It is part of the analytical operation in the historical method. Source criticism helps the historian to find out a reliable account of the past. The aim of historical criticism is to establish the authenticity and reliability of a historical document. There are two levels of source criticism namely: External Criticism and Internal Criticism. The external criticism aims to find out the authenticity of the document. On the other hand, internal criticism aims to establish the credibility of the content of the document.

Internal Criticism

Internal criticism or higher criticism is the technique of testing the reliability of the information found in a document. It is concerned with the authenticity of the information and its purpose is to establish the trustworthiness of the contents of the document. Internal criticism is used to detect and determine whether the document contains errors or lies. It is the fundamental and significant task in which the historical narratives are reconstructed. Moreover, internal criticism is concerned with the interpretation of the sources and is also known as interpretative criticism. Hence it is also called Hermeneutics – the science of interpretation. If heuristic deals with the external aspects of a document, hermeneutics deal with the internal aspects of the document.

Hermeneutics

Hermeneutics, or ‘the theory of interpretation,’ is a field in contemporary Western Philosophy. It deals with principles and processes instrumental in the course of interpretation, especially the interpretation of texts. Thus, hermeneutics is an art of discovering meaning. Etymologically, the word, ‘hermeneutics’ is derived from the Greek verb hermeneuein and the noun hermeneia, to mean ‘to interpret’ or ‘interpretation’. Mythologically, it is related to Hermes, the Greek winged god, whose chief function was to interpret the messages of the Gods for human beings. Traditionally, it is linked to the rules for the interpretation of texts, especially the sacred and legal ones. The important hermeneutical thinkers are Friedrich Schleiermacher, Wilhelm Dilthey, Martin Heidegger, Hans-Georg Gadamer and Paul Ricoeur.

Key Themes in Hermeneutics

Explanation: The focus of the explanation is on the validity of textual meaning. In explanation, a text can be treated like a window or like a mirror. In window reading, one sees through a text in order to explore its nature and origins, without any influences. In mirror reading, one stands before a text in order to understand it from within a particular context and is guided by personal and social interests. Both methods have positive and negative aspects.

Understanding: In order to understand the whole text, it is essential to understand the individual parts of the text. Similarly, in order to understand the parts, it is important to understand the whole idea of the text. Thus, for a better understanding of the text, the connected thinking between the whole and the parts of the text is necessary.

Trust and Suspicion: While interpreting a text, the hermeneutical trust operates from an understanding standpoint. On the other hand, the hermeneutical suspicion operates from a critical perspective. The blend of these two is necessary.

Method of Internal Criticism

More than anything else, the process of internal criticism requires a healthy doubt and a critical and analytical mind. While approaching a historical source, doubt is an inevitable thing. This doubt helps the historian to find out the most reliable account of the past. The critical approach guards the researcher against errors. The content of the document should be critically analyzed. The document should be divided into several parts. Each trace is separately analyzed and tested. The critical method should be applied to know the nature of historical facts and to test their authenticity.

In order to establish the credibility of the content of a document, the researcher has to investigate several aspects like:

• The character of the document

• The literal and real meaning of the text

• The knowledge of the author

• Competence and reliability of the author

• Author’s personal connection with the event, which he explains

• Author’s source of information in producing the document

• The influences prevalent at the time of writing

• The elements of personal bias

• The elements of deliberate and intentional errors

• Corroborating evidence

Positive and Negative Interpretative Criticism

Internal criticism involves two operations:

1.   Positive interpretative criticism

The aim of positive interpretative criticism is to understand the literal and real meaning of the document. Words have two senses: literal and real. The literal is the grammatical meaning of the word i.e. "according to the letter". But words are not always used in the literal sense alone. The word may be used in a figurative or metaphorical sense also. The real sense of the word is the significance attached to it by the author or witness. Therefore, one should read the meaning of the word in letter and spirit. Again the language of a people never remains static. It changes from generation to generation and so an understanding of the idioms of the time of the document's origin is quite essential.

Familiarity with the language, linguistic usage, manner of writing and style, changes in expression, etc. are necessary to understand the literal meaning of the text. Similarly, the real meaning concealed in the text must be detected. The real meaning must be separated from the hidden meaning, as grain from the chaff. The researcher should determine the literal sense and the real or the inner meaning of the contents of the document under scrutiny. In short, internal criticism is intended to extract the real meaning of the text from the literal meaning. Its purpose is to know what the author really means by making a particular statement.

2.   Negative interpretative criticism

The aim of the negative interpretative criticism is to determine the element of truth contained in the text. Historian sometimes comes across documents that contradict each other. Hence the need for eliminating statements and facts which are obviously wrong and false is necessary. Negative criticism is concerned with the process of eliminating statements that are obviously false, fabricated, or forged. It is possible that a single statement is a mixture of true and false ideas, and accurate and inaccurate narration.

Errors may be deliberate or intentional. It may be due to several reasons. The author might be the victim of circumstances. Social obligations, religious practices, or political pressures would have led the author to write contrary to his personal convictions. Further, personal preferences, prejudices, and preferences towards events or persons might have influenced the author to deviate from the truth. Similarly, errors of accuracy occur when the source of information is defective. The researchers may be sincere, honest, and faithful but the information he gets may be wrong or defective due to reasons beyond his control. He may pass on the information in good faith without knowing that it is not true. These are committed because the historian is not the observer of events and has to necessarily depend on second-hand accounts.

Hence, negative interpretative criticism also deals with the truthfulness of the author. It examines the circumstances under which the document was written. It deals with the author's official status and his place in society. It investigates the degree of subjectivity and bias of the author. It also examines the sources of the author and his relation to the event that he narrates. Thus, negative criticism inquires not only about the good faith of the author but also the accuracy of the statement he makes.

External and internal criticism is an essential aspect of the historical research method and it is an art by itself. A severe method of source criticism will help to reconstruct a truthful description of the past.