CRITICISM
506
CRITICISM
harmony as to substance, their divergence appearing
only in matters of detail upon which information was
had with greater difficulty. In such cases the partial
disagreement of the witnesses, far from lessening their
authority regarding the principal fact serves to con-
firm it; disagreement of this kind shows on the one
hand an absence of collusion, and on the other a reli-
ance of witnesses on certain sources of information
common to all. There is, however, an exception. It
may happen that several writers, whose veracity we
are otherwise justified in suspecting, agree in narrating
with much precision of detail a fact favourable to their
common likes and dislikes. They either report it as
eye-witnesses or they declare that they reproduce
faithfully the narrative of such witnesses. In dealing
with writers of this character the critic must examine
carefully all their statements, down to the minutest
detail ; often a very insignificant circumstance will re-
veal the deception. We may recall here the ingenious
questioning by which Daniel saved the life and reputa-
tion of .Susanna (Dan., xiii, 52-60). Similar means are
often employed with success in the law courts to over-
throw clever systems of defence built up by culprits,
or to convict a party who has suborned false witnesses
in the interest of a bad cause. Occasionally such
measures might be advantageou.sly applied in the con-
duct of historical examinations. Let us suppose that
there exists a conflict of opinion about the substance of
a fact, and that it has been found impossible to recon-
cile the witnesses. It is clear that they disagree. At
this point, evidently, we must cease to insist on their
absolute value and weigh them one against the other.
Keeping always in view the circumstances of time,
place, and personal position of the different witnesses,
we must seek to ascertain in which of them the condi-
tions of knowledge and veracity appear to predomi-
nate ; this examination will determine the measure of
confidence to be reposed in them, and, consequently,
the degree of certainty or probability that attaches to
the fact they narrate. Frequently, though no indis-
pensable preliminary of mental conviction, a careful
comparison of more or less discordant versions of a
fact or an event will reveal in the rejected witnesses
the very sources or causes of their errors, and thereby
exhibit in much clearer light the complete solution of
problems whose data seemed at first sight confused
and contradictory.
Unwritten Testimony. — To hang a man, a clever examining magistrate does not always need one line of his writing. .Silent witnesses have often convicted a criminal more efficaciously than positive accusers. The most insignificant object left by him on the scene of his crime, another found in his possession, an un- common degree of prodigality, a hundred other equally trifling tokens, lay bare very often the most ingen- iously planned schemes for avoiding detection by the law. Even so in the science of history. Here noth- ing is negligible or unimportant. Monuments of arch- itecture, objects of plastic art, coins, weapons, imple- ments of labour, household utensils, material objects of every kind may in one way or another furnish us precious information. Certain classes of historical sources have long since attained the dignity of special auxiliary sciences. Such are heraldry, or armorial science; glyptics, which deals with engraved stones; ceramics, or the study of pottery in all its epochs. To these we may add numismatics, sigillography, and es- pecially linguistics, not so much for a surer interpreta- tion of the texts as for procuring data from which may be conclusively established the origins of peoples and their migrations. Archaeology, in its broadest sense, comprises all these sciences; in its most restricted sen.se it is confined to objects which are beyond their scope. Truly it is a vast province that here spreads out before the historical pioneer, and he needs much erudition, acumen, and tact to veiitvire therein. For- tunately, as with maimscripts and inscriptions, it is no
longer necessary for the historical student to possess a
thorough knowledge of all these auxiliary sciences be-
fore entering on his proper task. For most of them
there exist excellent special works in which we may
easily find any archsological details needful in the dis-
cussion of an historical question. It is to these works
and to the advice of men learned in such matters that
we must have recourse in order to solve the two pre-
liminary questions regarding all evidence, written and
unwritten: that of authenticity or provenance, and
that of meaning, i. e., m archaeological remains, the
use to which the objects discovered were once put.
In dealing with unwritten evidence these questions
are more delicate; similarly the rules for our guidance
are much more difficult, both to formvilate and to ap-
ply. It is here, particularly, that shrewdness and
acumen, and the prophetic insight that comes of long
practice, offer help more important by far than the
most exact rules. It is only by dint of observation
and comparison that we learn eventually to distin-
guish with accuracy. These preliminaries once satis-
fied, we enter on the task of historical criticism prop-
erly speaking. Through it these precious relics of the
past are called to shed light on certain writings, to con-
firm their evidence, to reveal a fact not committed to
them; more frequently they furnish a sure basis of
conjectiu-e whence eventually follow discoveries of
great importance. Here, however, and it cannot be
repeated too often, the path of the historical student
is perilous indeed. The misadventures of amateur
archaeologists, whether in the matter of pretended dis-
coveries or in dissertations based on them, have pro-
voked no little raillery, not only among severely just
professional critics, but also among romancers and
dramatic ^Titers. As already stated, it is especially
by the judicious use of conjecture that we obtain from
these silent witnesses such information as it is in their
power to furnish. For more specific treatment of this
powerful but delicate instrument of historical criti-
cism we refer the reader to a subsequent section of this
article: Conjecture in History.
TR-4.DITI0N. — Every student of history must eventu- ally face a problem very emliarrassing for a conscien- tious scholar. Facts appear which have left no trace in any writing or contemporary moniunent. Buried in obscurity for centuries they suddenly appear in full publicity and are accepted as incontrovertible. Every one repeats the story, often with minute detail, though no one is able to ofi'er any credible evidence of the trustworthiness of the current statement or narrative. It is then said that such facts rest on the e\ddence known as oral or popular tradition. What degree of confidence is due to this popular tradition? Its orig- inators are quite unknown to us as are also the many intermediaries who have passed it down to the time when we are first cognizant of it. How may we ob- tain a guarantee of the veracity of the original wit- nesses and then of their successors? Perhaps a rather natural comparison wUl help us to a clear solution of this question. We may note at once a striking anal- ogy between tradition concerning the past and public rumovu- about present events. There are in both cases numberless intermediary and anonymous wit- nesses, concordant as to the substance of the facts, but as to the details often quite contradictory of one an- other; in both cases also there is an identical ignorance concerning the original ■fatnesses; in both cases, fi- nally, many instances in which the current informa- tion was verifieil and many others in which it was found to be altogether false. Let us suppose the case of a prudent man deeply interested in knowing pre- cisely what is happening in a distant country; one who, moreo\er, takes much pains to be well informed. What does he do when he learns by public nmiour of an important event said to have occurred in the place in which he is intere.sted? Does he accept blindly every detail thus bruited abroad? On the other hand, does
