Primary Sources Secondary Sources: External Criticism Internal Criticism
Primary Sources Secondary Sources: External Criticism Internal Criticism
The following are some procedures for people who wanted to employ his-
toriography, as proposed by Bernheim (1889) and Langlois & Seignobos (1898):
a. If the sources all agree about an event, historians consider the event proved.
b. However, majority does no rule; even if most sources relate events in one way,
that version will not prevail unless it passes the test of critical textual analysis.
d. When two sources disagree on a particular point, the historian will prefer the
source with most “authority”-that is the source created by the eyewitness.
e. Eyewitnesses are, in general, to be preferred especially in circumstances where the
ordinary observer could have accurately reported what transpired and, more specifi-
cally, when they deal facts known by most contemporaries.
g. when two sources disagree and there is no other means of evaluation, then histori-
ans take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.
Aside from these procedures, historiography also involves the employment of in-
ternal and external criticisms.