Page 1
Discussion
OF
S EBASTIAN O LDEN -J EARGENSEN
1 Thank you to the editors of Historical Journal , who at short notice gave room for this
lay, and to Mads Mordhorst, Bent Egaa Kristensen and Gunner Lind, who
Tender notice gave their opinion. Please refer to Kristian Erslev below: Historical
Technique. The historical study produced in its baselines , 2nd ed. 10th edition with one
postcard by Kai Hørby and Hans Vammen.
Page 2
anchor its analysis of a phenomenon (here the classic source criticism) in one
certain text (in this case Historical Technology ), but it always remains one
steps that should be justified. It does not make DGS explicit and it can
perhaps also seems superfluous, since Historical Technology has long had
canonical status and yet used in method teaching at Insti-
for History at the University of Copenhagen. As I will below,
seeking to show, such justification may not be so redundant even,
but first a brief summary of DGS's position with a view to
the issues to be addressed here.
According to DGS, classic source criticism is based on two basic assumptions.
First, the source criticism is basically an expression
common sense and consequently general human and ideological free. Before that
Secondly, the source criticism acts as a "vision prosthesis" because it knows
"Medium Observation" (Erslev) compensates for the lack of direct
observation. This reveals the source criticism that it originates from one
empirical ideal of science, but otherwise passed through Historical Technology
at all levels of vision metaphor, e.g. in the slide from talking about wedge
there to talk about observers. So common sense and vision metaphor are the ones
two components that keep the classic source criticism together. By
using an exciting deconstructive analysis of Erslev's language use
inspiration from modern sign theory reaches DGS to both assumptions
is rhetoric, perhaps not even rhetoric, but the kind of rhetoric called one
discourse and thus far from being "obviously correct" (Hans Vammen &
Kai Hørby in the poster for the 10th edition of Historical Technology 1987) or idea-
ologie free, which is often assumed. Against this background, she advocates
of a "analytic approach to historical sources developed on
background of the linguistic turn "as a way to" seize and shift
a radically historic past '. 2
What in the following should be central is not the end point of DGSs
analysis, for a convincing example of the character analytic approach
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 2/13
3/3/2019 Discussion What is source criticism?
We have, as mentioned, benefited. It is, however, her criticism of Erslev
or rather her construction of Historical Technology as the
the sense of classic source criticism, I want to problematize.
2 Dorthe Gert Simonsen: »Signs and observation. To read Erslev by 'the linguistic friend
'', Historical Journal , 101 (2001), pp. 146-180, citation p. 180.
Page 3
3 About the development in Erslev's source criticism and the radical historians in general see Jens
Chr. Manniche: The Radical History of History , Aarhus 1981, pp. 134-212, 328-337.
4 Kristian Erslev: 'Our family's work in Danish history. Rectortal at the University
tets Aarsfest November 16, 1911, The spectator , 1911, II, pp. 457-468), reprinted in Kr. Erslev:
Historical Theses , Kbh. 1937, II, pp. 208-219; Kristian Erslev: Writing history. Reason-
lines to some Chapters of History Theory , Kbh. 1911; reprinted in Kr. Erslev: Historical
Theses r, Kbh. 1937, II, pp. 220-265, as well as in About History Writing and History Research .
Theses of Kr. Erslev and Povl Bagge , Kbh. 1978. Cf. Manniche, pp. 326-363.
5 Historical Technology , p. 47. Erslev nowhere quotes the source of the quotation, but there must be speech
on a summary of the following paragraphs from Sybels lecture on the Gesetze des historischen
Wissens from 1864, printed in Heinrich v. Sybel: Vorträge und Aufsätze , Berlin 1874, pp. 1-20, quotes
pp. 9-10: »The Personnel of the Reporters is happy with the medium
get the light of the hatred out of the predator, one by one
dium, well, who was like that, the light beam never crawled or crumbled
Page 4
for that dominates principles, however, are not visual prosthesis, but
procedure, namely a purification process. The source criticism is
"The necessary beginning of any historical inquiry"; and
it has "simple main rules". It has a first step of determining
the origin and authenticity of the sources, which are followed by the separation of
secondary accounts and ending with the appreciation of the primary
reports. The latter part is about determining (and eliminating)
the subjective moment, - what belongs to the narrator and does not originate
from the event ". 6
Another favorite metaphor with the same content is the clearing work. IN
Erslev's time, it was outside of the subject, not least the destructive side of
the newly acquired science that stuck in the eye but by choosing
clearing as a symbol, it became understandable and acceptable that source critics
Exceptional studies often resulted in lean or preliminary
results. When the historians themselves had to formulate it, one was often chosen
more positive metaphor, namely the selection and processing of construction
materials. Thus Gustav Bang defined in a popular science
make the source criticism as "searching for the best sources", and
his final result he summed up with the following words: "So then is the dust
boldly collected, cleaned and sifted, weighed and wrecked, tried on criticism
Gold weight, machined according to all the rules of art, stacked up in tiny bits
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 4/13
3/3/2019 Discussion What is source criticism?
Theses and in co-operative works, arranged and registered after all
Views so that anyone can easily find their way there ”. 7 You have to
that context does not read that none of these metaphors
the source criticism plays a really constructive role. Source Criteria Sorts,
tries, rejects and cleans, but it does not build. At Erslev's professional
counterpart, Johannes Steenstrup, one finds quite the same understanding
of the function of source criticism - though with a somewhat different assessment
(mechanical, breathless). 8
read through passages. So come and dig, such fractions and connections as well
to calculate, and dazu is the extraordinary premise that is true
Mediums, the ingenious knowledge of the personal nature of any message backers. The
Frequently, however, there is an erroneous resemblance to those of the astronomers who weigh the effect
the atmosphere on the beams of light can be stern in the right place, or substitute
saying knowledge of the atmospheric air calculates and eliminates the error
muß. moreover Volker Dotterweich: Heinrich von Sybel. History science in politics
Intent (1817-1861) , Göttingen 1978, 2. 270-276.
6 Basics , p. 3, 17.
7 Gustav Bang: The cultural history of Europe. In Tales for the People , I-II, Kbh. 1899, the section on
history science in bd. 2, pp. 357-366, citation p. 359, 361. Historical Technology , p. 93.
8 Johannes Steenstrup: The historiography, its development through the ages, its being and
Fork , Kbh. 1915, pp. 117-125. See. the controversy between Erslev and Steenstrup (anonymous) in
The newspaper on March 23 and April 6, 1891.
Page 5
visual prosthesis
However, as mentioned, the visual prosthesis appears in Historical Technology , where
it is near the only piece of explicit theory of knowledge, man
find. Since it has the character of addition to the basic
gives , you could ask where Erslev has it, and I think that
is possible to point to a likely source: the French historical position
bible par excellence, Introduction aux études historiques by Ch.-V.
Langlois & Ch. Seignobos (Paris 1898). Unlike Erslev, where they
actual theoretical considerations are placed in the section 'To conclude'
almost like an apropos, the two Frenchmen start their book with one
section on the general conditions for historical recognition. Here find
you among others the following wording, which is both linguistic and substantive
covers with Erslevs: "But the special thing about" historical facts
is that they are only recognized indirectly by their tracks. The historic one
Recognition is in its essence an indirect realization. 9 What at Erslev
formulated with almost aphoristic shortness, reveals itself by reading
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 5/13
3/3/2019 Discussion What is source criticism?
Langlois & Seignobos to be stubborn of a consistently thought out
historical positivism, where the observation (observation) - or rather
The lack of it - is at the center.
In fact, Erslev's vision metaphor must be characterized as relatively restrained
compared to Langlois & Seignobos, for he does not carry it to his
utmost consequence. As DGS documents, Erslev slips in his language
use from "sources" to "observers". However, here is still a watch
subject. Langlois & Seignobos, on the other hand, take the step fully and
transforms through the critical work the sources of observations. Thought-
The following is the following: Every source is the psychologically mediated impact of
facts. The facts have come along
the man's head underwent a series of transformations. Historian
then in mind the same transformations, but with
opposite sign, going from the source to the facts. It does
he answers the key source-critical questions: 1) what wish-
the author to say, 2) he believed in what he said, 3) there is reason
to believe what he thought. When these questions are exhaustive,
right, so "is the source back to the point where it looks like one of them
scientific operations constituting any objective knowledge
closet: it becomes an observation. You just have to deal with it
9 »This is the first thing that is known as the 'n'être connus qu'indirectement, d'après
des traces. The Connaissance of History, par essence, uneconnaissance indirect, "
Ch.-V. Langlois & Ch. Seignobos: Introduction aux études historiques , 3rd ed. Paris 1905,
p. 44 (English overs. 1898, since reprinted several times).
Page 6
according to the objective science method. Any source has value exactly
in the goal that, after studying its origin, has reduced it to
a well-observed observation ”. 10
In other words, at Langlois & Seignobos you will find fully developed
and consistently carried out the vision that DGS has with some difficulty
gets analyzed by the scattered comments in Historical Technology . Seen on
you must immediately ask yourself why Erslev
Leave it at the trenches if the prosthetic prosthesis really constituted his
cognitive theory? A detailed answer would require a closer look
analysis of Historical Technology supplemented with in-depth studies in Erslevs
authorship and personal development. 11 So I have to settle for that
put forward the hypothesis that the final chapter of Historical Technology with
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 6/13
3/3/2019 Discussion What is source criticism?
The clear statements about the historical technique as the vision prosthesis reflect it
aging Erslev's scrubs and the resulting need for a recognition
rhetorical fig leaf rather than a fundamental, philosophical basis. Whole
conceptual living is rooted in German historical tradition (Johann
Gustav Droysen, Ernst Bernheim), which also explains its
neutral features. French positivism represents a secondary layer,
which, in my opinion, was never fully integrated with the German
basis. 12
Common sense
The second element, the source criticism that systematized common sense, is
a perception that you also do not find in Foundations or the rest
literature from around 1900, I have had the opportunity to consult. And
No wonder it is because when the historians took the source criticism, it was
to mark their own professionalism and distance themselves from ordinary
deadly. However, there can be no doubt that the performance has since
Page 7
has gone its victorious way. 13 Its origin is, of course, difficult to establish
beat, but if it is the last footnote in Historical Technology , where
Erslev writes: "The English historian, Lord Acton must have said that
the historical method is only a doubling of the healthy human
understanding "? 14 The wording suggests that Erslev did not know the source
this bonmot, but found the comment aptly to
load it.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 7/13
3/3/2019 Discussion What is source criticism?
If you go to Acton yourself, you find that the words come from his
famous introduction lecture on the study of modern history
(ie after 1500). They sound like this in their context: 'Apart from
what is technical, method is only the reduplication of common sense,
and it is acquired by observing its use by the ablest men in every one
variety of intellectual employment «. 15 Acton's opinion must be that
The "method" includes two things, firstly what is "technical" and for
the second is the reduplication of common sense, and that
is best learned through interdisciplinary orientation. There can be in that context
hardly doubt that the source criticism must coincide with
the technical, while it is on the next and higher level that we find it
doubled common sense - an expression that in English is more positive
listed than in Danish. Acton - and Erslev 16 - thus hold source criticism and
common sense separated.
This little spirituality in a footnote should have a long life among dan-
historians, perhaps because it expresses one in its distorted form
typically Danish self-irony and at the same time can act as a guard against theoretical
scruples. When and how the source criticism and common sense became
tied together in this way, might not be completely uninteresting
to track down.
13 Cf. eg. Henrik S. Nissen: "Conclusion from reality", Historical Journal , 1975, p.
76, especially pp. 69-70.
14 Historical Technology , pp. 95-96.
15 Lord Acton (John Emerich Edward Dahlberg-Acton): »Inaugural Lecture on the
Study of History, John Emerich Edward Dahlberg-Acton: Lectures on Modern
History , London 1952, pp. 1-28, quotes p. 20.
16 Cf. The following quote from Erslev's article on history in the Salmonsen encyclopedia (quoted below
2nd edition 1921, bd. 11, p. 506, but otherwise identical in the first edition. 1898): »While Source Criticism
is peculiar to H. precisely because H.'s Reality is that it pursues the pre-
bigangren, there is hardly under the historian's further work any method that is peculiar
for him. What he can read from the individual facts, he does by a little more
rigorous use of the methods prevailing in the sciences that treat the
me objects in the present as he in the past; he is alternately psychologist, lawyer, economist
etc '. See. also Foundations , p. 3.
Page 8
Page 9
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 9/13
3/3/2019 Discussion What is source criticism?
21 Knut Kjeldstadli: The past is not what it has been - an introduction to history , Danish
ed. by Claus Bryld, Frederiksberg 2001, p. Historical Technology , p. 93: "Even a genius
al Builder cannot build a solid building of bad material '.
22 Helge Paludan, Jens Chr. Manniche & Jørgen Fink (ed.): Source-critical text collection , 2.
ed. year house 1999, p. 9.
23 For a more consistent integration of a social science, hypothetical deductive
(pop) inspiration and traditional, Swedish source criticism see Arne Jarrick & Johan Söder-
mountain: Practical history theory , Stockholm 1993, 3rd edition 1999.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 10/13
3/3/2019 Discussion What is source criticism?
Page 10
End
At the end of these historiographical considerations on source criticism
you could return to the starting point and ask,
what significance this has for DGS's perception of the class
24 Sebastian Olden-Jørgensen: To the sources! Introduction to historical source criticism , Kbh. 2001
17.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 11/13
3/3/2019 Discussion What is source criticism?
Page 11
Critical source criticism and the linguistic turn. Rhetorically, DGS uses it
classic source criticism as a wall to play its character analytical ball up
ad. If you have to remain in the imagery, then I do not think that the class
The wall of Siska critics is where DGS places it. She doesn't go
dialogue with the Danish source criticism, neither as it was then,
since or now, but with a fragment of a French, historical positivism.
This does not mean that the linguistic turn, the sign analytical inspiration
and New Historicism have nothing to give historians. You need
Just don't construct them as an opposition to let alone a refutation
of classic source criticism.
It does not seem to me to matter in this context
which of the three definitions of source criticism outlined above is
there for. The more one builds on the subject's hermeneutic tradition, the easier
One would be able to relate both positively and critically to the impulse from
the linguistic turn. This proximity to the hermeneutics is DGS itself
inside, although she is most concerned with marking the difference between
hermeneutics and its own post-structuralist standpoint. 25 In fact,
gives her description of the linguistic turn analytical strategies and
premises in many places close to the hermeneutics, such as the one
eg. represented by Paul Ricoeur. 26 It applies to statements such as' source
Meaning depends on relationships that are not designated by themselves but about
is designed in the decoding of the "interest in" how the reference to
and the construction of this world and this narrative unfolds, "and
the concept of "the circulation of the representations". 27 The linguistic turn
In other words, must settle for something more humble, but also more
constructive role to contribute to further developing the source-critical heritage -
in theory and practice.
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 12/13
3/3/2019 Discussion What is source criticism?
https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_f 13/13