A historian finds a letter written by a general immediately after a battle, describing his own forces' conduct favorably. Which aspect of source criticism is most important to apply?
AExternal criticism — verifying the letter is genuine and was actually written when claimed
BInternal criticism — evaluating how the author's position and motive affect the content's credibility
CCorroboration — finding three additional sources before using the letter at all
DProvenance analysis — tracing the chain of ownership since the battle
Internal criticism asks: given who this person is, what they knew, and what they stood to gain, how credible is what they say? A general writing immediately after battle has both an incentive to portray his conduct favorably and limited access to information about the full course of events. This doesn't disqualify the source — it shapes how we interpret and weight its claims. External criticism (authenticity) is also important, but the more obvious concern here is the author's perspective and motive.
Question 2 True / False
A source that contains obvious bias should be discarded as too unreliable to serve as historical evidence.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
All historical sources carry a perspective — even apparently neutral documents reflect the assumptions, interests, or blind spots of their authors. A biased source may still contain reliable factual information (dates, names, events the author had no reason to distort). The historian's job is not to find unbiased sources (they don't exist) but to understand the nature of each source's bias and account for it in interpretation. Discarding biased sources would eliminate most of the historical record.
Question 3 Short Answer
What is the distinction between external criticism and internal criticism when evaluating a primary source?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: External criticism asks whether the source is authentic — whether it is what it claims to be, created when and where it purports to be, by the stated author. Internal criticism asks whether the content is credible — whether the author had the knowledge, access, and motivation to produce accurate information about what they describe.
The two forms of criticism address different failure modes. A forged document fails external criticism regardless of its content. An authentic document written by someone with strong motives to deceive or limited knowledge of events fails internal criticism for relevant claims. Applying both is essential because a source can pass one test and fail the other: a real diary (externally authentic) can still contain self-serving distortions (internally unreliable for certain claims).