Source criticism is the systematic evaluation of a source's reliability, authenticity, and evidentiary value. External criticism asks whether a source is what it purports to be (authenticity, provenance, date of creation). Internal criticism asks whether the source's content is credible given the author's knowledge, position, and possible motives. All historical evidence must pass through these filters before being used to support claims. A source that is authentic may still be misleading; a source with obvious bias may still contain reliable factual content.
Practice the HAPP or SOAPSTONE frameworks: analyze a source's Historical Context, Audience, Purpose, and Point of View (or Speaker, Occasion, Audience, Purpose, Subject, Tone). Apply these to both a favorable and an unfavorable account of the same event.
You already know the difference between primary and secondary sources — a primary source is direct evidence from or about the time being studied, while a secondary source analyzes or interprets primary sources. Source criticism is the set of techniques historians use to move from "I have a source" to "I know what this source is worth as evidence for a specific claim."
The first set of questions — external criticism — asks about the source as a physical or textual object. Is it genuine? Was it created when and by whom it claims to have been? Has it been altered since its creation? External criticism involves checking physical materials, handwriting, anachronistic language, chain of custody, and archival provenance. A famous example is the Donation of Constantine, a document purporting to grant the papacy sovereignty over Western Rome, which the Renaissance scholar Lorenzo Valla showed was a medieval forgery by pointing to language and concepts that didn't exist in the 4th century. Even if a forged document contains accurate information, it cannot be used as evidence for what it claims to be.
The second set of questions — internal criticism — accepts that the source is genuine and asks whether its content is credible. This requires understanding who made the source, when, for what audience, and with what purpose. A general's after-action report, a merchant's ledger, a peasant's legal testimony, and a royal chronicle all reflect their authors' positions, knowledge, and interests differently. Internal criticism doesn't seek to "catch" sources in lies; it asks how the author's perspective shapes what they could know and what they would choose to say. This is why a common misconception — that bias disqualifies a source — is so damaging to historical thinking. All sources have a perspective; acknowledging that perspective is what allows us to use the source responsibly.
A practical heuristic: distinguish between what a source says, what the author could have known, and what the author had reason to emphasize, omit, or distort. These three layers often diverge. A medieval chronicler writing about a military campaign might accurately record the date and location (things he had no reason to falsify) while exaggerating the enemy's forces to make the king's victory more impressive. The same document can be reliable for one claim and unreliable for another. Effective source criticism operates at the level of specific claims, not wholesale endorsement or dismissal.
Topics in reflective domains aren't scored by quiz answers. Read, reflect, and mark when you've thought it through.