Errors of Good Faith as Part of Internal Criticism

The authors seeks to gain a practical advantage for himself. He wishes to receive the readers. The official documents generally do so. Barani, Afifi, Nizami and host of other chroniclers engage by the court to write the history of the period suffer from this defect. They were paid agent for their monarch and which to present him to brighter colours. They had everything to gain by flattering him hiding his weakness and exaggerating his virtues and they had everything to laws if they were critical and honest. Therefore, we have to find out the general aim of author in writing the documents as whole and his particular purpose. We have to inquire whether the author was interested in giving false information to serve his selfish ends the motive of gaining some advantages is at the root of this error.

The author is place in situation where he is compelled to violet the truth. Left to himself he would have stated the truth, but certain compelling factors prevented him from doing his job properly. The rigidity of the caste system, dowry practices, sati system infanticide and several such as abuses were issues on which authors had their own views, but could not express themselves freely moving to the hostile public own opinion of the time. Naturally, few of the writers willy-nilly approved of this practices. In other words what they have express may not conform to what they believed.

The author views with sympathy or antipathy the events or persons and represent them as very different from the actual happenings. This is a personal prejudice in which the author’s fancy likes and dislikes are involved. If he is well inclined was a person or event, he would praise him or it highly or else he would condemn him or it strongly. Burke was not well incline towards the French Revolution and hence is bitter remarks when Gibbon, his contemporary for so highly for those events. Here the author become subjective and is in client either to external a person depending upon his likes.

The author is induced by private or collective vanity to violet truth for the purpose of exacting credit for himself on his group. We have to ink wire what was our author’s particular vanity. We must always distrust statements which attribute to the author for his group a high place in the world. We can believe an author if he owns up to any mistake for he could not mention it unless it is really present. We have to assume that vanity is behind such an assumption which compares it to demand some credit.

Thus the above series of questions help us to detect whether the author has committed the error of good faith, whether his sincerity or integrity is under question and whether he has not deliberately attempted to deceive or mislead others. Author might draw from a particular statement; the sympathy aur antipathy that prompts him to be subjective the vanity which is responsible for is interested report; and the literary artifice which kill historical objectivity. These factors form the basis of historical fallacies and prejudices.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.