Сравнение методов

	Historical Hermeneutics	Source Criticism
Область	Historiography	Historiography
Семейство	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Год появления	1819	1889
Автор метода	Friedrich Schleiermacher; Wilhelm Dilthey; Hans-Georg Gadamer	Leopold von Ranke; Bernheim and Langlois-Seignobos codification
Тип	qualitative interpretive method	qualitative critical method
Основополагающий источник	Howell, M., & Prevenier, W. (2001). From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. Cornell University Press. ISBN: 9780801485602	Howell, M., & Prevenier, W. (2001). From Reliable Sources: An Introduction to Historical Methods. Cornell University Press. ISBN: 9780801485602
Другие названия	Hermeneutics, Textual Interpretation, Hermeneutic Method, Verstehen	Quellenkritik, Historical Criticism, External and Internal Criticism, Heuristic and Critical Method
Связанные	4	4
Сводка	Historical hermeneutics is the theory and practice of interpreting historical texts in order to recover their meaning. Growing from the older art of scriptural and legal exegesis, it was generalized by Friedrich Schleiermacher into a universal method of understanding, deepened by Wilhelm Dilthey into the foundation of the human sciences, and given its modern philosophical form by Hans-Georg Gadamer. The method confronts a basic problem: a text from the past was written in a language, genre, and worldview not our own, for an audience whose assumptions we do not share. To understand it, the interpreter must reconstruct what its words meant to its author and first readers, moving in a circle between the meaning of the parts and the sense of the whole. Gadamer added a reflexive turn, insisting that interpreters cannot escape their own historical position but must bring it into a fusion of horizons with the text. Hermeneutics thus supplies the interpretive depth that source criticism, concerned with authenticity and reliability, leaves open.	Source criticism (Quellenkritik) is the foundational procedure of the historical discipline, by which a scholar interrogates a source before treating any of its statements as evidence. Codified in the nineteenth century by Ernst Bernheim and by Charles-Victor Langlois and Charles Seignobos, and rooted in Ranke's insistence on examining documents at first hand, the method divides into two complementary operations. External (or lower) criticism establishes whether a source is what it purports to be: its authenticity, the integrity of its text, its author, place, and date. Internal (or higher) criticism then asks what the source means and how far its assertions can be trusted, weighing the author's competence, sincerity, proximity to events, and interests. Only after both passes does the historian compare independent sources and synthesize a defensible account. The discipline of the method lies precisely in its refusal to take any testimony at face value.