ADVERTISEMENTS

Using tapes (or other archival sources) under even the best of circumstances is not easy.  Errors are commonplace and completely understandable.   Based on the limited data available in the Times story, I side with Dr. Kutler.  One historian quoted in the Times story asks how could he have confused two converstions?  Easily is the answer, it seems to me.  As even the Times story notes this smacks of inside baseball (which I guess is why academics are so captivated by the story!)

I'm thinking now of work some years ago dealing with a microfilm copy of  a manuscript that ran to hundreds of (mostly unnumbered) pages.  Just organizing data is a formidible task, withouth even thinking about trying to transcribe poor recordings or lousy handwrtiting.   On a couple of occasions I combed through other historians' uses of manuscript records--and have been mightily impressed that I've found as few errors as I have.  Of course there are errors of omission; that's the nature of archival work--then a later historian can come along and add some more, perhaps cast light from a little different direction.  That's the nature of scholarship.  

One exercise I often have students in my legal history seminar undertake is to take a single case from a book we've read and compare the author's discussion of the case with their understanding.  In a few instances they find an explicit misreading of a case; but mostly it's differences in emphasis.  This historical business is hard--and each piece of data is potentially subject to intense scrutiny.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.