In famous detective novels, the main characters all have one obvious trait in common- they solve mysteries, with the manner in which they go about solving their murders and robberies varying little. The important whos, whats, wheres, whens, and whys does not differ greatly between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew. Nor does the process of examining evidence and investigating suspects contrast much between Hercule Poirot and the Hardy Boys. Yet if a Parisian C. Auguste Dupine from the mid-1800s looked at the same mystery as a Swedish Mikael Blomkvist from 2005, how could they not draw the same conclusions?

Every written account, every author, every historian, and every detective looks at the same event through a different lens. A detective from 20th century Europe might consider anti-Semitism as a motive for a murder, while one from colonial America might place more emphasis on pro-British leanings as the cause. Everyone to ever exist has had different experiences, grown up in different eras, was raised in different cultures. Even two siblings, similar in age, will have different temperaments and motives that influence and bias their opinions and observations, explaining how predilections can sway conclusions.

Although it is impossible to completely avoid all predispositions and penchants, it is important that both historians and detectives attempt to minimize bias on their quest for the truth. Neither can form opinions without first the presence of fact, and however tempting, they must not force the evidence to fit a particular conclusion. In Josephine Tey’s novel, The Daughter of Time, Inspector Alan Grant, a detective dabbling in history, forced himself to examine both sides of the argument in order to ensure the evidence only fit his theory, not the opposition’s as well.

While Grant manages to easily slip out of his role as detective, and into his position as historian, it is important to note the difference between the two. As a detective, Grant is used to examining the human side of mysteries; knowing motivations and reading facial expressions has helped him in his career. However, history is more confining. Without being present, it is impossible to know mood and tone except through second-hand accounts, all of which- through their very nature- have biases. Therefore, as Grant learns, it is important to stick to the facts, to the information that cannot lie- receipts, tickets, and the like.

Tey’s novel helps clarify the difference between detection and historical method, and yet without using both, Grant would never have solved the mystery of Richard III. Although on the surface level there are many similarities between the two fields, differences begin to appear when talking about the types of evidence admissible.