Author: kauffmam

By Madeline Kauffman

It is clear after reading and analyzing Josephine Tey’s novel, The Daughter of Time, that there are numerous similarities to be found between detection and historical method. They both serve the purpose of allowing conclusions to be made about what occurred during past events. Each method follows a series of trails of “evidence,” from which the historian or detective uses to find the root cause or causes of the event that he or she is focusing on. For historians, such evidence can be found in primary and secondary sources (documents and texts), while detectives focus on living witness accounts (primary sources) and the scene of the crime. Ultimately, both methods translate signs and clues and turn them into an account or interpretation of the past. It is important, however, for both methods to include a healthy level of skepticism when analyzing such evidence. One cannot let common beliefs and popular opinions shroud his or her overall judgement. For example, in The Daughter of Time, the main character, Grant, is told by his nurses and multiple visitors, as well as by Sir Thomas More’s historical account, that Richard III’s nephews were smothered to death in the Tower at Richard’s command. Grant did not take this as fact, and instead began to question the seemingly universal theory to come to his own conclusion. As such, it is clear that one must be able to make the distinction between fact and fiction.

In addition to similarities, there are multiple differences that must be taken into account when discerning between detection and historical method. Typically, when using detective skills, one hopes to arrive at a single cause or motive for an event or crime. In history, it is crucial to comprehend that it is rarely, if ever, one cause or problem that resulted in the event under scrutiny. To understand history is to understand that it can be explained in countless ways, while to understand detection is to realize that it is much more cut and dry. It is also important to note that historians and history as a whole can never be fully disengaged and separated from the historian’s own cultural biases and worldviews. This typically reflects in the conclusions drawn by the historian, and allows for multiple interpretations to be made by others. Detection, on the other hand, is much more like a puzzle. Only certain pieces of evidence can be put together with other pieces of evidence to represent a single picture of what happened. Although there are possibilities for other interpretations, detection is much more final.