Category: Uncategorized (Page 3 of 3)

After reading The Daughter of Time, it becomes clear that there are many similarities between being a detective and being a historian. These similarities include the shared idea that history is an account of everything that has occurred including actions and events while searching through literature, lectures, and film. Both a historian and detective must also rely on records or artifacts in order to gather enough information on the past and reconstruct. History is often described as a reconstruction and the act of selecting, analyzing, and writing about the past. This becomes clear in the novel when protagonist Alan Grant decides to research the historical mystery of King Richard III. Grant decides to pursue this mystery because, after first reading about King Richard III, he is intrigued by his photograph. By the end of the novel, the audience sees Grant embody a detective. Throughout the novel, Grant also researches other events that happened around the same time period of his subject and found the case of the Princes in the Tower. At that section of The Daughter of Time, it became clear that a historian and detective must be familiar with other events that have similarities with the subject at hand because that can add additional clues in explaining the actions or outcomes of their subject.

The detection method is often compared to the historical method because detectives and historians must gather facts from unreliable sources and create their own account of what happened, who was involved, and what the outcome was. One difference between detection and history is that detectives handle incidents that occurred in the recent past while historians gather information from a much larger time frame. This is an important factor because detectives can work with crime scenes, which they use as evidence. Historians rely more on artifacts including books and previous accounts to help them get to a conclusion. The most important difference between the detective and historian method is that historians draw conclusions from an event that happened in one time period and will compare it to other historical eras in history in order to gain additional insight while detectives move from case to case individually, sometimes citing previous cases. The detection and historical methods are often compared because both methods have similar definitions and utilize the same strategies to reconstruct events that happened in the past.

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 20^th 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.

Daughter of Time clearly displays the obvious similarities between historical method and detective work, which is seen by the relationship formed between Grant, a detective, and Carradine, a young research worker. For example, reliable testimony is central to developing an accurate timeline of events, in both detective and historical investigations. In the case of Richard III, the most commonplace and treasured narrative was written by a so-called contemporary historian. However, he was only five yeas old during the reign of Richard III, and wrote his account from heresy, gossip, and the tales of others. Upon checking the author’s age, it was obvious that the source was unreliable. Much like a witness who cannot produce evidence of their whereabouts, More’s account cannot be used as reliable information. Additionally, the cross-examination of evidence is a key component of both detective work and historical methodology. When Grant and Carradine read alternative, contemporary sources, they found no evidence to support the evil legacy that had followed Richard III. Furthermore, both detectives and historians are expected to find patterns to help create a logical timeline of events. For example, common knowledge places the murder of the two princes prior to Richard’s death. Upon examining alternative sources, however, the princes were very much alive during the reign of Richard III.
While the historical method does require many of the same aspects as detective work, there are pointed differences. For one, history is constructed, and contains author bias, whether or not it is intended. Detective work, on the other hand, leaves no room for interpretation. The role of a detective is to uncover exactly what happened, and how. Historians, however, must uncover and attempt to recreate the past using limited primary sources, accounts, and secondary sources. Detective work also focuses on the central goal of uncovering a motive. In this novel, the historical work came from a singular motive, which was to gain control of the English crown. However, few historians find a singular motive or catalyst for historical events, and usually discover that a multitude of factors drive significant changes. History is filled with differing interpretations of the past, while detective work seeks to find a single narrative. The methodology of examining testimonies, witnesses, and evidence show the similarities between history and detective work. However, they have significant differences that cannot be overlooked.

Reflection by Sarah Goldberg

As Scotland Yard inspector Alan Grant investigates the slanderous murder accusations launched against Richard III in The Daughter of Time, his inquiry into the past blends historical and detection methodology. Borrowing from his own professional background and collaborating with a historical researcher, the bedridden detective seamlessly fuses the disciplines in his rehabilitation of the maligned king. In many ways, this methodological conflation seems like a natural combination: both detectives and historians examine the past to recreate actions, illuminate patterns, uncover motives, and ultimately present a version of events. Moreover, the two disciplines rely on similar tools. Just as historians use primary source documents, detectives also build their narratives off written records from the time in question, as well as first-hand accounts from eyewitnesses. Both forms of research also require intentional source criticism, acknowledging the inherent biases of reporting. Crime scene analysis draws further parallels with the practices of historical materialism; just as a historian might draw conclusions about ancient societies from objects found in an archeological dig, detectives must look for objects as clues to a bigger picture. Detective work also faces many of the same pitfalls as historical research. As subjective investigators, the recreation of the past necessarily reflects a historian or detective’s biases. Grant’s amalgam of detective and historical research reflects the many similarities between the two disciplines.

However, while the investigator’s blending of these methods might have allowed him to uncover a centuries-old conspiracy, the process of thinking like a historian and thinking like a detective is hardly interchangeable. In his line of work at the Scotland Yard, Grant must use limited evidence to uncover an absolute truth, proving that his recreations of the past are the sole objective facts in a court of law. In contrast, historical research takes an infinite number of data points and seeks to generate a novel interpretation of the past. Historical narratives are inherently inadequate, and thus historians contribute to a collaborative dialogue about the recreation of the past. Arguments equally supported by evidence can diverge into conflicting perspectives, as historians work with not only primary but also secondary sources (a tool reduced to “hearsay” in the world of detective work). In historical research, complexity in cause and motive is a staple of a reasoned argument, acknowledging that human motive especially on an institutional and social scale is varied. In detection, investigators seek out simplicity and clarity, a feat far more achievable with a focus on the individual. While Investigator Grant employs some historical research techniques in his own analysis, his disgust with historian’s interpretive efforts and desire to land on a singular truth reveal his loyalty to methods of detection. While historical research and detective work both collect clues in search of a narrative of the past, the disciplines ultimately diverge in their fundamental objectives.

Kyle Donahue

Prof. Bilodeau

Being a detective, and being a historian are two life paths that some would argue overlap, and some would argue are opposites. Usually when this is the case it falls somewhere in the middle.

Being a detective takes great instincts and a gut. A detective needs intuition that will lead them to solving the case. Being a historian takes patience, and a will to dig through every available resource. A historian needs knowledge that allows them to draw information they need to uncover truth.

After reading, Daughter of Time, by Josephine Tey the similarities of detective and historian work are shown. Both detectives and historians need to take on a large question, or debated topic and then funnel it down into more specific information that can be used to formulate an answer. A detective must take an objective view at a case by looking at all the possible answers and not just the answer they believe to be true, just as a historian must look at every source and not just the ones that support there point of view to make their point easier to defend. Both detectives and historians reach a lot of dead ends. For example, a detective might have its prime suspect be ruled out because of an alibi even if the detective was sure he did it. Just as a historian might finally have found a document to support a claim but find this source to be unreliable. Detectives and historians both have jobs that egos must be left and the door and use no bias in determining facts from fiction.

The differences between detectives and historians tend to show in the results. Detectives must find an answer relatively quickly while historians tend to have time on their side. Another difference that may be obvious but not talked about a lot is public perception. If you asked a random person what a more appealing profession is I would bet on them saying detective. Movies are made about detectives, Sherlock Holmes, CSI, etc. but historians get the old grumpy guy reading thousand year documents, and even though Indiana Jones was sort of a historian I bet most people forget that part.

Historians and detectives are both tasked with similar goals: finding answers, and while the methods to that end goal may be different, finding those answers takes instincts, patience, guts, and knowledge on both sides.

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.

Reflections by Caly McCarthy

As Josephine Tey demonstrates in her detective novel, Daughter of Time, there are striking similarities between detection and historical method. The most significant of these similarities is that both processes seek a more complete understanding of something that occurred and is not fully understood/appreciated. To achieve a fuller understanding, historians and detectives examine evidence. Evidence, however, does not mean indisputable, objective truth. To the contrary, one document could be interpreted by scholars differently. In Daughter of Time, for example, Alan, his surgeon, the matron, and the nurses each offer a different reaction to the portrait of Richard III (before they know whom the picture is portraying). Often evidence comes in seemingly disparate pieces. Only upon stepping back and re-arranging the jigsaw puzzle can the investigator understand links of causation and relatedness. Frequently, one piece of evidence can send the inquirer to find another. Within the scholastic arena, this is accomplished by following the trails of footnotes. In the arena of detective work, pondering the meaning of one clue might lead to the discovery of another. For example, when Alan begins to suspect that Richard III was not the demon most texts make him out to be, he sends Brent to the British Museum in search of primary source evidence of “The Princes in the Towers.” When Brent returns with only secondary accounts, Alan decides to study the origins of the rumor and learns that Tyrell was charged with murder twenty years after the supposed deed. This does not add up. Historians and detectives are keen to notice patterns and disruptions.

Although it is helpful to notice the similarities that exist between detection and historical method, differences exist, and they too deserve examination (historians must acknowledge counter-arguments). At the surface, detection usually deals with an event that occurred within the very recent past, whereas historical work finds its domain reaching further back. Additionally, detective work tends to be more definitive in its final conclusions (Richard III is innocent; Henry VII is the real demon), whereas historical conclusions are more tentative (X contributed to Y, which is important because of Z). The pivotal distinction between detection and historical methods, though, is detection’s emphasis on the individual. Certainly, historians also examine singularly important people, but history as a field allows for examinations of social movements, class structures, environmental changes, etc. Detection focuses on a limited event (or perhaps a string of crime), but history looks at longer trends and subtle shifts. It acknowledges that humans are not the only movers-and-shakers (consider the power of institutions, cultural developments, and ideas), and therefore its domain of study is broader.