I contributed a chapter in the new book, "The Jefferson-Hemings Myth: An
American Travesty," in which I tested the issue of a Jefferson paternity of
slave children on the basis of the legal standard in Virginia (this can found
at the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society web site at
http://www.tjheritage.org/trial.html ). An extended discussion of "historical
v. legal interpretation" took place on H-SHEAR (the thread of this discussion
can be started at
http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/logbrowse.pl?trx=vx&list=h-shear&month=0106&week=

a&msg=Z JkAPJCGI0gMB%2brBNjxEkA&user=&pw=) (It was also picked up by the
Jeffersonian Politics Forum, a discussion forum at
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7842/jeffersonians/)
Since that exchange, I have spent some time considering the epistemology of
"historical interpretation." While there are various philosophical
differences, it is grounded in an inductive method which permits the source
material of historical fact to form the basis of inference or
"interpretation" by the historian. In the Jefferson paternity analysis, a
number of unproved assumptions are accepted as fact, from which inferences
are then drawn. This permits the historian to guide interpretation toward a
desired end.
Is the test of "historical interpretation" simply a political result,
measured by success in gathering believers, or is there an epistemology which
the historian is required to meet to infer historical "truth?"

_____________________________________________________________________ Richard
E. Dixon
Attorney at Law
4122 Leonard Drive
Fairfax, VA 22030
703-691-0770
fax 703-691-0978
______________________________________________________________________

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html