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