ORWAN AND TKEATMENW "OF “\SEREPANEY \N TRUSTWQRTHY REEQRDS BROWMAN 95°— University of Pennsylvania Library Circulation Department Please return this book as soon as you have finished with it. In order to avoid a fine it must be remrned by the latest date stamped below. SECTION II., 1911. TRANS. R. S. C. The Origin and Treatment of Discrepancy in Trustworthy Records. By HERVEY M. BOWMAN, PH. D. (Lipsiensis). ff . .0 I, “resented by W. D. LESUEUR, LL.D. and read by Title, May 16,1911. Copyright, Canada, 1912, by HERVEY M. BOWMAN. l A (All rights, including translation, reserved.) / _ PREFACE. J ~The concluding section of this paper, entitled the Treatment q, Discrepancy, is not intended to be an exhaustive discussion of that subject, but only a summary of the chief points of agreement and difference between the prevailing treatment of discrepancy and the principles deduced from the author’s experimental test. \\ runaway: In historical method the author acknowledges himself a pupil of Professor Buchholz, formerly of the University of Leipsic, now of the Royal Academy of Posen. The present research, in so far as it re lates to the problem of discrepancy in ordinary history, may be regard— ed as a test and Vindication of views. derived from practical instruction by that scholar in the treatment of mediaeval and modern records. The author, in giving the origin of the views here advanced, is far from wishing to unburden himself of their defence. They rest on a found— ation laid by another, and the author mentions the fact only in order to acknowledge a fundamental debt. His thanks are due further to Dr. Le Siieur of Ottawa, the Vice-President of the Royal Society of Canada, for reading the manuscript and suggesting improvements which have been embodied 1n the printed paper. 'lri; 5: :3 i ~§ K 128 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA CONTENTS. Introduction ........................................ I. The Origin of Discrepancy (Cases 1, 2, 3) II. The Harmonization of Discrepancy .................... Alternate Harmonizations are Inadmissible, unless also Equally Probable (Case 4).. . . . . . . . . Statement of Discrepancies in Cases 5 to 26, Without Mention of the Attendant Circumstances ........... Statement of Cases 5 to 26, with Attendant Circum- stances and Attempts at Harmonization. . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Results of Test of Harmonization ........ Effect of Unfixed Sequence of Discrepant Statements. . . III. The Classification of Discrepancy ...................... Category I. Whole and Part, or Rule and Exception. . Remarks on Category I (Every Exception to a General Statement involves the Elements of a Discrepancy; Exception and J uxtaposition in Conversation and Primitive Literature) .......................... Category II. Reopened Transactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Category III. Coincident Transactions. . . . . . . . . . . . Category IV. Apparent Identity ..................... Category V. Difierence 0r Degree of Interest The Mixed Cases. 2, 12, 25, and 26.. General Remarks upon the Five Categories (Difficulty of Locating the Categories, Sufficient Classification; Distinction between Difference of Stand-point and the Category of Difl'erence or Degree of Interest, , , , IV. The Location, Range and Discovery of Discrepancy .. , (a) Location. '. .................................... (b) Range ........................................ Chances for Rise of Contradictory Statements. . . Degree of Contradiction involved in Legitimate Discrepancy ............................... (0) Discovery ................................ ' ..... V. The Truthfulness of Discrepancy. (a) The Criterion of Truthfulness in Statements 152 1.53 153 154.- 155 157 158 159 160 160 163 163 (b) Legitimacy and Necessity of Discrepancy 1n Truth-.» " ful Intercourse .......................... (c) Legitimacy and Necessity of Discrepancy 1n Truth- ful Records ................................. 166 167 [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 129 . Page. VI. The Treatment of Discrepancy: (a) Where the Circumstances of a Discrepancy between essentially trustworthy Records are known.. . . . . 168 (b) Where the Discrepancy lies between Records of essentially unequal Trustworthiness and the attendant Circumstances are unknown .......... 169 (0) Where the Discrepancy lies between Records essen- tially trustworthy and the attendant Circumstan- ces are unknown: i.—The scientific Requirement is not Haru monization, but Silence concerning the Point in Contradiction... 170 ii. —Defect 1s not to be imputed to either Re— cord, except upon Proof that the Dis— crepancy could not conceivably have , arisen legitimately from the Categories. . 171 iii—The Agreement of two or more Records in Contradiction of another Record does not , justify the Conclusion that the conflict— ing Statement of the single Record is erroneous” 173 iV. —If the discrepant Statements coincide in Part, Silence 1s 1equired of the Historian only from the Point where the Contradic- tion actually begins .................. 173 APPENDICES. A. An Unclassified Case. (Case 27) ............ . ............ 175 B. Thumb Print Identification. (Extracts from the World Wide, Montreal, Febiuary 18 and 25,1911) ............. 176 C. Statistical Tabulation of the Experimental Test in the 26 Cases of Discrepancy ................................. 177 ‘ Index to Cases of Discrepancy. . ._ ........................... 178 . ' ‘ ‘ rib-f“ “I; . ,1 - QUE {$.37 130 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA INTRODUCTION. If a discrepancy is found between a trustworthy and an untrust- worthy record, the conflicting statement of the untrustworthy record is disregarded. This practice is based on the correct principle of ordinary intercourse that the word of an untrustworthy person has no weight, especially against one who is trustworthy. Where the discrep- ancy, however, occurs between two trustworthy records, it is ascribed to a one-sided stand-point or to unintentional error in one or other of the writers. Unless a reasonable harmony can be suggested, the discrep- ancy is held to be due to error. This is the view of discrepancy usually taken in connection With conflicting statements in existing records. The author, on the con- trary, has gathered from actual intercourse 26 typical cases in which statements that were conflicting were yet true; and these cases are made the basis of an experimental study and test of the prevailing view. The principal results of the research are those concerning :— A. The Origin of Discrepancy. B. TheHarmonization of Discrepancy. C. Discrepancy and Infallibility. A. THE ORIGIN OF DISCREPANCY. The 26 cases revealed the two following facts which are not recog— nized in the prevailing attitude towards discrepancy between trustworthy Witnesses and records :— 1. That where two truthful persons make discrepant state- ments on account of different stand—points, these stand-points are in some cases equally good. ' 2. That discrepant statements may be due to a difierence of stand—point between two inquirers, and in these cases the same person, in reporting to the inquirers, must make discrepant state— ments in order that each of his statements may be true. Illustrations 2—- (1) A farmer, unable to attend an auction himself, bids for a property, through an acquaintance, a drover, who secured the place at such a low figure that he dishonestly kept it. The farmer Will Em“? «J .r [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTVVORTHY RECORDS 131 say to an inquirer that he bought the property, while the auctioneer will say that the drover was the buyer; and the stand—points of both are equally good. The drover bought the property but dis- honestly kept it; the farmer also bought it but was cheated of the purchase. (2) A merchant bought an old store for $10,000, the site being worth $5,000 and the building $5,000, and he replaced the building by a new block costing $20,000. To an assessor inquiring for assessing purposes concerning the cost of the property after the new erection, the truthful answer is $25,000; if the merchant’s banker makes the same inquiry in order to know where the mer— chant’s money went, the answer is $30,000. The difference is dictated by the different stand—points of the inquirers, and the , answers, therefore, are necessarily discrepant in order that each of them may be truthful. In both of these instances it should be noted further that the several stand-points are equally valid for use by a subsequent historian. , With full knowledge of all details of the discrepancy, he might embody in an historical account either of the conflicting statements without mention of the other, if his theme did not involve the details of the discrepancy and if consequently, by giving such details, he would distract the reader’s attention from the object of real interest. The conclusion deduced from the above and similar facts concern- ing the origin of discrepancy is that discrepancy has a legitimate and necessary place in truthful intercourse, and therefore a legitimate and necessary place in truthful records. B. THE HARMONIzATION OF DISCREPANCY. The harmonization of conflicting statements in existing records '7 where the circumstances of the discrepancy are unknown, is a mere groping in the dark. The author, by assuming that the discrepant statements in the 26 cases are recorded without mention of the cir— cumstances from which the discrepancies sprang, is enabled to observe the value of this practice by an unstinted light. In 12 of the 26 cases thus tested harmonization seemed impossible, while in the remaining 14 the most reasonable harmonization (which, in all but one case, . was also an exceedingly probable one) was in every instance contrary to the facts. " 132 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA The conclusions necessarily drawn from this experimental test are that, the circumstances of a discrepancy being unknown:— (1) Attempts at harmonization are scientifically inadmissible, because mere harmonization, howsoever probable, carries with it no guarantee of its scientific value. The scientific requirement in such cases is silence concerning the point in contradiction. (2) The impossibility of finding a reasonable harmonization does not prove that the discrepancy cannot be reconciled in fact. C. DISCREPANCY AND INFALLIBILITY. According to the circumstances from which the discrepancies sprang, the 26 cases may be divided into five main classes, called for convenient identification the categories. Out of these categories dis- crepancy in trustworthy records may legitimately arise. This principle and all other conclusions drawn from the experimental test in the 26 cases apply without distinction in every field of history; but their most interesting consequences are where two groups of scholars accept as trustworthy a series of records, though one group only regards them as infallible. Hitherto discrepancy in such a series of records has been regarded as a feature more or less illegitimate and at least calling for explanation; and this explanation the champion of infallibility Was expected to give in the shape of a reasonable harmonization. This situation is affected by the results of the present experimental test, in the following par- ticularsz— (1) While it is manifest from the universal experience of truthful intercourse that between the statements of trustworthy records there must be general and essential harmony, and that discrepancy, where it occurs in such records may be due to error and consequently imply defect, it is equally manifest, on the other hand, from the experience of truthful intercourse in the 26 cases that incidental and exceptional discrepancy is a legitimate and necessary feature in trustworthy records and, therefore, is not necessarily a defect in a series of such records. (2) Where a discrepancy occurs in such a series of records the champion of infallibility is excused from attempting a har: monization because (a) as a matter of scientific method he is forbidden to attempt such harmonizations, and (b) mere inability on his part to suggest a reasonable harmonization would not prove that the discrepancy could not be reconciled in fact. 1 [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 133 Between the champion and challenger of infallibility the contest up to this point is a drawn fight. At this stage, however, the challenger of infallibility encounters the scientific principle that no scholar, having accepted a record as trustworthy, dare stamp a statement in it as erroneous, except for a necessary cause shown.1 It is established that discrepancy between two records is not necessarily due to error. in either. Therefore, as against‘records accepted as trustworthy, the scientific conclusion, until the contrary be shown, must be that dis— crepancy, where it occurs, has sprung legitimately from the categories; and a scholar who acknowledges the trustworthiness of a series of records but denies, their infallibility on the score of discrepancies, must, , by requirement of historical science, prove that those discrepancies could not conceivably have arisen from the categories. This proof is a Herculean and Sisyphean task rolled into one. Mere inability to suggest a harmony which would bring the discrepancy within the categories does not prove exclusion. On the contrary, in 12 of the 26 cases a harmonization seemed out of the question, yet the 12 all belonged within the categories. . ' 1 Apart from this principle, history as a science would become bankrupt. See Section VI, (c), ii, p.‘1'67\ V}! 134 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA 1. THE ORIGIN OF DISCREPANCY. Discrepancies arise between the statements of trustworthy persons through a difference of stand-point: (a) Either in the persons making the statements; (b) Or in the persons to whom the statements are made; (c) Or in both those making the statements and those to Whom the statements are made. Illustrations :— CASE 1. (a) The Discrepancy—B, a farmer, stated that he bought a farm at an auction. C, the auctioneer, and other trustworthy persons present at the sale, stated that D, a drover, bought the farm at the auction. The Circumstances—The farmer had arranged privately with the drover that the drover should bid for the farm on the farmer’s behalf, The drover secured the place at such a low figure that he broke faith With the farmer and kept the farm himself. CASE 2. (b) The Discrepancy—B, a merchant, stated at successive intervals that a certain property cost him $10,000, $5,000, $25,000, $20,000, and $30,000. The Circumstances—The merchant bought an old store for $10,000 the building being worth $5,000 and the site $5,000, and replaced the, store by a new block which cest him $20,000. After the original purchase and before the removal of the old store the merchant stated to a casual inquirer that the property cost $10,000. After the remOVal of the old store and before the erection of the new block he stated to an inquirer interested in the value of sites that the property cost $5,000, After the erection of the new block the merchant stated to the assessor inquiring for assessing purposes, that the property cost $25,000. Stili later, to an inquirer interested only in the cost of buildings, he stated that the cost of the property was $20,000; and finally, to his banker [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORT'HY RECORDS 135 who wished to know where the merchant’s money went, that it cost $30,000. CASE 3. (c) The Discrepancy—B stated to C that at a religious service in a certain church all the men of the congregation were on the right side of the church and all the women on the left. D stated to E, concerning the same service, that two men were on the left side of the church and one woman on the right. i The Circumstances—In some of the German churches of Ontario and other parts of America the custom has prevailed of seating the men on the right and the women on the left, and yet in sight of each other, .the respective sides being separated only by a central aisle or low board partition. The custom is now observed with varying degrees of strict- ness, and the congregation in question is in the first stages of departure from the rule. B was an English visitor from other parts who reported the general division of men from women, as a novelty, to C a friend to whom the custom was also strange. D was a member of the denomina- tion, jealous of the observance of the old custom, and he reported the exceptions to a fellow member, E, who holds similar Views. In Case 1 the discrepancy was due to a difference of stand-point only in those making the respective statements; in Case 2 to a difference of stand—point only in those to whom the statements were made; while in Case 3 the difference of stand—point existed in both those who made the statements and those to whom the statements were made. In the 23 additional cases enumerated in the succeeding section upon the harmonization of discrepancy it will be found upon examination that the difference of stand—point is confined to those making the respective statements in Cases 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 25 and 26, a total, including the illustrative Case 1, of fifteen cases; the difference of stand—point is confined to those to whom the statements were made in Cases 8, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, a total, including the illustrative Case 2, of eight cases; and the difference of stand—point extends both to the makers of the statements and those to whom the statements were made in Cases 13 and 24, a total, including the illustrative Case 3, of three cases. In Case 13 the same person made both of the discrepant state- ments, but the discrepancy was occasioned both by a change in his own geographical location and by a corresponding difference in the geographi- cal location of those to whom his respective statements were made. Sec. 11., 1911. 10. ' i n i l l I 136 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA II. THE HARMONIZATION OF DISCREPANCY. If it be assumed in Cases 1, 2 and 3 that the discrepant statements are recorded without mention of the attendant circumstances, a reason- able harmonization in Case 2 will seem impossible. In Case 1 the most reasonable harmonization will be that the farmer and the drover bought the farm jointly at the auction, and in Case 3 that the discrepant reports of B and D concerning the location of the men and women sprang from the circumstance that B sat in a part of the church from which the exceptions noted by D were not visible. In both these cases the harmonizations are contrary to the facts as existing in the actual cir— cumstances. In order that the reader, if he so wish, may test for himself the value of reasonable harmonization, the discrepancy in the remaining cases will first be stated in succession without mention of the attendant circumstances. Subsequently the discrepancy in each case will be repeated along with the attendant circumstances, and the author will insert at that point his own attempt at harmonization. The reader, by thus postponing his acquaintance with the circumstances, will be enabled to attempt his harmonization in a state of actual ignorance which the author, being acquainted with the circumstances, could in his case only assume theoretically for the purpose of the test. The reader, if he enters upon this test, should remember that in attempts at reasonable harmonization alternative suggestions are inadmissible unless the alternative harmonizations suggested are not only reasonable but also equally probable. In reasonable harmoniza- tion as practised by many historians with the sanction of books of historical method, the most probable harmonization is accepted to the exclusion of such as are less probable, though these also may be reasona— ble. The same principle accordingly must prevail in the test. The effect of the principle may be illustrated by the following case in which, for the sake of the illustration, the attendant circumstances will also be immediately included with the discrepancy. CASE 4. The Discrepancy—B stated that he paid for his villa $4,000, and a year later he stated that it cost him $6,000. Q [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 137 The Circumstances—The first statement referred to the original. purchase, and in the intervening twelve months B expended $1,500 on the buildings and $500 on the purchase of an adjoining garden. The Harmonization—Such an advance in cost will ordinarily be due to expenditure in the interval either on the buildings or on the purchase of additional ground area; hence one may be tempted to suggest as a proper harmonization of the discrepancy that it is due to the expenditure of $2,000 in the intervening twelve months “either on the buildings, or on additional ground area or on both.” In this case, however, such a well-meant effort to discharge gun—shot at the target rather than a rifle-ball at the bull’s-eye is scientifically inadmis— sible. The suggested harmonization, though reasonable enough, is in fact by no means the most probable one. In actual experience the number of cases in which the previous cost of a villa is increased by expenditure either on buildings or additional ground area is far greater than the number of cases in which such an increase is due to expenditure on both buildings and area; hence there is a far greater probability that the increase of $2,000 in this case was due to expenditure either on buildings or area than on both, and accordingly the last alternative must be dropped from the above harmonization. Again, in actual experience, the number of cases in which the previous cost of a villa is increased by expenditure on the buildings is far greater than the number of cases in which such an increase is due to the purchase of additional ground area, and there is a correspondingly greater probability that the increase of- $2,000 in this case was due to expenditure on buildings rather than on area. Therefore, the first alternative in the above harmonization must also be dropped, and the most reasonable and probable harmonization of the discrepancy must needs be that in the interval of twelve months $2,000 was spent on the buildings; which harmonization is contrary to the facts. The following twenty~two cases are submitted to the reader, with— out mention of the attendant circumstances, in order that he may, if he so wish", attempt harmonizations on his own account and compare them subsequently with the actual circumstances. THE DISCREPANCIES. Case 5.‘—B stated (1) that C usually dines at the Café Wallace; and (2) that C usually dines at the Exchange Restaurant. Case 6.—(1) B stated that he accompanied C and D to a certain point; (2) C stated that B accompanied D to the point and C went thither alone. 138 THE ROYAL SOCIETY 03‘ CANADA Case 7.~—B, a young lady in a neighborhood where the country was in a disturbed state, drove one-morning with her brotherto spend the day with relatives some siX miles away, and returned late at night. (1) The following morning at breakfast she reports that her brother remained with her relatives and that she alone brought back with her another lady, C. (2) D, a guest of B’s parents, states that from his bed-room window the previous night he saw the returning carriage drive up to the door of the hall, and from it B alighted with a gentleman who was not her brother. Case 8,—B states at successive intervals (1) that he has read all the Bible; (2) that he has not read all the Bible; (3) that he has read all the Bible; (4) that he-has not read all the Bible; and (5) that he has read all the Bible. Case 9.—(1) B states that the British regiment of Royal Welsh Fusiliers went to the Battle of Waterloo wearing the queue. (2) C states that the same regiment went to this battle not wearing the queue. Case 10.—B states in the same document (1) that he has received a letter from the custody of C, the secretary of the Arrowsmith Society, and (2) that he has received a minute-book from the custody of D, the secretary of the same society. Case 11.—(1) B and C state that D has bought B’s farm for £1,000. (2) D states that he has bought the same farm for £2,000. Case 12.—(1) B states that he has sold his farm for £1,000. (2) C states that he has bought B’s farm for £1,000. (3) D states that he has bought B’s farm for £2,000. Case 13.——B states (1) to C that when leaving Toronto he met M; and (2) to D that in going to Toronto he met M. Case 14.——B; C and D, who are all familiar with the seX division in church as described in Case 3, report concerning the same service that they found exceptions from the usual arrangement as follows :— B.——2 men on the left side and no women on the right. C.——1 man on the left side and 1 woman on the right. D.——2 men on the left side and 1 woman on the right. Case 15.——B states (1) that he has paid for the Smith place $1,500; and (2) a year later, that the place has cost him $2,500. Case 16.—B states (1) that he‘has received a letter fromC, the Inspector of Public Schools for the County of Waterloo; and (2) sub- sequently, that he has received a letter from D, the Inspector of Public Schools for the same county. Case 17 .—B states (1) that he bought a farm for $4,000 and sold it for $5,000; and (2) that he lost by the saleof the farm $2,500. Case 18.—Annually on a day called Tag-day collectors ,for a charitable institution dispose of tags in return for voluntary contribu- [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 139 tions solicited from people on the streets and 1n public places the tag being worn by the contributor as a guarantee against further solicita- tion by other collecto1s. On such a day B states (1) that he has a tag, and (2) that he has never been tagged. Case 19.—B states (1) that C 1s his wife, and (2) that he was never married Case 20. ——B stated concerning a religious service (1) that there was a congregation of several hundred, and (2) that there were only two men on the left side of the church and one woman on the right. Case 21 —B, who 1s requested by C and D to see M reports (1) to C that he has seen M and (2) subsequently to D that he has not seen M. Case22. —B states (1) that he is a Presbyterian and (2) that he 1s a Lutheran. , ‘ Case 23.—B states concerning his health successively and without intervening change of condition (1) that he is well; (2) that he is much bette1;(3) that he is somewhat worse; and (4) that he is very sick Case 24. —(1) B states that the choir at a religious service sang a certain hymn. (2) C states that a quartette sang the hymn. Case 25. —(1) B states to M that she takes nothing warm for supper. (2) Immediately thereafter C enters the room and states to B that the fire For her supper is still burning but will not last much longer. Case 26. —B stated concerning a farm purchased by him, succes- sively, within siX months, that it cost him (1) $4, 000, (2) $5, 000, (3) $4, 500, and (4) nothing. The discrepancies 1n Cases 5 to 26 will now be 1e-stated, along with the attendant circumstances and the author’s attempts at harmonization. ,- CASE 0. The Discrepancy—B stated (1) that C usually dines at the Cafe Wallace; and (2) that C usually dines at the Exchange Restaurant. Harmonization. —That C, 1n the interval between the two statements, changed his usual place of dining. The Circumstances. —C, a resident of a city, dines at the Cafe VVal— lace on Sunday and on the other days of the week at the Exchange Restaurant. (1) B, a brother from the country, was in the city on the first occasion on a Sunday and on his return he reported that he had - _ dinner with C, where C usually dined, at the Café Wallace. (2) On the second occasion B was in the city on an ordinary day of the week and on his return he reported that he had dinner with C, where C usually dined, at the Exchange Restaurant. 140 ‘ THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA CASE 6. The Discrepancy—(1) B stated that he accompanied C and D to a certain point. (2) C stated that B accompanied D to the point and C went thither alone. H armonization.—~Impossible . The Circumstances—C and D were two ladies intending to take a train at the point in question. C had a valise and D none. It was necessary for C, before taking the train, to call at an intervening point which would take her considerably out of the direct way. The time for the purpose being somewhat short, B, carrying C’s valise, accom- panied D to the train by the direct route and when C arrived by the indirect, he placed both the ladies upon the train. CASE 7. The Discrepancy—B, a young lady in a neighborhood where the country was in a disturbed state, drove one morning with her brother to spend the day with relatives some six miles away, and returned late at night. (1) The following morning at breakfast she reports that her brother remained with her relatives and that she alone came back with another lady, C. (2) D, a guest of B’s parents, states that from his bed-room window the previous night he saw the returning carriage driVe up to the door of the hall, and from it B alighted with a gentleman who was not her brother. ' - Harmonization—That on account of the disturbed state of the country, the lady who accompanied B, had masqueraded as a man. The Circumstances—The lady C who accompanied B was the wife of the family doctor. His house was near the gate of the park, and when his wife alighted he took her place in the carriage and drove with B to the hall door.1 1 This case is from the experience of Sir Robert Anderson, formerly Assistant Commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police and Head of the Criminal ‘ Investigation Department, Scotland Yard, as given in his work “The Bible and Modern Criticism” (London, Hodder & Stoughton, 1902), pp, 221-223, Sir rRobert considers that the discrepant statements, apart from a know- ledge of the attendant circumstances, must be considered irreconcilable. The author, in suggesting a harmonization, wishes not to controvert the opinion of this officer, but merely to omit in no case a reasonable har- monization, if such be in any wise possible. The inherent probability in. the above harmonization is not great and it is further lessened by the fact that the incident occurred in Ireland. Even in such disturbed areas and periods as the Counties of Carlow, Wicklow and Wexford in the Rebellion of 1798, I [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY 1N TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS . 141 CASE 8. The Discrepancy.——B states at successive intervals (1) that he has read all the Bible; (2) that he has not read all the Bible; (3) that he has read all the Bible; (4) that he has not read all the Bible; and (5) that he has read all the Bible. Harmonization. —Impossible. The Circumstances. —(1) At a religious service the minister C invited those who had read all the Bible to indicate the fact by standing up. B rose with some twenty others. C 1emarked that it was a very good showing and no doubt many more would have risen but for the fact that they had not read the eight genealogical chapters at the opening of the First Book of Chronicles. B, in point of fact, had skimmed these chapters somewhat lightly, yet with enough attention to note and read carefully all verses and sections (6. g. 1: 12, 19, 48- -51) which contained anything additional to bare genealogy. In response to C’s invitation B had risen in good faith, holding that he had read this part as well as the rest of the Bible; but he was led to doubt, by C’s subsequent remark, whether C would agree with him in his opinion. Accordingly, (2) when C at another service gave a similar invitation to the congregation, B kept his seat Subsequently (3) at a service in another church and in 1esponse to an invitation given by another minister than C, B rose. Again (4) at a similar public test by C, B kept his seat; and finally (5) at a similar public test by another minister than C, B rose. CASE 9. The Discrepancy. —(1) B states that the British regiment of Royal Welsh Fusiliers went to the Battle of Waterloo wearing the queue. (2) C states that the same regiment went to this battle not wearing the queue. Harmonization. —Impossible. The Circumstances —The regiment, before starting for the Continent to share 1n the campaign which teiminated at Waterloo, was reviewed at Windsor, the soldiers still wearing their queues. At Dover, just before embarkation, the queues were removed. B saw the Fusiliers on their way from Windsor to Dover; C, a midshipman on the transport the chivalrousness of the Irish nature prevented to a singular degree the molest— ation of women living without protection 1n hostile districts; and 1n Ireland of all countries, women at such times would be 1n less danger if appearing in their own character than if masquerading as men. i 142 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA which carried them to Ostend, saw the regiment after the embarkation at Dover. CASE 10. The Discrepancy.~B states in the same document (1) that he has received a letter from the custody of C, the secretary of the Arrowsmith Society; and (2) that he has received a minute-book from D, the secretary of the same society. Harmonization—That C is the corresponding secretary and D the recording secretary of the society. The Circumstances—Thesociety has but one secretary and D has recently succeeded C in the office. Before the change B, who is a notary public, received the letter from C. The minute-book B received, after the change, from D. In attaching his notarial certificate to a copy of the letter and of a minute from the minute-book, B certified to the custody from which he obtained the letter and book respectively, according to the facts. CASE 11. The Discrepancy—(1) B and C state that D has bought B’s farm for £1,000. (2) D states that he has bought the same farm for £2,000. H armonization.—Impossible. The Circumstances—This case rests upon an incident in the life of first Duke of Wellington. The duke, D, was anxious to add to his estate an adjoining farm. The farmer, B, refused steadily to sell the farm. Subsequently, however, the duke’s agent, C, reported to the: duke that B had got into financial difficulties and consequently had not only sold him the farm but had taken as a price one half of What it was worth. The duke immediately wrote in reply that he would cheat no man on account of his financial difficulties and that the agent should pay the farmer an amount equal to the price already paid. The first of the discrepant statements is the report of the farmer and agent before this action of the duke, and the second of the discrepant statements IS that of the duke after his action. CASE 12. The Discrepancy—(1) B states that he has sold his farm for £1,000. (2) C states that he has bought B’s farm for £1,000. (3) D states that he has bought B’s farm for £2,000. [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 143 Harmonization—That B sold his farm to C for £1,000, and that C subsequently resold it at an advance of £1,000 to D, who referred to it as B’s farm merely by association with B’s former ownership. The Circumstances—The circumstances are the same as in Case 11. The first statement is a casual report of the farmer before the duke’s action. The second statement is that of the agent before the duke’s action, and the reference to himself as purchaser is merely in his capacity as the duke’s agent. The third statement is that of the duke after his actlon. CAsE‘ 13. The Discrepancy—B states (1) to C that when leaving Toronto he met M; and (2) to D, that in going to Toronto he met M. H armonization.—Impossible. The Circumstances—B travelled from Guelph to Buffalo by way of Toronto, and his stay in Toronto was limited to a change of trains and a wait of a few minutes in the depot. During this interval he met M. On arriving at Buffalo B made the first statement to C, and on returning to Guelph the second statement to D. ' ‘ CASE 14. The Discrepancy.——B, C and D, who are all familiar with the sex division in church as described in Case 3, report concering the same service that they found exceptions from the usual arrangement as follows: B: 2 men on the left side and no women on the right. C: 1 man on the left side and 1 woman on the right. D: 2 men on the left side and 1 woman on the right. Harmonization—That B, C and D were in different parts of the church and counted respectively the exceptions visible in their vicinity. The Circumstances—B was a woman on the right side and C was a man on the left, who, in reporting exceptions, did not count themselves. D was a man on his proper side. All were visible to one another. CASE 15. The Discrepancy—B states (1) that he has paid for the Smith place $1,500; and (2) a year later, that the place has cost him $2,500. _ H armomlzation.—That in the interval B expended on the buildings $1,000. 144 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA The Circumstances.——In the interval B expended on improvements and extensions of the buildings $2,500. CASE 16. The Discrepancy.——B states (1) that he has received a letter from C, the Inspector of Public Schools for the County of Waterloo; and (2) subsequently that he has received a letter from D, the Inspector of Public Schools for the same county. H armonization.—That in the interval D has succeeded C as Inspec- tor of Public Schools for the county. The Circumstances.~—There is a joint inspectorate of public schools in the county, the two inspectors having identical titles and rank. CASE 17. The Discrepancy—B states (1) that he bought a farm for $4,000 and sold it for $5,000; and (2) that he lost by the sale of the farm $2,500. Harmonization. —Impossible. The Circumstances—On the sale of the farm B deposited the proceeds, $5,000, in a bank which failed almost immediately, and on the final liquidation B received only 50% of his deposit. The second statement referred to this incidental loss, and signified only that if B had not chanced to sell the farm at that particular time, he would not have made such a deposit in the bank in question. CASE 18. The Discrepancy—Annually on a day called “Tag-day” collectors for a charitable institution dispose of tags in return for voluntary contributions solicited from people on the streets and in public places, the tag being worn by the contributor as a guarantee against further solicitation by other collectors. On such a day B states (1) that he has a tag; and (2) that he has never been tagged. Harmonization. —Impossible. The Circumstances—B purchased a tag from a collector in his own household but neglected to wear it when he went upon the street. ‘ His - friend, C, meeting him asked, “Where is your tag?” B replied that he had one at home. C, referring to the likelihood of further solicita— ' ltlon, remarked that he had better wear it; and B, referring only to [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 145 the chance of such public solicitation as judged by his past experience, answered, “ Oh, I have never been tagged in my life.” CASE 19. The Discrepancy—B states (1) that C is his wife; and (2) that he was never married. Harmonization. —Impossible. The Circumstances.—This case rests on the laxity in Scots law which permits the marriage of two persons by mutual acknowledgment of one another as husband and wife or by openly living together, with the reputation among friends and neighbors of being husband and wife, but without a marriage ceremony.1 B’s first statement was in reply to the question whether he was married; and the second to an inquiry as to where and by whom he was married, the reply in this case having reference solely to the fact that there was no regular ceremony of the marriage by a clergyman. CASE 20. \ The Discrepancy—B stated’concerning a religious service (1) that there was a congregation of several hundred; and (2) that there were only two men on the left side of the church and one woman on the right. H armom’zation.—According to the ordinary, 73. e., the most probable interpretation, B’s second statement would limit the congregation to four (including himself), a number impossible to harmonize with the first statement.“ The Circumstances—This case is another type of discrepancy aris— ing from the sex division described in Case 3. B’s first statement was made to one who inquired concerning the total attendance at the service, and the second in reply to an inquiry concerning the exceptions from the customary arrangement of the sexes. 1 See in Chambers’ Encyclopwdia, Vol. VI (London and Edinburgh, 1864), p. 338, in article on “Marriage”: “It will be seen from the statement of these different modes of proof (116., of marriage) that it must necessarily be sometimes difiicult to prove marriage in Scotland, especially as the fact depends not on any one specific form or act of the parties, but on a long course of conduct which ad- mits of endless variations, and the more variety, the more is the difficulty and expense of proof. Hence, it has often been said by strangers, that some persons in Scotland cannot tell whether they are married or not, and it requires an expensive and ruinous litigation to clear up that point, the most noted instance of which in modern times is the case of Yelverton r. Yelverton.” I46 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA CASE 21. The Discrepancy—B, who is requested ,by C and D to see M, reports (1) to C that he has seen M, and (2) to D that he has not seen , M. H armonization.—Imp0ssible. , The Circumstances—C commissioned B simply to hand M a small parcel. D commissioned B to take up with M, on D’s behalf, a lengthier - matter of business. M is a physician whom B, when he arrived on his errand, found in the act of stepping into his carriage in order to hasten to a patient. B handed to M the small parcel, but refrained under the circumstances from mentioning the lengthier matter of D. When B returned, he replied to an inquiry by C that he had seen M; but to a similar inquiry made by D under pressure of haste, B answered that he had not yet seen M., \ CASE 22. The Discrepancy—B states (1) that he is a Presbyterian; and (2) that he is a Lutheran. Harmonization—That in the interval between the statements B changed his church connection. The Circumstances—B made the first statement in reply to a casual inquiry concerning his church connection. The second state- ment he made to a Russian consul desirous of knowing his religious faith in connection with a visé of B’s passport for travel in Russia. For this purpose Russia recognizes only four religions, Orthodox Greek, Roman Catholic, Lutheran (including all Protestants), and Jews, the last being refused the privilege of entrance into her empire. The only alternative for a Presbyterian unwilling to be classified as a Lutheran would be to call himself a pagan. CASE 23. The Discrepancy—B states concerning his health successively and without intervening change of condition (1) that he is well; (2) that he is much better; (3) that he is somewhat worse; and (4) that he is very sick. H armonization.—I mpossible. The Circumstances—B is practically over a nervous break-down, the recovery from which has extended over several years. As usual in such cases the gradual improvement has been interrupted by serious [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 147 temporary relapses induced by the least over-strain. B, though far advanced toward recovery on the whole, is in the midst of such a temporary relapse of about a month’s duration. (1) A gentleman whom B met recently for the first time and who knows nothing of B’s nervous trouble, makes the formal inquiry on the street, “ How do you do?” B, without going into details which would be quite beyond the inquirer’s interest, answers with thanks that he is well. (2) B next meets an acquaintance who knows of the original break—down but has not seen B for a year. To his inquiry, B, with due regard to the fact that the acquaintance wishes to know the course of the disease. during the previous twelve months, answers correctly that he is much better. (3) The next inquirer is a friend whose last inquiry was made only some weeks previously, and B answers according to the intervening temporary development, that he is somewhat worse. (4) The fourth inquirer is B’s most intimate friend who wishes to know why B has not turned up of late for the walks which they take frequently in each other’s company; and to him B’s gives as the reason that he is, for the time being, very sick. CASE 24. The Discrepancy—(1) B states that the choir at a religious service sang a certain hymn. (2) C states that a quartette sang the hymn. H armonization.—That the choir was composed of only four persons who accordingly formed also the quartette. The Circumstances.—The choir consisted of eight persons, of whom seven were present at the service. (1) B was a member of the congrega- tion, without sufficient interest in the case of the hymn in question to distinguish between a performing and a non—performing part of the choir, and his statement was made to a person with a similar degree of interest. (2) C was one of the three members of the choir who were present at the service but were not of the performing quartette; and his statement was made to the absent member of the choir. CASE 25. The Discrepancy—(1) B states to M that she takes nothing warm for supper. (2) Immediately thereafter C enters the room and states to B that the fire for her supper is still burning, but will not last much longer. 7 Harmonization—That B takes a warm drink but no warm food for supper. 148 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA The Circumstances—B, with rare exceptions, takes neither warm drink nor warm food for supper. C, her s1ster, dlsapproves of the practice and seeks, on occasion, to increase the number of exceptlons. M was a caller waiting for C and entertained meanwhile by B. (1) M, . knowing that C was at supper, urged B to go and have her supper too, lest it should become cold. B answered truthfully, both according to her general practice and her particular intention for that day, that she takes nothing warm for supper. (2) C, when she entered the room, made one of her occasional attempts to alter her sister’s practice. CASE 26. The Discrepancy—B stated concerning a farm purchased by him, successively, within six months, that it cost him (1) $4,000, (2) $5,000, (3) $4,500, and (4) nothing. Harmonization—That B, in the course of the six months, succes- sively bought $1,000 worth of additional land, and resold $500 worth of land, and spent nothing on buildings or other improvements. The Circumstances—B purchased the farm on October 1st for $4,000. The previous owner had in the granary the season’s harvest of grain, which he expected to sell to better advantage some months’ later but which he could not conveniently store elsewhere if he sold the farm. B accordingly took the grain off his hands at a valuation of $1,200. Before the grain was sold, the granary and grain were destroyed by fire. There was insurance of $200 on the granary but none on the grain. Subsequently B determined to re—sell the farm, avoiding loss as far as possible on the transaction. As a measure to that end he cut and sold $500 worth of the more mature trees on the timbered part of the farm; and finally he found a purchaser for $4,500. B stated that the farm cost him (1) $4,000,'after the original purchase and before the destruction of the granary; (2) $5,000, after the destruc- tion of the granary and before the sale of the timber; (3) $4,500, after the sale of the timber and before the sale of the farm; and (4) nothing, after he found a purchaser at $4,500, an amount which closed up the entire transaction without loss to himself.1 ‘ Farmers oftener realize a part of the value of their farms by cutting timber than by selling a part of the land; and hence the author’s harmonization may seem at fault in suggesting a sale of land as the most probable reason for the re- duction between the second and third statements from $5,000 to $4,500. Farmers, however, in considering variations from the original cost of a farm, would take into account such cuttings of timber much less frequently than they would sales of a part of the land. In fact, they would consider sales of timber in such a connectiOn only in rare cases, like the above, where timber was cut on- an extenSive scale for an unusual object. J I [BOWMAN] g DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 149 SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE FOREGOING TEST. Of the 26 cases of legitimate discrepancy subjected to an attempt at reasonable harmonization apart from a knowledge of the attendant circumstances, it will be found that Cases 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23, or in all 12 cases, seemed impossible to harmonize; while in Cases 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 22, 24, 25, and 26, or in all '14 cases, a reasonable harmonization seemed possible, but this har- monization was in every instance contrary to the facts. EFFECT OF UNFIXED SEQUENCE OF DISCREPANT STATEMENTS. In the 26 cases of discrepancy, as heretofore stated, the sequence of the respective statements in each case was fixed for the purposes of the test. Where discrepant statements occur in records this sequence, however, will not necessarily be found fixed. Consequently it is of interest to notice what effect, if any, will follow if an unfixed, instead of a fixed, sequence of statements be assumed in the foregoing test. Two changes, neither of them important in the general result, will ensue from this less efficient and, therefore, less valuable, test. (1). In Cases 16 and 26 erroneous harmonizations will be replaced by slightly different, but equally erroneous, harmonizations, as follows: Case 16.——Instead of D succeeding C as Inspector, the harmoniza- tion would be that either D succeeded C or C succeeded D. Ca‘se 26.~—The order of statements concerning the cost of the farm would be altered from $4,000, $5,000, $4500 and nothing to $4,000, $4,500 and $5,000, and the location, with respect to the other statements, of the statement that the farm cost B nothing, would have to be left an open question. The harmonization that B, in the course of the six months, successively bought $1,000 worth of additional land and re-sold $500 worth of land, and spent nothing on buildings, would be replaced by the harmonization that the successive increases from $4,000 to $4,500 and to $5,000 were due to expenditure either on buildings or on the purchase of additional land, according as to whether B’s statement that the farm cost him nothing occurred before or after such increases respectively. ,(2). In Cases 2, 8, 18, 19 and 21, a reasonable harmonization, instead of seeming impossible, will become possible, but these harmon— izations are also in every case contrary to the facts :— Case 2.—The sequence of B’s statements concerning the cost of his property, fixed in the previous -test at $10,000, $5,000, $25,000, w...” .y. 150 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA $20,000 and $30,000 respectively, would be altered to the order $5,000, $10,000, $20,000, $25,000 and $30,000 respectively, and the harmon— ization would be that the differences between the statements were due to successive expenditures upon the buildings. Case 8.—B’s (second and fourth) statements that he had not read. all the Bible would be grouped before his (first, third and fifth) state- ments that he had read all the Bible; and the harmonization would be that in the interval between the two groups of statements as thus arranged, he had completed the reading of the Bible. Case 18.—The harmonization would be that B’s statement that he had never been tagged preceded his statement that he had atag, and in the interval between the statements he purchased a tag. Case 19.—The harmonization would be that B’s statement that' he was never married preceded his statement that C was his wife, and that in the interval between the statements he was married to C. Case 21.—The harmonization would be that B’s statement to D that he had not seen the physician M, preceded B’s statement to C that he had seen M, and that in the interval between the two statements B saw VI. The only effect of a test with an unfixed, as opposed to a fixed, sequence of statements is, therefore, that under the superior test with a fixed sequence a harmonization seemed impossible in 12 of the 26 cases and in the remaining 14 cases the most reasonable harmonization was in every instance contrary to the fact, while under the inferior test with an unfixed sequence a harmonization seemed impossible in 7 of the 26 cases and in the remaining 19 cases the most reasonable har? monization was in every instance contrary to the facts. Unless the contrary be specifically stated, all subsequent references to the test of harmonization applied to the 26 cases in this section will be to the superior test with fixed sequence, and not to the inferior test with unfixed sequence of statements. [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 151 III. THE CLASSIFICATION OF DISCREPANCY. According to the principles active in the attendant circumstances, ' the 26 cases of discrepancy may be divided into five main classes or categories, as follows: I. Whole and Part, or Rule and Exception: Cases 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8. II. Reopened Transactions: Cases 4, 9, 10 and 11. II. Coincident Transactions: Cases 1, 13 and 14. IV. Apparent Identity: Cases 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. V. Diflerence or Degree of Interest: Cases 21, 22, 23, and 24. The Mixed Cases: '2, 12, 25 and 26. In Case 2 the principles of Reopened Transactions and Difierence of Interest are both active; in Case 12 those of Coincident Transactions and Reopened Transactions; in Case 25 those of Whale and Part or Rule and Exception and Difierence of Interest, and in Case 26 those of Reopened Transactions and Apparent Identity. CATEGORY I.7—Whole and Part, or Rule and Exception: Where reports concerning the same matter conflict because one report treats of the matter as a .whole and the other with reference only to a con- tingent exception. Case 3.—One statement deals with the seating of the congregation as a whole, i.e., with the general separation of the men from the women. The contrary statement deals with the exceptions to this general ar- rangement. Case. 5.—One statement deals with C’s place of dining on six days; i.e., on most days of the week; the contrary statement deals with his place of dining on Sunday, an exceptional day in C’s arrangement. Case 6,—B’s statement concerning his attendance upon C and D treats the transaction as a whole. By beginning and ending the walk with C, by carrying her valise in the interval, and by assisting her as well as D to the right car, he feels that he has been in attendance upon both ladies. The contrary statemnt of C deals with the excep- tional feature in this general process. Case 7.——B’s statement that she returned alone with another lady deals with the major part of the drive of six miles. The, contrary Sec. II., 1911. 11. 152 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA statement of D deals only with an exceptional feature at the end of the drive, i.e., from the park gate to the hall door, although of this fact D himself was unconscious. Case 8.—B’s first, third and fifth statements that he has read all the Bible deal with the-matter as a whole. His contrary statements, the second and fourth, deal with the matter according to the standpoint of the inquirer with reference to an exceptional part. REMARKS UPON THE CATEGORY OF Whole and Part, or Rule and Exception. Every exception to a general statement involves the elements of a discrepancy, which, however, is not recognized as such because, the exception being expressly made in connection with the general state— ’ ment, the circumstances of the discrepancy are quite clear. Thus, if a tourist, describing a Visit to the United States, writes on page 10 of his work, “I visited the chief cities of the United States, except Chi— cago,” the reader will feel no discrepancy. If on the contrary the tourist wrote on page 10 of his work, “I visited the chief cities of the United States,” and upon page 100, “I did not Visit Chicago,” the reader will say that between these statements, so separated, there is a discrepancy. In conversation such exceptions may be expressed by mere juxta- position. Thus if the above tourist should say verbally to a friend, “ I visited the chief cities of the United States. I did not visit Chicago,” the friend would understand these two sentences in immediate succes- . sion to be equivalent to the statement, “I visited the chief cities. of the United States, except Chicago.” In primitive literature, with its preference for simple as opposed to complex statements, the same method of expressing exceptions is to be found. It is in disregard of this principle that the writer of the article on “Jacob” in Hastings’ Bible Dictionary (vol. ii, p. 529, note) says concerning Jacob’s passing ' of the ford of J abbok, as recorded in Genesis 32: 22-24,’ that in verse 22 Jacob has passed the J abbok while in verse 23 he has not. The passage reads: (v. 22) “And he rose up that night, and took his two wives, and his two handmaids, and his eleven children, and passed over the I ford of Jabbok. (v. 23) “And he took them and sent them over the stream, and sent over that he had. (v. 24) And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.” In this succession of simple statements in the primitive style, the writer of ' Genesis first states the general fact of the caravan passing the J abbok, and then the exception that while the bulk of the caravan passed over, [B0\VMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 153 Jacob remained behind alone; and by the juxtaposition the discrepancy suggested by the writer in the above Dictionary is excluded. An interesting illustration of this principle of juxtaposition occurs in Ezekiel 44. 22—“ Neither shall they (i. e., the priests) take for their wives a widow, nor her that is put away; but they shall take .virgins of the seed of the house of Israel, or a widow that is the widow of a priest.” , Evidently the sense is that priests may not marry widows except those of priests; but by the interposition of other statements between the general statement and the exception, there springs up a shade of discre- pancy which would become complete if the general and exceptional statements occurred in different books or at a greater distance from each other in the same book. 0 CATEGORY II——Reopened Transactions. Where a transaction or situation is closed and warrants a certain report, but is re-opened by subsequent developments which warrant another and diflerent report. Case 4.——-When B purchased his villa for $4,000 he was warranted in stating that it had cost him that amount; but a year later, as a result of intervening developments which involved the expenditure of $2,000 on the buildings and on the purchase of an adjoining garden, he was equally warranted in naming as the cost of the villa $6,000. Case 9.—The journey of the Fusiliers from Windsor to Waterloo was by stages, at any one of which up to Dover the statement that they went to the battle wearing the queue was warranted; but by the developments at Dover another statement was not only warranted but necessary in the subsequent stages. Case 10.—Between the production of the letter and the minute book a new secretary was appointed by the society, and by this develop: ment the second and different statement by the notary public in the : same certificate was not only warranted but necessary. Case 11.-—The Duke’s subsequent addition of £1,000 to the £1,000 paid for the farm by the Duke’s agent warrants the Duke’s statement ' that he paid for the farm £2,000; and before this development the farmer and agent were equally justified in naming as the price £1,000. CATEGORY III—Coincident TransactiOns. Where two or more transactions coincide wholly or in part, and co- ~ incident features, which in one report are ascribed to one transaction and gawxv‘:'.~z_ . - ‘ ' 154 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA in a contrary report to another, belong really to both transactions; or the coincident features are so absorbed into the non-coincident as to cause conflicting reports. Case 1.——In this case two distinct transactions coincide exactly. Both the farmer and the drover purchased the farm at the auction, the drover by the act of public bidding and the farmer by the private arrangement with the drover. The auctioneer, in stating that the drover was the‘buyer, treats the coincident feature, i. e., the act of public bidding, as belonging solely to the drover’s act of purchasing; the farmer, in stating that he is the buyer, treats the coincident feature as belonging solely to the act of purchase by private arrangement. Case 13.——In this case the two transactionscoincide in part. The going to Toronto ended where the leaving of Toronto began. Exactly at this point of coincidence B met M, and this coincident feature is ascribed in the one report to the second transaction, i. e., to the leaving of Toronto, while in the contrary report this coincident feature is ascribed to the first transaction, i. e., to the going to Toronto. Case 14.—In this case three different transactions coincide in part, and the coincident features are so absorbed into the non—coincident as to cause conflicting reports. In the counting of the exceptions from the sex division by B, C and D respectively, there are three distinct observations, B with the exclusion of herself, C with the exclusion of himself, and D with the inclusion of both B and C; and the coincident parts of the various counts are so mingled with the non-coincident parts that the result is a double discrepancy. CATEGORY IV—Apparent Identity. Where two reports apparently but not really involve the same fact. This category is exemplified by Cases 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20. In each of these cases the discrepancy occurs because there seems to be a relation between the discrepant statements, although in reality there is none. Thus in Case 15 B states that he has paid for the Smith place $1,500 and a year later he states that the place has cost him $2,500. The second figure seems to include the original payment of $1,500, but in reality it refers only to intervening expenditure on buildings and the purchase of an adjoining garden. In Case 16 B states successively that he has received letters from C and D, to each of whom he refers as the Inspector of Public Schools of the County of Waterloo. D seems to hold the same office formerly held by C, but in reality D’s office is distinct from C’s, although both offices are the same in name and in rank. In Case 17 B’s first statement signifies that he has sold a farm [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTIVORTHY RECORDS 155 at a profit of $1,000; and his second statement, that he lost by the sale of the farm $2,500, seems to relate to this sale, but in reality it refers only to the failure of the bank in which B deposited the proceeds. In Case 18 B first states that he has a tag; and his second statement, that he has never been tagged, seems to signify that he never possessed a tag, but the real meaning of the second statement is that he was never solicited to purchase a tag on the streets. In Case 19 B states that C is his wife and again that he was never married. The second statement seems to exclude the possibility of C being his wife, but in'reality it refers only to the absence in their marriage of a religious ceremony. And in Case 20 B states that there was at a church a congregation of several hundred and again that there were in the church only two men on the left side of the church and one woman on the right. The second statement seems to relate to the same subject as the first, but in reality it refers not to the size of the congregation, but to a peculiar arrange- ment in the seating of the sexes. In the discrepancies of this category the apparent identity may spring from a purely verbal origin such as the double meaning of the words tag and marry in Cases 18 and 19; or from an incidental and unreal connection such as that set up between the sale of the farm and the failure of the bank in Case 17; or the apparent identity may be inherent in a situation such as that concerning the cost of the villa, the office of the Inspector or the size ,of the congregation in Cases 15, 16 and 20. The appearance of identity is erroneous and deceptive. The error and deception, however, does not extend to the original makers and hearers or receivers of the statements, whether verbal or written. The state— ments liable to such misinterpretation may be found in diaries and letters; but the original possessors of the diaries and receivers of the _ letters, having full knowledge of the attendant circumstances, were neither in error nor deceived; and hence the original record and state— ments themselves, notwithstanding the liability to subsequent misin- terpretation, are not erroneous nor deceptive, but truthful. CATEGORY V—Difi‘erence 0r Degree of Interest. Where reports difier because, on the part of those making or receiving the reports, there are varying degrees, or a total difierence, of interest in the matter reported. Case 21—0 and D had a complete difference of interest in desiring B to see the physician M. According to the interest of the one B had seen the physician, and according to the interest of the other he had not and B reported accordingly. ‘ m- ....,—»ll 7;“, 156 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA Case 22.——B’s first inquirer wished to know B’s denominational , connection as between Protestant churches. The Russian consul, on the contrary, wished to know only B’s connection with the principal religious systems of the world; and the adherents of the Protestant system being classed as Lutherans in Russia, B declared himself a Lutheran, although his particular connection, as given to the previous inquirer, was with the Presbyterian Church. The answers were accord- ing to the degree of interest of the inquirers. Case 23.—The four accounts of B’s health were due in part to the degree of interest, but still more to a difference of interest among the inquirers. The inquiry of the first inquirer was more or less formal, and therefore his degree of interest was not as great as that of the remaining three. Between the second and third inquirers there was a difference of interest arising from the difference of interval—a year in the case of the second and only a month in the case of the third— since each of them had last received a report concerning B’ health. The interest of the fourth inquirer, who frequently took walks with B, was both different from that of the previous three inquirers and also much ‘ greater in degree. Case 24,—This is a case purely of degree of interest. To the members of the congregation it was immaterial whether all the' choir or only four members of it sang the hymn; but the non-performing member had a natural interest in drawing the distinction and reported accordingly to the absent member of the choir, whose degree of interest was equal to his own. It will be noticed that Difierence 01" Degree of Interest may operate in two directions, the one to the exclusion of general features and the other to the exclusion of particulars. Case 21 illustrates the exclusion of the general features, C and D not being interested in the general fact whether B had seen the physician M, but only as to whether he had done so with reference to the particular points in which respectively they were concerned. In Case 22 the interest of the Russian consul in B’s religion operates to the exclusion of particulars._ In Case 23 the interest of the first and second inquirers concerning B’s health operates to the exclusion of particulars, and that of the third and fourth inquirers ‘ to the exclusion of the general features of B’s health. And in Case 24 the interest of the members of the congregation operates to the exclusion of particulars concerning the performances of the choir. [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 157 The Mixed Cases: 2, 12, 25 and 26. Case 2.—By the removal of the old store and the erection of the _ new block, the original transaction was subsequently developed, and the merchant’s varying statements concerning the cost of his property are due in part to the principle of Reopened Transactions. The principal source of the discrepancies in this case are, however, the differences of interest in the various inquirers. ' Case 12.—In the second statement, that C, the Duke’s agent, had purchased the farm, the principle of Coincident Transactions is active. In the purchase by the agent,two transactions,exact1y coincident, occur; the agent makes the purchase, but the Duke also makes the purchase, and either of them may be set down as purchaser, if the interest of the inquirer requires no distinction between the two. For the rest, this case belongs, with Case 11, to the category of Reopened Trans— actions. Case 25.———B’s statement, that she takes nothing warm for supper, is made from the standpoint of her general practice; and the statement of .C, that a fire for her supper is still burning, is made from the stand— point of occasional exceptions to that practice. The discrepancy belongs, therefore, to the category of Whole and Part or Rule and Exception. The principle of Difierence of Interest, however, enters also into the discrepancy. The interest of M, which occasioned the first statement, was lest B should be deprived of a warm supper. The interest of C“, which occasioned the second statement, was to induce B, by Way of eXception to her custom, to take a warm supper. Case 26.——By the burning of the granary and the sale of the timber the original situation was so developed as to warrant the subsequent statements that the farm, for which he paid $4,000, cost him $5,000 and $4,500. In these statements the active principle is that of Re- opened Transactions. The fourth statement, that the farm cost B nothing, seems to refer to expenditures made on the farm after the original purchase, but in reality it signifies that the farm was sold at a price which enabled B to avoid loss on his original purchase; hence this statement belongs to the category of Apparent Identity. In the mixed cases it will be noticed that the mixture may arise either by the principles of several categories acting jointly in the same statements, as in Cases 2 and 25; or, as in Cases 12 and 26, a statement which belongs only to one category may be joined with a statement or statements which belong to another category, and in such cases the mixture of categories is more external and incidental, while in the former cases the mixture is internal and essential. 158 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA GENERAL REMARKS UPON THE FIVE CATEGORIES. 1. The location of the principles active in producing legitimate. discrepancy is an experimental process, of varying difficulty at its successive stages. The categories, in the order of location by the author, were: 1st, Whole and Part, or Rule and Exception; 2nd, Reopened Transactions; 3rd, Difierence or Degree of Interest; 4th, Apparent Identity; and 5th, Coincident Transactions. The first and second, in the order named, were almost self-evident, the third was located with considerable ease, and the fourth with some difficulty. At this stage there remained several cases of discrepancy, legitimate indeed, yet not classified and apparently not classifiable. After a considerable interval, the discovery of Case 13, however, brought out clearly'the principle of Coincident Transactions; and to this category the several cases, which previously had seemed to be erratic, were found to belong. All the cases of legitimate discrepancy found by the author since this stage of classification was reached, belonged to one or other of the five categories. The discovery of a case which does not belong to them should form a stage towards the location of a fresh category.1 There is, however, no virtue nor scientific gain in seeking to multiply unduly the number of categories by an over-refinement in analysis. 2. In classifying a discrepancy, there may be a mixture of cate- gories, yet not of sufficient importance to require mention of more than one category. Thus, in Case 8, with respect to the question whether B had or had not read all the Bible, there is in B an element of Degree of Interest operating to the exclusion of such particulars as the few chapters at the opening of Chronicles, except where the attitude of the inquirer appeared to require a contrary course. The discrep- ancy is, however, sufficiently classified under the category of Whole and Part, or Rule and Exception alone. 3. Difference of standpoint, a feature common to all the dis- crepancies in all the categories, should be distinguished sharply from the category of Difierence or Degree of Interest. A difierence of stand- point may produce various sorts of difference in interest; but only when there is an appreciable difference in the main interest of the respective statements does the discrepancy belong to the category of Difierence or Degree of Interest. Thus in Case 5, which is concerned w1th B’s usual place of dining on Sunday as opposed to other days of the week and is placed accordingly in the category of Whale and Part, or Rule and Exception, the difference in day involves a certain difference of interest, but the principal interest in both statements is in the usual 1 See Appendix A, p. m. ‘73” fi-«rn ,, ~ [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 159 place of dining, and therefore the difference of interest in this case is subordinate and incidental to a main interest, which in both of the discrepant statements is essentially the same. On the contrary, in the discrepancies classified under the category of Diflerence 0r Degree of Interest, the discrepant statements spring from principal interests in which there is an appreciable difference. IV. THE LOCATION, RANGE AND DISCOVERY OF DISCREPANCY. (a) LOCATION OF DISCREPANCY. In 10 of the 26 cases of discrepancy the discrepancy lay between conflicting statements made by different persons, and in the remaining cases the discrepancy lay between conflicting statements made by the same persons. This proportion of 10—16, however, affords no ground for thinking that discrepancy arises less frequently between statements made by different persons than between statements made by the same persons. The contrary, in fact, can be proven. Legitimate discrepancy in statements arises from difference of standpoint either (1) in those making the statements or (2) in those to whom the statements are made. If several persons speaking separ— ately make statements concerning an occurrence, it is clear (1) that the chance of the several persons developing a difference of standpoint between each other is greater than the chance that any one of them will develop such a difference (by alteration) of standpoint within himself; and again, it is clear (2) that the chance of the several persons meeting with inquirers who have different standpoints is several times greater than the chance that any one of the several persons will meet with inquirers having .such a difference of standpoint. The action of these chances is constant in human intercourse. Therefore, with respect to the sum total of affairs of sufficient importance to attract the atten- tion of several or more persons, it is a necessary conclusion that the total amount of discrepancy occurring between statements made by different presons must be greater than the total amount of discrepancy occurring between statements made by the same persons. . .mil; A i ~ 1, J I. 160 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA (b) RANGE OF DISCREPANCY. The limits of legitimate discrepancy cannot be strictly defined. Its range may be illustrated by the following seven aspects of the 26 cases:— (1) The simplicity of the circumstances and transactions from which all of the discrepancies sprang (except Cases 23 and 26). . (2) The fact that the simplest circumstances and transactions give rise to some of the most difficult and complicated discrepancies: Cases 2, 6, 11 and 12, 13, 14, and 21. (3) The number of distinct types of discrepancy which may arise from the same simple circumstances or transaction: (a) From the Duke of Wellington’s addition to the price of a farm, two types (Cases 11 and 12). (b) From the sex division in church, three types (Cases 3, 14, and 20). (4) The possibility of multiplying and thus complicating a single discrepancy by the alternate repetition of the respective statements: Case 8. (5) The number of conflicting statements which occur in single cases of discrepancy: in Case 14, three; in Cases 23 and 26, four; and in Case 2, five. (6) The chances for the rise of contradictory statements inherent in certain of the cases: Case 6.——Any one of the three persons B, C, and D could legiti- mately take contrary views concerning B’s atendance upon C; and' as a result, in statements made at different times, not only might any two of these three persons contradict each other, but any one of them might subsequently contradict himself or herself. And if any two of them, having contradicted each other, should both subsequently reverse their former statements, not only would they contradict their own previous statements, but they would also renew, in reversed form, the previous contradiction of each other. If, therefore, the letter “m” be taken as representing the statement that B attended C, to the train, and the letter “11” as representing the statement that C went unattended; and if, further, such combinations as B111 and C11 be taken as signifying that B made the statement “m” and C made the statement “n; ” then the chances of contradictory statements which might be made in Case 6 are nine in all, as follows :— Bm v. Bn; Cm v. 011; Dm v. Dn; Bm v. 011; Bm v. Dn; Cm v. Dn; Cm v. Bn; Dm v. Bn; Dm v. Cn. 1x; . [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 161 Case 7.—In this transaction five persons, the young lady (B), the doctor’s wife (C), the family guest (D), the doctor (E), and the young lady’s brother (F), might gain full knowledge of the circumstances of the young lady’s return; and having this knowledge, any one of them might legitimately say at one time that the young lady returned with the doctor’s wife and at another that the young lady returned with the doctor. If the letters “m” and “n” be taken as representing these two statements respectively in conjunction with the five persons B, C, D, E, and F, the chances of contradictory statements in Case 7 are ' twenty—five in all, as follows :— Bm V. Bn; Cm V. Cn; Dm V. Dn; Em V. En; Fm V. Fn; Bm V. Cn; Bm V. Dn; Bm V. En; Bm V. Fn; Cm V. Dn; Cm V. En; Cm V. Fn; Dm V. En; DmV. Fn; Em V. Fn; Cm V. Bn; Dm V. Bn; Em V. Bn; Fm V. Bn; Dm V. 011; Em V. Cn; Fm V. Cn; Em V. Dn; Fm V. Dn;Fm V. En. Cases 11 and I2.—The farmer (B), agent (C), and duke (D), will have full knowledge of the completed transaction, and with such knowledge any one of them might say at one time that the duke was the purchaser of the farm and at another that the agent purchased it. They might also regard the additional £1,000 at one time as part of the price and at another as a gift of the duke, and accordingly any one of the three might at one time name as the price £1,000 and at another time\ £2,000. If the letter “ m ” be taken as representing the statement that the duke was the purchaser and the letter “n” as representing the statement that the agent Was the purchaser, then the chances of contradictory statements by B, C and D concerning the purchaser of the farm will be nine in number, as follows:— Bm V. Bn; Cm V. Cn; Dm V. Dn; Bm V. Cn; Bm V. Dn; Cm V. Dn; Cm V. Bn; Dm V. Bn; Dm V. 011. The chances of contradictory statements concerning the price of the farm will be the same as those concerning the purchaser, making - the total number of eighteen chances with respect to contradictory statements concerning the purchaser alone and the price alone. In combined statements concerning the purchaser and price, if the letter and figure “m1” represent the statement that the duke purchased the _ farm for £1,000, jg . : 11‘ 9.1.?“ L‘s-M: * ‘ Aw -—~ , 4w“:— -er~ «r» I u?“ ‘ :rj" 162 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA “n1 ” represent the statement that the agent purchased it for £1,000, . ‘ “m2 ” represent the statement that the duke purchased It for £2,000, and . “n2 ” represent the statement that the agent purchased It for £2,000, then the chances of B contradicting himself at various times in state- ments concerning the purchaser and price combined are siX in number, as follows :— Bml v. Bnl; Bml V. Bm2; Bml V. Bn2; Bn1 v. Bm2; Bn1 V. Bn 2; Bm2 V. Bn2. The chances of self—contradiction by C and D are identical with those of B, therefore the total chances of self—contradiction by B, C, and D in combined statements concerning purchaser and price are three times six, or in all eighteen. The chances of B contradicting C in such combined statements are twelve in number, as follows :— Bml v. Cnl; Bml V. Cm2; Bml V. Cn2; Bnl v. Cm2; Bnl V. On 2; Bm2 V. Cn2; le V. Bnl; le V. Bm2; le V. Bn2; Cnl V. Bm2; Cnl V. Bn 2; Cm2 V. Bn2. The chances of B contradicting D, and of C contradicting D, are identical with those of B contradicting C, therefore the total number of chances of contradiction between B, C, and D in combined statements concerning purchaser and price are three times twelve, or in all thirty- siX. Summarized, the chances of contradictory statements of all sorts in the single transaction stated in Case 11 are seventy-two in number, as follows :— (1) Statements concerning purchaser alone ............. 9 (2) Statements concerning price alone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 (3) Statements concerning purchaser and price combined. : (a) Self- contradictory by B, C, D ................ 18 (b) Contradictory between B, C, D ...... ' .......... 3 6 Total ...................................... 72 In calculatlng the above chances 1n Cases 6, 7 and 11, only persons Rat‘s ._— ~ [BOWMAN] IDISC’REPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS . 163 a few such persons in the calculation would speedily raise the number of resulting chances in the above cases into hundreds and thousands; and in Case 9 (the regiment of Fusiliers going to Waterloo), between the soldiers of the regiment and onlookers upon the road, the chances in one form or another ‘for legitimately discrepant statements concern— ing the wearing of the queue are not merely thousands in number, but multiplied millions. (7) The degree of contradiction involved in many of the cases :— Case 6.——The same person on a certain occasion did, and did not, attend a certain lady, 7}. e., he must, apparently, have been in two places at the same time. . Case 8,—The same person, not once only, but several times alter— nately, had, and had not, read all the Bible. Case 9.——The same regiment of soldiers at the same time did, and did not, wear the queue. Case 11.—-The same person in the same purchase paid two prices for the same farm. Case 13.—The same occurrence took place with the same person when he was going to, and when he was leaving, the same place. Case 17.———The same person apparently made $1,000 and lost $2,500 on the same sale of the same farm. ' Case 19.—The same person was apparently both married and single at the same time. Case 20.—At the same service in the same church there was appar- ently an attendance of two hundred, and of only four. Case 21.——The same person at the same time had, and had not, seen the physician M. Case 22.—According to the circumstances of the discrepancy, the same person could declare himself a Presbyterian and a Lutheran at the same time. Case 23.——The same person was not only sick and well, but in better and in worse health, at the same time. (c) DISCOVERY OF DISCREPANCY. Cases of legitimate discrepancy, although they occur in truthful intercourse more or less continuously, are not easily discovered. In thevmain, between statements made in such intercourse, there is sub- stantial harmony; and legitimate discrepancy, where it occurs, is only an incidental and exceptional feature. Even with the searcher for statements which conflict legitimately, there is a pronounced tendency —.<,. r I u 2 I .1 164 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA for the incidental discrepancy, especially in unrecorded conversation, to disappear and to be lost in the surrounding harmony. A further hindrance to the easy discovery of such discrepancy is its location. It has been shown that the bulk of legitimate discrepancy, where it occurs, lies not between statements made by the same persons, but between statements made by different persons. In this wider area of statements made by different persons, the chances of discovery, by reason of the mere inability to cover the field, are remote in any event, and apart from search, there are practically none. Conflicting state— ments made by the same persons form a less extensive, but more fruitful, field of discovery. Especially may the searcher, by careful observation and comparison of his own statements, detect in them instances in which later and earlier utterances conflict for legitimate and necessary reasons. In the particular field of one’s Own statements, the chief hindrance to successful search is a too familiar acquaintance with the circumstances from which the discrepancies spring. In the remarks upon the category of Whole and Part, or Rule and Exception,1 it has been shown how every exception to a general statement involves the elements of a discrepancy, which, however, is not recognized as such, because the exception is expressly made in connection with the general statement, and con- sequently the circumstances of the discrepancy are quite clear. The same feature prevails in a less marked degree with allthe discrepancies of all the categories. Perfect familiarity with the attendant circum— stances robs the discrepancy of its discrepant appearance, and tends to create in the searcher a remarkable degree of obliviousness to the contradiction. Even such a notable case as the statements that a person is a Lutheran and a Presbyterian at the same time (involved in Case 22) may be overlooked for twelve months by a searcher, if he himself made the statements and consequently had full knowledge of the circumstances of the resulting discrepancy. The same hindrance of a too familiar acquaintance with. the at- tendant circumstances militates also, in a lesser degree, against the discovery of legitimate discrepancy in statements made by different persons, if, as in the case of trustworthy witnesses in courts, such persons make the conflicting statements in each other’s presence. If the discrepancy be legitimate, the circumstances which make it so are ordinarily so clear that the discrepant nature of the conflicting utter- ances 1s not even recognized by the hearer. On the contrary, if the dlscrepancy 1s due to an unintentional error in either witness and is , consequently illegitimate, the contradiction is promptly noticed. 1P.}48r(t3L . printing office which is a “union shop. [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 165 V.———THE TRUTHFULNESS OF DISCREPANCY. (a) THE CRITERION OF TRUTHFULNEss IN STATEMENTS. Truthfulness in a statement concerning an occurrence or a trans- action is not a negative, but a positive, quality. It consists not in the absence of formal discord between the statement and the facts, but in the impartation of correct information to the hearer or hearers according to the particular interest which he or they take in the facts. Illustrations :— (1) While an agreement is under negotiation, a public body passes an adverse resolution, urging the abandonment of the negotiation. If, nevertheless, the negotiation be prosecuted to a successful issue, and subsequently an inquiry be made whether the above body did not pass a resolution against the agreement, may one answer the inquiry with an unqualified denial? (2) If in the above case the public body meets again after the completion of the negotiation, and the majority at this second meeting wishes to reaffirm the previous resolution, but yields to the appeals of a minority present so far as to compromise on a resolution to give greater‘publicity to the previous resolution, how much truth would there be in an unqualified statement that the body did not reaffirm the first resolution? (3) Let it be supposed that a political speaker is asked on a public occasion by a member of a labor union why the national printing bureau is permitted to be an “open shop.” A certain official publi- cation is printed, not in the national printing bureau, but in a private ” The speaker, in reply to the above inquiry, holds up a copy of this publication and, pointing to the label upon it which shows that it is printed in a union shop, says “This is the best answer I can give to that question.” I These cases will suffice to show how ineffective as a safeguard of truthfulness is mere formal concord, or the absence of formal discord, between a statement and the facts. Such a formal or superficial har- mony, regardless of essential disagreement, is indeed the constant ‘ device of persons who wish to leave the hearer under a false impression. Thus, in the first of the above cases, the public body, having passed 166 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA , the opposing resolution while the negotiation was still in progress, did. F1 not pass its resolution specifically against the agreement which was " I reached; therefore a denial that the body passed a resolution against ' ’ this agreement would formally be in concord with the facts. Never- theless, the manifest purpose of the body was to Oppose any such agree— ment as might be reached, and it had put itself on record to that effect; therefore, if a person be asked whether the body did not pass a resolution against the agreement actually reached, to answer by an unqualified denial would be an equivocation. Again, in the second case, a state— ment that the body at its second meeting did not reaffirm its previous resolution would be formally correct. Nevertheless the majority at this second meeting wished to reaffirm the resolution and would agree only to a compromise which was a reaffirmation in effect; therefore, an unqualified statement that the body did not reaffirm the resolution would be an essential misrepresentation of the facts. In the third case the attempt to deceive is evident, and yet there is no formal discord between the statement and the facts, because there is between them no relation at all. The deception in the answer consists in deliberately leaving the hearers under the impression (by implication, not in words) that such a relation does exist, i.e., that the national printing bureau was a union shop, when it was not. For subterfuges of the class illustrated by the third case no defence is possible. For those which are illustrated by the first and second cases, a certain latitude, sanctioned by' conventional usage, but not by any sufficient principle, has been allowed; but it may be hoped that by the development of higher ideals and a finer sense of honor, this latitude will gradually be diminished to the point of disappearance; (b) THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY OF DISCREPANCY IN TRUTHFUL INTERCOURSE. All the statements in the 26 cases of discrepancy impart correct information to the original hearer or hearers of the statements accord— ing to his or their interest in the occurrences or transactions under narration; therefore, (1) according to the ultimate and only test of 3. truthfulness in statements, these statements, howsoever discrepant, are without exception truthful; and (2) from this fact it is a necessary deduction that discrepancy has a legitimate place in truthful inter- , course. filIn Cases 2, 8, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, the discrepancy between , 3 the respective statements was due to a difference of standpoint in in- qu1rers, and in Case 18, to a change of standpoint induced by a subse— quent remark of an inquirer; therefore, (1) it was necessary in these 1?va 711.11g w; v-v'; [BOWMAN] ‘ DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTVVORTHY RECORDS 167 cases that the same person, in 1eporting to these inquir‘,e1s should make discrepant statements in order that each of his statements might be true, and (2) from this fact it is a necessary deduction that dis— crepancy has a necessary place 1n tiuthful intercourse. (C) THE LEGITIMACY AND NECESSITY OF DISCREPANCY IN TRUTHFUL RECORDs. If disciepancy has a legitimate and necessa1y place in truthful intercourse, it has a similar place 1n truthful 1ecords of this intercourse, such as diaries, letters and memoranda, which are written bv, and primarily intended for, persons having a knowledge of the C11 cumstances of any discrepancies therein contained; and since such diaries, letters and memo1anda constitute proper and valuable mate1ial fo1 the use of histo1ians, it is a necessary deduction from these facts that dis— crepancy has a legitimate and necessa1y place in the truthful 1eco1ds which constitute the original mate1ial of the historian. The discrepancies between the statements in Cases 1, 4, 6, 11, 13, and 16,1 and between the third and fifth statements in Case 2, and between the first and second statements in Case 26, are due not to peculiai or one— —sided stand-points, but to stand— —points which are equally good. and tenable not only by the original make1s and heare1s of the respective statements, but also by any subsequent historian as well. 2 With full knowledge of both of the conflicting statements and of all the ci1cum- staHCes of the discrepancy, an historian might embody 1n a subsequent narrative either of the conflicting statements, without qualification, absolutely, and alone, 1.6., without mention of the othe1, unused, statement, and without mention of the circumstances which justify the statement actually used. Thus, in Case 1, a biogiapl1e1 of B, in a paragraph upon his business enterprise as shown by effo1ts to extend his landed property, might mention B’s purchase of the farm 111 ques— tion, where it would be improper to tell why purchase 1n this case failed to result In ownership, because the reader’s attention is so focused upon B’s business enterprise that it ought not to be disturbed by the intru— sion of matter irrelevant to that question, while, on the other hand, in an historical account of the farm sold and of its successive owners, an historian might mention the purchase of the farm by D In a connection Where, for a similar reason, it would be equally improper to ente1 in any way upon the peculiar circumstances under which he became the 1 And in Case 27, (Appendix A, p. I717.“ {‘13) 2 In these equally valuable standpoints, all the categories are represented, except Degree of Interest. Difi‘erence of Interest is represented 1n Case2 Sec. 11., 1911. 12. 168 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA owner. Again, in Case 2, a biographer of B, in a paragraph summarizing his financial operations, might mention that B secured the property at a cost of $30,000, in a connection where it would be irrelevant and improper to mention the circumstance that $5,000 of this cost'was due . to the removal of an old store; while, on the contrary, in an historical account of property values in B’s city and time, an historian might state that the property cost B $25,000, in a connection where it would be equally irrelevant and improper to mention the incidental circum— stance which made the actual cost to him $30,000. Further, in Case 16, an historian, in writing an account of public school inspection in the V province in which the county in question is situated, might have occa- sion to refer now to C and now to D as inspector for this county, and yet always so incidentally that it would be improper, merely with a View to forestalling an incidental discrepancy at other points in the same or another work, to halt the narrative in order to explain that in this county there were two inspectors with the same rank and title. Similarly, in each of the nine above mentioned cases, it can be shown that just as in conversation the interest respectively of several inquirers may exclude now one, and now another, of two equally valuable stand— points, with a resulting discrepancy in verbal statements, so in subse-v quent written narratives the respective interests of groups of readers, as fixed by the writers’ own themes, may also exclude now one, and now another, of two such stand-points with a resulting discrepancy in written statements: and from this fact it is a necessary deduction that dis- crepancy has a legitimate and necessary place not only, as heretofore shown, in the truthful records which constitute the historian’s original material, but also in those truthful narratives which constitute his own final product; and therefore discrepancy has a legitimate and necessary place in all truthful historical records and writings whatsoever. VI. THE TREATMENT OF DISCREPANCY (a) WHERE THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN ESSENTIALLY TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS ARE KNOWN. Where the circumstances of a discre trustworthy records are known, the conflic elements of a discrepancy, pancy- between essentially ting statements contain the whlch, however, is not recognized as such, [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTVV'ORTHY RECORDS 169 and requires no especial treatment, except that, to whatever extent the circumstances of the original discrepancy remain operative, to that extent also may the original discrepancy itself be reproduced in subse— quent historical writings. Thus among the British, French and Prus— sian nations who shared in the battle of June 18, 1815, this contest was named by the British, after the Village where Wellington had his head-quarters and dated his despatch of June 19 to Lord Bathurst, the Battle of Waterloo; by the the French, after a village in the rear of British centre, the Battle of Mont St. Jean; and by the Prussians, after a farm and house in the centre of the French line, the Battle of Belle Alliance: and While such a divided usage prevails in their respec- tive countries, the same divided usage may prevail in their respec- tive histories; and the resulting discrepancy is not, and will not, be re- cognized as such, so long as the attendant circumstances remain known. (b) WHERE THE DISCREPANCY LIEs BETWEEN RECORDS OF ESSEN- TIALLY UNEQUAL TRUSTWORTHINEss AND THE ATTENDANT CIRCUM- STANCES ARE UNKNOWN. Inthe 26 cases the discrepancies lay between persons of essentially equal trustworthiness both in general and with respect to the particular statements made; hence no feature in these cases affects in any way _ the ordinary rule of historical method that where a discrepancy lies between a trustworthy and an untrustworthy record, or between records of essentially unequal trustworthiness, the conflicting statement of the inferior record is to be rejected in favor of the superior. Moreover, in those cases where two such records are essentially and equally trust- worthy in general, if it can be shown that either of them is of essentially inferior trustworthiness either with respect to the particular statement which conflicts or with respect to the particular field of facts to which such statement belongs, then also the conflicting statement of such record is to be rejected in favor of the contrary record and statement; and in the treatment of every case of discrepancy the first scientific requirement is to establish, if possible, in favor of either of the conflict— ing records, such an essentially superior trustworthiness, either in general or with respect to the particular statements which conflict, and to accept and reject one or other of them accordingly. 170 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA (c) WHERE THE DISCREPANCY LIES BETWEEN RECORDS ESSENTIALLY TRUSTWORTHY AND THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN. Where the discrepancy lies between records essentially trustworthy and the attendant circumstances are unknown, the ordinary prevailing treatment is :— (1) To attempt a reasonable harmonization. (2) Unless a reasonable harmony can be suggested, the discrepancy is held to be a defect in one or other record. (3) If two or more records agree in a statement conflicting with another record, the conflicting statement of the Single record is rejected in favor of the conflicting statement of the two or more records. The experimental test in the 26 cases establishes, on the contrary, that under the conditions above stated:— i. The scientific requirements is not harmonization, but silence concerning the point of contradiction. ii. Defect is not to be imputed to either record, except upon proof that the discrepancy could not conceivably have arisen legitimately from the categories. iii. The agreement of two or more records in contradiction Of an— other record does not justify the conclusion that the conflicting state— ment of the single record is erroneous. iv. If the discrepant statements coincide in part, silence is required of the historian only from the point where the contradiction actually begins. i. WHERE THE DISCREPANCY LIES BETWEEN RECORDS ESSEN- TIALLY TRUSTWORTHY AND THE ATTENDANT CIRCUM- STANCES ARE UNKNOWN, THE SCIENTIFIC REQUIREMENT Is NOT HARMONIZATION, BUT SILENCE CONCERNING THE POINT IN CONTRADICTION. This principle is a necessary conclusion from the test of harmoniza- tion, Without mention of the attendant circumstances, in Section II. In the 14 cases Where harmonization seemed possible, the most reasona- ble and probable harmonization was in every instance contrary to the facts. Such harmonizations, therefore, are scientifically inadmissible because there is no guarantee of their scientific worth. Since harmoniza- tion is inadmissible, the only alternative is silence concerning the point In contradiction. . l The conclusion that reasonable harmonization is scientifically inadmissible rests not only on the uniformity of its failure to produce [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 171 results of value in the 14 cases, but upon the further fact that in thirteen of these eases the most reasonable harmonization was also highly probable. By failure in a single case where the most reasonable har— mony was highly probable, harmonization would stand condemned as a scientific process, and the production of any number of successful harmonizations could not rehabilitate it. Scientifically, in the activities of the historian, reasonable harmonization is on the same footing as thumb print identification in the tracing of crime. In such processes one authentic failure destroys the scientific worth. Within recent months, erroneously indeed, a case was supposed to have been discovered in which the thumbs of two men made identical imprints. It was admitted that one such case, established beyond question, would destroy the value of all identifications resting on the evidence of thumb prints alone.1 In the above 14 cases the only argument which could weaken the conclusion drawn would be a proof that the harmonizations were all of a low grade of probability. In all except Case 13 they are in fact of such high probability as to border upon necessity.2 _ In Case 4 and 15 the chances are hundreds to one in favor of the correctness of the most reasonable and probable harmonization; and this circum— stance, so far from strengthening the case for harmonization as a process with scientific value, destroys it, because thereby it is proven that in the harmonization of discrepancies probabilities even of hundreds to one do not secure correctness in the result. If correctness is not secured, the result is not worthy of belief; and since the scientific duty of the historian is to state only what is worthy of belief, harmonization is excluded scientifically from the range of his activities. ii. WHERE THE DISCREPANCY LIES BETWEEN RECORDS ESSEN- TIALLY TRUSTWORTHY AND THE ATTENDANT CIRCUM— STANCES ARE UNKNOWN, DEFECT IS NOT TO BE IMPUTED To EITHER RECORD, EXCEPT UPON PROOF THAT THE DISCREPANCY COULD NOT CONCEIVABLY HAVE ARISEN LEGITIMATELY FROM THE CATEGORIES. This principle is established jointly by the two facts, (1) that discre— pancy in trustworthy records is not necessarily a defect in either, but may spring legitimately out of the categories, and (2) that no scholar, having accepted a record as trustworthy, dare stamp a statement in it as erroneous, except for a necessary cause shown. The first of these 1 See Appendix B, p. 1:51-21le 2 E.g., Cases 1, 5 and 22. 172 ‘ THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA two facts is established in the experimental test in the 26 cases; the second fact is itself a scientific principle in historical method, which is established in turn by the following facts :— In scientific treatment of an historical record the scholar must first determine whether such record is essentially trustworthy. This deter- mination is made according to the demonstrable presence or absence in the record of those qualities which, according to the universal experi— ence of human intercourse, are necessary in men and records in order to produce essential trustworthiness, and which, therefore, if present in men and records, necessarily produce such trustworthiness. Accord- ingly, in the scientific treatment of records, if a scholar accepts a record, as essentially trustworthy, his acceptance is for necessary reasons; and this general decision being for necessary reasons, all exceptions to it. must be for reasons at least equally necessary. By the contrary course history,.as a science, would become bankrupt because if a scholar, having accepted a record as necessarily and essentially trustworthy, dare arbitrarily, i. e., for an unnecessary reason, stamp a single state- ment in it as erroneous, he dare do the same in succession to every single statement in the record; and the net result at the conclusion of this process will be that the same record which is accepted as necessarily and essentially trustworthy is also arbitrarily stamped and rejected as wholly erroneous. The prevailing treatment of discrepancy proceeds from the assump- tion that discrepancy between two records is prima facie evidence of defect in one or other record, 1'. e., that the discrepancy, if unexplained, establishes such defect; and in the prevailing treatment the test of such explanation is the possibility of reasonable harmonization. By the experimental test in the 26 cases it is established that this assumption and test are alike wrong. Discrepancy has a legitimate and necessary - place in trustworthy records, and therefore its presence, whether explained or not, does not establish defect in either record; and har- monization is an illusive test of legitimacy, because on the-one hand there is no guarantee that the most reasonable and probable harmoniza— tion will accord with the facts, and, on the other, a discrepancy which is legitimate and even necessary may seem quite impossible to reconcile. Discrepancies arising from the categories are legitimate, and only upon proven exclusion of such a legitimate origin can a discrepancy be held to involve necessarily a defect. Therefore, as a result of the principles and facts above enunciated, where discrepancy lies between records essentially trustworthy, defect is not to be imputed to either record except upon proof that the discrepancy could not conceivably have arisen legitimately from the categories. The difficulty of supply-- ing this proof has been noticed. Not only, as mentioned at the con- [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTVVORTHY RECORDS 173 .clusion of the introduction, does mere inability to suggest a harmoniza— tion which would bring the discrepancy within the categories fail to prove exclusion; but in all. such attempts to exclude conceivable origins, it is apparent, from the degree of legitimate contradiction found in the 26 cases, how the most elemental certainties tend to become elusive.1 iii. WHERE THE DISCREPANCY LIES BETWEEN RECORDS ESSENTIALLY TRUSTWORTHY AND. THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES ARE UNKNOWN, THE AGREEMENT OF TWO OR MORE RECORDS IN CONTRADICTION OF ANOTHER RECORD DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION THAT THE CONFLICTING STATEMENT OF THE SINGLE RECORD Is ERRONEOUS. In Case 1 the auctioneer, the clerk of the sale, and many other trustWorthy eye-Witnesses of the auction, might separately make and record statements that the drover was the purchaser of the farm; and yet the statement of the farmer, made and recorded, that he was the purchaser, would be also truthful and correct. In Case 6, D might separately make and record a statement in agreement with B’s statement, made and recorded, that B accompanied both C and D to the train; and yet the statement of C, made and recorded, that she went thither alone would be also truthful and correct. Or inversely, such a statement by D might agree With the statement of C; and yet the statement of B that he attended both C and D to the train would be also truthful and correct. ‘ Similar possibilities are inherent in Cases 7, 9, 11, 13, 18, 19, 21, 22, and 24; and by these facts the principle above enunciated is established as a necessary conclusion. iv. WHERE THE DISCREPANCY LIES BETWEEN RECORDS ESSEN— TIALLY TRUSTWORTHY AND THE ATTENDANT CIRCUM- STANCES ARE UNKNOWN, IF THE DISCREPANT STATE- MENTS COINCIDE IN PART, SILENCE Is REQUIRED OF THE HISTORIAN ONLY FROM THE POINT WHERE THE CONTRA- DICTION ACTUALLY BEGINS. In Case 20 one statement gives the number in attendance at the church and service in question as several hundred, while the other state- ment justifies the conclusion only that the number was three or four. 1 P. 159: 14.3 174 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA Inasmuch as the greater number involves the lesser, the conflicting statements coincide as to an attendance of three or four, and in inter— pretation the obligation of silence becomes effective only at this point, Where the statements cease to coincide. The historian, therefore, in interpreting such a discrepancy found in records, would be at liberty to state that there was an attendance of three or four; but such a liberty can be used to advantage only under especial circumstances, and ought never to be made an excuse for interpretative statements which are in formal accord with the evidence and yet essentially decep- tive. Thus in the case in point, if there were involved in the historian’s theme an interest for the reader in establishing an attendance of at least three or four, not only would a statement by the historian that there was an attendance of at least that number be acceptable in that form to the reader, but the reader himself, if he subsequently had access to the original reCords, would approve of the historian’s inter- pretation of the discrepancy as just and proper. Apart, however, from such an interest in establishing a minimum attendance, a statement by the historian in the above form would arouse in the reader an unsatisfied curiosity, and corresponding vexation, concerning the reason for the qualifying words “at least”; while, on the contrary, if the historian omitted these qualifying words, the reader, if he subsequently had access to the original records, would feel that the historian’s interpreta- tion of the discrepancy was in formal accord with the evidence and yet essentially deceptive and improper, because, with respect to the total attendance, there was as good authority for placing the number at several hundred as at only three or four. [BOWMAN] DISCREPANCY IN TRUSTWORTHY RECORDS 175 APPENDIX A. AN UNCLASSIFIED CASE. Since the completion of the foregoing essay, the author has located a number of cases of legitimate discrepancy, one of which has especial interest and is given in this appendix. CASE 27. The Discrepancy—B states that D was the candidate of the Liberal party for the North Riding at Waterloo in the uncontested election for the House of Commons of Canada in November, 1900; C states that at this election E, the Conservative candidate, was returned for this riding to the House of Commons of Canada. Harmonization. —Impossible. The Circumstances.——In this riding a bye—election for the House of Assembly of the Province of Ontario coincided accidentally with the general election for the House of Commons of Canada held in November, 1900. At this time the majority of the Liberal government in the Dntario House of Assembly was so small that the loss of this bye—election might have involved its fall. In the Canadian House of Commons, on the contrary, the Liberal administration was so strong and its success in the general election was so certain, that the result in the one riding of North Waterloo was immaterial. The central organization of Con— servative party in Ontario agreed to allow the return of D, the Liberal candidate in the bye—election for the Assembly, without contest, if the Liberal party would permit the return, without contest, of E, the Con— servative candidate in the same riding for the general election for the House of Commons. To this arrangement, at the request of the central organization of the Liberal party, D, though his prospects of election were better than E’s, acceded. The peculiar interest in this case is that the discrepancy cannot . be sufficiently classified in any of the categories previously located; and it should, therefore, form the starting point for the location of a fresh category. 176 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA APPENDIX B. THUMB PRINT IDENTIFICATION. (a) From World Wide (Montreal), February 18, 1911: SOME THUMBS ARE ALIKE. (The Springfield Republican.) But a short time ago a Chicago man was convicted of murder, committed while house breaking, solely on thumb print evidence. The veranda railing had wet paint, and the murderer left his thumb and finger prints when he vaulted the railing in his escape. The judge declared that the exact correspondence between the markings of the thumb prints of the prisoner at the bar and those 1n the wet paint of the veranda railing, which had been carefully preserved proved the guilt of the accused beyond the possibility of doubt. At that time there was no case on record of the failure of thumb print identification, and the Chicago judge’ s strong statement showed how confident the police and the courts were becoming that this method was beyond assault. The appeal to a higher court from the death sentence imposed, will, it now appears be much strengthened by a recent sensational development in England. At last, the thumb print system has broken down 1n at least one case. An accused person having been identified as the criminal by the method was able to establish a perfect alibi by the records of the British army, in which he had been serving, and his release was 01 dered by the court. It IS said that the correspondence 1n thumb prints was absolute, and the British criminologists and police authori— ties are somewhat shaken by the fact. One such case, fully authenti— cated, should make the execution of the death penalty impossible on thumb print evidence alone (b) From World Wide, February 25, 1911: THUMB PRINT IDENTIFICATION. ' There is still no record of the failure of thumb print identification. We are informed by a correspondent that 1n the case quoted by us in the “ World Wzde ” of Feb. 18, the English army authorities were able later to prove that the criminal was not the man he claimed to be, the alibi had broken down, and the inference Is that the thumb marks were his. damn .QV xmwnonaao 5N 250 £55 a 35535: 9803 can amhw mg 5 .wN 030 E ”3880?: £3 33 23a 23 E .N 9.30 :H _ . ............... .Hmmwhnwpcu—h WC wohuwm “ADV a i IE. .I ........ ....WIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.II 3» o HV WN MN #N. .. .......... ..................................... N ... ............ #mOHOPQHMOQOgOme‘mmuA‘NVH “ IIIIIIIIIIIIIIAIIIIIIIII II Fl I III I S N. V cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ON“ aH w." “H QH “H ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . ................... kflPMPHHQMUH FHHQHQQAH< ">H m w .. ........ wfi mH NH IHI .............. mnofiodmddafipnegonmoo”HHH m . IIII II I IIIIIIII m N. 0N ........ NH HH OH 3 fl N .............. wQQfidem“RNA“!L UQQOQOQMH .HH m 6 mm . . . ........ W N. w m. M” . . . . . . . . . . . . ‘ . . . . . . . .000 .Hhflm FUHHN Gregg ”H \hhowwfldo I 2 mm mm wm : mm a I S E S 3 E S S w n n v m m H ................ msooaotm A8 # manoaepflm H II I I I , n I I I I V «o @255me m h ”N . . . . , . . 4 ., ON . . . . c . . . NH ........ c . . . MWH . u . . HH . . . ¢ m . . . . . . o . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . ................ QMQMMWOQEH AHV H web’wqp flag u N I II , W I II .I I 0 0 VH @N AWN “VN NN wH WH “VH .... NH OH F m. w M” H ................ mDOQQOHhMHANV magma—Hgdwm Mm II I I I I we 3:358 W NH . - u . MN . . . .. Hm ON QH wH “H ........ . . u o ”H . . . . HH . ... . a w . . . c N ............... mfifimwmogaH AHV fivezmm ##me _ CH ©N MN NN HN ON @H wH NH GM MM NH OH w W “v N ............. flOmHQAH wadm ANV¥ . III ,I IIIII . I I I I 39358 OH . . . . mN fiN ................ VH NH HH 9 b w . . m . . . H ......... mQOhmonH Avfiwavwmm AHV IOavde afldgwhommg mm mm ........ . . . . . . . . m: ........ ma . . . . HH . . . . . . . . . . . . . w . . . w . . . N H ................... Amanmonvfldom 295:?) hfifidfldm m m . . . . fl“ . . . . .................... ”H ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M.“ . . . . . . . .WHQFNGHIH find mvau—NH’H figom AMV # m IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII: I I ”qwuqmoacndam N w . . . . MN NN HN ON mH wH . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . w . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . N ‘ . . . . . .. mngaQP‘NPm mo whohdwm ANV .Wo ”O‘HQLQMMMV g IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII "36 honaauhommfl 3 ..N ..N ............ S 3 3 3 NH 3 OH m n o m. w H . . . . . $583an «0 28—52 AS _ .ufi. wN mN N N NN HN ON NH mH S 3 m; E 2 NH S .3 m w n o m. w m N H . . .3540 < III A . . [swim » :9? all ,EEI I 178 THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF CANADA INDEX TO CASES OF DISCREPANCY. I D (The reference in each case is to the page Where the discrepancy and its circumstances are first stated together). Case 1: p. ............ 134 Case 15: p ............. 143 Case 2: p. ............ 134 Case 16: p ............. A 144 Case 3: p. ............ 135 Case 17: p ............. 144 Case 4: p. ............ 136 Case 18: p ............. 144 Case 5: p. ............ 139 Case 19: p ............. 145 Case 6: p. ............ 140 Case 20: p ............. 145 Case 7: p. ............ 140 Case 21: p ............. 146 Case 8: p ............. 141 Case 22: p ............. 146 Case 9: p. ............ 141 Case 23: p ............. 146 Case 10' p ............ 142 Case 24' p ............ 147 Case 11 p ............ 142 Case 25 p ............. 147 Case 12. p ............. 142 Case 26 p ............. 148 Case 13: p . . . , 143 Case 27 p ............. 175 Case 14: p ............ 143 University of Pennsylvania Libraries www.1ibragyp.uenn.edu Circulation Department Weircdkboxnennedu / 215-898-7556 ulmmumuummlixfiflufilfiflfufiuflmflflmmuumlmuu - N/llciEJ/DS‘I‘Ib/‘WHEX