Samantha Huntley

    The metaphor of the tiger in the grass describes Collingwood's opinion of the two types of history. The tiger in the grass metaphor is much like a metaphor for the difference between legal methods and historical methods. The tiger in the grass metaphor analyzes the problem of the decision to use which tools at which times. Collingwood describes one side of the metaphor: you can have a rifle but the rifle will only shoot the tiger, it won't find it. The other side: if you are sure your going to see the tiger in the grass and then shoot it then okay, but what if it isn't really a tiger?

     The main problem for a historian is: to know how to question witnesses, how to test the evidence spoken of, and to see that the testimony is reliable and correlative to the wanted answer. "It is relevant to how the historian works as a detective, but even more relevant to how the historian also seeks for himself within his work" (Collingwood) This past year in US Government class, I said that the United States is compromised of 52 states. Yes, I know that the United States is only made up of 50 states but I had an 'off' moment and ignorantly read what the sheet said. After the chagrin moment where the whole class laughed it off, I knew I had changed history. I reflected on the event and knew I had changed the path I thought I was on. My peers heard what I said and formed opinions, asked questions, and resorted to new conclusions based on what I mistakenly blurted. Did I change history? In a sense: yes. I'd like to think that if I can influence other opinions that will indirectly change other opinions and so the cycle continues.

     In Collingwood's article about John Doe, we are set up to believe that there are two different types of history. Collingwood says that the methods of criminal detection and scientific history are not always corresponding because the ultimate goal is not the same.  Thomas Spencer Jerome wrote, "The basis of all right knowledge about anything is accuracy and completeness of observation."(Jerome) This passage is completely contradictory to Collingwood's views of history and his job as a historian. Collingwood believes that as a historian he can't just take events and acknowledge them, he supports the analyzing and interpreting the events of history. Jerome discusses his perspective on observation and how he believes in precision and accuracy being the key goal.

     Historians are under no sort of timeline to make up their minds about events and evidence. This is what differs the legal methods and the historical methods. Historians knowing this must always keep this in mind and learn to realize that time may be a factor in how they analyze the occurring history. When a robbery occurs in a neighborhood, is it still going to be important a week later if the investigators decided to let it sit? No. The case will no longer be relative to what everyone else is surrounding himself or herself with. Another endeavor that historians face is the factor of time. Can time affect the history of something? History is organized like no other science. "Meteorologists and astronomers will make arduous and expensive journeys in order to observe for themselves events of the kinds in which they are interested, because their standard of observation is such that they cannot be satisfied with descriptions by inexpert witnesses; but historians do not fit out expeditions to countries where wars and revolutions are going on." (Collingwood) This is purely because historians would not benefit the kind of information they need to know.

     After reading and absorbing the possible ways of history I have found that I agree more with Collingwood's thoughts on history. I think it is crucial to always be inquisitive and drawing conclusions based on history. If I decided to log events down and attach a date to them they wouldn't have any meaning to me. If I witness an event and it changes the way I think, that's when history will reconstruct itself.