When passing on facts about the past, disseminators of popular history, such as this magazine, are in constant danger of misinforming the public. In journalism today it has become commonplace to employ fact-checkers to assess statements made by public figures. As a fact-checker for BBC History Magazine and other publications, as well as a trained historian, it is my job to verify the historical details in our articles, to ensure the greatest possible veracity. Yet, as the Italian writer and philosopher Umberto Eco wrote in his novel The Name of the Rose, echoing St Paul, “we see now through a glass darkly, and the truth, before it is revealed to all, face to face, we see in fragments (alas, how illegible) in the error of the world”. What we know about the past is based on incomplete evidence, the meaning of which is often obscure. This being the case, how can we, and ‒ more importantly ‒ why should we fact-check history? After all, what are historical “facts”?
The English noun “fact” ultimately derives from the Latin word for “an act, a deed, something done”. Originally this had a specific legal meaning, though the now lists 10 broader definitions, plus a wide variety of senses. Two of the most frequently used are clearly distinct. The difference, especially when applied to history, between “that which is known (or firmly believed) to be
