The following text is adapted from Daniel Defoe's 1704 nonfiction book The Storm. If I judge right, 'tis the duty of an historian to set everything in its own light, and to convey matter of fact upon its legitimate authority, and no other: I mean thus, (for I would be as explicit as I can) that where a story is vouched to him with sufficient authority, he ought to give the world the special testimonial of its proper voucher, or else he is not just to the story: and where it comes without such sufficient authority, he ought to say so; otherwise he is not just to himself.
Which choice best states the main idea of the text?
Explanation
Context: Defoe lays out what a historian owes readers when relaying accounts whose reliability varies.
Answer: D) Historians should clearly indicate the extent to which each of their sources is trustworthy.
Why? He splits the duty into two cases: when a story is "vouched to him with sufficient authority," the historian must give "the special testimonial of its proper voucher"; when it arrives without such authority, "he ought to say so." Both halves demand the same disclosure — telling readers how well backed each account is.
Traps:
- A) only quote widely credible figures → Defoe permits poorly vouched stories to be told; he requires only that their weakness be flagged.
- B) no memories can be trusted → the text never claims all testimony is unreliable, only that its authority differs.
- C) historians will feel remorse → Defoe writes about duty and being "just" to the story and to oneself, never about eventual regret.