Question

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? a. the only figures that a historian should quote are those who are widely viewed as credible. b. it is difficult for historians to be completely accurate, and eventually they will feel remorse for some of their work. c. historians should clearly indicate the extent to which each of their sources is trustworthy. d. because no memories can be trusted, all historians are forced to admit that some records of events may be, in part, false.

Explanation:

The text emphasizes that historians should convey facts based on legitimate authority. When a story has sufficient authority, they should give its proper testimonial, and when it lacks such authority, they should state that. This aligns with clearly indicating the trust - worthiness of sources.

Answer:

C. Historians should clearly indicate the extent to which each of their sources is trustworthy.