Medieval Sourcebook:
Why Study History Through Primary Sources
[Adapted from James Harvey Robinson, "The Historical point
of View", in Readings in European History, Vol I,
(Boston: Ginn, 1904), 1-13 ]
The Sources of History
It is clear that all our information in regard to past events
and conditions must be derived from evidence of some kind. This
evidence is called the source. Sometimes there are a number
of good and reliable sources for an event, as, for example, for
the decapitation of King Charles I of England in 1649, or for
the march of Napoleon into Russia. Sometimes there is but a single,
unreliable source, as, for instance, in the case of the burial
of King Alaric in a river bed. For a great many important matters
about which we should like to know there are, unfortunately, no
written sources at all, and we can only guess how things were.
For example, we do not know what the Germans were doing before
Julius Caesar came into contact with them and took the trouble
to give a brief account of them. We can learn but little about
the bishops of Rome (or popes) before the time of the Emperor
Constantine for few references to them have come down to us.
Few, however, of those who read and study history ever come into
contact with the primary, or firsthand sources; they
get their information at second hand. is much more convenient
to read what the modern historian Edward Gibbon has say of Constantine
than to refer to Eusebius, Eutropius and other ancient writers
from whom he gained knowledge. Moreover, Gibbon carefully studied
and compared all the primary sources, and it may be urged that
he has given a truer, fuller, and more attractive account of the
period than can be found in any one of them. His Decline and
Fall of the Roman Empire is certainly a work of the highest
rank; but, nevertheless, it is only report of others' reports.
It is therefore not a primary but a secondary source.
The Problem of Secondhand Knowledge
Most of the historical knowledge current among is not, however,
derived from even secondary source such as Gibbon and similar
authoritative writers, comes from the reading of textbooks, encyclopedia
stories, dramas, and magazine articles. Popular manual and articles
are commonly written by those who know little or nothing of the
primary sources; they are consequently at least third hand, even
when based upon the best secondary accounts. As a matter of fact,
they usually patched together from older manuals and articles
and may be four, five, or six removes from the original source
of knowledge.
It is well known that the oftener a report passes from mouth to
mouth the less trustworthy and accurate does it tend to become.
Unimportant details which appeal to the imagination will be magnified,
while fundamental considerations are easily forgotten, if they
happen be prosaic and commonplace. Historians, like other people,
are sometimes fond of good stories and may be led astray by some
false rumor which, once started into circulation, gets farther
and farther from the truth with each repetition.
For example, a distinguished historian of the Church, Cardinal
Baronius, writing about 1600, made the statement, upon very insufficient
evidence, that, as the year 1000 approached, the people of Europe
generally believed that the world was about to come to an end.
Robertson, a very popular Scotch historian of the eighteenth century,
repeated the statement and went on to describe the terrible panic
which seized upon sinful men as the awful year drew on. Succeeding
writers, including some very distinguished ones, accepted and
even elaborated Robertson's account. About thirty years ago, however,
a French scholar pointed out that there was really no adequate
basis for this strange tale. To the chroniclers of the time the
year 1000 was clearly no more portentous than 997 or 1003. This story of the panic, which passed current as historical fact
for some three hundred years, offers an excellent illustration
of the danger of relying upon secondary sources. [note (1998):
In this case historical revisionism has come full circle - there
are now a number of historians who do think the year 1000 was
of some cultural importance.]
Questions to Ask about a Historical Work
One of the first questions then to ask upon taking up an historical
work is, Where did the writer obtain the information? Has the
writer simply copied his statements from the more easily accessible
works in a familiar language, however unreliable and out of date
they may be; or, dissatisfied with such uncertain sources, has
the writer become familiar with the most recent researches of
the distinguished scholars in the field, in whatever language
they may have been written ; or, still better, has the historian
made a personal study of the original evidence which has come
down to us of the events and conditions which are under discussion?
For example, a little book or essay on Charlemagne might be written
after reading Hodgkin's Charles the Great, West's Alcuin,
and one or two other easily accessible books on the subject. On
the other hand, the writer might turn to the great French and
German treatises Charlemagne's reign and become acquainted with
all articles which have appeared on the subject in historical
journals or in the transactions of learned societies. Every conscientious
historian would wish, however, to go still farther and directly
see the evidence and draw personal conclusions. A good historian
would turn to the sources themselves and carefully read the Annals of the Monastery of Lorsch, the life of Charlemagne by
his secretary, Einhard, and the socalled Annals of Einhard.
Such a research would also scrutinize all the numerous laws passed
in Charlemagne's reign and consult all the writers of the time
who refer to the emperor or to public events. In this way mastery
would be gained of all that the past has handed down to us upon
this subject and all that is to be known about the matter. The
most reliable historians, therefore, are ones who examines the
sources for themselves, but who at the same time take advantage
of the suggestions, criticisms, and explanations which have been
made by other scholars who have also studied the original documents.
The Necessity of Using Primary Sources
No improvement in the methods of historical instruction in our
high schools and colleges bids fair to produce better results
than the plan of bringing the student into contact with the firsthand
accounts of events, or, as they are technically termed, the primary
sources.
This term may perhaps call up in the minds of some the vision
of a solitary stoopshouldered, spectacled enthusiast, engaged
in painfully deciphering obscure Latin abbreviations on yellow
parchment. But it is a mistake to conclude that the primary sources
are always difficult to get at, dull, and hard to read. On the
contrary, they are sometimes ready to hand, and are often more
vivid and entertaining than even the most striking descriptions
by the pen of gifted writers like Gibbon or Macaulay.
The best secondary authorities stand to the sources somewhat as
the description of a work of art or of a masterpiece of literature
stands to the original. Just as we cannot afford to ignore the
picture itself, or the great poem or drama, and confine ourselves
to some one else's account of it, so in our historical work we
ought to grasp every opportunity of examining for ourselves the
foundations upon which history rests.
It may, of course, be urged that the trained historians, after
acquainting themselves with the people and the circumstances of
a particular period, can make better use of the sources than any
relatively unskilled student. But, admitting the force of this
argument, there is, nevertheless, so much to be learned from a
study of the original accounts that cannot be reproduced by the
most skilled hand, that no earnest student or reader should be
content with secondhand descriptions when primary sources
are available.
The sources are unconsciously molded by the spirit of the time
in which they were written. Every line gives some hint of the
period in which the author lived and makes an impression upon
us which volumes of secondhand accounts can never produce.
The mere information, too, comes to us in a form which we do not
easily forget. The facts sink into our memory. One who actually
talked with Attila, or who witnessed the capture of Jerusalem
by the crusaders, is clearly more likely to excite our interest
than a writer of our own day, however much the modern may know
of the king of the Huns or of the first crusade. It makes no great
impression upon us to be told that the scholars of Dante's time
had begun to be interested once more in the ancient learning of
the Greeks and Romans; but no one can for get Dante's own poetic
account of his kindly reception in the lower regions by the august
representatives of pagan literature, Homer, Horace, Ovid,
and Lucan, people "with eyes slow and grave, of great
authority in their looks," who "spake seldom and with
soft voices."
Moreover, the study of the sources enables us to some extent to
form our own opinions of the past, so that we need not rely entirely
upon mere manuals, which are always one, and generally two or
three, removes from the sources themselves. When we get at the
sources themselves we no longer merely read and memorize; we begin
to consider what may be safely inferred from the statements before
us and so. develop the allimportant faculty of criticism.
We are not simply accumulating facts but are attempting to determine
their true nature and meaning.
The power to do this is not alone necessary to scholarly work;
it is of the utmost importance as well in dealing with the affairs
of everyday life. To take a single illustration : one cannot fail
to see from a study the sources that Luther was exceedingly unfair
to his enemies and ascribed their conduct to evil motives when
they were acting quite consistently and according to what they
considered the truth. His opponents, on the other hand, treated
him with equal unfairness and proclaimed him a wicked and profligate
man because he refused to accept their views.
We meet precisely the same unfairness nowadays, as, for instance,
in the case of a municipal election, where each party speaks only
evil of the other. It is, however, not so hard to look impartially
at the motives and conduct of people who lived long ago as it
is to be fair-minded in matters which interest us personally very
deeply. By cultivating sympathy and impartiality in dealing with
the past we may hope to reach a point where we can view the present
coolly and temperately. In this way really thoughtful, historical
study serves to develop the very fundamental virtues of sympathy,
fairness, and caution in forming our judgments.
The Modern Availability of Primary Sources
Even as late as the early 19th century [note (1998):
a hundred years before Robinson was writing] the path to the sources
of European history was still a thorny one. The manuscripts of
historical importance were often scattered about in innumerable
small collections, chiefly in the monasteries. The documents were
stacked up in dark rooms, damp cellars, and dusty garrets. They
were often carelessly transcribed, full of blunders, and illegible
except to those specially versed in the art of deciphering ancient
handwriting. There were usually no catalogues and nthing to guide
the investigator to the material which was needed. The scholar
was forced to travel from place to place and turn over masses
of worthless or irrelevant matieral in the uncertain quest for
the little which might be useful.
But all this is changed. Scholars may now sit at a convenient
desk in a comfortable, welllighted library; they have clearly
printed books before them, the texts of which have been established
by a comparison of all the known manuscripts of the work in question.
These have been collated by an expert; errors have been eliminated,
and difficult passages annotated. The work has been carefully
analyzed and supplied with an index, so that one may discover
in a few moments just those paragraphs which have to do with the
subject in hand.
The task of rendering the sources available has been a long and
painful one, and has been going on for three or four hundred years.
As early as the sixteenth century scholars began to bring together
the mediaeval chronicles and print them in convenient collections.
In the time of King Louis XIV of France a group of Benedictine
monks in France won new distinction for their ancient order by
publishing several admirable series and by preparing treatises
to facilitate historical research.
The nineteenth century witnessed a development of the critical
scientific spirit which has made it necessary to reprint many
sources that had appeared previously in a defective form. Moreover,
thousands of volumes of precious material hitherto available only
in manuscript have been added to our resources.
The most notable of the many collections is that which has been
in course of publication in Gerinany since 1826, the Monumenta
Germaniae Historica. Begun under the auspices of an historical
society, it was, upon the death of Pertz, the original editor,
placed under the supervision of a government commission (1875).
The volumes published since that date have established a standard
of the highest excellence.'
In England many volumes of historical material have been issued
since 1858 under the direction of the Master of the Rolls, and
constitute the socalled Rolls Series. France, Italy,
Austria, Belgium, and other European countries have each their
series, great and small. Some of these enjoy the support of the
government, but the greater part of them are due to the enterprise
of historical societies or individual scholars.
So rapidly are the sources being printed that it is no longer
necessary in most fields of historical research to rely as formerly,
upon the manuscripts in the European libraries and archives. Some,
at least, of our very best university and public libraries now
contain many of the great collections of printed sources, and
it is possible to carry on satisfactory historical research in
some fields in Boston or New York as well as in London or Paris.
It would be useless to enumerate the names of these many series,
even of the very important ones, for it is impossible to infer
from the general title of an extensive set what particular works
and documents it contains. Moreover, the modern publication, investigation,
and criticism of the sources have led to the preparation of a
number of indispensable works of reference which do not aim to
deal directly with history but to serve as I guide to those in
search of the material upon which the historian must rely. A very
few of the most noteworthy will be mentioned here as illustrations
of the apparatus necessary in all professional historical study.
Guides to Using Primary Sources
To learn what the sources are and where they ma be found is the
first requisite of historical investigation. A French writer,
Langlois, has published a very useful bibliography of historical
bibliographies, a catalogue of the best lists of sources and of
historical treatises.
- Langlois, Manuel de bibliographie historique, Part
1, "Instruments bibliographiques," 2d ed., Paris, 1901,
Such lists are very numerous and often voluminous The most useful
and scholarly is Potthast's Wegweise,or "guide,"
in two stout volumes.
- Potthast, Wegweiser durch die Geschichtswerke des Europäischen
Mittelalters bis 1500, 2 Vols., 2d ed., Berlin, 18951896
The compiler has with infinite patience, sought to bring together
in at alphabetical list the sources for the history of western
Europe from the year 400 to 1500, and to state whet and where
they have been printed. One anxious to lea r whether there has
been a new critical edition of a particular chronicle, or whether
there are any lives of St. Boniface, or Gregory VIII, or Frederick
Barbarossa, written by those who lived in their times, can obtain
the desired information from Potthast, as well as a list of modern
works relating to the topic under consideration.
Admirable guides exist for the study of particular countries.
German scholars have compiled a list of all the important books
and articles relating to the history of their own country from
the time of Tacitus to the present day.
- DahlmannWaitz, Quellenkunde der deutschen Geschichte, 6th ed., Göttingen, 1894,
A still better and more extensive work by Molinier and others
is in course of publication for the history of France.
- Les sources de l'histoire de France, des origines aux guerres
d'Italie (1494); to be continued to 1815 5 vols.,
(Paris: 1901-)
Of course the history both of France and of Germany is so closely
associated with that of other European countries that the abovementioned
guides are very valuable for the student of general European affairs.
A similar collection of titles has been prepared by Professor
Charles Gross for England.
- Sources of English History, Longmans, 1901,
For an explanation of the many troublesome tern and expressions
used in medieval writings one should turn to the monumental Dictionary
of Mediaeval Latin originally compiled by Du Cange and first
issued in 1678. In successive editions, later scholars
have added many terms which Du Cange overlooked, but one is still
often disappointed not to find words be would like have explained.
- Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis, 7 Vols, Paris,
1840-
While but few of the aids to historical research are here given,
those mentioned are of the utmost importance by reason of the
range and accuracy of the information which they furnish and of
the ease with which they can be consulted. No really advanced
work in history can be carried on without their aid.
[Note (1998): These works of nineteenth-century scholarship
remain valuable, but must be supplemented by newer and more recent
guides. For current students whose primary language is English,
the Dictionary of the Middle Ages is a good place to find
basic starting points for research. Modern online library catalogues
- such as the University of California MELVYL Catalog - also provide
help unimaginable to scholars of only twenty years ago.]
QUESTIONS
- What is the difference between a Primary Source and
a Secondary Source?
- Give an example of a primary source.
- Give and example of a secondary source.
- Discuss the problem of using information from newspaper articles
and textbooks?
- What happened in the nineteenth-century to make primary sources
from the middle ages more accessible? From the discussion above,
scholars from which nations lead the research effort.
- What is the Monumenta Germaniae Historica?
- What questions should you ask about a modern writer of history
in order to determine reliability?
- Suggest ways in which you might find out if the modern English-language
writer has looked at primary and secondary sources in a language
other than English?
- Give examples of types of primary sources that might be available
for modern American history since 1945?
- After looking at the Medieval Sourcebook Selected Sources page, give examples of the types of primary sources available
for the middle ages.
- Taking into consideration questions 9. and 10., give an example
of a historical question or issue we could study for modern America,
but would not have available sources to study for the middle ages.
<> Note: Although this text is basically Robinson's, it
has been altered in a number of ways:
- Since the text is intended to be given to modern students,
the assumption that a "historian" is male has been removed.
- References to some books which were "modern"
in 1904, but are now very outdated have been removed.
- Parts have been condensed.
Source: James Harvey Robinson, ed., Readings in European History:
Vol. I: (Boston:: Ginn and co., 1904), 1-13.
This text is part of the Internet Medieval Source Book.
The Sourcebook is a collection of public domain and copy-permitted
texts related to medieval and Byzantine history.
Unless otherwise indicated the specific electronic form of the
document is copyright. Permission is granted for electronic copying,
distribution in print form for educational purposes and personal
use. If you do reduplicate the document, indicate the source.
No permission is granted for commercial use.
© Paul Halsall January 1998
The Internet History Sourcebooks Project is located at the History Department of Fordham University, New York. The Internet
Medieval Sourcebook, and other medieval components of the project, are located at
the Fordham University Center
for Medieval Studies.The IHSP recognizes the contribution of Fordham University, the
Fordham University History Department, and the Fordham Center for Medieval Studies in
providing web space and server support for the project. The IHSP is a project independent of Fordham University. Although the IHSP seeks to follow all applicable copyright law, Fordham University is not
the institutional owner, and is not liable as the result of any legal action.
© Site Concept and Design: Paul Halsall created 26 Jan 1996: latest revision 15 November 2024 [CV]
|
