Section 1 Reading 1:
James Harvey Robinson: Why Study History Through Primary Sources

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.

Discussion Questions

1. What is the difference between a Primary Source and a Secondary Source?
2. Give an example of a primary source.
3. Give and example of a secondary source.
4. Discuss the problem of using information from newspaper articles and textbooks?
5. 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.
6. What is the Monumenta Germaniae Historica?
7. What questions should you ask about a modern writer of history in order to determine reliability?
8. 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?
9. Give examples of types of primary sources that might be available for modern American history since 1945?
10. After looking at the Medieval Sourcebook Selected Sources page, give examples of the types of primary sources available for the middle ages.
11. 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.

Go to Caucus Discussion Conference

Source of this Text

Adapted from , "The Historical point of View", in Readings in European History: Vol. I: (Boston:: Ginn and co., 1904), 1-13.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/robinson-sources.html [A longer version]

Note to Web Users:

This reading is specifically for the Brooklyn College Core 4 Virtual Course. At a future time it may be moved, deleted or otherwise altered without notice. Do not link to this file! The same texts, in a more stable enviroment my be found at the Internet Modern History Sourcebook  

Contents Page

Site Design: Paul Halsall

©
created 2/1/1999 : revised 2/2/1999