Читать книгу A Source Book of Mediæval History - Various - Страница 5

Table of Contents

If one proposes to write a history of the times of Abraham Lincoln, how shall one begin, and how proceed? Obviously, the first thing needed is information, and as much of it as can be had. But how shall information, accurate and trustworthy, be obtained? Of course there are plenty of books on Lincoln, and histories enough covering the period of his career to fill shelf upon shelf. It would be quite possible to spread some dozens of these before one's self and, drawing simply from them, work out a history that would read well and perhaps have a wide sale. And such a book might conceivably be worth while. But if you were reading it, and were a bit disposed to query into the accuracy of the statements made, you would probably find yourself wondering before long just where the writer got his authority for this or that assertion; and if, in foot-note or appendix, he should seem to satisfy your curiosity by citing some other biography or history, you would be quite justified in feeling that, after all, your inquiry remained unanswered—for whence did this second writer get his authority? If The question of authority in a book of history you were thus persistent you would probably get hold of the volume referred to and verify, as we say, the statements of fact or opinion attributed to it. When you came upon them you might find it there stated that the point in question is clearly established from certain of Lincoln's own letters or speeches, which are thereupon cited, and perhaps quoted in part. At last you would be satisfied that the thing must very probably be true, for there you would have the words of Lincoln himself upon it; or, on the other hand, you might discover that your first writer had merely adopted an opinion of somebody else which did not have behind it the warrant of any first-hand authority. In either case you might well wonder why, instead of using and referring only to books of other later authors like himself, he did not go directly to Lincoln's own works, get his facts from them, and give authority for his statements at first hand. And if you pushed the matter farther it would very soon occur to you that there are some books on Lincoln and his period which are not carefully written, and therefore not trustworthy, and that your author may very well have used some of these, falling blindly into their errors and at times wholly escaping the correct interpretation of things which could be had, in incontrovertible form, from Lincoln's own pen, or from the testimony of his contemporaries. In other words, you would begin to distrust him because he had failed to go to the "sources" for his materials, or at least for a verification of them.

How, then, shall one proceed in the writing of history in order to make sure of the indispensable quality of accuracy? Clearly, the first thing to be borne in mind is the necessity of getting information through channels which are as direct and immediate as possible. Just as in ascertaining the facts regarding an event of to-day it would be desirable to get the testimony of an eye-witness rather than an account after it had passed from one person to another, suffering more or less distortion at every step, so, in seeking a trustworthy description of the The superiority of direct sources of knowledge battle of Salamis or of the personal habits of Charlemagne, the proper course would be to lay hold first of all of whatever evidence concerning these things has come down from Xerxes's or Charlemagne's day to our own, and to put larger trust in this than in more recent accounts which have been played upon by the imagination of their authors and perhaps rendered wholly misleading by errors consciously or unconsciously injected into them. The writer of history must completely divest himself of the notion that a thing is true simply because he finds it in print. He may, and should, read and consider well what others like himself have written upon his subject, but he should be wary of accepting what he finds in such books without himself going to the materials to which these writers have resorted and ascertaining whether they have been used with patience and discrimination. If his subject is Lincoln, he should, for example, make sure above everything else, of reading exhaustively the letters, speeches, and state papers which have been preserved, in print or in manuscript, from Lincoln's pen. Similarly, he should examine with care all letters and communications of every kind transmitted to Lincoln. Then he should familiarize himself with the writings of the leading men of Lincoln's day, whether in the form of letters, diaries, newspaper and magazine articles, or books. The files, indeed, of all the principal periodicals of the time should be gone through in quest of information or suggestions not to be found in other places. And, of course, the vast mass of public and official records would be invaluable—the journals of the two houses of Congress, the dispatches, orders, and accounts of the great executive departments, the arguments before the courts, with the resulting decisions, and the all but numberless other papers which throw light upon the practical conditions and achievements of the governing powers, national, state, and local. However much one may be able to acquire from the reading of later biographies and histories, he ought not to set about the writing of a new book of the sort unless he is willing to toil patiently through all these first-hand, contemporary materials and get some warrant from them, as being nearest the events themselves, for everything of importance that he proposes to say. This rule is equally applicable and urgent whatever the subject in hand—whether the age of Pericles, the Roman Empire, the Norman conquest of England, the French Revolution, or the administrations of George Washington—though, obviously, the character and amount of the contemporary materials of which one can avail himself varies enormously from people to people and from period to period.

History is unlike many other subjects of study in that our knowledge of it, at best, must come to us almost wholly through indirect means. That is to say, all our information regarding the past, and most of it regarding our own day, has to be obtained, in one form or another, through other people, or the remains that they have left behind them. No one of us can know much about even so recent an event as the Indirect character of all historical knowledge Spanish-American War, except by reading newspapers, magazines and books, talking with men who had part in it, or listening to public addresses concerning it—all indirect means. And, of course, when we go back of the memory of men now living, say to the American Revolution, nobody can lay claim to an iota of knowledge which he has not acquired through indirect channels. In physics or chemistry, if a student desires, he can reproduce in the laboratory practically any phenomenon which he finds described in his books; he need not accept the mere word of his text or of his teacher, but can actually behold the thing with his own eyes. Such experimentation, however, has no place in the study of history, for by no sort of art can a Roman legion or a German comitatus or the battle of Hastings be reproduced before mortal eye.

For our knowledge of history we are therefore obliged to rely absolutely upon human testimony, in one form or another, the value of such testimony depending principally upon the directness with which it comes to us from the men and the times under consideration. If it reaches us with reasonable directness, and represents a well authenticated means of studying the period in question from the writings or other An "historical source" defined traces left by that period, it is properly to be included in the great body of materials which we have come to call historical sources. An historical source may be defined as any product of human activity or existence that can be used as direct evidence in the study of man's past life and institutions. A moment's thought will suggest that there are "sources" of numerous and widely differing kinds. Roughly speaking, at least, they fall into two great groups: (1) those in writing and (2) those in some form other than writing. The first group is by far the larger and more important. Foremost in it stand annals, chronicles, and histories, written from time to time all along the line of human history, on the cuneiform tablets of the Assyrians or the parchment rolls of the mediæval monks, in the polished Latin of a Livy or the sprightly French of a Froissart. Works of pure literature also—epics, lyrics, dramas, essays—because of the light that they often throw upon the times in which they were written, possess a large value of the same general character. Of nearly equal importance is the great class of materials which may be called documentary—laws, charters, formulæ, accounts, treaties, and official Written sources orders or instructions. These last are obviously of largest value in the study of social customs, land tenures, systems of government, the workings of courts, ecclesiastical organizations, and political agencies—in other words, of institutions—just as chronicles and histories are of greatest service in unraveling the narrative side of human affairs.

Of sources which are not in the form of writing, the most important are: (1) implements of warfare, agriculture, household economy, and the chase, large quantities of which have been brought to light in various parts of the world, and which bear witness to the manner of life prevailing among the peoples who produced and used them; (2) coins, hoarded up in treasuries or buried in tombs or ruins of one sort or another, Sources other than in writing frequently preserving likenesses of important sovereigns, with dates and other materials of use especially in fixing chronology; (3) works of art, surviving intact or with losses or changes inflicted by the ravages of weather and human abuse—the tombs of the Egyptians, the sculpture of the Greeks, the architecture of the Middle Ages, or the paintings of the Renaissance; (4) other constructions of a more practical character, particularly dwelling-houses, roads, bridges, aqueducts, walls, gates, fortresses, and ships—some well preserved and surviving as they were first fashioned, others in ruins, and still others built over and more or less obscured by modern improvement or adaptation.

These are some of the things to which the writer of history must go for his facts and for his inspiration, and it is to these that the student, whose business is to learn and not to write, ought occasionally to resort to enliven and supplement what he finds in the books. As there are many kinds of sources, so there are many ways in which such materials may be utilized. If, for example, you are studying the life of the Greeks and in that connection pay a visit to a museum of fine arts and scrutinize Greek statuary, Greek vases, and Greek coins, you are very clearly using sources. If your subject is the church life of the later Middle Ages and you journey to Rheims or Amiens or Paris to contemplate the splendid cathedrals in these cities, with their spires Various ways of using sources and arches and ornamentation, you are, in every proper sense, using sources. You are doing the same thing if you make an observation trip to the Egyptian pyramids, or to the excavated Roman forum, or if you traverse the line of old Watling Street—nay, if you but visit Faneuil Hall, or tramp over the battlefield of Gettysburg. Many of these more purely "material" sources can be made use of only after long and sometimes arduous journeys, or through the valuable, but somewhat less satisfactory, medium of pictures and descriptions. Happily, however, the art of printing and the practice of accumulating enormous libraries have made possible the indefinite duplication of written sources, and consequently the use of them at almost any time and in almost any place. There is but one Sphinx, one Parthenon, one Sistine Chapel; there are not many Roman roads, feudal castles, or Gothic cathedrals; but scarcely a library in any civilized country is without a considerable number of the monumental documents of human history—the funeral oration of Pericles, the laws of Tiberius Gracchus, Magna Charta, the theses of Luther, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution of the United States—not to mention the all but limitless masses of histories, biographies, poems, letters, essays, memoirs, legal codes, and official records of every variety which are available for any one who seriously desires to make use of them.

But why should the younger student trouble himself, or be troubled, with any of these things? Might he not get all the history he can be expected to know from books written by scholars who have given their lives to exploring, organizing, and sifting just such sources? There can be no question that schools and colleges to-day have the use of better text-books in history than have ever before been available, and that truer notions of the subject in its various relations can be had from even the most narrow devotion to these texts than could be had from the study of their predecessors a generation ago. If the object of studying history were solely to acquire facts, it would, generally speaking, be a waste of time for high school or younger college students to wander far from text-books. But, assuming that history is studied not alone for the mastery of facts but also for the broadening of culture, and for certain kinds of mental training, the properly regulated use of sources by the student himself is to be justified on at least three grounds: (1) Sources The value of sources to the student help to an understanding of the point of view of the men, and the spirit of the age under consideration. The ability to dissociate one's self from his own surroundings and habits of thinking and to put himself in the company of Cæsar, of Frederick Barbarossa, or of Innocent III., as the occasion may require, is the hardest, but perhaps the most valuable, thing that the student of history can hope to get. (2) Sources add appreciably to the vividness and reality of history. However well-written the modern description of Charlemagne, for example, the student ought to find a somewhat different flavor in the account by the great Emperor's own friend and secretary, Einhard; and, similarly, Matthew Paris's picture of the raving and fuming of Frederick II. at his excommunication by Pope Gregory ought to bring the reader into a somewhat more intimate appreciation of the character of the proud German-Sicilian emperor. (3) The use of sources, in connection with the reading of secondary works, may be expected to train the student, to some extent at least, in methods of testing the accuracy of modern writers, especially when the subject in hand is one that lends itself to a variety of interpretations. In the sources the makers of history, or those who stood close to them, are allowed to speak for themselves, or for their times, and the study of such materials not only helps plant in the student's mind the conception of fairness and impartiality in judging historical characters, but also cultivates the habit of tracing things back to their origins and verifying what others have asserted about them. So far as practicable the student of history, from the age of fourteen and onwards, should be encouraged to develop the critical or judicial temperament along with the purely acquisitive.

In preparing a source book, such as the present one, the purpose is to further the study of the most profitable sources by removing some of the greater difficulties, particularly those of accessibility and language. Clearly impracticable as anything like historical "research" undoubtedly is for younger students, it is none the less believed that there are abundant first-hand materials in the range of history which such students will not only find profitable but actually enjoy, and that any Simplicity of many mediæval sources acquaintance with these things that may be acquired in earlier studies will be of inestimable advantage subsequently. It is furthermore believed, contrary to the assertions that one sometimes hears, that the history of the Middle Ages lends itself to this sort of treatment with scarcely, if any, less facility than that of other periods. Certainly Gregory's Clovis, Asser's Alfred, Einhard's Charlemagne, and Joinville's St. Louis are living personalities, no less vividly portrayed than the heroes of a boy's storybook. Tacitus's description of the early Germans, Ammianus's account of the crossing of the Danube by the Visigoths and his pictures of the Huns, Bede's narrative of the Saxon invasion of Britain, the affectionate letter Stephen of Blois to his wife and children, the portrayal of the sweet-spirited St. Francis by the Three Companions, and Froissart's free and easy sketch of the battle of Crécy are all interesting, easily comprehended, and even adapted to whet the appetite for a larger acquaintance with these various people and events. Even solid documents, like the Salic law, the Benedictine Rule, the Peace of Constance, and the Golden Bull, if not in themselves exactly attractive, may be made to have a certain interest for the younger student when he realizes that to know mediæval history at all he is under the imperative necessity of getting much of the framework of things either from such materials or from text-books which essentially reproduce them. It is hoped that at least a reasonable proportion of the selections herewith presented may serve in some measure to overcome for the student the remote and intangible character which the Middle Ages have much too commonly, though perhaps not unnaturally, been felt to possess.