¶ 123 Work first on primary material, then on
secondary. In actual research primary and secondary sources will not
generally be found sorted out neatly in distinct groups, but mingled together;
in notetaking, for example, the student must utilize the sources in the order
in which they occur. The important direction here given does not concern
heuristic, but the later step of critical study of a subject based upon the
material assembled. Careful, thoroughgoing study of the subject requires that
one go back to the original sources, and be not satisfied to take things merely
at second hand or third hand. Recourse to firsthand material is the fundamental
rule of all scientific work. Much, perhaps most of the perverted history of the
past owes its origin to the unscholarly passing on of statements or
interpretations from one secondary authority to another [¶ 437].
Even where secondary treatments of a topic are of the
scholarly type, it is best to defer reading of them until one has carefully
sifted the primary material and has reached conclusions of one’s own, based on
its evidence. At the same time, scholarly, up-to-date articles, monographs,
books, may bear with more or less directness on the investigator’s topic of
research; it is a matter of importance to him to acquaint himself with their
findings. Gap in his own work may be filled in, statement corrected, interpretations
modified. It will be reassuring to find himself in agreement with other
scholars, just as it may be, but not necessarily so, disconcerting to find
himself at odds with them—a situation which may entail a revision of the
manuscript.
(a) Fonck calls attention repeatedly to a danger to which
beginners in research are exposed. They may easily allow their interpretation
of primary sources to be influenced by what they have read in secondary
sources. This is not the way to attain to the habit of independent thinking so
vital to the historian. The danger mentioned may be real, not only for beginners,
but even for professional researchers. Fonck insists strongly that reading of
the scholarly special and monographic literature of one’s subject should
follow, not precede, reading of the primary material.—Wissenschaftliches
Arbeiten, 132.
Leingard said appositely in the preface to his History
of England (2d ed.):
To render these volumes more deserving of public
approbation I did not hesitate at the commencement of my labors, to impose on
myself a severe obligation from which I am not conscious of having on any
occasion materially swerved; to take nothing upon trust; to confine my
researches, in the first instance, to original documents and the more ancient
writers; and only to consult the modern historians when I had satisfied my own
judgment and composed my own narrative. My object was to preserve myself from copying
the mistakes of others, to keep my mind unbiased by their opinions and
prejudices, and to present to the reader from authentic sources a full and
correct relation of events.
¶124 Adequate exploitation of sources often requires
incursions into special fields of knowledge. Not only must the historian
summon to his aid on occasion the auxiliary sciences, such as diplomatic ,
paleography, archaeology, if the topics treated require their use, but almost
any field of knowledge may at times serve his purpose by helping to the
elucidation of a text. Certain documents cannot be fully understood without
some, or considerable acquaintance in many cases, with the principles of
economics or psychology or theology. Any complete study of the miracles of
Christ presupposes some knowledge of medical science. The phenomenon of
nationalism is in many ways a problem in group psychology; so also are
revolutions, riots, popular movements of any kind. The layman, John Baptist
Rossi, “Father of Christian Archaeology,” sat for years on the benches learning
theology, because he felt that this science was indispensable for the proper
interpretation of the inscriptions and other monuments of Christian antiquity.
In a sense, the true historical searcher is prepared to annex the whole domain
of human knowledge to his own province. If the Roman moralist broke down all
barriers to his range of interest by his nihil humanum a me alienum puto,
the historian is by the same token committed to a like catholicity of outlook.
All and sundry data furnished him by various fields of knowledge, even the most
disparate, if they help him to understand his documents, to interpret them
aright, are grist for his mill. (Gilbert J. Garraghan, A Guide to Historical
Method, ed. Jean Delanglez [New York: Fordham University Press, 1946], 139-40)
To Support this Blog:
Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com
