Reading Texts

The Difference between a Primary and Secondary Source

As they try to put any story together, historians employ a variety of primary and secondary sources. In this course, I have assigned you both types of sources. That way, you can obtain a better understanding of what historians do by putting your own story together using different types of information.

Primary sources consist of first-hand accounts of events or developments written by contemporaries and eyewitnesses. Secondary sources are interpretations of events written by historians. For instance, a speech by President Abraham Lincoln is a primary source. An eyewitness account of this speech also counts as a primary source. A historian's discussion of the speech in a book, however, constitutes a secondary source. This discussion is an interpretation of Lincoln's speech. The textbook you use in this or any history course is also a secondary source.

Primary sources are important because they serve as the sturdiest foundation for any historical argument. And that is just what any secondary source is—an argument assembled by a historian. All of these arguments depend on an interpretation of primary sources.

We call these interpretations "arguments" because historians frequently do not agree. For a variety of reasons, different historians will produce different interpretations of the past. Perhaps none of these interpretations is entirely correct, but some of these interpretations are better than others.

Interpreting Primary Sources

The strength of these arguments rests in the end on their correct interpretation of primary sources. Unfortunately, these primary sources are often difficult to evaluate. For one thing, eyewitnesses of events produce interpretations of these events that are frequently inaccurate. As historians seek to understand eyewitness accounts, they often find themselves interpreting an interpretation. This is only one problem among many. The "past is a foreign country"—people in countries and times that differ from our own are difficult to understand. The alien culture, conditions, and ideas of this "foreign country"—in other words, the entire context within which people operate-makes interpretation of primary sources a confusing task. On top of that, the "foreigners" who produce our primary sources are often biased in one way or another.

We can seek to minimize confusion if we approach primary sources in a methodical manner. Interpreting a primary source goes beyond merely reading what it says. We ought to understand as much as possible about the person or people who produced it, and we also ought to understand the circumstances under which they produced it. As you read a primary source, think about the following issues and questions.

Author
Who is the author? How did his position and background influence his message?

Audience
To what sort of audience did the author direct his message? How did he tailor it for his audience? How did the audience's characteristics influence its interpretation and reaction to this message?

Argument
What message did the author wish to convey? What themes does he pursue? What is his style of argument?

Assumptions
What are the assumptions and values that underpin the author's arguments?

Atmosphere
Under what circumstances did the author produce this message? To what events or developments was he reacting?

Accuracy
To what extent is the source an accurate representation of events? In what ways do the author's biases and beliefs creep into his description of the contemporary situation?

Analogies
How does this primary source relate to the arguments presented by historians in your textbook or some other secondary source?

Interpreting Secondary Sources

While it is true that textbooks and other secondary sources deal with "facts" (e.g. Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939), they also present interpretations (e.g. Hitler was surprised when Britain and France declared war on him for his assault on Poland). The authors of these works do not present interpretations at random—these interpretations constitute part of an overarching thesis.

Often described as "arguments," these theses often do not agree. Different historians look at different types of sources or interpret the same sources in various ways. Moreover, historians—just like everyone else—have different ways of understanding the world and the way it works. Over the years, then, historians conduct a dialogue with one another through their books and articles, challenging one another by presenting conflicting interpretations of the same events. Historians usually do not keep writing books about the same old topics over and over again because they have discovered new documents or sources (although this does happen) or because they need the money (although this also does happen), but because they have brought new questions to bear on the primary sources and produced new interpretations.

You need to pay attention to these interpretations while you do the assigned reading. As you read, you ought to ask yourself, "How does the author assemble facts and interpretations to produce a coherent argument about the event or development in question?" Before you can answer this question in a satisfactory manner, you need to figure out what that argument is. This is the key to becoming a good student, requiring both intelligence and experience. Usually, the author will present his thesis or argument somewhere near the beginning of the work or section you are reading. As you survey the piece, ask yourself constantly, "What is the overall point of this reading?" Instead of surveying the reading as you would a shopping list (a series of often disconnected items), look at it like a river that takes you from one place to another with a continuous flow.