Rant on Primary Source Reading — Mary Catelli
An aspiring writer ought to read history. Lots of it. Even if — perhaps especially if — he intends to write SF or fantasy and build societies of his own. And the most important thing he should read is primary source, which is to say, stuff that was actually written at the time. Jane’s letter to her Aunt Hortensia. Esmeralda Doe’s diary. The cook book, the book about the Rules of Love, philosophical dialogs. Even fiction. Or as Chesterton put it:
“We should not read historians, but history. Let us read the actual text of the times. Let us, for a year, or a month, or a fortnight, refuse to read anything about Oliver Cromwell except what was written while he was alive. There is plenty of material; from my own memory (which is all I have to rely on in the place where I write) I could mention offhand many long and famous efforts of English literature that cover the period. Clarendon’s History, Evelyn’s Diary, the Life of Colonel Hutchinson. Above all let us read all Cromwell’s own letters and speeches, as Carlyle published them. But before we read them let us carefully paste pieces of stamp-paper over every sentence written by Carlyle. Let us blot out in every memoir every critical note and every modern paragraph. For a time let us cease altogether to read the living men on their dead topics. Let us read only the dead men on their living topics.”
This isn’t to do research, though you may find it useful later. It’s to expand your horizons. And knock your block off. To learn things you didn’t even know you didn’t know. You will read things in which people will casually take for granted something you never even dreamed that other people could think. It will let you in the possibilities. And you will learn that even if people thought the way you did, they could talk about it, and reason about it, very differently. It lets you get inside the heads of people different from you. This is why reading a lot of works from societies you have no interest in is still a help. Even if the exact facts you learn do not prove useful, they will remind you not to assume, so deeply you don’t even notice it, that things are the way you are familiar with.
It also helps avert the opposite fault: thinking, “The past is a different country. They do things differently there,” and cheerfully attributing to them behavior that fits the most modern stereotypes about the era, because it’s different. Even on the simplest level — I once read a writer discussing world-building, who asserted that a medieval king would never have been called the Sun King because the term would have had no meaning in a geocentric universe. groan. Plenty of ancient and medieval kings used solar imagery. “Now is the winter of our discontent. Made glorious summer by this son of York” is predicated on the actual use of the sun in War of the Roses heraldry. For one thing, the center of the universe was a bad place to be in the Ptolemaic universe, because it was the bottom of the universe.
As a sideline of this, it also gives an idea of how varied views can be while still fitting in the framework of a very different society. When Millais exhibited The Order of Release, one reviewer denounced the woman in it as “the hardest looking creature you can imagine,” but another praised her as “firm of purpose, sheds no tear” — which was, actually, the common view, since for the first time, they had to put not only a railing but also a guard at the exhibit.
It also develops a sense of how a society fits together. An instinct that alerts you to whether you really can throw together a society from bits of another. A society with a strict hereditary hierarchy is not one in which your oldest son can go gallivanting off on a merchant expedition and then return with a baseborn bride without consequence.
Of course, there’s an art to reading primary source usefully. Lots of reading will give you practice at that, but some pointers:
No one writes anything without a purpose, and that purpose will dictate what they write. Even those who write to illuminate their own time for future generations will illuminate it according to their own lights. Once you learn to glean their purpose, it may be the most valuable thing about them. Even works of history can be primary source for the era in which they are written because they are written with a purpose; Victorian folklorists cheerfully writing of the origin of folklore and fairy tales are often horrible at everything except the mindset of Victorian folklorists, on which they are superb. (Sleeping Beauty is a solar myth, and Hansel and Gretel, and The Frog King — and Napoleon Bonaparte. The writer who gravely proved the last according to the same logic that the folklorists were using on fairy tales probably did the most to ensure that the theory lost currency.)
Not that you can’t take anything at face value. Metaphors are usually safe — which is to say, because a work of St. Augustine’s has the casual statement that something was like a bethrothal, which lasted a year or two, I think it’s safe to say that in his time betrothals generally lasted a year or two before the wedding proper. Aelfric of Eynsham is beloved of Anglo-Saxon scholars because he wrote a work, the Colloquy, to teach his students conversational Latin, and the subject matter was trades and occupations, so he didn’t have an ax to grind about them.
But other than that. . . .
Where most writers go astray, I think, is in confusing prescriptive with descriptive writing. Whether an etiquette book or a law, people saying what people ought to do are not therefore describing what they do do — necessarily. Some people go overboard there, too, and say that rules are only laid down when a behavior is widely practiced, even if disapproved of. This I would think certain only for rules that are argued about and defended. A rule that is off-handedly mentioned may actually be the rule, too widely accepted to get into a frenzy about. OTOH, it can also be a dead letter.
And then, you often have to reconstruct the other side. Wide reading can only do so much — especially in eras when reading everything that exists doesn’t really make it wide. But with, say Andreas Capullanus’s Art of Love, you can read that love is impossible between a married couple — and note that he argues for it at length and presents it as a case settled by a Court of Love. Someone argued against it, even then.
Plus, you can fall off a cliff chasing someone’s purpose. You can miss irony. The classic example being the readers who assume that “A Modest Proposal” is serious. On the other hand, you can impute irony when it’s not intended. You can hypothesize that Juvenal wasn’t really satirizing the decadence of Rome, but the stuffy old-guard who minded. John Milton — some people argue that Satan’s arguing for liberty and equality. They miss that Satan interrupts his own argument to point out that the offense against him doesn’t annul degree and position, because he only wants to revolt against God, not have his own angels revolt against him.
There is also the aspect that people tend to write about the extraordinary, not the usual. You get more dramatic effects when you read reports of how horrific a certain noble was. Not only do you have deal with the agenda of the person writing about him, which would probably give motives to blacken him, you also have to deal with the issue that the noble (because he is being written about) is probably an outlier. Or the story of the ancien regime French nobleman whose son said that he had heard his father intended to marry him to a certain mademoiselle and was it true — and who retorted that his son should mind his own business. Not the sort of incident that would occur in a society with more freedom for the young people to make their own matches, but that the story was told at all is evidence that the nobleman had gone — a little far.
A traveler would notice more than the person on the spot, but when reading travelers’ tales, it is wise to remember that he may have misunderstood what was going on. Also, he probably would suffer no repercussions whatsoever if he embellished his account — not only his place in it, but with details that underscore how shockingly barbaric the barbarians are, or just prurient or violent details. So travelers’ tales have their upsides and downsides as well.
Actually, reading good scholarly secondary source is an aid to it, because they discuss their evidence and so afford a good example. But there’s no substitute to reading lots.




