Recently a thoughtful and provocative reader (thank you Mike!) raised a critical question: can we really know the past? How we do know if the sources are anything but pure speculation? Think about it. We read history books, but those are simply someone’s analysis, synthesis, and regurgitation of primary sources, of which the author has had no living experience. Yet, generally, we accept those history books as “truth”. What’s going on?
First things first, I am not an historian. I have no training in historiography or any related discipline. Dungeons and Dragons was my medieval history gateway drug, and the fascination grew from there. My particular interest in the eighth century stems from two roots: the Song of Roland, and the fact that, as a layperson, I could collect and read virtually all of the available primary source material in translation. Such are my qualifications.
Having put all that on the table, the question goes to the heart of history as an academic discipline. The eighth century was an age of (almost) complete illiteracy. Without a slew of competing sources to compare and contrast, how do historians extract “truth” from those few sources?
From what I can infer, based on reading academic books and articles, the sources must be used with extraordinary care. While the underlying assumption is that the facts in any given source actually happened, everything must be questioned. Examine the provenance of the source, to figure out what other sources (if any) that writer was relying on. For example, some annals were begun later than the first date of the annal, with previous entries copied from an earlier source. You must have complete familiarity with all of the source material, so that you can cross-reference when possible. Recognize that every type of document was written with a different bias.
The trick is recognizing that bias and working around it. Saint’s lives are also written with a specific purpose, which is different from the intent of the Annals. Capitularies, leges, and charters, however, are less susceptible to bias, since they were “working documents,” so to speak. Even today we look at a news report much differently than a title deed. A police arrest report skews differently than a title deed.
The Royal Frankish Annals and Einhard’s Life, for example, are clearly written with a political agenda. Historians have recognized the “pro-Charles” bias for a long time, ever since close textual analysis was applied to the documents. As an example, I’ve recently written about two “revolts” against Charlemagne in the latter part of his reign. In both events Charles’s wife Fastrada was blamed for her “cruelty”, with no supporting evidence. Yet, that is what the sources say, and generally we start (but not necessarily finish) by believing the sources.
Yet as my next post will show, it is possible that Fastrada was Charlemagne’s most beloved wife! You’ll have to tune in next time for the details, but sometimes you get lucky with archaeological evidence.
Another valid question concerns the quantity of the source material. The 19th century historians who labeled our period “the Dark Ages” did so for a reason: there’s just not a lot of primary source material to work with. As mentioned above, I have collected maybe three-quarters of the English translated sources for the century. It all fits on a few bookshelves. Naturally the sources skew toward the second half of the century, but there’s quite a bit that covers the rule of Martel and Pepin. The Chronicles of Fredegar and the Liber Historiae Francorum come to mind, as well as a half-dozen saints’ lives from the period. Naturally, however, the fewer the sources, the shakier the conclusions.
If you want real “dark ages”, try writing about the sixth century. You’ve got Gregory of Tours, and that’s about it. Throw in Boethius if you want some philosophy (not recommended).
So, back to the question: can we really know anything about the past, particularly a sparsely documented past? I think you can, you just have to be careful to differentiate what you think you know (after using all the forms of historical research you can) from what you believe. You should be informed about the current topics in your subject area, and why people favor one argument over another. Consult the findings of other historians. When all the evidence from all the disciplines line up, you’re probably on the right track.
But remember, we still don’t know for certain what year Charlemagne was born. How’s that for historical certainty?
Interesting and thought-provoking reading. I have been researching my Family Tree for many years and quite often became more interested in the history of that period than my ancestor. The biggest problem I have encountered is that even the so called experts glaringly disagree with each other. Given the scarsity of genuine information over this period it is no wonder that it all comes down to speculation, bias and wishful thinking.
You are absolutely correct, this time period is difficult. You mentioned genealogy as the reason you’re digging into the sources. A number of readers have asked about some potential (but obscure) ancestor or another from the 8th century that has cropped up in their research. While there are a considerable number of names mentioned in the sources, tracing any sort of family from one of those individuals is close to impossible. If the very name of Charlemagne’s nephew, the son of his brother Carloman, is unknown, how likely is it that some Frisian count’s children are both named and traced through multiple generations?
Yep. The same can be said about any communication about any subject. There is no absolute; only perception. “Facts” are subjective.
Thank you for the reply, Martin.
I believe that is true up to a point. Facts are facts, it’s only when humans and their agendas get involved that facts become subjective.
We’re deep into an epistemological discussion here! Which, btw, is completely out of my depth. But I still think we can reach a good description of the past through careful analysis. That description can then be viewed through many lenses (economic, gender, political, spiritual, etc.), each of which will reveal more facets.