Readings in European History Historical manuals usually con- tain third- hand infor- mation, or worse. Repetition the enemy of accuracy. sources ; they get their information at second hand. It is much more convenient to read what Gibbon has to say of Constantine than to refer to Eusebius, Eutropius, and other ancient writers from whom he gained his knowledge. Moreover, Gibbon carefully studied and com- pared all the primary sources, and it may be urged that he has given a truer, fuller, and more attractive account of the period than can be found in any one of them. His Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is certainly a work of the highest rank ; but, nevertheless, it is only a report of others' reports. It is therefore not a primary but a secondary source. Most of the historical knowledge current among us is not, however, derived from even secondary sources, such as Gibbon and similar authoritative writers, but comes from the reading of text-books, encyclopedias, stories, dramas, and magazine articles. Popular manuals and articles are commonly written by those who know little or nothing of the primary sources ; they are conse- quently at least third hand, even when based upon the best secondary accounts. As a matter of fact, they are usually patched together from older manuals and articles, and may be four, five, or six removes from the original source of knowledge. It is well known that the oftener a report passes from mcuth to mouth the less trustworthy and accurate does it tend to become. Unimportant details which appeal to the imagination will be magnified, while fundamental considerations are easily forgotten, if they happen to be prosaic and commonplace. Historians, like other men, are sometimes fond of good stories and may be led astray by some false rumor which, once started into
