The Historical Point of View 3 circulation, gets farther and farther from the truth with each repetition. For example, a distinguished historian of the Church, Sad example Cardinal Baronius, writing about 1600, made the state- jfj[2^ ment, upon very insufficient evidence, that, as the year the year 1000. 1000 approached, the people of Europe generally believed that the world was about to come to an end. Robertson, a very popular Scotch historian of the eighteenth cen- tury, repeated the statement and went on to describe the terrible panic which seized upon sinful men as the awful year drew on. Succeeding writers, including some very distinguished ones, accepted and even elaborated Rob- ertson's account. About thirty years ago, however, a French scholar pointed out that there was really no ade- quate basis for this strange tale. To the chroniclers of the time the year 1000 was clearly no more portentous than 997 or 1003. This story of the panic, which passed current as historical fact for some three hundred years, offers an excellent illustration of the danger of relying upon secondary sources. 1 One of the first questions then to ask upon taking Theimpor- up an historical work is, Where did the writer obtain ^Ji^** his information ? Has he simply copied his statements where did . . the writer from the more easily accessible works in his own Ian- obtain his guage, however unreliable and out of date they may be ; mformatlonT or has he, dissatisfied with such uncertain sources, famil- iarized himself with the most recent researches of the distinguished scholars in his field, in whatever language they may have been written ; or, still better, has he him- self made a personal study of the original evidence which 1 See an interesting account of this matter by Professor George L. Burr in The American Historical Review, Vol. VI, pp. 429 sqq.
