'The State Papers' Conundrum

Having done more reading that writing on the various historiography threads which have popped up round these parts I'd like to talk a little more in depth about the nature of our primary sources for political history. Before this year at university I had rarely encountered a true to form primary source, any reading or studying I had done have been secondary commentaries by historians. Having spent some time this year in the National archives looking up microfilm copies of Police reports, newspapers, politicians 'private papers', departmental 'memos' and other various printed sources, it does raise some rather legitimate criticism I think from the traditional skeptics of the historical method.

Ireland is a prime example for the perceived weakness of our sources - In 1922 Rory O'Connor and the anti-Treaty IRA used geneological records in the nearby Public Records office to barricade the windows of the Four Courts against the Free State artillery embankments. In the ensuing fighting, the Public Records office was completely destroyed and, alas, over a thousand years worth of records of all description were destroyed for good. Ireland has been left with a cultural black hole, a huge gap in sources only partly compensated by the different universities which had their own copies of various sources, but no one place with the entire collection intact. I remember reading in Ernie O'Malleys memoir that he had no problem in using the records as a barricade since they were, after all, 'British records' and therefore perfectably usable by patriots. Reading that sickened my stomach, but it does raise a very serious question.

Is all political history really shaped by the 'state papers', those documents preserved for posterity by governments in the various public records offices? Does it not betray a certain weakness that we rely on these documents so much? And does this not give the skeptics at least some grounds for complaint?

Personally I am of the opinion that all history is merely a study of the surviving evidence - as in, all things that have happened are technically history, but only those events which have left traces of the occurance are capable of study. If all those traces are produced by the government, then surely political history is merely a study of those records which the government preserves? Is history really only a study of past politics?

A lot of questions, I know. And I don't really believe all of what I typed, just playing devils advocate a bit. But the concentration on the state papers is an important and potentially devastating weakness of political history which did give the postmodernists of the 1960s strong grounds for complaint.


Edited by Parnell - 24-Apr-2009 at 12:13

I know the primary sources are there (But in our case there is a huge dearth of material before 1920) but I'm asking just how reliable those sources are, and questioning the essential vitality of political history. Personally I think the problems are surmountable and generally capable of being overcome with just a little reason and less hysteria, which many seem to associate with government documents 

As for professors plugging their own books, tell me about it. Especially at Sophister level over here, where all our subjects are very specialised. For example, my three subjects this year are 'Revolution and Civil War in Ireland 1919-1923' 'The Crusades 1095-1187' and 'History writing in Britain and Ireland, 1820-1920'. For my Irish course we are expected to delve into the primary sources considerably since the university is a 5 minute walk from post archives in Dublin :) For the Crusades we have had a special emphasis on the narrative histories of Fulcher, William of Tyre, the Gesta Francorum etc. Basically at this level we are expected to be masters of the secondary material and curious yet erudite with the primary sources. Needless to say this requires a lot of bluffing on my part!

Parnell, I just saw your reply - I was writing another post on this.

As an additional comment on "state papers," before more modern political pressure was able to demand access to official papers and correspondence, the archives of virtually all states were mostly secret.  Diplomatic documents, including treaties, and correspondence were held more as state secrets than as public state papers.