Source question
tiglath
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) wrote The Discourses (Discourses on the
First Ten Books of Titus Livius). Machiavelli straddles historical periods
but that should not be a factor in the issue at hand, unless one is stupid.
The motives and purpose of this book are very interesting and have little to
do with Machiavelli's wanting to write a book on ancient history. The book
is
really about politics and republics using ancient Rome as reference. But
he, actually, did write about ancient Rome. He wrote about ancient Rome as
portrayed by Livy (59 BC - 17 AD) in his first ten books of his History of
Rome From its Foundations (made up of one hundred forty-two books, of which
only thirty-five remain). The first ten books comprise the period from
Aeneas sailing for Italy after the capture of Troy, to the Third Samnite War
(293 BC), and includes the foundation or Rome.
Given the following definitions:
A primary source is a work that was contemporary or nearly contemporary with
the period being studied. A secondary work for a subject is one that
discusses the subject but is written after the time contemporary with it.
All secondary sources will be based on primary sources. A given source is
primary or secondary solely in accordance with its time relationship to the
subject being studied."
Is Machiavelli's Discourses a primary source or a secondary source with
respect to ancient Rome in the period of his study?
Many thanks
Inger E. Johansson
news:ae003s$gj4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net
That's the easiest question to answer of all sent to this group the last
year or two.
Machiavelli's Discourses is a Secondary source to every question that
you can think of regarding Ancient Rome's History, events etc!!!
It's only in one single aspect that Machiavelli could be used as a
Primary source and that is if your purpose for a study is to find out
what Machiavelli thought was the truth about the Ancient Rome.
You still haven't got it have you?
The only time a source can be said to be a Primary source in it self is
if it contains first hand information.
It's only when questions asked and purpose of a work/study are presented
as "common" information needed about the period in question any source
which doesn't contain first hand information can BE USED as a Primary
source!
The contemporary aspect is ALWAYS needed for a source to be valuated as
a Prime source,
however,
the contemporary aspect isn't a sufficient criteria for a source to be
valuated as a Prime source!
When working with any text prior to your time, Ancient, Migration Age,
Viking Age or Medieval Age text,
this is what you ALWAYS need to do:
First of all you need to find and(!) present your purpose.
The question to be answered after that is:
Do you need first hand information or not to fulfill the same purpose?
You can't take a contemporary source and believe it to be able to
present you correct information about things that are mentioned in the
text. Only a fool would do that, and from what I read you aren't a fool
even if we don't agree on many things.
If you dont need first hand information or if that's not at hand(read
not existing), than you need to take the second criteria close in place
as a pointer to possible sources to use. Mind you in this case you
always have to have several contempary secondhandsources to give you
information about the time and place, possibly about the writer of the
text you are about to use as well!
If you are to use a contemporary second hand information source as your
Prime source you have several more criteria to live up to: tendency,
dependent or not etc.
This is only the first steps down the road before you start your analyse
/study.
ALL REALIBILITY of your work depends on using correct methods no matter
if Prof. that and that does write that he use them or not.
For all these steps one thing is vital - no matter if you are using
works as sources during your analyse or not, YOU CAN NEVER EVER LEAN TO
OTHER SCHOLARS WORK to make your case solid!
Inger E
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Simon Pugh
<tig...@tiglath.net> writes
historical training, rather I would like to ask a question of my own.
Is the nature of a source, that is to say primary or secondary, a
property of the source its self or is it a property of the _use_ made of
the source?
So if a source is used as evidence for some aspect of a historical
study, it is a primary source and if it is used for is commentary,
discussion or analysis then it is a secondary source.
A student historian would have to learn how to analyse and assess
sources and how to decide if they are suitable for use as evidence or if
they are useful for their discussion/analysis or if they are unsuitable
as either. The various quotes by eminent historians on sources would
then become part of the process of instructing student historians in how
_use_ their sources.
So there it is, is it how we use a source what makes it primary or
secondary rather than some property of the source its self? And could
this provide a way of looking at your question?
--
Simon Pugh
tiglath
"Simon Pugh" <si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VOhQwHDa...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
I framed the question in a way that no historical training is necessary.
That's why I gave a definition that contains no technical jargon and
everyone who understands English can comprehend taking the usual meaning of
the words, and answer according reason and common sense.
>
> Is the nature of a source, that is to say primary or secondary, a
> property of the source its self or is it a property of the _use_ made of
> the source?
The main criteria are (1) what aspects of the source are in question, since
a source can be both primary and secondary according to the aspect we use it
for; (2) whether the author is in fact an author or he is just retelling an
abridged form of a primary source. If he is just the editor and voice of a
primary author, the material can be rightfully be considered primary; (3)
whether the writer is contemporary with the events he touches on, bearing in
mind that what would make him contemporary is to have lived in the same
culture and society of his subject, as a member of it, or as a visiting
researcher.
Once we decide on (1) and (2) the sole criteria is contemporaneity to decide
whether a source is primary or secondary.
>
> So if a source is used as evidence for some aspect of a historical
> study, it is a primary source and if it is used for is commentary,
> discussion or analysis then it is a secondary source.
>
> A student historian would have to learn how to analyse and assess
> sources and how to decide if they are suitable for use as evidence or if
> they are useful for their discussion/analysis or if they are unsuitable
> as either. The various quotes by eminent historians on sources would
> then become part of the process of instructing student historians in how
> _use_ their sources.
>
> So there it is, is it how we use a source what makes it primary or
> secondary rather than some property of the source its self? And could
> this provide a way of looking at your question?
My question resolves (1) Machiavelly with respect to ancient Rome, and (2),
Machiavelly as author not editor, and asks about (3).
Simon Pugh
<tig...@tiglath.net> writes
So how you intend to use the source is important in determining if the
source is primary or secondary? If we decide to use the source as
evidence, then whether the author has direct knowledge of events or is
retelling from other sources helps determine the _quality of the
evidence?
>
>
>
>
>>
>> So if a source is used as evidence for some aspect of a historical
>> study, it is a primary source and if it is used for is commentary,
>> discussion or analysis then it is a secondary source.
>>
>> A student historian would have to learn how to analyse and assess
>> sources and how to decide if they are suitable for use as evidence or if
>> they are useful for their discussion/analysis or if they are unsuitable
>> as either. The various quotes by eminent historians on sources would
>> then become part of the process of instructing student historians in how
>> _use_ their sources.
>>
>> So there it is, is it how we use a source what makes it primary or
>> secondary rather than some property of the source its self? And could
>> this provide a way of looking at your question?
>
>My question resolves (1) Machiavelly with respect to ancient Rome, and (2),
>Machiavelly as author not editor, and asks about (3).
>
>
>
OK, I will try and answer your question using common sense.
1) Is Machiavelli a useful source of evidence in respect of ancient Rome
- presumably not as there must be better sources available.
2) Is Machiavelli a useful source of comment and analysis on Ancient
Rome - probably not, presumably there are better modern commentators
although he might be useful as a source on how people viewed Ancient
Rome in his own time.
3) Is Machiavelli a useful source of evidence on the political situation
in his own time, presumably yes.
--
Simon Pugh
tiglath
> >
>
> So how you intend to use the source is important in determining if the
> source is primary or secondary?
Yes, but it is part of the question not part of the answer.
The question is Aristotle's Politics a primary or secondary source, is
ambiguous. The "how you intend to use the source" HAS to be part of the
question for it to be meaningful, e.g., Is Aristotle's Politics a primary
source for Greek political thought?
> If we decide to use the source as evidence, then whether the author has
direct knowledge of events or is retelling from other sources helps
determine the _quality of the evidence?
Not entirely; contemporaneity is a favorable circumstance in an author,
meaning that the author was personally acquainted with what he talks about,
a good thing in general, but it is no guarantee of reliability and truth.
Simon Pugh
<tig...@tiglath.net> writes
>
>"Simon Pugh" <si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:rMH$QGCCC7...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk...
>> >
>>
>> So how you intend to use the source is important in determining if the
>> source is primary or secondary?
>
>Yes, but it is part of the question not part of the answer.
>
>The question is Aristotle's Politics a primary or secondary source, is
>ambiguous. The "how you intend to use the source" HAS to be part of the
>question for it to be meaningful, e.g., Is Aristotle's Politics a primary
>source for Greek political thought?
>
This is why I posed my original question - is being primary or secondary
an intrinsic property of a source or is it a function of how you use it.
If you allow the latter then the question "is Aristotle's Politics a
primary or secondary source" becomes meaningless until how you intend to
use it is determined..
Taking the example of King Arthur, if we want to study him, there are no
contemporary sources therefore we must use sources such as Gildas and
Nennius as evidence although I think you would class them as secondary?.
>
>
>
>
>> If we decide to use the source as evidence, then whether the author has
>direct knowledge of events or is retelling from other sources helps
>determine the _quality of the evidence?
>
>Not entirely; contemporaneity is a favorable circumstance in an author,
>meaning that the author was personally acquainted with what he talks about,
>a good thing in general, but it is no guarantee of reliability and truth.
>
Agreed, other factors must be taken into account as well when assessing
the quality of a source.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Simon Pugh
tiglath
>
> This is why I posed my original question - is being primary or secondary
> an intrinsic property of a source or is it a function of how you use it.
Both. "Primariness or secondariness" is intrinsic, since it is in the
nature of a source to be either one or the other. Which it is, is a
function of how you use it.
> Taking the example of King Arthur, if we want to study him, there are no
> contemporary sources therefore we must use sources such as Gildas and
> Nennius as evidence although I think you would class them as secondary?
I don't know. I am not familiar with this example.
> >> If we decide to use the source as evidence, then whether the author has
> >direct knowledge of events or is retelling from other sources helps
> >determine the _quality of the evidence?
> >
> >Not entirely; contemporaneity is a favorable circumstance in an author,
> >meaning that the author was personally acquainted with what he talks
about,
> >a good thing in general, but it is no guarantee of reliability and truth.
> >
> Agreed, other factors must be taken into account as well when assessing
> the quality of a source.
Yes, and the fact that there are many other factors doesn't change the
situation of the definitions of primary and secondary source, or have to be
put in the definitions as some have tried to.
Sharon L. Krossa
aren't just pathetically continuing to try to score points after they've
lost the game ;-)
Simon Pugh <si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <ae003s$gj4$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, tiglath
> <tig...@tiglath.net> writes
> >
> >Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) wrote The Discourses (Discourses on the
> >First Ten Books of Titus Livius). Machiavelli straddles historical periods
> >but that should not be a factor in the issue at hand, unless one is stupid.
> >
> >The motives and purpose of this book are very interesting and have little to
> >do with Machiavelli's wanting to write a book on ancient history. The book
> >is
> >really about politics and republics using ancient Rome as reference. But
> >he, actually, did write about ancient Rome. He wrote about ancient Rome as
> >portrayed by Livy (59 BC - 17 AD) in his first ten books of his History of
> >Rome From its Foundations (made up of one hundred forty-two books, of which
> >only thirty-five remain). The first ten books comprise the period from
> >Aeneas sailing for Italy after the capture of Troy, to the Third Samnite War
> >(293 BC), and includes the foundation or Rome.
> >
> >Given the following definitions:
Ignoring what Tiglath thinks, and referring only to how historians
(including Cantor) define and use the terms...
....
> >Is Machiavelli's Discourses a primary source or a secondary source with
> >respect to ancient Rome in the period of his study?
> >
> I am not going to try and answer your question as I have absolutely no
> historical training, rather I would like to ask a question of my own.
>
> Is the nature of a source, that is to say primary or secondary, a
> property of the source its self or is it a property of the _use_ made of
> the source?
It is a property of the use that is made of it (evidence vs.
discussion/conclusions, or as Cantor & Schneider put it, raw
data/information vs. explications/judgments) for the particular
subject/topic being investigated.
> So if a source is used as evidence for some aspect of a historical
> study, it is a primary source and if it is used for is commentary,
> discussion or analysis then it is a secondary source.
Exactly.
> A student historian would have to learn how to analyse and assess
> sources and how to decide if they are suitable for use as evidence or if
> they are useful for their discussion/analysis or if they are unsuitable
> as either.
Exactly.
And when it comes to any pre-modern era of study -- any period of study
that falls before the advent of modern historiography -- it turns out
that all works produced before modern times are simply not useful to the
historian for their commentary, discussion, or analysis *as* commentary,
discussion, and analysis. Pre-modern opinion, etc. is useful only as
evidence about the past, not to inform the historian's own explication &
judgments. Thus pre-modern works just aren't used as secondary works.
So if such a pre-modernly produced work doesn't have any useful evidence
about the pre-modern subject of interest, then it simply isn't used at
all for that subject. This is why if a pre-modern work is used, it is
always used as a primary source -- it is used as evidence about the
past. The alternative is not to use it as a secondary source, but to not
use it at all.
Thus the practical division of sources (into pre-modern = primary and
secondary = modern works) is a consequence of the nature of medieval
sources and the nature of the uses to which they are put by historians
studying the medieval period.
One way to look at the divisions is this way:
For a pre-modernly produced work, it turns out the choice is always
between primary source or not a source at all for a particular subject;
for a modernly produced work, it turns out the choice is between
secondary source or not a source at all for a particular pre-modern
subject (ignoring for the moment things like archeological reports,
which though modernly produced are sometimes considered primary
sources).
Having the division between primary and secondary so clearly delineated
and easy to spot for medieval history (even before understanding the
difference between evidence and discussion/conclusions, etc.) is a nice
side benefit of studying this period -- though I don't think I would say
it makes up for not having as many primary sources as there are for the
modern era!
> The various quotes by eminent historians on sources would
> then become part of the process of instructing student historians in how
> _use_ their sources.
>
> So there it is, is it how we use a source what makes it primary or
> secondary rather than some property of the source its self? And could
> this provide a way of looking at your question?
Indeed, it does. *If* (and it is an _immense_ if) any scholar chose to
use Machiavelli's _Discourses_ as a source for researching ancient Rome,
they would classify it as a primary source and use it as evidence.
However, it is extremely unlikely any scholar would so use it as it
would be really lousy evidence and unneccessary given the number of much
better sources available. In which case it simply wouldn't be used at
all -- it would not be useful as a secondary source for ancient Rome,
either.
Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
Matthew Harley
> For a pre-modernly produced work, it turns out the choice is always
> between primary source or not a source at all for a particular subject;
> for a modernly produced work, it turns out the choice is between
> secondary source or not a source at all for a particular pre-modern
> subject (ignoring for the moment things like archeological reports,
> which though modernly produced are sometimes considered primary
> sources).
I think one should include here modern editions of original primary
sources. Modern scholarship may, for example, lead to a new improved
edition or translation of some early documents, letters, etc. The same
applies to previously unedited archive material. Although published
recently such a work should be considered "primary".
For example Machiavelli's letters were published in French in 1955 by
Edmond Barincou (Toutes les lettres officielles et familières de
Machiavel, Paris.) That's primary material.
As these letters, AFAIK, have not all been translated into English
yet, we are still awaiting this primary sources for the life and times
of Machiavelli!
Matt Harley
Tiglath
"Sharon L. Krossa" <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
news:1fdij6l.ftth6t17xk888N%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu...
> > >Given the following definitions:
>
> Ignoring what Tiglath thinks, and referring only to how historians
> (including Cantor) define and use the terms...
>
The definitions you snipped are Cantor's.
The dumb cow strikes again. She still thinks that to win an argument all
she has to do is to proclaim victory.
Dick Wisan
As do you. Look, the argument finally reached the point of going in
circles, the same points being repeated over and over. Naturally, you
are unconvinced and think your arguments were better so you won. She
has a different opinion, of course, and is as entitled to as you are
to yours. The rest of us do not take either your or her word for it,
but we've seen enough to make our own judgments. Whether you or she
like our judgments, it's gone past the time when anything either of
you says will change our minds.
So drop it. Quit throwing rocks. Your first sentence above is legit-
imate (if useless). Your second one makes the post nasty as well as
superfluous. It neither convinces nor impresses anyone.
Drop it.
(I know this post is useless. Tiglath _never_ gives up throwing rocks
if he takes it he's been dissed.)
R. N. (Dick) Wisan Email: wis...@hartwick.edu
Snail: 37 Clinton St., Oneonta, NY 13820, USA
Just your opinion, please, Ma'am. No fax.
Simon Pugh
<tig...@tiglath.net> writes
different definitions of primary and secondary.
Definition 1. Any source used as evidence is primary and any source used
for its comment and analysis is secondary.
Sharon seems to support this view although it is not quite the same as
her original stance, which if I understood it correctly was, for
pre-modern history - Any pre-modern source is primary and any modern
source is secondary.
Definition 2. A primary source is a contemporary record of the events in
question. A secondary source is one that is compiled from other sources
some time after the event.
This (in simplified form) is the one I think Tiglath supports.
Not being a historian I couldn't possibly say which if either is
correct. <g> Both seem to have problems which is presumably why Bachrach
has reportedly abandoned the terms in his bibliographies.
--
Simon Pugh
Paul J Gans
He has not abandoned the term. What he's done is split
the "primary source" category into subcategories. But
he still splits off secondary works into another group.
----- Paul J. Gans
PS: That's the problem with Hines. He spreads his misinformation
so widely that even normally suspicious folks accidently inhale
some of it.
Sharon L. Krossa
> As far as I can see the source of this long running argument lies in two
> different definitions of primary and secondary.
>
> Definition 1. Any source used as evidence is primary and any source used
> for its comment and analysis is secondary.
>
> Sharon seems to support this view although it is not quite the same as
> her original stance, which if I understood it correctly was, for
> pre-modern history - Any pre-modern source is primary and any modern
> source is secondary.
It is actually the same as my original stance, because when you study
any era of premodern history, premodernly produced works are used only
as evidence and so are primary sources. (BTW, do keep in mind, as
pointed out again recently by someone else, that modern editions of
medievally produced works are considered as the original work for this
kind of categorization -- that is, they, too, are considered primary
sources.)
Think of it this way -- it is like a litmus test in chemistry. If you
dip a litmus strip into an alkaline solution, it turns blue, if you dip
it into an acid solution, it turns red. So, you have a bunch of
beakers, some of which are full of alkaline solutions and some of which
are full of acid solutions. If you divide up the beakers into two
groups, one group for the solutions where a litmus strip turned blue and
one group for the solutions where a litmus trip turned red, you've still
divided up the beakers into alkaline solutions and acid solutions
because of the link between blue & alkaline and red & acid.
Someone who says "the litmus strip turned blue, therefore this is an
alkaline solution" is not wrong -- even though what makes the solution
an alkaline solution is its chemical properties, and that it turns a
litmus trip blue is just a consequence of those chemical properties and
the reactions they have with the chemical properties of litmus.
That is what happens with sources for medieval history. The litmus test
(blue or red) is the era it was produced. Medieval = primary just as
blue = alkaline and modern = secondary just as red = acid. The reasons
behind this have to do with evidence vs. discussion/conclusions, just as
the why behind red and blue has to do with chemical reaction differences
akaline vs. acid. The person who says "this was medievally produced,
therefore it is a primary source" is not wrong any more than the person
who says "the litmus strip turned blue, therefore this is an alkaline
solution".
> Definition 2. A primary source is a contemporary record of the events in
> question. A secondary source is one that is compiled from other sources
> some time after the event.
>
> This (in simplified form) is the one I think Tiglath supports.
But note that this is not what the historians, in the complex form, have
been saying -- it overlooks key considerations. Even Cantor & Schneider
explain that the theoretical division (the "why" behind the temporal
relationship litmus test) is one of raw data/information vs.
explication/judgments (and he & Schneider makes very clear in the
context of their book that explication/judgments of use *as*
explication/judgments are those of modern historians -- and they call
the work of historians who lived in the Middle Ages such as Jordanes
"primary sources").
The problem comes in when you need to try to give a litmus test
distinction that applies to the sources of modern history. With modern
history, you don't have the easy "medieval = primary" type of litmus
test because both the raw data/information and the explication/judgments
of the historian come very close in time -- there isn't a convenient
couple hundred year gap between the two as there is for medieval history
(the gap between the end of the medieval period and the beginning of
modern historiography). So what they try to do is come up with a
description of a litmus test that works in a context where both the
evidence and the works of modern historians come from the same general
era.
In the context of studying modern history, the above simplified litmus
test works, more or less.
In the context of studying medieval history, you have to understand and
factor in the additional considerations in order to have the litmus test
give accurate results for the real question (evidence vs.
discussion/conclusions).
> Not being a historian I couldn't possibly say which if either is
> correct. <g> Both seem to have problems which is presumably why Bachrach
> has reportedly abandoned the terms in his bibliographies.
Note that Bachrach has not abadoned the scheme, he only uses different
terms for the same thing. If, as Hines reports, Bachrach divides his
bibliographies into "Sources" and "Scholarly Works", Bachrach is still
using the standard of evidence vs. discussion/conclusions. He is just
choosing different labels for the same concepts -- labels which in fact
make it even _more_ clear that the discussion/conclusions category
(secondary works) are modern scholarly works and not anything medievally
produced (just as Cantors "PRIMARY SOURCES" vs. "MODERN WORKS" labels
do).
Sharon L. Krossa
> "Sharon L. Krossa" wrote:
>
> > For a pre-modernly produced work, it turns out the choice is always
> > between primary source or not a source at all for a particular subject;
> > for a modernly produced work, it turns out the choice is between
> > secondary source or not a source at all for a particular pre-modern
> > subject (ignoring for the moment things like archeological reports,
> > which though modernly produced are sometimes considered primary
> > sources).
>
> I think one should include here modern editions of original primary
> sources. Modern scholarship may, for example, lead to a new improved
> edition or translation of some early documents, letters, etc. The same
> applies to previously unedited archive material. Although published
> recently such a work should be considered "primary".
Yes, indeed. This is often called "Printed Primary" or "Published
Primary". (Thus Cantor's bibliography in _Church, Kingship, and Lay
Investiture in England, 1089-1135_ where he subdivided his "PRIMARY
SOURCES" into "Manuscripts" and "Printed Sources".)
tiglath
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> wrote in message
news:ae2od...@enews2.newsguy.com...
> Tiglath, (tig...@tiglath.net) says...
> >
> >"Sharon L. Krossa" <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
> >news:1fdij6l.ftth6t17xk888N%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu...
> >> > >Given the following definitions:
> >>
> >> Ignoring what Tiglath thinks, and referring only to how historians
> >> (including Cantor) define and use the terms...
> >
> >The definitions you snipped are Cantor's.
> >
> >The dumb cow strikes again. She still thinks that to win an argument all
> >she has to do is to proclaim victory.
>
> As do you.
Hardly. I understand how you feel, but if not to me you should be fair to
my argument, since not doing so reflects badly on you, not me.
I have repeatedly shown how Krossa's argument rest on a logical
contradiction; that is not a proclamation of victory but evidence to any
impartial observer that she is full of beans. Her overweening pride
compounds errancy with the disgrace of not admitting it.
Anyone who has followed her meanderings has seen how inconsistent and
confused she is. Yesterday she corrected herself not to call primary
sources "evidence," :
"I will amend the terms of my methodological definition to: raw
data/information (primary) vs. discussion/conclusions (secondary)."
-- S.L. Krossa - June 9, 2002
Today she is back to the usage she corrected:
" *If* (and it is an _immense_ if) any scholar chose to use Machiavelli's
_Discourses_ as a source for researching ancient Rome, they would classify
it as a primary source and use it as evidence."
-- S.L. Krossa - June 10, 2002
Only a lunatic would call Machiavelli's Discourses a primary source for
ancient Rome.
Her additional differentiation of the two kind of sources as:
"raw data/information vs. explication/judgments"
is as lame as it gets. A scholar ought to use precise, unambiguous
language which sets her apart as a person or learning, fit to teach others,
with a modicum of articulateness and clarity of expression. Consider this:
Nothing wrong by distinguishing primary sources as raw data (when not
opinion).
But, there is nothing about "information" that makes it the sole province of
primary sources, since you must know that every secondary source abounds
with information.
"Explication" comes next, there is nothing in the meaning of "explication"
that justly confines the term to secondary sources. Since one finds many
explications in primary sources. The same goes for "judgments"
A scholar would say instead that secondary sources contain explications and
judgments OF PRIMARY SOURCES. Only a half wit would leave that clause out,
since it is essential for the sentence to be correct.
Those are just a few examples of the lack of propriety, and sloppiness in
her thinking and writing. If you folks want to learn historiography from
Krossa, good luck.
Dalton Dietz
Machiavelli, with respect to his Discourses as they concern the history of
ancient Rome, is clearly a secondary source. Machiavelli is removed from the
period's events by a considerable margin -- some one thousand years; thus,
he fails the contemporaneity test. If, however, an historian was using
Machiavelli's Discourses to write a paper concerning, for example,
Renaissance historiography, then Machiavelli would be a Primary source.
Dalton
Inger E
good point,
not only good but true as well.
Inger E
"Dalton Dietz" <vdi...@prodigy.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:pQdN8.181$TO3.35...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Simon Pugh
Sharon L. Krossa <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> writes
I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I am not sure that
the litmus analogy really works. :)
The fact that medieval sources are used as evidence is what makes them
primary, not the fact that they are medieval per se. It is a consequence
of the way medieval historians work and use their sources.
>
>> Definition 2. A primary source is a contemporary record of the events in
>> question. A secondary source is one that is compiled from other sources
>> some time after the event.
>>
>> This (in simplified form) is the one I think Tiglath supports.
>
>But note that this is not what the historians, in the complex form, have
>been saying -- it overlooks key considerations. Even Cantor & Schneider
>explain that the theoretical division (the "why" behind the temporal
>relationship litmus test) is one of raw data/information vs.
>explication/judgments (and he & Schneider makes very clear in the
>context of their book that explication/judgments of use *as*
>explication/judgments are those of modern historians -- and they call
>the work of historians who lived in the Middle Ages such as Jordanes
>"primary sources").
>
>The problem comes in when you need to try to give a litmus test
>distinction that applies to the sources of modern history. With modern
>history, you don't have the easy "medieval = primary" type of litmus
>test because both the raw data/information and the explication/judgments
>of the historian come very close in time -- there isn't a convenient
>couple hundred year gap between the two as there is for medieval history
>(the gap between the end of the medieval period and the beginning of
>modern historiography). So what they try to do is come up with a
>description of a litmus test that works in a context where both the
>evidence and the works of modern historians come from the same general
>era.
Actually I think the division between sources used for evidence=primary
and sources used for analysis/comment= secondary works just as well for
modern history. - Under this scheme the classification of sources
depends entirely on the use made of the source and is not a property of
the source its self.
>
>In the context of studying modern history, the above simplified litmus
>test works, more or less.
>
>In the context of studying medieval history, you have to understand and
>factor in the additional considerations in order to have the litmus test
>give accurate results for the real question (evidence vs.
>discussion/conclusions).
>
>> Not being a historian I couldn't possibly say which if either is
>> correct. <g> Both seem to have problems which is presumably why Bachrach
>> has reportedly abandoned the terms in his bibliographies.
>
>Note that Bachrach has not abadoned the scheme, he only uses different
>terms for the same thing. If, as Hines reports, Bachrach divides his
>bibliographies into "Sources" and "Scholarly Works", Bachrach is still
>using the standard of evidence vs. discussion/conclusions. He is just
>choosing different labels for the same concepts -- labels which in fact
>make it even _more_ clear that the discussion/conclusions category
>(secondary works) are modern scholarly works and not anything medievally
>produced (just as Cantors "PRIMARY SOURCES" vs. "MODERN WORKS" labels
>do).
>
>Sharon
--
Simon Pugh
Simon Pugh
<ga...@panix.com> writes
Yes, I admit it, my source was Hines, you don't say he was spinning a
line? :)
So what do you think, is the "primariness or secondariness" of a source
a property of the source its self or a property of the use made of it?
(Or neither)
--
Simon Pugh
Paul J Gans
It is a property of the application. Bede isn't a primary
source on the elimination of France from the World Cup.
He's not even a secondary source... ;-)
---- Paul J. Gans
Dick Wisan
>
>Simon Pugh <si...@mrzsp.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>So what do you think, is the "primariness or secondariness" of a source
>>a property of the source its self or a property of the use made of it?
>>(Or neither)
>
>It is a property of the application. Bede isn't a primary
>source on the elimination of France from the World Cup.
>
>He's not even a secondary source... ;-)
I wonder if there isn't a clue here to the way you medievalists identify
primary and secondary sources.
You cite Bede if you think that the fact that Bede wrote this or that
is evidence that your subject did or was such-and-such. That makes him
a primary source.
You wouldn't cite Bede as a secondary source at all.
You wouldn't cite Bede as any kind of source about soccer/football at
all.
Everyone you would cite as a secondary source about medieval things
is a modern writer (whatever that means).
Therefore, the question never arises whether a medieval source the
existence of which you wouldn't take as in itself evidence about your
subject is a primary source. Note that it isn't a source at all.
The only time the question could arise is when someone wants to
draw up and refine definitions for their own sake. If you're looking
at what historians of medieval things do with medieval texts, the
question is superfluous.
--
Inger E
you wouldn't have said that in the face of late Professors and brothers
Weibull. You certainly would have good answer from one of today's best
Medieval Historians Dick Harrison Lund's university to make you chance your
mind!
For your sake you better learn that most of us with degrees in Mediveal
History knows that it's more important for a Medieval Historian than for a
Modern one to know the difference between a Primary source(eyewitness
account or a source you due to your thesis/question selected as your prime
source) and a Secondary source(second hand information when ever it was
written after the event by someone who wasn't there at the time and place
where "it" happened".
Inger E
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:ae6f3...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Sharon L. Krossa
> In message <1fdkko4.1ey06si10jcdq8N%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu>,
> Sharon L. Krossa <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> writes
> >
Well, it works for some aspects but not for others. The analogy works
for the point that the litmus test definition (time, etc.) and the
underlying cause definition (evidence vs. discussion/conclusions) are
not contradictory (which is what I was addressing). It doesn't work well
for the question of whether primary vs. secondary is innate to the
source or dependent on the use to which they are put by the historian.
> The fact that medieval sources are used as evidence is what makes them
> primary, not the fact that they are medieval per se. It is a consequence
> of the way medieval historians work and use their sources.
Yes.
Yes, I agree -- in all cases the underlying reasons for the desired
division is evidence vs. analysis/comment. So that division "works" for
all periods.
What I was trying to get at in my post is that when trying to describe
the clear visible sign, the litmus test, based on issues like
contemporaneaty, etc., it can sometimes seem to sound a bit different
when talking about modern history than when talking about medieval
history. The medieval historian can make the litmus test very easy
(medieval=primary) while the modern historian has to go into things more
to get the desired result. But in the end they are aiming for (and
arriving at) the same result -- a division of sources consistent with
evidence vs. discussion/conclusions.
Sharon L. Krossa
> I wonder if there isn't a clue here to the way you medievalists identify
> primary and secondary sources.
>
> You cite Bede if you think that the fact that Bede wrote this or that
> is evidence that your subject did or was such-and-such. That makes him
> a primary source.
>
> You wouldn't cite Bede as a secondary source at all.
>
> You wouldn't cite Bede as any kind of source about soccer/football at
> all.
>
> Everyone you would cite as a secondary source about medieval things
> is a modern writer (whatever that means).
>
> Therefore, the question never arises whether a medieval source the
> existence of which you wouldn't take as in itself evidence about your
> subject is a primary source. Note that it isn't a source at all.
>
> The only time the question could arise is when someone wants to
> draw up and refine definitions for their own sake. If you're looking
> at what historians of medieval things do with medieval texts, the
> question is superfluous.
Very well put.
All I would add is that as a consequence of medievally produced works
either being used as a primary source or not being used as any source at
all, when discussing the issue of sources generally for medieval history
(as opposed to for a specific topic of medieval history) medieval
historians tend to just refer to all medievally produced works as
"primary sources" -- because every medievally produced work is a primary
source for *some* medieval topic or other, even if not for ones own
current project.
Sharon L. Krossa
> Dick,
> you wouldn't have said that in the face of late Professors and brothers
> Weibull. You certainly would have good answer from one of today's best
> Medieval Historians Dick Harrison Lund's university to make you chance your
> mind!
>
> For your sake you better learn that most of us with degrees in Mediveal
> History knows that it's more important for a Medieval Historian than for a
> Modern one to know the difference between a Primary source(eyewitness
> account or a source you due to your thesis/question selected as your prime
> source) and a Secondary source(second hand information when ever it was
> written after the event by someone who wasn't there at the time and place
> where "it" happened".
Inger, perhaps you would list out for us explicitly exactly what Swedish
words/phrases you are translating into English as
English -- Swedish
------- -------
"primary" --
"secondary" --
"first hand" --
"second hand" --
"prime" --
"eyewitness" --
"source" --
This might help us understand what you are trying to say about what
terminology Swedish historians use (especially since it clearly doesn't
map to how English speaking medieval historians use at least some of
these English terms).
Tiglath
>
> All I would add is that as a consequence of medievally produced works
> either being used as a primary source or not being used as any source at
> all, when discussing the issue of sources generally for medieval history
> (as opposed to for a specific topic of medieval history) medieval
> historians tend to just refer to all medievally produced works as
> "primary sources" -- because every medievally produced work is a primary
> source for *some* medieval topic or other, even if not for ones own
> current project.
Sharon at the bottom of the pit shows signs of digging again.
Curious sentence...
"every medievally produced work is a primary source for *some* medieval
topic or other, even if not for ones [sic] own current project."
If we are talking about a source being primary or secondary, as we have been
for a while, what she is saying here (echoing my earlier words as is her
habit) is that a medieval source is always primary at some level, and unsaid
but implicit that the same source may not be primary at other levels. If
the choice is primary or secondary and at some level a source is not
primary, IT HAS TO BE secondary. Unless she pulls out of thin air a third
category, as she is wont to do when in need. But Cantor tells us nothing
about a third category, and as we all know SHE AGREES wholeheartedly with
Cantor. In any case, in this sentence there is an implicit admission that
at some level a medievally produced source might be non-primary. Another
shift of her position, in the right direction for a change.
If a source is not primary in the aspects it is being used to write history
it makes no sense to list it as a primary source.
Krossa keeps moving freely between the notions of "what medievalist do" and
what authors put in bibliographies. That clever trick allows her to
retreat to the evidence provided by bibliographies when challenged and
continue to make out that what we find in bibliographies is in fact the
general case at all stages of historical production. Even a perfunctory
reading of MMM1' message should tell the reader that is not the case:
bibliographical custom does not reflect historical methodology.
The amusing thing with careless thinkers/writers is that given enough
time/rope they'll hang themselves.
Tiglath
>
> The medieval historian can make the litmus test very easy
> (medieval=primary) while the modern historian has to go into things more
> to get the desired result. But in the end they are aiming for (and
> arriving at) the same result -- a division of sources consistent with
> evidence vs. discussion/conclusions.
This is a hurrah for a silly double standard. There is no reason inherent
to medieval history to use one set of criteria to determine primariness,
which must differ from the criteria used in modern works.
As sources abound for modern history and it is easier for a 21st century
historian to write accurately on the Napoleonic Wars than it is for a
historian in 1000 AD to write accurately about events a couple of centuries
prior. Therefore, in general, contemporaneity grows in importance as we go
back in time.
Consider the following to see the inane concept Krossa is espousing:
A medieval historian, she claims, equates primariness to the fact that a
source was written in the Middle Ages, and forgoes the meaning of the word
"primary" in the sense of "contemporaneous," but then he takes into
account contemporaneity anyway as a separate additional consideration when
he evaluates his source.
But a modern historian, for some strange reason, is allowed to consider
primariness as a function of contemporaneity from the outset, and
classify his sources accordingly.
That is what would result if we let Krossa force into our minds the notion
that bibliographical practice reflects how historians view sources in the
workshop.
The theatre of the absurd.
Dick Wisan
>
>Dick,
>
>For your sake you better learn that most of us with degrees in Mediveal
>History knows that it's more important for a Medieval Historian than for a
>Modern one to know the difference between a Primary source(eyewitness
>account or a source you due to your thesis/question selected as your prime
>source) and a Secondary source(second hand information when ever it was
>written after the event by someone who wasn't there at the time and place
>where "it" happened".
>
>Inger E
I would have no difficulty in agreeing with what you said here with
a (small?) emendation:
most of us with degrees in Mediveal History knows that it's more
important for a Medieval Historian than for a Modern one to know
the difference between an eyewitness account or a source you due
to your thesis/question selected as your prime source and second
hand information, and whether written at the time of or long after
the event by someone who wasn't there at the time and place where
"it" happened".
Inger E
I am no-good Grammar-person in my own language due to wordblindness(minor
dyslexia) I am better in English than in Swedish.... however I have never
been a novel-writer, I am sorry. But I guess that you by your lines means
that you believe that we mean almost the same, do you?
If so that's not what you have written in some other articles, but that's
ok.
Inger E
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:ae7m1...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Inger E
given the fact that I don't agree with Cantor re his definition of Medieval
Age period(Starting point), I don't hold anything against him. Never the
less it seems as if Sharon did if she managed to find a third categoria out
of the nonsence-categoria she some where have sensed when she read
Cantor.... if she did that is.
Inger E
"Tiglath" <tig...@tiglath.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:ae7l1t$iv0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Dick Wisan
Inger,
My text is the same as yours except I dropped out the term
"primary source" in one place, I dropped "secondary source" in another
place, and I slightly revised your description of secondary sources.
Everything else is the same. Naturally, if I'd written it, I'd have
phrased it differently, but I wanted to make the likeness and difference
as clear as possible.
Here's a version where I've capitalized the differences:
>> > ...most of us with degrees in Mediveal
>> >History knows that it's more important for a Medieval Historian than for
>> >a Modern one to know the difference between A PRIMARY SOURCE (eyewitness
>> >account or a source you due to your thesis/question selected as your
>> >prime source) and a SECONDARY SOURCE (second hand information when ever
>> >it was written after the event by someone who wasn't there at the time
>> >and place where "it" happened".
>> >
>> >Inger E
>>
>> I would have no difficulty in agreeing with what you said here with
>> a (small?) emendation:
>>
>> most of us with degrees in Mediveal History knows that it's more
>> important for a Medieval Historian than for a Modern one to know
>> the difference between AN eyewitness account or a source you due
>> to your thesis/question selected as your prime source and second
>> hand information, and whether written at the time of or long after
>> the event by someone who wasn't there at the time and place where
>> "it" happened".
By the way, your phrase "or a source you due to your thesis/question
selected as your prime source" looks to me like a concession to some
of the things several of us have been saying. If you meant it that
way, I appreciate it. It shows more flexibility and responsiveness
to argument than you've shown before.
>Dick,
>I am no-good Grammar-person in my own language due to wordblindness(minor
>dyslexia) I am better in English than in Swedish.... however I have never
>been a novel-writer, I am sorry. But I guess that you by your lines means
>that you believe that we mean almost the same, do you?
>
>If so that's not what you have written in some other articles, but that's
>ok.
>
>Inger E
--
Inger E
no I don't agree with you regarding Prime sources. For me a Prime source
always is an eyewitness account or an account written by someone at place
during exact time who might have been an eyewitness. THAT's Final.
What you believe me to be saying isn't the thing that I am saying. A Prime
source is a Prime source nothing else. But if you only observe only are
interested in what people or a specific person during a specific time long
after an event believed to be the true history than you could use a
secondary source such as for example Bede to give you a clue, but not the
truth, about what happened 3-400 years before Bede was born. This means that
you are treating Bede as a Prime source for Bede's believes what happened
before his days, not that Bede can be used as a Prime source for what
actually happened long before Bede was born. For the later Bede is a
secondary source nothing else, for Bede's belief and maybe also for the
beliefs by Bede's contemporary(=living during the same years) Bede can be
used as a Prime source.
This means that one have to use sources much older than Bede to tell us in
our days about what happened when for example the Scots moved(because they
did if one look closely at the contemporary sources from those days) from
Dalreida in Northern Ireland to Scotland, that's not a tale even if many
Scholars believe it to be.
The interesting thing with Bede is that he seem to have had good sources
himself in many cases, but that's an other thing. A Secondary source written
10 years after an event or 300 years later could in some cases after
valuation be found to in the text have better information than some Prime
sources. This doesn't go for all Bede's written "statement" but for specific
information.
Inger E
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:ae85f...@enews2.newsguy.com...
Simon Pugh
This organisation of sources by either of the systems that we discussed
is all well and good but it says nothing about the quality of the
sources. Both presuppose a "well trained medieval historian" who can be
relied on the pick sources "appropriately". The method that the others
are pushing looks at the sources them selves. Personally I feel happier
with this approach, restricting primary to contemporary accounts but
extending the sense of primary to include the first available accounts.
This allows for the fact that the only account of events may date from
many years after the event. But then I am not a historian so what would
I know. :)
--
Simon Pugh
Paul J Gans
Sure. But it seemed to me time for a bit of levity after
all the heavy lifting of the obvious that has gone on here.
But my answer still stands. The "primaryness" of a manuscript
depends on the subject. If it fails the test for primary, it
may, as you say, not even be a secondary source.
--- Paul J. Gans
Dick Wisan
historian should do? The difference is only about what to call it.
Inger E, (inger_e....@telia.com) says...
Inger E
might be.... but you haven't disagreed with Sharon's statements reg.
Secondary sources either....
Inger E
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:ae8pb...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Tiglath
For one who thinks that the question of whether a source is primary or
secondary is mostly academic, surely Wisan pays it much attention.
I still don't understand how he would deem the question to be unimportant.
Historians certainly don't think so.
E. H. Carr insists that the historian can't divorce himself from the outlook
and interests of his own age. He sees history as a moving procession where
the historian is not on the saluting base, but is just another dim figure
trudging along in another part of the procession. The point of the
procession at which he finds himself determines his angle of vision over the
past (Carr, 1964, pp. 25, 36).
Why are the interests and values of the recorder of history so important?
Weber thinks that what peoples, events, or problems we choose to study vary
from time to time and from place to place, because history is related to our
values and likes and we study preferentially those bits of history in which
we find them (Weber, 1949, pp. 156-7, 172). The Annales school of history
seeks to pour cold water on that notion since it holds that every aspect of
life of every people is grist to the historian's mill, but not every
historian is an Annalist yet. One must note that Weber's point applies
also to the reader of history, who surely selects what he reads according to
his interests and values. A fact that cannot be ignored by historians who
want to be read and publishers that want to sell books.
In sum, the values of both historians and readers influence what is written
and those values change with time; and we often see historical works where
the historian takes a leap that may cross great divides of time, space, and
culture It follows, I believe, that having in the terms "primary" and
"secondary" an initial, clear, guiding measure of that leap is of obvious
practical benefit.
-----
References:
Carr, E. H., 1964, "What is History?" Penguin.
Weber, Max, 1949. "The Methodology of the Social Sciences, Free Press.
Tiglath
"Inger E" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in message
news:FAON8.43050$n4.98...@newsc.telia.net...
> Dick,
> no I don't agree with you regarding Prime sources. For me a Prime source
> always is an eyewitness account or an account written by someone at place
> during exact time who might have been an eyewitness. THAT's Final.
<Hanging Judge smashes gavel on desk>
Put me right off my prime rib, that Swede.
Or is she a turnip?
>
> What you believe me to be saying isn't the thing that I am saying. A Prime
> source is a Prime source nothing else.
Come on Wisan, pull your socks up! A spade ain't a pick.
But if you only observe only are
> interested in what people or a specific person during a specific time long
> after an event believed to be the true history than you could use a
> secondary source such as for example Bede to give you a clue, but not the
> truth, about what happened 3-400 years before Bede was born. This means
that
> you are treating Bede as a Prime source for Bede's believes what happened
> before his days, not that Bede can be used as a Prime source for what
> actually happened long before Bede was born. For the later Bede is a
> secondary source nothing else, for Bede's belief and maybe also for the
> beliefs by Bede's contemporary(=living during the same years) Bede can be
> used as a Prime source.
>
This brings a prime number of things, is Erathostenes a prime source of
prime numbers? Primarily yes, but that doesn't mean that he was the
absolute primero hombre, with a prime interest in priming us with the
concept of primeness, primarily. One doesn't have to be a Prime Minister
to know that Erathostenes grabbed the prime meridian and came out with the
circumference of our prime concern as quick a boiled asparagus, despite the
fact that he has secondary syphilis. So you primates lay off our primal
Swede, and inwardly digest her prima facie evidence she kindly brings to
s.h.m. prime time.
Emir Kaganovich
<tig...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> This brings a prime number of things, is Erathostenes a prime source of
> prime numbers? Primarily yes, but that doesn't mean that he was the
> absolute primero hombre, with a prime interest in priming us with the
> concept of primeness, primarily. One doesn't have to be a Prime Minister
> to know that Erathostenes grabbed the prime meridian and came out with the
> circumference of our prime concern as quick a boiled asparagus, despite the
> fact that he has secondary syphilis. So you primates lay off our primal
> Swede, and inwardly digest her prima facie evidence she kindly brings to
> s.h.m. prime time.
Primarily, the kind of primate who would confuse the prime steak
with the pasta primavera, nevermind what his D-grade essay and
school primer primed him for, is as trustworthy for Prime sources as
the blind Oedipus (who inherited by primogeniture) would be to name
the primary colors.
That is my opinion, which would be a secondary sauce.
Emir
Sharon L. Krossa
> Dick,
> I am no-good Grammar-person in my own language due to wordblindness(minor
> dyslexia) I am better in English than in Swedish.... however I have never
> been a novel-writer, I am sorry. But I guess that you by your lines means
> that you believe that we mean almost the same, do you?
>
> If so that's not what you have written in some other articles, but that's
> ok.
I would have no difficulty agreeing with Dick's amended version, either.
Please note that the main thing Dick changed was simply to omit the
terms "primary" and "secondary" from what you wrote. *Of course*
medieval historians have to be aware of the specifics of the origins of
their sources, and take this into account whether they are eye witness
accounts or second-hand accounts when using them. I have never said any
differently. I have repeatedly explained that I and the medieval
historians I have referred to know to question our sources and evaluate
them carefully to determine their reliability, accuracy, bias, etc.
What you have not been understanding is that *in English usage*,
medieval historians don't use the terms "primary" and "secondary" to
indicate the difference between an eye witness and a second-hand
account. Instead, we use terms like, well, "eye witness", "second-hand",
etc. "Primary" and "secondary" refer to something else *in English*.
(And I really wish you would accept that native English speakers who are
trained medieval historians might just know what they're talking about
in this regard, especially given the numerous examples provided of
published medieval historians calling second-hand accounts from the
medieval period "primary sources". You haven't provided us with a single
example of an English-speaking historian calling any medievally produced
second hand account a "secondary source", while I and others have
provided numerous examples of medieval historians labelling medievally
produced second hand accounts "primary".)
Sharon L. Krossa
> Dick,
> no I don't agree with you regarding Prime sources. For me a Prime source
> always is an eyewitness account or an account written by someone at place
> during exact time who might have been an eyewitness. THAT's Final.
>
> What you believe me to be saying isn't the thing that I am saying. A Prime
> source is a Prime source nothing else.
That's fine. But English speaking historians don't talk about "Prime
sources" at all. Which is why I believe your problem with what we are
talking about is at least partially linguistic -- you are mapping your
Swedish terminology to the wrong English terminology. It is like we are
describing the difference between a dog and a cat and you are trying to
describe different breeds of dog and so insisting that a "cat" isn't a
feline but rather some specific canine breed.
So, again, will you please specify the Swedish terms you are using and
what English words you think they match, as I requested in another post?
What Swedish terms are you mapping to these English words:
Primary
Secondary
Source
work
Prime
main
First hand
Second hand
eyewitness
Primary source (the whole phrase)
Secondary source (the whole phrase)
Secondary work (the whole phrase)
original
and so on.
Eric Dockum
Is a secondary sauce the sauce for the Gander not the Goose?
:-) :-)
Eric.
(my apologies offered in advance, couldn't resist it)
>
> Emir
Dick Wisan
haven't said anything about secondary sources or primary sources,
either. I just took your descriptions of two kinds of sources, and
I agree with you that a historian must understand the difference
between the two kinds.
Frankly, I don't think there's much disagreement among _any_ of the
people here about the difference between the different kinds of sources,
the difference in reliability between different kinds of sources, or what
a historian should do with different kinds of sources.
The disagreement here is only about the terminology --what the different
kinds of sources should be _called_, and I don't attach much importance
to that.
Try it yourself: _drop_ the words "primary source" and "secondary source"
Then, without using those terms, _describe_ the different kinds of
sources are and how historians should treat them. Just don't give them
names. I think you'll come out with something that most of us will
find uncontroversial.
Inger E, (inger_e....@telia.com) says...
>
>Dick,
>might be.... but you haven't disagreed with Sharon's statements reg.
>Secondary sources either....
>
>Inger E
>"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> skrev
>
Dick Wisan
>
>For one who thinks that the question of whether a source is primary or
>secondary is mostly academic, surely Wisan pays it much attention.
>
>I still don't understand how he would deem the question to be unimportant.
>Historians certainly don't think so.
In fact, as I use the terms, I think the difference is very important.
Since we seem to have, around here, differences about what different
kinds of sources should be _called_ but, so far as I can see, no real
difference in how people think different kinds of sources should be
_used_, I find the question of names more confusing than helpful.
>E. H. Carr insists that the historian can't divorce himself from the outlook
>and interests of his own age. He sees history as a moving procession where
>the historian is not on the saluting base, but is just another dim figure
>trudging along in another part of the procession. The point of the
>procession at which he finds himself determines his angle of vision over the
>past (Carr, 1964, pp. 25, 36).
I agree with Carr in this. I doubt anyone here disagrees with it. We
look at things from our own points of view --certainly from the point
of view of our own times.
>Why are the interests and values of the recorder of history so important?
>Weber thinks that what peoples, events, or problems we choose to study vary
>from time to time and from place to place, because history is related to our
>values and likes and we study preferentially those bits of history in which
>we find them (Weber, 1949, pp. 156-7, 172). The Annales school of history
>seeks to pour cold water on that notion since it holds that every aspect of
>life of every people is grist to the historian's mill, but not every
>historian is an Annalist yet.
You make it seem that Weber is describing what historians do. The
Annales people are trying to prescribe (or at least suggest) what they
should _try_ to do. They want to direct our attention to features of
history that have been too much ignored. Weber (I'm just taking your
description) might think their cause is hopeless. People won't
direct their attention to these things unless they can first reshape
our interests and values. Possibly, of course, that is what the
Annales school is trying to do.
> One must note that Weber's point applies
>also to the reader of history, who surely selects what he reads according to
>his interests and values. A fact that cannot be ignored by historians who
>want to be read and publishers that want to sell books.
Quite so.
>In sum, the values of both historians and readers influence what is written
>and those values change with time; and we often see historical works where
>the historian takes a leap that may cross great divides of time, space, and
>culture.
I don't quite follow, what's the leap? Do you mean they sometimes confuse
one period with another? That they treat one period as if it didn't
differ from another? Or are you merely saying that they write about
times not their own?
> It follows, I believe, that having in the terms "primary" and
>"secondary" an initial, clear, guiding measure of that leap is of obvious
>practical benefit.
I'll stand by what I said to Inger. The terms don't matter so long as
we know what the sources are, when, from what point of view, and (if
possible) why they were written, and those things make a great difference
to the use we canmake of them.
I will also say one thing about a point you've been hammering on quite
a lot. You produce definitions from one historian or another (never
mind whether your understanding of them is the same as Krossa's or not).
You complain that instead of following these definitions (as you under-
stand them), the others are merely talking about how the terms appear in
bibliographies. You want everyone to follow the definitions. Have I
got that right?
My point about this is that people often understand the meaning and
use of terms and phrases but when asked to define them, they give
definitions which don't fit their own usage. At least since Socrates,
-- or at least since Plato's depiction of Socrates -- this discrepancy
has been noticed. Consider, where do the terms "primary source" and
"secondary source" appear? My impression (I've read some history, but
not enough to generalize with confidence) is that thest terms rarely
appear in history books. They appear in metahistorical discussion
_about_ the writing of history, and they appear in bibliographies.
It's when you start _listing_ sources that you need to classify them
under heads. So, which tells you the meaning? What historians say
when you ask them to define the terms or what historians do when they
actually use the terms?
As I say, you and Inger don't disagree with the others as much as you
seem to think about anyhthing but the terminology.
tiglath
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> wrote in message
news:aegip...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> Tiglath, (tig...@tiglath.net) says...
> >
> >For one who thinks that the question of whether a source is primary or
> >secondary is mostly academic, surely Wisan pays it much attention.
> >
> >I still don't understand how he would deem the question to be
unimportant.
> >Historians certainly don't think so.
>
> In fact, as I use the terms, I think the difference is very important.
> Since we seem to have, around here, differences about what different
> kinds of sources should be _called_
This is not correct. We don't have a nomenclature problem. The problem is
that there are very clear definitions for the terms "primary source" and
"secondary source," but some insist that those definitions mean something
they do not, just because there is a discrepancy between those definitions,
the examples given to make explain their meaning and how some bibliographies
divide sources. This discrepance has been explained away, and all should be
clear except for Krossa and friends who insist on their own home grown
interpretation of those definitions. They are now in retreat and the
future looks grim for them.
> but, so far as I can see, no real
> difference in how people think different kinds of sources should be
> _used_, I find the question of names more confusing than helpful.
Then you are missing half of it. There is someone here who thinks
Machiavelli should be used as a primary source on ancient Rome. In other
words, Niccolo, Krossa tells us, is au fait with the Rape of the Sabines as
if he had been in the gang bang himself.
Times, places, and culture removed from their own: a leap. The bigger the
leap the less contemporaneity (primariness).
>
> > It follows, I believe, that having in the terms "primary" and
> >"secondary" an initial, clear, guiding measure of that leap is of obvious
> >practical benefit.
>
> I'll stand by what I said to Inger. The terms don't matter
Don't matter, but we have to call it something, dont' we? It seems that
historians have chosen the words "primary" and "secondary" which are as good
as any other words. It doesn't matter the words thay have chosen, but ONCE
the words have been chosen they should have a clear meaning and be aplied
consistently, which is the problem here.
>so long as
> we know what the sources are,
We KNOW what the sources are, but that which we know should go by a name, so
that we can refer to that property of a source unambiguously. Terminology
is necessary, clear terminology is desirable.
> I will also say one thing about a point you've been hammering on quite
> a lot. You produce definitions from one historian or another (never
> mind whether your understanding of them is the same as Krossa's or not).
> You complain that instead of following these definitions (as you under-
> stand them), the others are merely talking about how the terms appear in
> bibliographies. You want everyone to follow the definitions. Have I
> got that right?
Wrong. I don't want people to do anything. I want to learn the correct
meaning of historiographical terms, and share this knowledge with others.
There are discrepancies between bibliographies and methodology, which are
accounted for. All's well. But we have a freaky near-historian who tells
us that we got it all wrong, that we can't read, that what Cantor and others
wrote doesn't mean what we think they mean at all, that the definitive
answer is that medieval = primary, etc.. Those people are destined to fall
pray to disappointment and self-doubt. The only question remaining is
whether they will have the integrity to recognize truth when it stares them
in the face. That is the only question remaining.
> My point about this is that people often understand the meaning and
> use of terms and phrases but when asked to define them, they give
> definitions which don't fit their own usage. At least since Socrates,
> -- or at least since Plato's depiction of Socrates -- this discrepancy
> has been noticed. Consider, where do the terms "primary source" and
> "secondary source" appear? My impression (I've read some history, but
> not enough to generalize with confidence) is that thest terms rarely
> appear in history books.
I printed recently the opinion of a professional historian about this, Jane
Burbank, of NYU, do you think that Krossa's contention that because
Burbank's speciality is not medieval history, she can't tell Machiavelli's
Discourses are a primary source, has the ring of plausibility? Ask
yourself, has Krossa provided any evidence that the understanting of sources
is radially different between medieval historians and historians of other
periods? She just said so, based solely on what we find in a few
bibliographies.
> It's when you start _listing_ sources that you need to classify them
> under heads. So, which tells you the meaning? What historians say
> when you ask them to define the terms or what historians do when they
> actually use the terms?
Historians use the terms outside bibliographies in the sense given by the
definitions. A good history professor, as we have seen, would not dream to
tell the student to treat Machiavelli as a primary source on Rome in his
forthcoming paper. That is one use, right? Yet we could see Machiavelli
listed in bibliographies as a primary source. Also, since a book can
contain primary and secondary source material, perhaps it is listed as
primary source if it has any primary material at all. Who knows?
Bibliographies reveal no system but chaos, since they mostly differ in
organization. It is not the place to look for what is a consistent use of
historiographical concepts.
>
> As I say, you and Inger don't disagree with the others as much as you
> seem to think about anyhthing but the terminology.
The same could be said if she says that the earth is square and I say it is
round. It's terminology right? She calls roundness "square" and I call
it "round."
No, sir. Our problem here is not terminology, but semantics.
Inger E
I partly agree, but not completely. Take a look at my answer to the group in
the "Wicca" History discussion. 2002-06-14- 00.08 and 18.45 (our time).
Btw. if we are to use the terminology correctly no Modern work can be said
to be a Secondary source in itself, we can treat it like that but it isn't
from start. All Modern studies, article, book, essay or Diss. are at best
third-hand knowledge, mostly much "lower" down the line from the origin
itself. Thus the most important thing, which many Scholars here in this
group forgets(no matter which subject they have or haven't their degree in)
is to establish the way between the origin and the copy/edition they refer
to, in the matter of A1, B1, D4 and also describe all steps from origin to
the copy where transcribtion and/or translation into Modern
language/spelling could have impact on their analyse of the text.
Inger E
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:aegh7...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Drew Nicholson
...
> Btw. if we are to use the terminology correctly no Modern work can be said
> to be a Secondary source in itself, we can treat it like that but it isn't
> from start. All Modern studies, article, book, essay or Diss. are at best
> third-hand knowledge, mostly much "lower" down the line from the origin
> itself.
Wait. Assuming that your definition is correct (and I'm sure you know what
happens when you assume)...
If I were a historian today, and I studied three eye-witness accounts of
something, wouldn't my paper be a Secondary Source?
Inger E. Johansson
news:Q9XO8.92651$pw3.4557@sccrnsc03
Of course your paper could be used as a Secondary Source, but that's not
the same as giving your study that value. The difference between a
Secondary source and a Primary source is always that a secondary
sources have a person who wasn't there who have made own
chosing(subjective) of what should be told,
AND
that the person haven't witnessed the situation he is writing about
himself.
BUT
Technically speaking a Modern source shouldn't be called a Secondary
source. It should be called a work, a study etc. from Prime or Secondary
sources.
Why?
That's easy and is among the first thing we learn here in Sweden when
studying History Science Methods:
a Modern work is neither contemporary in time - observe contemporary can
only be used for exactly contemporary sources;
nor is it contemporary in place(=location + culture + Age which is close
in time,
AND
a Modern work can't be generally said to live up to following essential
criterias:
* The Historians of today haven't always access to origin source -
origin writing
* Many of the works use translated text instead of origin ones.
Please observe that if you have an origin which has been copied once the
next copy down the line can have, and often have at least one or more
anomalites from the origin text.
When these texts: Origin, resp. A1 and B1 are read by three difference
linguistic scholars who have had access to at least two of the three
versions, you can't be sure that they transcribe the text excatly the
same.
Given this which is a wellknown fact for most of us who works with
Medieval or older texts one way or an other, it's absolutely VITAL
to remember that we can't draw correct conclusions from one or two
edited versions of the text alone!
Inger E
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Dick Wisan
>
>"Drew Nicholson" <DRE...@techsanctuary.org> wrote in message
>news:Q9XO8.92651$pw3.4557@sccrnsc03
>
>> "Inger E" <inger_e....@telia.com> wrote in message
>> news:OjWO8.12347$p56.3...@newsb.telia.net...
>> ...
>> > Btw. if we are to use the terminology correctly no Modern work can be said
>> > to be a Secondary source in itself, we can treat it like that but it isn't
>> > from start. All Modern studies, article, book, essay or Diss. are at best
>> > third-hand knowledge, mostly much "lower" down the line from the origin
>> > itself.
>>
>> Wait. Assuming that your definition is correct (and I'm sure you know what
>> happens when you assume)...
>>
>> If I were a historian today, and I studied three eye-witness accounts of
>> something, wouldn't my paper be a Secondary Source?
>
>Of course your paper could be used as a Secondary Source, but that's not
>the same as giving your study that value.
Here's where our difference is. You think of Primary and Secondary
as grades, like "Prime" and "Lesser". I think of them as descriptions,
like "early manuscript copy", "first published edition", 18th century
forgery" (like _Ossian_).
It's nonesense (in my view) to think of any book as inherently a
primary or a secondary source. Every book is a primary source if you
are writing a biography of its author. It is a primary source for
that purpose because of its own inherent essential being, but that
does not make it a primary source for everything else. Without a
given subject no book is a primary source or even a source at all
(except, perhaps, if well-written it may be a source of pleasure).
Above all, these are not values. Primary sources aren't better than
Secondary sources. They are useful for different purposes.
This is an example of what I object to in the search for definitional
precision. There are indefinitely many ways in which a book may be
more or less reliable for indicating whatever it indicates. It's
absurd to try to make pigeon-holes for every possible type of source
like the people you spoke of a while ago who were trying to work out
sub-grades of primary source. IIRC, it went something like this:
"A" = text in the handwriting of the subject (or a parcipant in
the subject event) on the original piece of paper (or
parchment or stone or whatever).
"B" = copy of an A grade text. Some question about distinguishing
within this for copy direct from the original A text vs a
copy of copy (which must be distinguished for different
numbers of generations. It was said that printed copies
(or editions?) are not differentiated from each other in
grade level. (That's not the case for early editions of
Shakespeare.) Some mention of xerox and microfilm copies,
but I do not recall how they were placed.
"C" = [I don't remember]
Now this kind of thing can be indefinitely extended and subdivided.
For any given text, of course, these (and many other things, like
motives and interest in copyiers or summarizers or reporters and
such). These things must be noticed and taken account of in deciding
what use can be made of a source for your present purpose and how much
it seems safe to rely on what it says. But to try to sort them all
out in advance and grade them...
Inger E
it's you who are talking nonsense!
You write yourself: (from below)
"Every book is a primary source if you are writing a biography of its
author. It is a primary source for that purpose because of its own inherent
essential being, but that does not make it a primary source for everything
else."
THAT my dear Watson is the key:
The fact that you can treat a source as a Prime source for very special
reasons doesn't make it a Prime source only that it in some cases can be
treated as such!!!
DSH, me and other have been trying to tell you this and make you understand
the difference between a Prime source and a source(any source) which in some
special cases is treated as a Prime source, you still don't understand,
comprehend or are you pulling our leg?
Inger E
"Dick Wisan" <wis...@catskill.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:aeiqq...@enews1.newsguy.com...
Dick Wisan
>
>
>Dick,
>it's you who are talking nonsense!
>You write yourself: (from below)
>>
>>"Every book is a primary source if you are writing a biography of its
>>author. It is a primary source for that purpose because of its own
>>inherent essential being, but that does not make it a primary source
>>for everything else."
>
>THAT my dear Watson is the key:
>The fact that you can treat a source as a Prime source for very special
>reasons doesn't make it a Prime source only that it in some cases can be
>treated as such!!!
That comes through to me as utterly unintelligible. What else _could_ make
anything a prime source (whatever you mean by that) BUT the fact that it
can be so used?
If it cannot be treated as such for at least some particular inquiry, it
is not a prime? primary? source at all. I gather you want to say that
the only prime sources are direct, eyewitness accounts by a writer who
was present at the event he/she is writing about. But, in what sense
is it more than something that can be treated as a prime source in
at least some case or other, to wit, the topic of the event it's
first-hand evidence about?
Are you distinguishing "prime source" from "primary source"? Can you
explain what kind of thing could be a "prime source" in and of itself,
apart from it's being suitable to be treated as as first-hand evidence
of what you are inquiring into in some source in some particular
("special case"?) investigation? At least, can you give examples of
(a) real prime sources and (b) things which can be treated as prime
sources in some special case but are not really prime sources?
>DSH, me and other have been trying to tell you this and make you understand
>the difference between a Prime source and a source(any source) which in some
>special cases is treated as a Prime source, you still don't understand,
>comprehend or are you pulling our leg?
No. I have pulled your leg a couple of times, but that's not what I'm
doing here. Insofar as I can get any sort of idea of your "prime source",
(as opposed to "primary source"), I don't see what the point of the
distinction is. As I said, every piece of writing is first-hand evidence
of something. Nothing is first-hand evidence of everything.
Inger E
> Inger E, (inger_e....@telia.com) says...
> >
> >
> >Dick,
> >it's you who are talking nonsense!
>
> >You write yourself: (from below)
> >>
> >>"Every book is a primary source if you are writing a biography of its
> >>author. It is a primary source for that purpose because of its own
> >>inherent essential being, but that does not make it a primary source
> >>for everything else."
> >
> >THAT my dear Watson is the key:
> >The fact that you can treat a source as a Prime source for very special
> >reasons doesn't make it a Prime source only that it in some cases can be
> >treated as such!!!
>
> That comes through to me as utterly unintelligible. What else _could_
make
> anything a prime source (whatever you mean by that) BUT the fact that it
> can be so used?
You have Prime sources = witness account written down by the person/-s
involved or watching a thing that happened. This is the only Prime sources.
The fact that you can use yesterday's papers article about for example
Ireland's history as a Prime source for what we in our days think what
happened in Ireland's history doesn't, as you know, make it a Prime source
for Irish History.(There was on article in one of our newspaper and the
paper didn't use "dictionary"-knowledge infact I do know that the journalist
took his degree in Political Science in the 70's).
AXIOM:
A Primary source is a firsthand witness account.
The fact that other sources due to questions asked to them can be treated as
Primary source from the view of the Writer of the source's Age doesn't make
the source a Primary source of what actually happened in the past when the
eyewitness saw something.
_________
This doesn't mean that a firsthand source is better than a secondary source.
Each source have to be valuated of it's own content and context.
>
> If it cannot be treated as such for at least some particular inquiry, it
> is not a prime? primary? source at all. I gather you want to say that
> the only prime sources are direct, eyewitness accounts by a writer who
> was present at the event he/she is writing about. But, in what sense
> is it more than something that can be treated as a prime source in
> at least some case or other, to wit, the topic of the event it's
> first-hand evidence about?
AXIOM 2
A Primary source, an eyewitness account, is usually written close in time of
the event that took place. The person/-s involved was/were at the exact
place in the time it took place.
But,
a non-contemporary and/or a non-local written source can be treated as
a Prime source under two specific circumstances:
*It's the Historian's opinion (about what happened in an event where
he/she didn't participate; witness him-/herself that the study, essay,
article, Diss., book etc) you want to have,
or
* you are writing a bibliography about books or you are writing a
biography about the Historian and/or the period in which he lives.
In EVERY other respect the source is a Secondary source.
_________
This means that if you are writing a paper etc from the source but
the paper is a bibliography or a biography then you can and shall
treat the source you are working with as if it was a Prime source
due to the fact that it is a Prime source from the point where you
start your analyse,
on the other end that DOESN'T make the source you are using a
Prime source for information about what happened 50, 100 years
or more before the source was written.
This is elementary knowledge.
>
> Are you distinguishing "prime source" from "primary source"? Can you
> explain what kind of thing could be a "prime source" in and of itself,
> apart from it's being suitable to be treated as as first-hand evidence
> of what you are inquiring into in some source in some particular
> ("special case"?) investigation? At least, can you give examples of
> (a) real prime sources and (b) things which can be treated as prime
> sources in some special case but are not really prime sources?
A good example is the Nestor's Chronicle compared with
the Ansgar's Vita. They are two definitely independent sources
(I don't intend to give you all proofs here)
regarding the early History of the Rus: This is the mentioned
Nestor's Chronicle and the Ansgar's Vitan(edited in English as "Life of
Anskar").
the two sources confirms each others story up to 95%. Which is rare btw.
The former was written around 1100 AD(different opinion exist
but no one places it in the 9th Century).
The later Rimbert's writing about Ansgar was written in the 870's AD.
From other contemporary sourceswe know that Rimbert many times followed
Ansgar to Scandinavia and that one contemporary source speaks of a bishop
Rimbert visiting the area we today call the Baltics.
(Probably confirmed in Rimbert chapter 30:417-429)
The Nestor's Chronicle is a written story telling us what the Historian
we call Nestor believed had happened before his days.
We don't know for sure how old Nestor was when he wrote the Chronicle,
this gives us reason to use a large span around his days than usual.
On the other hand we think we know that he in many cases wrote from
sources we don't know about.
The Nestor's Chronicle, as goes for the Ipaty Annals and the Lavrenty Annals
which scholars link together with the Nestor's work,
can be a transcribe good version of the sources Nestor had at hand,
but that we can't be sure about that.
All that said we can use the Nestor's Chronicle as a Prime source regarding
Russian History and it is a Prime source in all cases but the Russian
History
before 1000 AD. In the later case the information given certainly is
Secondary
material and thus from a point where we would like to have more knowledge
about the 9th Century events in today's Russia the Nestor's Chronicle is a
Secondary source and shall be treated methodological as such.
There is no doubt that Rimbert can be treated as a Primary source to events
which happened less than 10-20 years before he wrote his Vita.
In the text you will find that a certain Erimbert(might be and might not be
his
own spelling of his name, that's not essential for the moment) was at place
during part of the event.
In other word for the question "What happened in the early days of the Rus"
we can use Rimbert as a Prime source but the Nestor's Chronicle only as a
Secondary source.
If you as a Scholar had used Rimbert as your Prime source for the early
History of the Rus Empire, your article, book etc could be used as a
Secondary source of what happened 850-868 AD in Russia.
If you on the other hand only used the Nestor's Chronicle your writing would
have been at best third-hand knowledge and more essential than that - a
third hand revised version of the events during 850-860 AD. As such it can
be used by other Scholars who wants to check your analysis of the Nestor's
Chronicle,
or
by Scholars who want to compare their own conclusions drawn from own
analysis with your conclusions,
in either case your work technically will be a source which can't be said to
be Secondary source but a revised work of the events in 850-860 AD.
>
> >DSH, me and other have been trying to tell you this and make you
understand
> >the difference between a Prime source and a source(any source) which in
some
> >special cases is treated as a Prime source, you still don't understand,
> >comprehend or are you pulling our leg?
>
> No. I have pulled your leg a couple of times, but that's not what I'm
> doing here. Insofar as I can get any sort of idea of your "prime source",
> (as opposed to "primary source"), I don't see what the point of the
> distinction is.
Can't see why you don't understand this basic methodologic distinction. It's
needed in all valuation of a source no matter which type of source you are
working with.
Would you please tell me and the others how on earth you can make a
valuation of a source if you can't see the essential differences in the two
cases?
>As I said, every piece of writing is first-hand evidence
> of something.
That doesn't make the writing a Prime source.
>Nothing is first-hand evidence of everything.
Well there you are wrong. First of all take a look at Rimbert above, than
you can read Ammanianus Marcellinus who in many cases can be proven to have
been eyewitness of events he wrote about.
That's only two of many examples.
Inger E
Brian M. Scott
<inger_e....@telia.com> wrote:
[...]
>AXIOM:
>A Primary source is a firsthand witness account.
She doesn't understand 'axiom': this is a definition, not an axiom.
[...]
>AXIOM 2
>A Primary source, an eyewitness account, is usually written close in time of
>the event that took place. The person/-s involved was/were at the exact
>place in the time it took place.
This isn't an axiom either: it's either an empirical observation or a
guess.
[...]
Tiglath
What is the Swedish word for axiom?
Answer: AXIOM.
This is no longer a language difficulty but one of basic education. One
tends to speak foreign languages as well or as badly as one's own.
She should have a date with Peter Nyikos and write something together. Mel
Brooks could use another hit.
"Brian M. Scott" <b.s...@csuohio.edu> wrote in message
news:3d0e30cf....@enews.newsguy.com...
Dick Wisan
>Inger E, (inger_e....@telia.com) says...
>> >reasons doesn't make it a Prime source only that it in some cases can
>> >be treated as such!!!
>>
>> That comes through to me as utterly unintelligible. What else _could_
>> make anything a prime source (whatever you mean by that) BUT the fact
>> that it can be so used?
>
>You have Prime sources = witness account written down by the person/-s
>involved or watching a thing that happened. This is the only Prime
>sources.
>
>The fact that you can use yesterday's papers article about for example
>Ireland's history as a Prime source for what we in our days think what
>happened in Ireland's history doesn't, as you know, make it a Prime
>source for Irish History.(There was on article in one of our newspaper
>and the paper didn't use "dictionary"-knowledge infact I do know that
>the journalist took his degree in Political Science in the 70's).
>
>AXIOM:
>A Primary source is a firsthand witness account. The fact that other
>sources due to questions asked to them can be treated as Primary
>source from the view of the Writer of the source's Age doesn't make
>the source a Primary source of what actually happened in the past when
>the eyewitness saw something.
>_________
>
>
>A Primary source, an eyewitness account, is usually written close in
>time of the event that took place. The person/-s involved was/were at
>the exact place in the time it took place. But, a non-contemporary
>and/or a non-local written source can be treated as a Prime source
>under two specific circumstances:
>
>*It's the Historian's opinion (about what happened in an event where
> he/she didn't participate; witness him-/herself that the study,
> essay, article, Diss., book etc) you want to have,
>or
>* you are writing a bibliography about books or you are writing a
> biography about the Historian and/or the period in which he lives.
>
Ah, thank you Inger. Now, I understand what you are saying, and maybe
I can put my point more clearly. The first thing I want to say is
that, along with pretty much everyone else here, I understand and have
understood all along the methodological distinctions you make here
between "prime" and "secondary" sources as well as the kind of
distinctions you make between various kinds of prime source. I can
also see why a person who wants terminology to express every distinc-
tion would have to add more and more categories.
The second thing I want to say is that I think you have two quite
different senses of "prime" which you are treating as a single sense.
This shows when you say things like "that you can use a source as a
Prime source... does not make it a primary source." The difference is
the between the sense in which a given text either IS or IS NOT a
Prime source once and for all, and the sense in which you speak of
treating a text as a Prime source.
I mean this posting to be a reply to Tiglath's last reply to me. I
post it this way because it's Inger's piece really made it clear to
me. In the terms that Tiglath used, the first of these two senses is a
piece of semantics, but the second is a piece of pragmatics. To
explain briefly, "Syntactics" concerns the relation of words to other
words; eg, the rules for constructing sentences. "Semantics" con-
cerns the relation between words and the things they denote, and
"Pragmatics" concerns the relation between words and the people who
use them. Usually, it's easier to deal with pragmatics by thinking
about sentences rather than single words.
Tiglath is quite right to say the dispute here has been put in seman-
tic terms, though I don't see why he thinks that makes it not a
question of terminology. The trouble is, to stick to the semantic
point of view, is to presume that if a term has meaning, it must
denote something. Explaining the meaning, then, is identifying those
things by giving criteria which distinguish the things it denotes from
the things it doesn't denote, and that is what most people try to do
if you ask them what a term (phrase, sentence) means. It works on
some terms but not on all. When the OED defines "Good" as "the most
general term of commendation", it is not giving necessary and suffi-
cient conditions for applying the term. It's pointing to what people
use it for, which is a matter of pragmatics.
Now, I've been trying to insert a little pragmatics into the discus-
sion here, by talking about who uses the term for what? Where is the
term used? It's not all that common. In most (secondary!) history
books it never appears except in the bibliography. It's also used in
giving instructions to students, and sometimes in criticizing their or
anybody's work. The _point_ of calling a source "primary" is to
indicate what one used (or might legitimately use) as evidence.
OK, what's evidence? It's easier to see if you start with
archaeology. We have some potsherds with patterns on them. We have a
sunken ship, we excavated and have found the ruins of a wall, we find
gravestones with things written on them... we find a letter that says
"Dear Brutus, Caesar is a fink, [signed] Cassius". Now all these
things are absolutely bottom line, first rate --dare I say "prime"--
evidence. Because these things _exist_, inferences may reasonably be
drawn about events and the state of things at certain times. It's
more complicated when the artifact is a document, because it's first-
class evidence that someone wrote this, but it's not first-class
evidence that what it says it is true (for all Cassius said, Caesar
may not have been a fink). Now, absent a note from Cassius, we rely
on a passage in someone's commonplace book, "I hear that Cassius
considers Caesar a fink and told Brutus so." Or, perhaps the earli-
est mention we can find is in a 2nd Century historian that "Brutus
killed Caesar because Cassius convinced him that Caesar was a fink."
Not first-hand, not the best we'd like to have, but it _is_ evidence.
Its strength is precisely the probabliity that the passage might
exist even if Cassius had done no such thing. That's what primary
sources do. They are evidence in this sense --sometimes strong,
sometimes weak.
In more or less recent history, good evidence is so abundant that one
would hardly notice the evidential value of hearsay reports. One
would therefore limit the "Primary Sources" section of the biblio-
graphy to first-hand reports, official documents, and the like. In
ancient and mediaeval history one can't be so picky. Pretty much
anything you'd cite from a source anywhere vaguely near it in time and
place would be something you relied on as evidence (not necessarily as
strong evidence). Similarly, that's what you'd have in mind if you
criticize a paper as lacking references to primary material. I think
this corresponds to and explains what Krossa has pointed out about
"primary" sources as used by mediaeval historians. Notice that what
I've been saying here belongs to pragmatics.
What you, Inger, have been talking of is another matter. Your
distinctions are relevant in assessing the strength of evidence. Not
perfectly, though, because what you call a secondary source might in
fact be stronger than a primary one. --A critical summary by someone
not present at the battle might be much more accurate than any single
report by a soldier, who must necessarily be seeing it through the fog
of battle. But that's the kind of thing you and the professors who
have been teaching you are trying to systematize. It's important to
make these distinctions, and everybody does. The difference is that
(I gather) most British and American scholars don't care that much
about terminology for making a formal classification. I just wish
that the words "prime" and "primary" hadn't been brought into it.
It's important to keep clear the distinction between semantics and
pragmatics, and to keep in mind that necessary-and-sufficient condi-
tion definitions can go only so far. I think that's why Tiglath made
his blunder about Krossa on Machiavelli. She said, and he quoted it
against her,
" *If* (and it is an _immense_ if) any scholar chose to use
Machiavelli's _Discourses_ as a source for researching ancient
Rome, they would classify it as a primary source and use it as
evidence."
--S.L. Krossa - June 10, 2002
to which he replied
Only a lunatic would call Machiavelli's Discourses a primary
source for ancient Rome.
What's gone wrong here is not that he's missing the fact that this is
a conditional statement, he doesn't see what she's doing, because he's
stuck at the semantic level. So, he takes it that if she says "if a
scholar did A then he would call it B" she must mean that it would be
correct to call it B, and A doesn't meet his necessary and sufficient
conditions for being a B. One would indeed be a fool to use Machia-
velli this way, but if that's what he thought, then he would indeed
call it "primary". Otherwise, why use it? I expect Krossa was not
thinking in terms of the "semantic" vs "pragmatic" aspects of language,
but she was talking pragmatics, and Tiglath responded as though she
_must_ be doing semantics.
Now is it clear why I say that you have been using "prime" in two
senses? Have I explained what's going on when you say "that you can
use a source as a Prime source... does not make it a primary source"?