[Sca-cooks] QUESTION ABOUT PRIMARY SOURCES

[Huette von Ahrens]

--- "Pixel, Goddess and Queen"
<pixel at hundred-acre-wood.com> wrote:
> Not exactly. As I understand it (and Bear will
> probably correct me on it
> and come up with a better explanation ;-)), a
> primary source is original
> material, a secondary source is something that
> refers to the primary
> source, and a tertiary source refers to the
> secondary source. For research
> purposes, facsimiles and photo reproductions are
> sometimes considered
> primary sources. Any time you have a source filtered
> through someone's
> interpretation, it gets pushed back a level.
>
> Thus, the actual wall painting of a Wheel of Fortune
> in Rochester
> Cathedral, and our slides thereof, are primary
> sources, while a drawn copy
> would be a secondary source.

By what you have said above, you have this wrong.  The
painting is "someone's interpretation" of the
original, so that makes it a "secondary source" and
your slide is a tertiary source, as colors could be
changed and the angle it was taken at could distort
the painting.
>
> An original manuscript is a primary source. A
> transcription of that
> manuscript is a secondary source. A translation of
> that transcription is a
> tertiary source. Or so I understand it.

Unless the translation was taken from the original,
then that makes it a secondary source.

But I am playing the devil's advocate and taking an
extremely narrow view of this.

My real opinion is that in the absence of real items
such as the actual garb or the actual object, then
paintings from the era are as primary a source as we
have.  But the reality is that they are
interpretations and are imperfect.

My real opinion on manuscripts is that the originals
and their transliterations and translations are
primary sources.  Books that interpret these
manuscripts, even the best ones, such as "Pleyn
Delit", are secondary sources.  Books that make
reference to other people's interpretations are
tertiary sources.

The reason that I say this is the same reason that you
think that photos of paintings are primary.  The
translators and transliterators aren't trying to
impose their own meaning on the work but are trying to
mirror what the author originally said as closely as
can be done.  Just as photos aren't as precise as we
would like them to be, neither are translators and
transliterators.  But sometimes they are all we have
to work with.

I am sure there are many who don't agree with me.  But
that is the way the world works isn't it?

Huette



=====
Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they
shall never cease to be amused.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com