[Sca-cooks] QUESTION ABOUT PRIMARY SOURCES

[A F Murphy]

It gets even more complicated.

The painting is a primary source if you are studying the painting. The
cited painting is primary in a study or collection of wall paintings, or
paintings of Rochester Cathedral, or paintings in that school, or whatever.

It is secondary if you are studying something in the painting, such as
the Wheel of Fortune mentioned, or clothing, or what a loom looked like,
or... I was recently looking at a painting of a loom by someone who
clearly didn't really know how they work, and had a few pieces
levitating... the painting is not always as reliable as we would like.
(I also have a painting of a ship, by one of my uncles, a pretty good
painter. Family story is that his brother, the naval architect, came to
visit, glanced at it, and split his sides laughing!)

A slide is, as you say,  properly once removed. Light and film can
affect color, for example, the chosen focus may unintentionally blur
detail down in the corner, differences can creep in.

Your herald's report is a primary source of a herald's report, if it was
actually written in 1715, but you are right, it is a secondary source,
at best, of Arthur's death. However, if it was the finally printed copy
of the original report, then it might be primary. You'd want to document
that, though, find out who wrote it, when, where it had been in the
intervening years. If it was written in 1715, you'd want to know the
source. It might be a secondary source, and then it might be... tertiary
to the?

And yes, this is all quite frustrating...

Anne



Huette von Ahrens wrote:

>>
>>
>>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.
>
>
>Huette
>
>
>
>