User:Ifly6/Primary sources in classics

Primary sources in classical studies include all the literary, inscriptional, and archaeological evidence from the ancient world. Livy's History of Rome and Plutarch's Parallel Lives which themselves relied on previous closer-in-time sources are considered primary sources for the purposes of classical studies.

Do not write articles based mainly on information you found in primary sources. (Eg writing an article on the history of early Rome by citing Livy's first pentad over and over again.) This violates two Wikipedia guidelines: WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. There are many easily available substitutes that offer more reliable information from which it is preferable to write your article.

Problems
Ancient sources were not written with the eye of presenting at all times an objective account of events and their aetiologies. Rather, "history was a branch of literature and the historian was above all a literary artist... the literary recreation of the past found in a Roman historian like Livy might seem to a modern reader to be akin to a historical novel". Some sources, especially Plutarch, were written with the objective of telling moralising tales and are themselves internally inconsistent. Different primary sources details can also be inconsistent. Moreover, the understanding that many ancient authors had over political institutions, cultures, etc that were for them centuries removed – especially when many of them refused to do real primary source research (eg archival work) and instead relied other historians' works – is not always excellent.

Modern scholars routinely read the primary sources critically. Failing to present a neutral summary of the current state of the field is a disservice both to the encyclopaedia's readers who may then be mislead by claims in primary sources which are now dismissed, but also a dereliction of editors' duties to write articles which use the best academic sources for the topic.

Some egregious errors
The primary sources describe a "First Catilinarian conspiracy". This conspiracy is now generally agreed by scholars to be fictitious. In general, these stories – Cic. Sull. 10ff, 51, Mur. 81, Cat. 1.15; Sall. Cat. 18.7; Livy Per. 101.3; Suet. Iul. 9.1; Dio 36.44.3ff – are internally contradictory and reflective more of invective against Catiline after the real conspiracy in 63 BC and against Caesar after his polarising first consulship in 59 BC. The various plots described in the sources could never have been successful; many of the people allegedly involved would never have participated. Presenting the primary sources here as true would immediately fail CHOPSY while also making Wikipedia look more than sixty years out of date.

Appian and Plutarch describe, themselves relying on characterisations created probably by Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus and reliant on unreliable Roman censuses, a fall in the Roman population during the 130s BC. Modern archaeological evidence has shown that such a fall is inconsistent with survey data and that the peninsular population could not have fallen in such a way. Many modern methods are more reliable than their ancient counterparts: especially with the greater understanding that we have today of agrarian population dynamics. Rather, "impressive methodological advances that have been achieved in survey archaeology have ... done much to undermine the credibility of earlier claims concerning the spread of slave-staffed estates and the survival or otherwise of subsistence-oriented smallholders". Relying on ancient primary sources to tell us about the population of Italy leads to incorrect conclusions about second century Rome's demographics and misleads as to why politicians acted as they did.

The sources tell us of utter fantasies – Polyb. 10.14.2; Livy 26.24.8, 26.45.7–8 – such as the draining of a whole lagoon by action of wind and tide at the Battle of New Carthage which defy known physical properties of the Mediterranean. People live near the harbour of New Carthage (now Cartagena), a place in which very minimal tides are observed. Nor is Livy's "the wind did it" compatible with the geography of the region and the stories of a huge amount of water being displaced (App. Hisp. 21 says the water fell multiple feet) in a short time that to the soldiers seemed a miracle of Poseidon and their divinely favoured general Scipio. (So too is it with Livy 5.14–22 discussing the fall of Veii c. 395 BC after a supernatural rise in the Alban Lake portending the city's doom followed by the Romans extirpating the prodigy by building drainage tunnels which allowed them to evocate the Veiian patron deity Juno Regina to the Aventine hill in Rome.) Going with ancient "trust me bro" regarding the exploits of a general who developed for himself a mystique of near-divinity or a bizarre religious story is foolish and non-credible.

Secondary sources that mirror primary ones
Some secondary sources, especially those not written by experts in the subject, are little more than translations or mirrors of one or more primary sources. The dubiousness with which scholars have viewed the ancient sources has also changed over time. Secondary sources written in previous centuries many times do not reflect modern scholars' distrust of those sources. For example, the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (mid 19th century) reports the first Catilinarian conspiracy as complete fact.

One should be wary of books which do not engage substantially with the modern classics literature, both in footnotes and in prose, just as much of books that engage too heavily with the primary sources by citing them uncritically. Scholarly works from well-regarded publishing houses largely avoid such problems; many are easily accessible through Wikipedia Library.

Best practices
Due to the Wikipedia Library we are fortunate enough to have a substantial amount of classical scholarship freely available to us. This is not all-inclusive but many times more than sufficient to write an article around. The classical studies WikiProject also maintains a guide of reference sources which are well-regarded and generally reliable. Instead of turning to primary sources directly, research might instead start with:


 * 1) Oxford Bibliographies (available via Wikipedia Library);
 * 2) Oxford Classical Dictionary (updated online version available via Wikipedia Library);
 * 3) Cambridge Ancient History (do not use the first edition; the second edition is available via Wikipedia Library);
 * 4) New Pauly; and then, failing that, the Realencyclopädie (via Wikisource).

Classical studies also tends, much more than the sciences and economics, to publish material in books rather than journals. Such books are published by a plethora of publishers, predominantly university presses. Some publishers, such as most mass-market publishers and Pen & Sword, are not presumptively reliable: the quality of a book there published is determined mainly by the conscientiousness and competence of the author. Other publishers, such as Cambridge Scholars Publishing, are vanity academic presses. Many books in classics are reviewed by third parties in publications such as the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. These reviews can be extremely useful in assessing the reliability of secondary sources.

It is permissible to cite primary sources for direct claims. For example, citing the letters of Cicero to support the claim that Cicero was displeased by the election of Gaius Caninius Rebilus as suffect consul for the single last day of 45 BC is acceptable. But, with some exceptions, primary sources should be cited alongside a secondary source that cites that primary source and guides the interpretation thereof.