User:Ifly6/Primary sources in classics

This is an essay on article content. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how the content policies may be interpreted within their area of interest. This information is not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Shortcut WP:CLASSPRIM

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, even though they 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.

All literary, epigraphic, and archaeological evidence from the ancient world are primary sources for the purposes of classical studies.:

• It is important for students to tackle the difference between primary and secondary sources... I always know I have cracked it when one of my students asks me if Plutarch counts as a primary source for Julius Caesar. I reply that for the purposes of the task he does because he is an ancient writer. Trafford 2017, pp. 66–67
• Primary sources in Classics are the literary works (poems, plays, and histories, for example), and artifacts (pottery, coins and sculptures, for example) and other materials from the ancient world. McLean, Valla. "Subject Guides / Classics / Primary Sources". MacEwan University Library.
• Primary sources for classics are the documents and artifacts from the ancient Mediterranean world. "A Classics Research Guide". Robert W Woodruff Library. Emory University. 5 Jun 2024.
• In classical studies, a primary source is an original work while secondary source is an analysis, contextualization, critique, or reflection on that work. "Research Guides / Classical Studies / Primary Source Collections". Loyola University Chicago Library. 3 Jun 2024.
• In the classical context, primary source material refers to any material from the ancient world itself, including ancient texts, inscriptions, coins, archaeological materials, and so forth. "Libraries / LibGuides / Arts and Humanities / Classical Studies / Primary Sources". University of Manitoba Library.
• Primary evidence - often referred to as primary sources, these are written sources or artefacts created by those who lived in the classical world, including ancient texts and classical literature in the original language or in translation, art, architecture and sculpture. "LibGuides / Classics / Key resources". University of Reading Library.

This is somewhat unlike the common definition that a primary source is something written by someone "who was there" or was the first record of some event. It is very often the case, given the paucity of literary survivals from the ancient world, that the "first" record of some event has been lost. They are called primary sources because they are the primary sources for us.

Even if two ancient sources both cover the same event and one source is far later – eg an event covered in both Caesar's commentaries and Plutarch's biography of Caesar – both are still considered primary sources.^[1]

The main issue with primary sources is that laypeople do not know how to assess the reliability of primary source claims. This comes in two general flavours.

1. Primary sources can be just wrong.
2. Primary sources emphasise certain aspects which are now no longer believed to be true.

The question of whether a claim in a primary source is also "true" is irrelevant on Wikipedia. The only thing that matters is whether high quality reliable sources (WP:HQRS) believe that claim to be true. Modern scholars routinely question primary source claims. Not presenting 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.^[a]

There are a tremendous number of cases where primary sources are doubted by modern classical scholars. I will touch on four cases which I think are illustrative.

This heading is a paraphrase of this quote from Bret Devereaux's ACOUP:

Primary sources obviously did not have access to modern archaeological evidence. Nor did they have access to what we today would call reliable figures as to demographics or economic output. This is clearest in the Gracchan episode.

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.^[3][4] Modern archaeological evidence has shown that such a fall is inconsistent with survey data and that the Italian population did not fall. Many modern methods are more reliable than their ancient counterparts: especially with the greater understanding that we have today of agrarian population dynamics.^[5] 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".^[6] Relying on ancient primary sources – including Roman censuses – 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.^[7]

Just because an ancient source wrote it does not mean it happened or even that it happened in anything approaching that way. Cf this meme.^[Humor]

The primary sources describe a "First Catilinarian conspiracy". This conspiracy is almost universally agreed to be fictitious.^{[8][9][10][11][12]} 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.^[13] The various plots described in the sources could never have been successful; many of the people allegedly involved would never have participated.^[14] Presenting the primary sources here as true would immediately fail CHOPSY while also making Wikipedia look more than sixty years out of date.

The primary sources also 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.^[15] People live near the harbour of New Carthage (now Cartagena), a place in which very minimal tides are observed; the typology of this part of the Mediterranean simply has not substantially changed.^[16] 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.^[17] (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.^[18]) 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.^[19]

The primary sources routinely disagree among each other and with known legal or constitutional realities. Laypeople are not equipped to reconcile these differences and "pick" the most plausible version. Doing so would be original research. Editors must defer to WP:HQRS. Some examples of these inconsistencies follow.

• Polyb., 3.116 asserts that at the Battle of Cannae "all [were] killed ... among them Marcus Atilius and Gnaeus Servilius, the consuls of the previous year". This is superficially plausible; many people died at Cannae. Just... Livy (24.11.6) reports Marcus Atilius was elected censor in 214 BC. Scholars all agree it is the same man. Polybius is wrong.^[20]
• Flor. 2.5–7 claims that Pompey was with Quintus Lutatius Catulus fighting against Marcus Aemilius Lepidus at a battle over the Milvian Bridge in 78 BC. He is contradicted by Plut. Pomp. 16 and App. BCiv. 1.107.503–4. Florus is wrong; it is well known that Pompey was during the battle treacherously killing Marcus Junius Brutus.^[21]
• Plut. Caes. 14.13–15 says the rest [of the senate], in displeasure, stayed away and that Caesar was intimidating the senators with an armed bodyguard. This is nonsense. There are numerous senate meetings reported that year. Cic. Att. 2.24 describes a rather ordinary senate meeting held to investigate the Vettius affair which resulted in no histrionic attempts to frame Bibulus with involvement; Suet. Iul. 22.1 shows that well-attended meetings still occurred where senators insulted Caesar to his face.^[22]
• The following sources place the formation of the First Triumvirate to before the elections of 60 BC: Livy, Per. 103; Plut. Crass. 14.1–3; Caes. 13.1–2; Pomp. 47.1–3; Cat. min. 31.2–5. These sources, however, place it to after those elections: Dio, 37.54.3–37.56.1; App. BCiv. 2.9; Suet. Iul. 19; Vell. Pat. 2.44.1; Flor. 2.13.11. Most scholars now place the First Triumvirate's formation to after the election.^[23]
• Ancient sources disagree as when Marcus Junius Brutus was born. Cic. Brut. 324 says he was born ten years after Hortensius' debut, which was in 95 BC, placing Brutus' birth in 85 with an age at death of 42. Vell. Pat. 2.7.1 says he was 36 when he died (37th year). Livy, Per. 124 says he was about forty. Scholars think that Vell. Pat. or Cic. might be incorrectly transmitted and have proposed various emendations. Velleius' date would have made Brutus too young to have held magistracies he is known to have held. The "accepted" date is 85 BC.^[24]

Editors do not know all the sources. Editors are also not equipped to peer review each others' work to ensure these kinds of errors do not crop up. Doing such work would itself be original research regardless (WP:OR). Moreover, the possibility of these kinds of issues make it very difficult to use primary sources to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source without further, specialised knowledge (WP:PRIMARY). Specialised knowledge is needed to verify these sorts of factual statements; a primary source alone is not sufficient.

Ancient sources were not written with the eye of presenting objective accounts events and why they happened. 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".^[25] 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^[26] – is not always excellent.^[27]

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,^[b] primary sources should be cited alongside a secondary source that cites that primary source and guides the interpretation thereof.

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.

• WP:CGR/Guides/Primary sources for information on citation