User:Ifly6/Primary sources in classics

Primary sources in classical studies include all the literary, inscriptional, and archaeological evidence from the ancient world. Ancient literary sources such as Livy's History of Rome and Plutarch's Parallel Lives, even though they relied on even older literary sources, are considered primary sources for the purposes of classical studies.

Do not write articles based mainly on information you found in ancient 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 modern and reliable sources on which articles should be based.

Ancient primary sources should always be cited alongside a reliable secondary source; in general, do not add citations or statements based on them without a reliable secondary source establishing their relevance and veracity. Editors should be aware that some secondary sources are not necessarily reliable or reflective of modern scholarly views. Many reliable sources on ancient history are available to editors via WP:LIBRARY.

What are primary sources?

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 June 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 June 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.

That ancient literary sources are called primary sources 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 literary 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.

What is the big deal with ancient primary sources?

See also: WP:WPNOTRS

Editors' duties are to reflect the consensus of high quality reliable sources (WP:HQRS). Modern scholars routinely question claims in ancient literary sources. 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 those sources which are now dismissed, but also a dereliction of editors' duties to write articles which use the best academic sources for the topic.

Editors, however, are largely laypersons – even credentialled they cannot rely on those credentials – and laypeople do not know how to assess the reliability of claims in ancient primary sources. This is because—

1. ancient primary sources are foremost literary and
2. ancient primary sources can be just wrong.

A blind paraphrase of ancient primary sources has the first issue of not being consistent with editors' duties to follow the academic consensus. The reason why editors should defer to the academic consensus is because the ancient primary sources are not reliable; but, even if editors personally believe the academic consensus is wrong, Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not give them leave to deviate from that consensus.

Ancient primary sources are, foremost, literary

The ancient primary sources were largely not written with the same kind of intent that modern histories have. Modern histories are intended to convey, as much as possible, an objective view of the past, without fictional elements or embellishments. In the ancient world, however, "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".

Numbers in many ancient sources are impressionistic, attempting to convey scale ("a lot" and "really, I mean seriously, a lot") or time ("a really long time"). Most speeches were invented to fit what an ancient historian believed should have been said rather than what was actually said, which is and was unknown. With small details especially, when authors simply lacked any material, they invented details by analogy to contemporary events or simply followed literary conventions of how, say, a battle "should" be written up.

Some sources, especially Plutarch, were written with the objective of telling moralising tales. In service of authors' narratives, facts can be distorted, contradictions ignored, or alternate versions suppressed. Moreover, many ancient authors did not always have an excellent understanding of political institutions, cultures, etc. centuries removed from them — especially when many of them refused to do real primary source research (eg archival work) and instead relied other historians' works.

These literary features are very difficult for lay editors to identify and filter out, especially since they can be spotted only with a deep knowledge of the ancient sources' approaches, literary conventions, and biases. Ancient primary sources cannot, therefore, be presumed to be the reliable sources which Wikipedia guidelines require for verification; ergo, such material cannot alone be suitable for inclusion in the encyclopaedia.

Ancient primary sources are wrong a lot

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

Archaeology "wins"

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

“ It has long been almost entirely settled [among ancient historians] that in a "fight" between archaeological evidence and effectively any other kind, the archaeological evidence "wins"... That is, it is possible for archaeological evidence, like say, the distribution of trade goods, to falsify a textual report, but generally not the other way around. If your textual source says that no one buys imported Gaulish wines, but you in fact find lots of wine amphorae from Gaul, your textual source is wrong and the amphorae are right. ”

Ancient authors 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 a fall in the Roman population during the 130s BC; they relied on characterisations which were probably created by Tiberius and Gaius Gracchus, who in turn were relying on unreliable Roman censuses. Modern archaeological evidence has shown that such a fall is inconsistent with survey data: 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. 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 – including Roman censuses – to tell us about the population of Italy leads to incorrect conclusions about second-century Rome's demographics, and misleads us as to why politicians acted as they did.

Fictitious events

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 ancient primary sources describe a "First Catilinarian conspiracy". This conspiracy is almost universally agreed 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 mostly reflect invective against Catiline after the real conspiracy in 63 BC. (And the insinuations that Caesar was involved in the "first" conspiracy likely date to 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.

The ancient 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. People live near the harbour of New Carthage (now Cartagena), a place in which very minimal tides are observed; the hydrology of this part of the Mediterranean simply has not substantially changed. 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.

Ancient primary sources are routinely inconsistent

The ancient 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Ancient sources disagree as to 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.

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. Nor are they equipped to credibly evaluate which version in which source is most likely to be the truth. Doing such work would itself be original research regardless (WP:OR).

How should ancient primary sources be used?

The Wikipedia Library owl is here to help. Allusions to Athena included.

The kinds of problems discussed above make it very difficult to use ancient 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). Further specialised knowledge is needed to be able to draw reliable conclusions from these unreliable ancient sources.

Where does that leave us? The ancient primary sources are largely available for free online (if in century-old translation). The modern literature is, on first glance, largely locked behind paywalls. How can an editor write an article if the ancient primary sources cannot be used and the reliable sources are unavailable?

Accessing modern scholarship is not a problem unique to classical studies. Due to the Wikipedia Library we are fortunate enough to have a substantial amount of classical scholarship freely available to us. It is not all-inclusive but many times yields more than enough enough reliable material to write with. The classical studies WikiProject also maintains a guide on reference sources which are well-regarded and generally reliable. These are many times available online or at local libraries via interlibrary loan.

Instead of turning to ancient 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 old 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, can also have substantial issues with book peer review and editorial oversight. Many books in classics are reviewed by third parties in publicly available publications such as the Bryn Mawr Classical Review. These reviews can be extremely useful in assessing secondary source reliability.

Regardless, it is permissible to cite ancient primary sources for direct claims as to what is in them. For example, citing the letters of Cicero to support the claim that Cicero expressed displeasure at the election of Gaius Caninius Rebilus as suffect consul for the last day of 45 BC is acceptable. But, with some exceptions, ancient primary sources should be cited alongside a secondary source that cites that primary source and guides the interpretation thereof. This ask is not at all impossible.

Secondary sources mirroring primary ones

See also: Wikipedia:Fruit of the poisonous tree and WP:AGEMATTERS

Editors should be aware that issues with ancient primary sources can taint some modern sources as well. There are two main issues to watch out for. First, some secondary sources, especially those not written by experts in the subject, are little more than paraphrases of one or more ancient primary sources. Such sources are just the ancient primary sources with a modern coat; they are the so-called fruit of the poisonous tree.

Second, scholars' views of the reliability of ancient primary sources has changed over time. Secondary sources written in previous centuries many times do not reflect contemporary scholars' distrust of those sources. For example, the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (published in the 1840s) reports the first Catilinarian conspiracy as complete fact.

Editors should be wary of books which do not engage substantially with the modern classics literature, both in footnotes and in prose. This can be due to authorial oversight or inability (publication age or otherwise). Scholarly works from well-regarded publishing houses largely avoid such problems; many are easily accessible through Wikipedia Library.

See also

• WP:CGR/Guides/Primary sources for information on citation of ancient sources
• Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources
• {{primary sources}}, a template to tag overuse or reliance on primary sources

Bibliography

• Cornell, Tim (1995). The beginnings of Rome. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-01596-0. OCLC 31515793.
• de Ligt, Luuk (2006). "The economy: agrarian change during the second century". In Rosenstein, NS; Morstein-Marx, R (eds.). A companion to the Roman Republic. Blackwell. pp. 590–605. ISBN 978-1-4051-7203-5. OCLC 86070041.
• Drogula, Fred K (2019). Cato the Younger: life and death at the end of the Roman republic. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0190869021. OCLC 1090168108.
• Golden, Gregory K (2013). Crisis management during the Roman republic. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-107-05590-2. OCLC 842919750.
• Gruen, Erich S (1969). "Notes on the "First Catilinarian Conspiracy"". Classical Philology. 64 (1): 20–24. doi:10.1086/365439. ISSN 0009-837X. JSTOR 268006. S2CID 162267188.
• Gruen, Erich (1995). The last generation of the Roman republic. Berkeley: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-02238-6.
• Mellor, Ronald (2002). The Roman historians. Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203047262. ISBN 978-1-134-81652-1.
• Morstein-Marx, Robert (2021). Julius Caesar and the Roman People. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108943260. ISBN 978-1108943260. S2CID 242729962.
• Nicolet, C (1994). "Economy and society, 133–43 BC". In Crook, John; et al. (eds.). The last age of the Roman Republic, 146–43 BC. Cambridge Ancient History. Vol. 9 (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 599–643. ISBN 0-521-85073-8. OCLC 121060. Archived from the original on 22 February 2024. Retrieved 13 June 2024.
• Pelling, C B R (1980). "Plutarch's adaptation of his source-material". Journal of Hellenic Studies. 100: 127–140. doi:10.2307/630736. ISSN 0075-4269. JSTOR 630736.
• Phillips, E J (1976). "Catiline's Conspiracy". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 25 (4): 441–448. ISSN 0018-2311. JSTOR 4435521.
• Potter, David (2014). "The Roman army and navy". In Flower, Harriet (ed.). The Cambridge companion to the Roman republic (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 54–77. ISBN 978-1-107-66942-0.
• Richardson, J H (2018). "P Cornelius Scipio and the capture of New Carthage: the tide, the wind, and other fantasies". Classical Quarterly. 68 (2): 458–74. doi:10.1017/S0009838818000368. ISSN 0009-8388.
• Roselaar, Saskia T (2010). Public land in the Roman Republic : a social and economic history of ager publicus in Italy, 396-89 BC. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-957723-1. OCLC 520714519.
• Rosenstein, Nathan (2004). Rome at war: farms, families, and death in the middle republic. University of North Carolina Press. ISBN 978-0-8078-6410-4.
• Seager, Robin (1964). "The First Catilinarian Conspiracy". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. 13 (3): 338–347. ISSN 0018-2311. JSTOR 4434844.
• Tempest, Kathryn (2017). Brutus: the noble conspirator. London: Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-18009-1.
• Trafford, Simon (2017). "The benefits of the International Baccalaureate Diploma for Latin and Classics in the sixth form". Journal of Classics Teaching. 18 (35): 65–67. doi:10.1017/S2058631017000095. ISSN 2058-6310.