Re: [sig] Re: belated intro
- Just a quibble, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but personal correspondence being primary or secondary would depend if the person had viewed/ experienced the event being researched. If they saw it, or were working with people who saw it, primary. If you were checking on how the event was viewed by people of a subsequent time period, it would be primary, but secondary for the event itself. (Think historiography and the secondary nature of textbooks)
A bit confusing, but information of any form from an eyewitness will give some insight into what really happened (from their point of view) Using "possible prejudice" as a criteria would/ could negate any evidence, as it makes the individual reading a source the sole arbiter. (A historian with a marxist point of view could completely ignore all official Imperial court records due to the records bias against the people-just as an example, no disrespect intended).
And just to roil the waters further, there is a grey area for translations, as each translator would, by the nature of the work, add a level of nuance that another translator may or may not agree with. (classic example: the Bible, or an English version of the Koran)
As for my last penny, this is not a difficult criteria, it is the only criteria. An evolving, grey area-ed(?) morass. But if you want to talk like a historian, or provide good documentation for an A & S project, or avoid the "what do you know" snub that some find so popular, stick by the system. I too, have been through the grinder, hopefully you can avoid it. Good luck. Sergius
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]