Because my history class is a history class and not one on historiography or the philosophy history, the other responsibility that I have to my class is to introduce them to the process of researching and writing history.
Any such discussion of history requires students to revisit the distinction between primary and secondary sources.
I’ve done this kind of topic in the past and overall it seems to go well. Students often begin the class thinking that they know everything there is to the distinction between primary and secondary sources. However, they often need help, especially with the idea that whether something is a primary or secondary source will depend on what questions the historian is asking rather than being something inherent to the subject.
I therefore find it helpful to always review how a book that we’re reading in class, so for example John Arnold’s History: A Very Short Introduction, can in fact be a primary source if our research question is something like “how do 21st century historians represent their professions to a general audience?”
Going over this distinction is also essential because the texts within Greek history frequently have a complicated relationship to the past. I also always make it a point to review the issue of translation with my students, as often they are not used to considering the issues of reading and relying upon translated texts.
For example, Thucydides’ history has a very complicated relationship to the past. On the one hand, this is an odd assertion, since Thucydides was unusual among ancient historians for his honesty about the method about which he used to compose his History of the Peloponnesian War
What particular people said in their speeches, either just before or during the war, was hard to recall exactly, whether they were speeches I heard myself or those that were reported to me at second hand. I have made each speaker say what I thought the situation demanded, keeping as near as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.
And as for the real action of the war, I did not think it was right to set down either what I heard from people I happened to meet or what I merely believed to be true. Even for events at which I was present myself, I tracked down detailed information from other sources as far as I could. It was hard to work to find out what happened, because those who were present at each event gave different reports, depending on which side they favored and how well they remembered.
Thucydides, 1.22., trans. Paul Woodruff
However, these remarks don’t really get at the half of it. For Thucydides spent much of the Peloponnesian War in exile from Athens, punishment for having lost an important battle in Amphipolis in 424 BCE. As a result, Thucydides had to rely on his connections and any documents they might bring him while he was in exile composing his history. I emphasize documents because writers like Jeffrey Rusten have noticed intriguing similarities between certain passages of Thucydides and Aristophanes’ plays. While there are many possible explanations for such overlap, an important one for historians to consider is that Thucydides was reading Aristophanes for news as to how Athenians were reacting to the unfolding of the war.
Now, I doubt that I’ll bring up such a detailed point for undergrads.
Any such discussion of history requires students to revisit the distinction between primary and secondary sources.
I’ve done this kind of topic in the past and overall it seems to go well. Students often begin the class thinking that they know everything there is to the distinction between primary and secondary sources. However, they often need help, especially with the idea that whether something is a primary or secondary source will depend on what questions the historian is asking rather than being something inherent to the subject.
I therefore find it helpful to always review how a book that we’re reading in class, so for example John Arnold’s History: A Very Short Introduction, can in fact be a primary source if our research question is something like “how do 21st century historians represent their professions to a general audience?”
Going over this distinction is also essential because the texts within Greek history frequently have a complicated relationship to the past. I also always make it a point to review the issue of translation with my students, as often they are not used to considering the issues of reading and relying upon translated texts.
For example, Thucydides’ history has a very complicated relationship to the past. On the one hand, this is an odd assertion, since Thucydides was unusual among ancient historians for his honesty about the method about which he used to compose his History of the Peloponnesian War
What particular people said in their speeches, either just before or during the war, was hard to recall exactly, whether they were speeches I heard myself or those that were reported to me at second hand. I have made each speaker say what I thought the situation demanded, keeping as near as possible to the general sense of what was actually said.
And as for the real action of the war, I did not think it was right to set down either what I heard from people I happened to meet or what I merely believed to be true. Even for events at which I was present myself, I tracked down detailed information from other sources as far as I could. It was hard to work to find out what happened, because those who were present at each event gave different reports, depending on which side they favored and how well they remembered.
Thucydides, 1.22., trans. Paul Woodruff
However, these remarks don’t really get at the half of it. For Thucydides spent much of the Peloponnesian War in exile from Athens, punishment for having lost an important battle in Amphipolis in 424 BCE. As a result, Thucydides had to rely on his connections and any documents they might bring him while he was in exile composing his history. I emphasize documents because writers like Jeffrey Rusten have noticed intriguing similarities between certain passages of Thucydides and Aristophanes’ plays. While there are many possible explanations for such overlap, an important one for historians to consider is that Thucydides was reading Aristophanes for news as to how Athenians were reacting to the unfolding of the war.
Now, I doubt that I’ll bring up such a detailed point for undergrads.