Academic Manuscripts Research Articles

Primary Sources in History: Breaking through the Myths

Using primary sources in history classes is all the rage. But if teachers are not reflective about the best use of such materials, they may engage students in exercises that are neither historically nor instructionally sound. Mr. Barton points out common misconceptions about primary sources and suggests ways to maximize their educational potential. VISUALIZE the following classroom scene. Students walk into history class and pull out packets of primary sources -- or, in a more technologically advanced school, they log on to a collection of digitally archived documents. History books are used only for reference, and lectures are virtually absent. Instead, the students work in small groups to analyze each source and evaluate its reliability -- determining its argument, establishing who created it and when, and identifying the bias of the author. Later, they compare sources and reach conclusions about the events or time periods portrayed, and they discuss reasons for their differing interpretations. Sounds like good history instruction, doesn't it? Well, not necessarily. For over a decade, I have suggested, along with many other historians and educators, that teachers make use of primary sources as an alternative to lectures, textbooks, and worksheets. Although such recommendations are nothing new, they have recently begun to attract a larger following. Primary sources can be found on tests, in commercially available packets, in archives on the Internet, and even in textbooks. Many teachers use these resources in inspiring and intellectually rigorous ways. Researchers in social studies and educational psychology, meanwhile, have investigated how students (and teachers) make sense of such sources. Thus, even if their use is not as widespread as many reformers would like, primary sources clearly are the order of the day. Unfortunately, the use of primary sources in each of these settings often reveals fundamental misconceptions about history. In some cases, scholars who have little experience with historical methods appear to be passing along mistaken ideas about what historians do. In other cases, the use of primary sources seems to be driven less by a concern with historical authenticity than by demands for standards and accountability. The misunderstandings that arise from these practices, if not addressed, will result in classroom procedures that are not only inauthentic but irrelevant and ineffective. The following are seven common beliefs about primary sources. Some have been stated directly, either in academic manuscripts or in books and articles for teachers; others may not have been articulated so explicitly, but they nonetheless represent underlying assumptions of those who define the curriculum or of other educators. But each one is a myth. Myth 1. Primary sources are more reliable than secondary sources. Perhaps this is not the most common belief about primary sources, but it is surely the most ridiculous. Because primary sources were created during the period under study or by witnesses to historical events, some people believe that they provide direct insight into the past and have greater authenticity than later accounts. Secondary sources, in this view, are corruptions of the originals and are prone to successive layers of error and bias. Some children hold exactly this view. They think we know about the past through oral stories that have been handed down over the generations, and each transmission introduces a new round of mistakes, just as in the game of telephone.1 Few educators would entertain this misconception, yet they may believe that primary sources retain a purity that makes them more reliable than secondary accounts. However, primary sources are created for a variety of reasons, and some of those reasons have nothing to do with objectivity. Sometimes primary sources represent narrow or partisan perspectives; sometimes they were created intentionally to deceive. …

Analysis of Remote Reference Correspondence at a Large Academic Manuscripts Collection

This paper analyzes 595 letter, phone, facsimile, and e-mail correspondence units sent to the Southern Historical Collection and General and Literary Manuscripts (SHC) at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1995 and 1999, to observe the effects of providing online holdings information and the increased use of e-mail in reference correspondence. From 1995 to 1999, e-mail became the preferred method of inquiry, more questions came from casual users researching for personal reasons, more users took advantage of online holdings information to shape their reference questions, and the proportion of remote users visiting in person decreased. The paper concludes by suggesting ways for archivists to prepare for new influxes of remote researchers and methods to improve remote reference services.

"Selbst-Erweisung": Der Ursprung des ziran-Gedankens in der chinesischen Philosophie des 4. und 3. Jhs. v. Chr. (review)

© 1999 by University ofHawai'i Press Reviews 237 Classicism, Politics, andKinship: The Ch'ang-chou SchoolofNew Text Confucianism in Late Imperial China (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1990); idem, From Philosophy to Philology: Intellectual and SocialAspects ofChange in Late Imperial China (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984); John Henderson, The Development and Decline ofChinese Cosmology (New York: Columbia University Press, 1984); Yu Yingshi, "Some Preliminary Observations on the Rise of Ch'ing Confucian Intellectualism," Ch'ing-huaJournal ofChinese Studies 4 (1976): 105-136; and idem, Zhongguo sixiangchuantong de xiandai quanshi (Taibei: Lianjing Chubanshe, 1987). 3.Keith McMahon, Misers, Shrews, and Polygamists: Sexuality and Male-Female Relations in Eighteenth-Century Chinese Fiction (Durham: Duke University Press, 1995), chap. 7. 4.See Huang, Literati and SelfRe/Presentation, chap. 4. Hermann-JosefRöllicke. "Selbst-Erweisung": Der Ursprung des ziranGedankens in der chinesischen Philosophie des 4. und 3. Jhs. v. Chr. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe XXVII, Asiatische und afrikanische Studien, 0721-3581; Bd. 51. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Peter Lang, 1996. DM 118.00, isbn 3-631-30226-6. Treatises attributed to "Masters" . . . have not always profitedfrom being called, and thus considered, "philosophy." —Carine Defoort.1 This is not the easiest book that I remember; nor will it be for most ofits readers. The academic publishing process in most European countries offers, as the most common option, the opportunity to publish doctoral and "habilitation" theses as independent publications with corrections and only slight revision. They frequently find their place in monographic series established by academic institutions in conjunction with commercial organizations. This differs from the practice in the United States, where academic manuscripts are substantially rewritten as monographs to be published by university or commercial presses, which means they undergo a professional review and editing process. They are intended to reach a readership not restricted by specialization. Authors and editors also aim to make them suitable for undergraduate teaching. There are different styles of accountability involved in these publishing processes. The American approach requires placing the materials studied in a given book in the context of the public discourse in its field. The author undertakes to let the readers retrace such methodical steps as will lead them to the results arrived at in the work in question. They in turn expect to do that without 238 China Review International: Vol. 6, No. ?, Spring 1999 encountering seemingly esoteric elements shared only by readers educated in die cultural setting that gave rise to the study as published. European scholars, by and large, work in a different mode ofpublic accountability . Authors ofbooks like the one reviewed here may allow their texts to reveal the actual genesis ofthe thoughts offered, rather than the public perspective of their possible logical derivation. Their actual thought processes remain more easily traceable in a realistic, even intimate, way. A larger share ofwhat has been called "private science" (Gerald Holton) in the history ofthe natural sciences can thus be revealed and, equally, more of an author's individual formation.2 Zi ran or Ziran ^M One initial difficulty needs to be noted in the present case: we find no easy way of establishing what Röllicke means, exactly, by Selbsterweisung? From his own usage (p. 54), we deduce that it comes close to "self-proving." Actually, the rendering turns out to be a response to A. C. Graham, who says of the phrase, "Mohists would be more likely to use it ofself-evidence than the Taoist ideal of spontaneity."4 Röllicke's credit to Graham occurs in an out-of the-way place (pp. 89-90).5 For a rendering of Selbsterweisung, we might look to formulations akin to "self-demonstrating," "self-affirming," or "self-proving." Röllicke spells out the procedure ofhis investigation in an introductory section (pp. 13-19), and again in his summation (pp. 437-441). He starts out from the intellectual sphere of the Zhuangzi Neipian ("Inner Chapters"), with links to segments ofthe Mohist Canons,6 which further includes the debate with Hui Shi M- ÍÉ, a debate focused on the defining characteristic ofhuman beings and the field ofgovernance. He then proceeds to incorporate various connections to the socalled "Four Chapters" ofthe Guanzi ^~F corpus concerned with so-called...

The Market for Academic Manuscripts

Presents the findings of part of a research project into the relationships between academic authors and publishers. Discusses the attitudes of authors towards publishers, looking at the relationship of authors” attitudes and behaviour. Outlines some implications for publishers” policies. Investigates the similarities between the market for academic manuscripts and other markets, and also the differences. Examines the essential features of markets and the marketing process. Indicates that publishers may need to review both the terms of their contracts and the procedures they adopt in order to be successful.

La Mariología de Francisco de Vitoria: cuestiones Bibliográficas

The immediate purpose of the present study is to clarify the problems of a bibliographical character which might arise for one who wishes to penetrate into the mariological thought of Francisco de Vitoria. The author's final objective is to prepare the edition of the Commentaries which the famous restorer of Theology in the sixteenth century was carrying out on mariological questions from his chair of Theology at the University of Salamanca, where he was teaching the Tertia of St. Thomas. The work is divided into two parts. The first is a documental exposition of the present state of theological production of the theologian of Salamanca. As is known, if we make exceptions of four prologues, a brief work adressed to confessors and a few works of moral opinion, Vitoria was not published during his lifetime. A this death, however, he left behind a considerable legacy of theological material, consisting of his Relecciones and his university theological Lecturas. Various editions of his Relecciones have been published, some of them being annotated, the most outstanaing by P. Urdanoz. But the greater part of Lecturas still remain unpublished. In this regard, the most important publication up to he present moment is the editions of the Comentarios a la Secunda Secundae, in six volumes, by P. Beltran de Heredia. The author points out, interestingly enough, that the Lecturas which have come down to us are not the originals of Vitoria himself but the notes taken down by his students (dictata, reportata, reportationes) either closesly adhering to the explanations given in class (academic manuscripts) or those which were carefully composed later by copyists (extra-academic manuscripts). The author, at this point, considers the research of all those who have studied the material, especially that carried out by Cardinal Ehrle, P. Beltran de Heredia and prof. Stegmuller. Thanks to these, we can determine the number of manuscripts in existence, the material treated, the date on which each lecture was given, the library where they can be found or the professor to whom they belong. All of this data means that we are in conditions to be able to consider the theological production of Vitoria with sufficient assurance of objectivity, whether, to study his thought or to edit all or part of this material. The second part is dedicated to the presentation and analysis of the sources of the mariological doctrine of Vitoria, that is to say, to the five manuscripts which contain his Comentarios in III, 99. 27-37. It is a through analysis, in which the author, considering the diverse elements, attempts to arrive at a reliable conclusion in regard to the documental value of each of these manuscripts. The manuscripts are the following: 1. Manuscript 1.202 from the Section of Universities, in the National Historical Archives of Madrid. It is an extra-academic manuscript, made up of Lecturas of diverse origin. In the author's judgement the explanations which accompany questions 27-37 are not Victoria's. 2. Manuscript 44.XII.20 found in the Library of Ajuda, Lisbon. Likewise, this manuscript is extra-academic, although with notable similarities to the Evora Manuscript, the Latin Ottoboniano Manuscript 1.056 and the Zaragoza Manuscript. 3. Manuscript 123-1-17 found in the Public Library of Evora. It is academic, of outstanding value. 4. Manuscript 20/89 of the Capitular Archives of La Seo in Zaragoza. Only mentioned by P. Beltran de Heredia, it had not been studied until the present time. It is an academic manuscript, the best preserved and the most extensive of the Commentarios of Vitoria on the Tertia. 5. The Ottoboniano Latin Manuscript 1056 in the Apostolic Vatican Library, also academic. Once its authorship can be attributed to Vitoria, it could be the most important, but after q. 31 it is almost completely illegible. The author concludes by indicating that for his edition of questions 27-37 he will take as his basis the Manuscript from Zaragoza.