Joanna
----- Original Message ----- From: "Dissenting Wren" <dissentingwren at yahoo.com>
Yes, there has been a bit category mistake in some of the responses to Joanna's use of the term "original sources". The debate about whether there is any such thing as an original source, or whether all texts are part of a dense network of intertextuality with no text having originary status may be interesting, and, for what it's worth, I think Carrol is right when it comes to that debate. But Joanna's use of the term "original source" is related not to the question of whether an ur-text is available, but to the notion of a "primary source" in historiography. There is nothing about a source itself that makes it primary or secondary. A source becomes primary or secondary in relation to the question posed by the investigator. So, for example, The Wealth of Nations would be a secondary source on the question of whether or not the Methuen Treaty was good or bad for England. Smith has very pronounced, and historically very influential, views on this subject. Those views even help determine what counts as evidence in the debate. But The Wealth of Nations does not, in and of itself, have direct evidentiary bearing on the question. The Wealth of Nations is, however, a primary source when it comes to a number of questions: whether Smith's views on moral sentiments changed over time, to what degree the French physiocrats influenced English political economists, and any number of others. In many colleges and universities, students learn about Smith and others through textbooks that summarize their views, rather than reading the primary sources that give direct evidence of their views. And, in that sense, it's completely unproblematic to refer to these texts as "original sources", in the sense that they are the texts to which the secondary texts point the reader.
Now, you might want to argue that reading these "original sources" is a waste of time. Perhaps you think the secondary texts do an adequate job of summarizing these works, and that the extra effort that goes into reading the works themselves isn't worth the effort (that is, greater rewards would be earned if the effort was expended elsewhere). Or perhaps you think that these texts are part of the pre-history of a scientific discipline, so that, just as one would not read Lavoisier to understand chemistry, one would not read Smith to understand economics. Or perhaps you think that any discipline where "the history of this discipline's thought" is part of the curriculum is, ipso facto, not scientific and therefore not worth your time - and so you would decide to study, say, physics rather than economics. I don't agree with any of these arguments, but they are at least responses to what Joanna was saying. But the "there's no such thing as an original text" question is completely beside the point.