Program disconnect

[FemmeFatale]

I'm in my first year of a MA History program.  I want to have an emphasis on ancient history, or early medieval.  But during my first semester, I had some difficulty with a professor regarding my project ideas.  She placed two stipulations on primary sources:

 

1.  In order to use them, I have to be able to get my hands on the original text AND be able to read it in the original language (in other words, my translation of Tacitus on my bookshelf won't do... I have to track down the manuscript in some museum in Italy).

 

2.  A text cannot be used as a primary source for an era if the copy I am using does not date to that era.  Meaning, my aforementioned Tacitus cannot be used as a source on Rome because the earliest copies we have date to centuries later.

I have never heard this before as a stipulation, and the second one seems especially ridiculous because it makes studying ancient history practically impossible.  I'm not sure if they're just being strange, or if it's due to the program having more modern focuses.  Has anyone else had a similar experience?  

[maelia8]

I'm not a specialist in ancient history, but this seems pretty ridiculous. Is this professor an ancient history/classics specialist? Did she explain why she believes this to be necessary? Are there a lot of people in your program doing something similar? Now might be the time to compare notes and check if others in your program are bound by similar strictures, and if so, why. 

[L13]

That's absolutely ridiculous. If all classicists followed your professor's arbitrary postulates, there would be no field of classical studies at all. It sounds like she is unfamiliar with the research and analytical methods of subfields of history other than her own, which is to an extent excusable, but her refusal to consider the constraints of ancient and medieval studies like a reasonable human being is not.

 

You should try to introduce her to the Wikipedia article on palaeography in my opinion.

[Fobe]

I don't agree with the second point - that seems excessive - but the first one isn't totally unheard of.  When I was doing my MA, my supervisor recommended only using originals of primary sources rather than translations.  It makes sense, really, because if you happen to get a bad translation it can change the whole meaning of the text.  If you're studying Ancient Rome, no doubt she's assuming you have a good reading knowledge of Latin, so translating a work yourself shouldn't be an issue.  

 

Now as for getting the actually originals from a museum in Italy - either she is completely unaware of reasonable limitations for MA students, or she doesn't mean you to take that quite so literally.  For example, when my prof told me something similar, we were talking about the Jesuit Relations, and she wasn't suggesting that I find the originals in a museum and read those, simply that I find a published copy in the original French.  Most likely your prof is thinking along the same lines - I'd clarify with her.

[FemmeFatale]

I'm not a specialist in ancient history, but this seems pretty ridiculous. Is this professor an ancient history/classics specialist? Did she explain why she believes this to be necessary? Are there a lot of people in your program doing something similar? Now might be the time to compare notes and check if others in your program are bound by similar strictures, and if so, why. 

 

Her specialty, judging by her publications, is 20th century US labor history.  I was told this during the mandatory first-semester graduate class, where the culminating project is basically a thesis proposal.  I have not talked to everyone in my program.  But as far as my fellow classmates go, I was the only one interested in anything ancient or medieval.  After me, the next earliest time period someone was doing was the 19th century.

Obviously, this has me second-guessing whether this program is right for me.  

[FemmeFatale]

That's absolutely ridiculous. If all classicists followed your professor's arbitrary postulates, there would be no field of classical studies at all. It sounds like she is unfamiliar with the research and analytical methods of subfields of history other than her own, which is to an extent excusable, but her refusal to consider the constraints of ancient and medieval studies like a reasonable human being is not.

 

You should try to introduce her to the Wikipedia article on palaeography in my opinion.

 

Yeah, the whole experience has me wondering whether this program is right for me.  I applied more out of convenience and cost factors.  I had taken history classes there before, and they have plenty of ancient/medieval/classics stuff at the undergraduate level.  

[FemmeFatale]

I don't agree with the second point - that seems excessive - but the first one isn't totally unheard of.  When I was doing my MA, my supervisor recommended only using originals of primary sources rather than translations.  It makes sense, really, because if you happen to get a bad translation it can change the whole meaning of the text.  If you're studying Ancient Rome, no doubt she's assuming you have a good reading knowledge of Latin, so translating a work yourself shouldn't be an issue.  

 

Now as for getting the actually originals from a museum in Italy - either she is completely unaware of reasonable limitations for MA students, or she doesn't mean you to take that quite so literally.  For example, when my prof told me something similar, we were talking about the Jesuit Relations, and she wasn't suggesting that I find the originals in a museum and read those, simply that I find a published copy in the original French.  Most likely your prof is thinking along the same lines - I'd clarify with her.

Unfortunately, it's more the former.  She was pretty clear with other students about them having to find out where their sources are kept and how to access them.  I agree, the first one makes more sense than the second.  

[dr. t]

For the first point, it certainly makes sense for you to have to track down an original language critical edition of a primary source text you want to use. A critical edition is in fact superior to having a single manuscript. If your teacher has ruled these out, there is something wrong. I suspect that's not the case.

 

It also makes sense to require you to study that text in the primary language. Not to be super harsh, but if you can't read your primary sources in an MA program, you're going to have huge issues doing any other work in Ancient or Medieval History, so that's not so much a requirement as it is a basic test of competence. Not that your languages won't improve, but you should already be in the process of acquiring them. If you don't think they're necessary, you are deeply mistaken.

 

The second point seems to either be a misunderstanding on your part or ignorance over the particularities of pre-modern manuscript transmission on hers. For the former, you certainly can't use Tacitus to talk about Augustinian Rome, for example.

[Sigaba]

 

 

You should try to introduce her to the Wikipedia article on palaeography in my opinion.

 

Using any kind of encyclopedia as a reference in a serious conversation with a professor is not a good idea.

 

@FemmeFatale It is my view that the professor simply wants the OP to do research in primary source materials that are actually primary source materials rather than secondary works from antiquity. I respectfully suggest that you do your best to find sources that satisfy this requirement. This effort might include contacting experienced scholars in your field and asking for guidance and/or hitting the relevant academic journals..

 

If obtaining primary sources that satisfy the professor's criteria is impossible (as opposed to impractical or inconvenient) develop a historiographical argument that centers around the field's best accepted practices.

 

Two general comments. First, be careful about drawing conclusions about a historian's expertise before doing a great deal of background research.  On the surface, a labor historian may seem out of touch IRT other fields, but one never knows (until one does the research) if said historian has friends/classmates who are the bee's knees.

 

Second, getting push back from an advisor can be an unpleasant experience. However, it is crucial to understand that being told "no" is a significant part of the process you're going through right now. The challenge graduate students in history face is learning how to think through the ramifications of a "no," to grasp what is being taught, and how to respond.

[kblooms]

Using any kind of encyclopedia as a reference in a serious conversation with a professor is not a good idea.

 

@FemmeFatale It is my view that the professor simply wants the OP to do research in primary source materials that are actually primary source materials rather than secondary works from antiquity. I respectfully suggest that you do your best to find sources that satisfy this requirement. This effort might include contacting experienced scholars in your field and asking for guidance and/or hitting the relevant academic journals..

 

If obtaining primary sources that satisfy the professor's criteria is impossible (as opposed to impractical or inconvenient) develop a historiographical argument that centers around the field's best accepted practices.

 

Two general comments. First, be careful about drawing conclusions about a historian's expertise before doing a great deal of background research.  On the surface, a labor historian may seem out of touch IRT other fields, but one never knows (until one does the research) if said historian has friends/classmates who are the bee's knees.

 

Second, getting push back from an advisor can be an unpleasant experience. However, it is crucial to understand that being told "no" is a significant part of the process you're going through right now. The challenge graduate students in history face is learning how to think through the ramifications of a "no," to grasp what is being taught, and how to respond.

 

But the way primary sources from antiquity work would render 90% plus of them unusable; the distance between Alexander the Great and the first sources about him is about the same as Jesus and the Pauline epistles. This professor does not know Ancient History and its requirements for using sources at all. There are established and published methods for using each and every of these later primary sources.

[Sigaba]

This professor does not know Ancient History and its requirements for using sources at all. 

 

First, how do you know this statement is accurate? Second, if the statement is accurate, what are the best ways for the OP to bring the professor up to speed? 

 

Somewhere along the line, a graduate student in history is going to know more about a topic (or topics) than her professor. IMO, a good ability to have is to put together a sustainable argument that gets a professor to rethink a position within the accepted rules of the game.

 

This is to say, the OP might benefit from an approach that allows a conversation with the professor to start off "I did what you asked, here's how I did it, and here's what I found out..." as opposed to one that starts along the lines of "You don't know what you're talking about..."

 

My $0.02./YMMV.

[poliorkein]

I agree that, provided that you are accurately transmitting what your professor wants you to do, the idea of you requiring an original manuscript from the time period in which it was written is unreasonable. I'm not familiar with Tacitus' manuscript transmission but in most cases, we're extremely lucky if we have an early Byzantine manuscript  as most come from later dates. That said, perhaps you can pitch a project idea to your prof that would have you deal with not only Tacitus but also epigraphic inscriptions that would in fact be primary sources which suit your professor's requirements.

[L13]

First, how do you know this statement is accurate? Second, if the statement is accurate, what are the best ways for the OP to bring the professor up to speed? 

 

Somewhere along the line, a graduate student in history is going to know more about a topic (or topics) than her professor. IMO, a good ability to have is to put together a sustainable argument that gets a professor to rethink a position within the accepted rules of the game.

 

This is to say, the OP might benefit from an approach that allows a conversation with the professor to start off "I did what you asked, here's how I did it, and here's what I found out..." as opposed to one that starts along the lines of "You don't know what you're talking about..."

 

My $0.02./YMMV.

 

With all due respect, any claim that historians of antiquity must restrict themselves to the use of manuscripts from the period they are studying, no matter whether it comes from an investment banker or a history professor, automatically renders the speaker unqualified to make demands of ancient historians.

 

I understand the reflexive urge to defer to perceived authority and assume the OP, being a lowly, confused master's student, must have misunderstood the professor's request, but the OP reports having taken ancient history classes in the past. Anyone with a background in that historical method, no matter how rudimentary, knows enough about what 'primary source' means in classical studies to realize they're being asked to do something preposterous when someone tells them they can only write about Tacitus if they can get their hands, literally, on a first-century Tacitus manuscript. (Hint: There are none!) I suggested the Wikipedia article on palaeography because the professor in the OP's anecdote has demonstrated ignorance of some very basic truths about textual transmission from ancient history to modernity, which a cursory scan of any online-based reference text can reveal.

 

That is to say, I understand what you're saying about observing the established academic etiquette even if your advisor is a little out of touch, but in this case we're not talking about a student wanting to use trendy theory her professor doesn't like/understand or a student whose research has led him to know more than his advisor about the niche topic of his dissertation; we're talking about a request that betrays both fundamental ignorance of how ancient history works and the arrogance of assuming it works exactly like the professor's own historical period.

 

Yes, I am fuming...

 

ETA: All that being said, at most universities ancient history is either taught in the classics department or in close partnership with it. The reason, I suppose, is that otherwise conflicts like the one of the OP with her professor arise. Historians of later periods very often use completely different research methods from ancient historians. Unless the former consult with the latter extensively and/or have the self-awareness/conscientiousness to familiarize themselves with the field on their own, they cannot supervise ancient history students effectively.

Edited April 14, 2014 by L13

[dr. t]

With all due respect, any claim that historians of antiquity must restrict themselves to the use of manuscripts from the period they are studying, no matter whether it comes from an investment banker or a history professor, automatically renders the speaker unqualified to make demands of ancient historians.

 

I am still not sure that is what happened.

 

 I suggested the Wikipedia article on palaeography because the professor in the OP's anecdote has demonstrated ignorance of some very basic truths about textual transmission from ancient history to modernity, which a cursory scan of any online-based reference text can reveal.

 

Right, but there are actual, you know, written sources that you can show other academics that would be believed, like, for example, the chapter on paleography in: Powell, James M., ed. Medieval Studies: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1992.

[Sigaba]

 

 

Yes, I am fuming...

 

 

L13--

 

I think your emotions are getting the better of you. I think the frame of mind you're exhibiting in your posts in this thread is not sustainable.

 

Here's the thing. Professional academic historians ask each other about their work and offer comments. In the event a historian finds a question or comment controversial, she will, in most cases, offer a thoughtful collegial reply--either on the spot or after some additional work. She does not say "Because you've asked this question/have this POV, you're not qualified to talk about this field..go read Wikipedia and then get back with me." (If you really think this frame of mind is sustainable, then please throw this comment around your department.)

 

So when I offered the OP my suggestions, I was recommending that the OP act like an aspiring professional academic historian and not, as you inferred, "a lowly confused master's student."

Edited April 16, 2014 by Sigaba

[heliogabalus]

The professor's an idiot--at least when it comes to ancient history. This can't be the supervisor to your thesis. If she's just doing a class where you're supposed to come up with your thesis idea, talk with an ancient historian who could supervise your thesis. Run your proposal by her/him, then set upa meeting with labor relations prof and tell her, "I talked with Prof. X and he liked the idea, and said that the standard way to go about writing ancient history theses is.... Would that be ok with you?"

[heliogabalus]

Sorry to be a bit harsh. But really, this is like an medieval historian telling a 20th century labor historian that they have to pass Toronto's Latin exam to make it to candidacy.

Edited April 18, 2014 by heliogabalus