|
I disagree - especially as it's NOT a primary source -- it's a primary source in translation, readily available elsewhere. I think it would be great for trimalchio et al. to write an article ABOUT the A/S Chronicle, dealing with both literary and historical interpretation. However, without contect, it's just a chunk of meaningless (although fun) information. This is especially true when we see it broken down into its yearly components. Some of us already have enough trouble trying to convince people that this type of source must be read critically... Additionally, since all such primary sources (whether in translation or not) are not equally available due to copyrights, I think that there is a very real possibility that the appearance of only a few might lead some readers to believe that those sources are somehow more valid than othersJHK |
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)