Hi all,
I have a methodology question for historians here:
In an article draft, I cite and summarise (but do not directly quote) a historical source from the late 19th century in my main text. Of course I looked up the original source (luckily available online). Now I have noticed recently that another historian briefly describes this source as well and quotes from it. Besides citing the original source, do I now also need to cite this other historian that has written about the source? Just to be clear, this is not a matter of interpretation etc. of the source, but we simply both (obviously in somewhat similar ways) summarise the content of the source.
My assumption is that I do not have to cite this historian as well, as certain important sources will always be cited by several historians and my impression is that historians normally do not tend to cite everyone else that might have mentioned/used/summarisesthe historical source. But I would still like to know what everybody here thinks.
Thanks!
If any component of your argument in any way relies on the interpretation of the original material found in this other historian's work, you should cite the historian. But if you are both just talking about the same text, there is no obligation to cite the other historian.
That said, it may be helpful to your own argument to in some way weave what this other historian has written into the main body of your paper. If the historical source in question is itself quite obscure, then this doubly the case because doing so shows a deep familiarity and awareness of the larger body of literature surrounding your topic. For instance, I was working on a paper about a collection of extra-illustrated, grangerised books from the nineteenth century that no one has ever written on (largely because only one copy of them exists and they are in a private archive). Were I to have come across any mention of them at all, I would have found a way to account for it in my paper.
Another way to think about it: if an expert in your area of study who was deeply versed in the surrounding body of literature read your paper and noticed you didn't cite this other historian, would he or she have reason to take issue with you for that? Even if it's not a question of plagiarism, would they want to know why you didn't engage with the other historian?