: Who do I cite as my source? When you have multiple sources for information like a quote, which source do you use in your book or essay. The one you may have gotten from an authors work

Vote Up Vote Down

As others have noted, you cite the source that you actually used. If A quotes or describes B, and you have read A but have not read B (whether because it's not available, you just didn't bother, or whatever), then you cite A.

It is generally considered better to go to original sources. If some later writer says that Aquinas said sex with a pregnant woman is a sin -- and let me interject here that I have no idea what Aquinas said on the subject, I've read pieces of the Summa but I've skipped many pieces too -- the later writer may be misquoting Aquinas or applying his own interpretation to something ambiguous. If you were to say, "Aquinas said X" because some other writer claims he said X, that would simply be wrong. Especially if the writer did not give the exact quote, but even with an exact quote, you could be missing the context.

So if your point is to say, "this is what Aquinas" said, you should go to the source and read and quote (and cite) Aquinas. It's easy enough to get copies of Aquinas on the web these days. If your point is to say, "this is how so-and-so interprets Aquinas", than you should quote (and cite) so-and-so.

Some writers will give a citation like, "Aquinas, as quoted in ...". This is a reasonable thing to do if the original source is difficult to obtain. Like if he's quoting a book that is no longer in print and you can't find a copy. It's most clearly valid if the original book no longer exists, like if you're quoting a book written in AD 300 that quotes an earlier book and that earlier book has been lost to history. But for something easily available like Aquinas, for a scholarly paper I'd just get the original.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Reference the quotes AND associated conclusions to respective authors.

You have two options in this case:

silently agree with the author of "Commentary..." and express their opinion as your own, supporting it with quote from Thomas Aquinas, and restrict your credit to relevant parts in the original "Sentences" - likely as sourced in the "Commentary". This way you used "Commentary" only as a learning resource that aided you in finding the respective source and aided you in forming your own opinion. You don't quote it, you quote Thomas Aquinus and express your own conclusions which happen to be similar to "Commentary" ones - you state "Aquinas believed intercourse with a pregnant woman was sinful"
refer opinion stated in the Commentary and present your own position in regard of that. Provide a quote from "Commentary..." and credit it with relevant references *to the "Commentary...". Include the full framing of the quote including opinion of the "Commentary" author and then express your opinion on that: "The author of 'Commentary on the Sentences' believes Aquinas believed intercourse with a pregnant woman was sinful. Considering the quotes presented from the original Sentences I'm inclined to agree with that conclusion."

It's up to you to choose the right option. If the quoted Sentences unambiguously support your thesis, go with (1) for clear, strong impact. If the quote is not so obvious, paraphrased, explained in finer details, referred etc, go with (2).

In the specific case you presented I don't see a single word directly quoted from Aquinas; this would mean you aren't referencing or quoting the source material - you are following the analysis, so (2) is the correct choice.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Always cite the original work, even if you have to spend time finding the details like the publisher and the year. You must give the original source the credit. Only use a secondary source if you need to criticise the use of the quote.

Using secondary sources can lead to tralatitious activity.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

You cite the (or a) source that you used. If you read it in Book A and that book says it came from Book B, you cite Book A because that's your source. If you choose to follow the reference and see it in Book B yourself, then you could cite either A or B (you used both). In that kind of situation, it's generally best to cite the source that's closest to the source -- why cite A who cites B if you can cite B directly?

Why shouldn't you cite B if you read it in A and you think A is reliable? Well, partly because sometimes sources get it wrong -- B might not really say what A says it does. But, more broadly, any author who's found to do this sort of thing -- citing a source that he didn't actually verify directly -- calls into question all of his citations. If you think A is reliable then either (a) your readers probably do too, so citing A means something, or (b) you can explain why A is reliable.

(0)