While researching a noble line, I am finding references to several medieval manuscripts, such as chronicles of noble houses. Many of these chronicles have been published by reputable publishing houses or archives (annotated transcriptions, usually).
The original manuscripts can often be found in academic libraries, special collections of archives, or the Vatican. In several cases, access to these libraries is only open to academic scholars, with a letter of introduction from the head of their department or with endorsements of multiple members of the institution. They won't allow genealogists access to the records.
In such cases, can the GPS be met without consulting the originals, but by relying on published transcriptions? Whether the information in those publications provides enough evidence to meet the GPS would be a separate part of the analysis, I am just asking whether not using the originals would automatically disqualify the proof argument from meeting the GPS.
In my opinion I could meet the GPS by using transcriptions. We use the best quality evidence available. I don't see the difference between an original that's unavailable because it burned, or because it's unavailable because the owner won't let me see it. But it's very frustrating to know that the manuscript survives but cannot be consulted and I would love to hear other opinions.