07-10-2016, 10:45 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2016, 10:47 AM by Diane.
Edit Reason: apology to Ellie
)
JKP,
Alas histories 'engineered' are rarely of lasting worth, something which applies here to the "history" offered in 1921 by Wilfrid himself.
His lamentable and unscholarly habit of never honestly acknowledging his sources, means that we have no idea if it is all just constructed of hypothesis upon assumption, or whether it really does represent the result of his enquiries and those of others. So of course the whole story has been made worthless as an historical narrative, and who is going to take the time and effort to provide it with footnotes now, even if it were possible? Such a waste. I don't think he meant to be dishonest - as we would say now of someone whose apparatus proved deceitful - it just wasn't the custom of the time to keep amateurs to professional standards of practice.
Pity.
Sorry Ellie - I hope philosophising about our methodology in creating histories for the manuscript doesn't seem inappropriate or off-topic.
Alas histories 'engineered' are rarely of lasting worth, something which applies here to the "history" offered in 1921 by Wilfrid himself.
His lamentable and unscholarly habit of never honestly acknowledging his sources, means that we have no idea if it is all just constructed of hypothesis upon assumption, or whether it really does represent the result of his enquiries and those of others. So of course the whole story has been made worthless as an historical narrative, and who is going to take the time and effort to provide it with footnotes now, even if it were possible? Such a waste. I don't think he meant to be dishonest - as we would say now of someone whose apparatus proved deceitful - it just wasn't the custom of the time to keep amateurs to professional standards of practice.
Pity.
Sorry Ellie - I hope philosophising about our methodology in creating histories for the manuscript doesn't seem inappropriate or off-topic.