Re: Drawings, Ospery and period, as sources....
- Modern drawings are no more or less 'secondary' than the text, and
if the words seem less of a speculative interpretation or even guess
than the picture, then the reader is under an illusion.
Most histories are rife with passages where the author tell us (for
example) what this or that King or general was thinking, his
motives, etc. - all guesswork; hopefully informed and reasonable
The illustration is just more clearly an *example* of what may have
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Tim Nalley <mordakus@...> wrote:
> Well, strictly speaking, any artistic renditions
> are illustrative at best in the Ospery's and function
> only in a visualization and entertainment capacity!
> Even period drawings and paintings are considered
> only qualified secondary sources if also backed up by
> an artifact of similar make, like an archeological
> drawing from a dig.
> In most cases, drawings are tertiary only because
> they are completely subject to artistic licence at
> best and the demands of the original patron for a more
> flattering portrayal at worse.
- LOL! A very succinct definition of the difference
between historial vs. antiquarian research
/interpretation. I generally read every source and
look for re-occuring "facts", then try to verify those
"facts" with the timeline we can verify....Often, I've
found that a whole new historical record begins to
appear behind the hyperboly and politik! One of my
professors used to say that history is the true
sausage factory, every bit of nasty meat and
eyewatering spice goes into it and nice, pleasant
looking sausages emerge in the publish or perish
histories, like those drawings! Very illustrative and
sanitized but hardly definitive.
The other end is gettiing so gritty in your
interpretation that you are unable to see that some
groups were indeed sanitized and rigorously neat and
clean, almost benial! The Civil War folks have that
huge blind spot but niether faction can compromise
enough to utilize it at events to show one of the more
interesting aspects of that time....politics
mascarading as record, the triumph of form over
Always enjoy your posts!
--- Rick Orli <orlirva@...> wrote:
> Modern drawings are no more or less 'secondary' than__________________________________________________
> the text, and
> if the words seem less of a speculative
> interpretation or even guess
> than the picture, then the reader is under an
> Most histories are rife with passages where the
> author tell us (for
> example) what this or that King or general was
> thinking, his
> motives, etc. - all guesswork; hopefully informed
> and reasonable
> The illustration is just more clearly an *example*
> of what may have
> been. -Rick
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around