http://loveofhistory.com/quotation-of-the-week-3/ A historical perspective of current events Sun, 04 Feb 2018 14:54:59 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.38 http://loveofhistory.com/quotation-of-the-week-3/#comment-186 Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:43:07 +0000 http://constantinakatsari.wordpress.com/?p=173#comment-186 As a follow-up to my previous comment, it would be a mortal sin for me to leave on the record an inaccuracy that I have discovered in my representation of John Morrill on G M Trevelyan. I relied on memory, but have now looked at the book. The comment was not specifically about primary sources. The words (page xii) were “No book based on such narrow reading would be published today”.

]]> http://loveofhistory.com/quotation-of-the-week-3/#comment-185 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 12:32:20 +0000 http://constantinakatsari.wordpress.com/?p=173#comment-185 I am inclined to read it as follows. The past has to be interpreted, but the plodding historian will concentrate on searching out detail in order to give him enough substance to minimise the need for interpretation, of which he is nervous. The dashing Mr Beerbohm, on the other hand, will be so able and willing to enter into a free-wheeling conversation with the past, that he will feel no need to pile on the detail, and no lack of confidence in his lively interpretations. This may not be a mortal sin. John Morrill, in his introduction to the 2002 edition of G M Trevelyan’s England Under The Stuarts, remarked that a book which showed such slight acquaintance with primary sources would not be published today, but still acknowledged that the book had its greatness.

]]> http://loveofhistory.com/quotation-of-the-week-3/#comment-184 Fri, 12 Feb 2010 09:34:04 +0000 http://constantinakatsari.wordpress.com/?p=173#comment-184 Meaning ivory towers and ‘true’ history don’t sit well together? Or that brilliance excludes one from speaking for the voiceless? I’m still pondering this one..

]]>