RJay asked Ian Mortimer:

There seems to be a trend by some historians to include statements in their books about historical figures that are unsupported or unfootnoted. These 'statements' are then picked up by other historians and footnoted as if they are facts. I value your works and research so I wondered if you have noticed this trend. Might you address this?

Ian Mortimer Thanks for the q. I am not sure it is a trend - or, if it is, it is part of a long-established tradition. Lots of older history books, esp those written for the general public, are without notes, or only have a few, and often also lack a bibliog. And their judgements are often found repeated in other works. One ref to a medieval hospital founded in 1450 in Devon appears in a 1909 book & is cited by the authoritative work on medieval religious houses by Knowles & Hadcock - and the unreferenced original source seems to have been an incorrect supposition based on an indulgence granted that year, which relates to something else. Similarly, a series of economic history books by academics about 20 years ago - with no less than David Cannadine as series editor - eschewed all notes in an attempt to be more popular. I think this is a mistake. If a book is not properly noted, it is not rooted in past evidence but in the suppositions of the (modern) writers, as you hint, and that is not good enough. My question would be why so many well-educated historians contine to do what you mention - not chase up refs to find out how robust they are? Often it's just because they conveniently reflect a consensus of opinion - but as I keep telling people, a consensus is not evidence. Wise men, like fools, are often in agreement - and also like fools, they are often collectively mistaken.

flag