PART III
I would like to turn now to where I am in agreement, up to a point, with the author. I believe she makes a valid point in describing how she came to understand that living history can teach what cannot be taught in class or read in books.
Wearing 19th-century clothes on a daily basis gave us insights into intimate life of the past, things so private and yet so commonplace they were never written down...
When we realized how much we were learning just from the clothes, we started wondering what other everyday items could each us...
Striving to understand a culture or time though its material artifacts is an appropriate means of studying the past. It is called "living history," as I have discussed earlier in this essay. Mrs. Chrisman should be lauded for coming to that realization. Where she errs is that she stops; never going beyond living history and material culture.
The artifacts in our home represent what historians call "primary source materials," items directly from the period of study. Anything can be a primary source, although the term usually refers to texts...There is a universe of difference between a book or magazine article about the Victorian era and one actually written in the period. Modern commentaries on the past can get appallingly like the game "telephone": One person misinterprets something, the next exaggerates it, a third twists it to serve an agenda, and so on. Going back to the original sources is the only way to learn the truth.
From our 21st century perspective, primary source materials are predominantly textual; documents from the time in question. Mrs. Chrisman correctly labels the items she has collected as "artifacts" for that is what they are. Artifacts, coupled with the methodology of living history can reveal a great deal about the material culture. But without correct context, which only diligent historic research can provide, it is useless.
The author is correct with the difference between primary and secondary sources. It is an essential truism in the study of history that a firm reliance upon primary sources is the foundation of any serious project. However, her comment about the "telephone" game and subsequent misinterpretation by historians reveals that the author missed the entire purpose of historic research and the profession of Historian.
In actuality, the field of history relies upon the re-evaluation, re-interpretation and re-presentation of earlier historians' works. Thus with this regular re-assessment there is little chance that any "telephone" game-type error would survive the test of peer review over time. However as people of the 21st century, we struggle to comprehend the nuances within writings from Victorian times. It is the work of diligent historians which provide the context and make it possible to understand those nuances in late 19th century writing.
No comments:
Post a Comment