|
Few people would question the need for scientists or engineers, engaged upon new projects, to keep abreast of the development of knowledge and thinking within their subjects. It is less generally understood that an equivalent requirement applies to historical writing. Too often discredited interpretations are repeated and perpetuated uncritically.
‘Facts’ and ‘Truth’ are not very helpful words. Written history is an interpretation of evidence and therefore uncertain. Interpretation should be rigorous but it will always be open to review as more information becomes available. Evidence must be looked at carefully - ‘Artists’ impressions’ are often just that, reality may have been adjusted for effect. People often wrote with a particular audience in mind, and to represent themselves in a good light. And we all know how fallible are newspaper reports.
There is nevertheless some good reading available on Blythburgh history. Together with the study of Directories (1793 onwards) these suggestions will help to separate history from mystery!
|
|