Lots of things this week!
* Historic milestone for 500-year-old wreck of Mary Rose warship – Scientists have stopped spraying the 500-year-old wreck of the Mary Rose with a protective wax for the first time in nearly two decades, an historic milestone in the conservation of Henry VIII’s Tudor warship.
* My poignant journey in search of the martyrs – Article by Nancy Bilyeau for the Catholic Herald on her research for The Crown and The Chalice
I find Kramer’s review of Lacey Baldwin Smith’s new book on Anne Boleyn interesting not so much for her description of the content, but for her critique based on the language he uses. I think this issue is becoming – or has already become – almost more important to many reviewers and critics than a book’s actual arguments.
I’d be interested in hearing what Ph.D. Historian and other historians, Ph.D. candidates and graduate students posting on this blog think about this. My own thoughts are that (1) I’m inclined to cut older historians some slack, especially if they have a cogent and well-reasoned argument or new insights into a historical issue; (2) although I understand that some audiences may find certain word choices offensive, I often feel that aligning the narrative perfectly with the current ideologies often bleaches it of interest where it doesn’t actually obscure the points being made; (3) some of the historians I enjoy most, older ones like Froude, have a tremendous – and by modern standards politically incorrect – command of language that adds richness, piquancy, and immediacy to their works.
In the best scenario, however, a modern historian’s efforts to identify vocabularies of sexism and classism in historical sources can yield some terrific rewards and produce real revolutions of understanding. It’s a delicate balancing act that can be challenging for both the historian and the reader.