In the introduction it is stated that this is not an investigation into covert methods. This statement was made because both authors had made no secret about which side of the Ricardian fence that they were on. It is possible to argue that they have used covert methods; if not in their aims then in their style of writing and that they have not been as open as they first appear.
Normally a good indication as to how a historian will interpret the sources that they use,
is how the regard the writer's of the sources. If, for example, the writer of a history is going to cite a source, that basically disagrees with their particular view of events, then they will revert to a standard practice. This standard practice is thus; discredit the author, the implication being discredit the author and you will discredit their work, this is done by pointing out that they are not to be trusted, their are two ways of doing this, either by presenting facts that blacken their character or by adding a derogatory adverb whenever their name is used. The same applies conversely, if the author is lionised so will their work be!. In the case of Dominic Mancini, neither writer has attempted to blacken his work, via his reputation.
The only difference between the two, the pro and anti-Richard, is how far they go to emphasis Mancini's qualities. Seward, anti-Richard, is more controlled in his regard to Mancini, he refers to him as 'this scholarly Roman' (1) , who, 'As a foreigner it would have been hard to find a more unbiased observer.'(2), Seward goes on to point out that there was no reason for Mancini to blacken the name of a foreign monarch. Although he has not used a vast amount of paper in his description of Mancini's work, it is Mancini as a witness that Seward concentrates on. His description of Mancini as a scholar carries the implication that here is a man of letters; a well educated person, rarer in the 15th century than today, who has a scholastic approach to their work. All this adds up to give an air of authority to the work. To lend even more credence to Mancini, Seward points out that as a he is a foreigner there is no reason for him to be biased, one way or the other. He has done this so that we know that he is quoting from a reliable source, and by implication if the sources he uses are reliable, so is he. Although Seward appears to
hold Mancini in very high esteem, is it for the right reasons?
|