When investigating or discussing the subject of primary sources and their use, or even miss-use by historians, a good place to start is with the words of Arthur Marwick. Marwick attempted to not only define what a primary source was but, maybe more importantly, how a historian should approach them, he wrote:
They are contemporary, of course; they belong to the period which the historian is studying.(1)
Of course it is hard to argue with Marwick's definition, some would even say it was obvious and they would be right. But if they read on, they would find an astute observation that should be remembered whenever approaching a primary source,
it is:
But just as important, they are not designed for the benefit of the historian. The primary source served a real purpose for the men who created it; their purpose is a quite different one from that of the historian coming along later.(2)
What Marwick is in effect doing, is reminding us that it is how we approach a primary source is important. How much we are able to retrieve from the primary source depends on how we view the originators intentions.
If we consider Mancini's writing in the way that Marwick suggests we will need to ask ourselves several questions. This is to try to establish the value of the work as a primary source. The first point we need to know, is it a genuine contemporary of Richard III? That is, was it actually written during Richard's lifetime? In our case this is not a problem as it has already been authenticated by established medieval historians. Secondly we need to know why it was written, this is vital because it decides how relevant the information contained therein is to our cause. Mancini, who was an Italian, was in England working on a commission from Angelo Cato, Archbishop of Vienne, a district of Northern France. It should also be remembered that the end of, what was to be known as, The Hundred Years War was only 30 years past and the Calais was still a possession of England. Cato had sent Mancini to gather information on the comings and goings of the English court. Mancini arrived in England during the summer of 1482 and stayed for just over a year, he is thought to have completed his writing by December 1483. These dates are very important for the evaluation of how relevant Mancini's work is.
The fact that Mancini was in London some nine months before Edward IVs sudden death is interesting as it does show that he was not in England specifically to report on Richard's bid for the crown, this is because Edward was alive and well and expected to reign for a long time. There are several features about Mancini's work that makes it unique, especially when compared to other writings on the subject of Richard III. What is unique about Mancini's work is the fact that it was not published, or known about, in this country until 1936. The manuscript was found by C.A.J. Armstrong whilst researching some archives. This coupled with the fact that it is unlikely that any of the more famous contemporary or near contemporary historians, such as Polydore Vergil,
Thomas More or the Croyland Chronicler have read it and have been able to compared their own work to it. As far as can be ascertained, Dominic Mancini had no axe to grind, nor was he writing with the benefit of hindsight, although he was to be accused of all this and more! It is therefore reasonable to assume that he has presented the facts, as he saw them. Although it should be remembered that Mancini is viewed with some scepticism by the pro-Ricardian scholars.
Against this has to be considered that the majority of historians appear to accept Mancini and his work, because of this, Mancini's work is used to verify the details offered by the writers contemporary or near-contemporary to Richard III. What pro-Ricardians are not so sure about; they do not question Mancini's date and times, is the apparent slant that Mancini, to them, has added to the dates and times.
|