This does not mean that what they say has to be taken as either the definitive version or a tissue of lies. It should be examined, taking all the things that may have influenced it's writer into consideration. There is another important aspect to be considered when dealing modern authors and their use of sources. That is, is the author actually using a primary source or are they using a translation of a primary source?. Although both authors use terms such as, contemporary (Hicks) and original (Seward), when referring to their sources, is not strictly correct. A look through both bibliographies will show that neither writer has listed the original documents, both have used modern translations.
What in effect Hicks and Seward are discussing is translator’s versions of the primary sources and not, as they, give the impression, the actual primary source themselves.
If one examines the respective bibliographies of both authors, one would find this; Mancini.D, The Usurpation of Richard III trans & edited by C.A.J.Armstrong (A Button Ltd 1969).
What this actually means is that when one reads phrases such as;
‘Mancini reported that'(8) or,
'According to Mancini'(9).
They are not referring to the words of Dominic Mancini, what they are in fact quoting Armstrong's translation. In his edition of Mancini, Armstrong has actually, unusually, published the original text alongside his translation, allowing the reader, if they understand Latin, to verify his translation.
When, however, one looks at the translation of The Croyland Chronicles, a problem arises; the authors have used different translations. In his bibliography Hicks has cited the 1986, N. Pronay and J Cox edition, whereas Seward has listed two versions, Riley's 1854 edition and the edition by W Fulman, published in 1684. To really complicate matters, in his footnotes, Seward does not tell his reader which quote has been extracted from which version, or even if he has used both versions. Seward was unable to use the same edition of Croyland as Hicks, for the simple reason that it was not published when he wrote his book. This solves the question as to why Seward used different editions to Hicks. It does not, however, answer the question as to why he has used two editions and why he has not chosen to distinguish between the two. They may have different emphasises, if so, then Seward should have made it clear. By not declaring which version he is quoting from Seward could leave himself open to the accusation that he has used quotes from the different versions out of context.
I have read a copy of the N Pronay/J Cox edition, and can comment on Hicks's use of it. Not having read the two editions used by Seward, I am at a disadvantage with regard to Seward's use of them. For that reason I shall to concentrate on the author’s use of Mancini and refer to Croyland were it is clear both are using a similar piece within context
|