The Foster woodcut map controversy: A further examination of the evidence
The Foster woodcut map controversy: A further examination of the evidence
复制标题
福斯特木刻地图争议：对证据的进一步检验
DOI：
10.1080/03085696708592299
复制
发表时间：
1967
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Woodward
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Woodward
在有关福斯特木刻地图和哈伯德叙述的少量文献中，许多作者试图提供证据，表明哪张地图属于哪个版本，为什么要切割两块地图，以及首先切割哪块地图。随后的大部分争议都是由于未能检查所有可用的证据，特别是印象本身的物理证据而造成的。我已经提到过，霍尔曼 1960 年发表的论文非常受欢迎，因为它提供了对地图本身的详细、原创的观察。然而，令人有些惊讶的是，在经过四十页严密推理和大量插图的论述之后，霍尔曼的结论之一应该是“任何认为其中一张地图比另一张地图具有显着优先权的尝试只能是一种迂腐的胡言乱语”。如果他自己关于地图的结论是无可争议的，那么他对未来地图研究的明显谴责就会更有效。事实并非如此，因此，“福斯特木刻地图之争”至今仍有争议。本文试图回顾这场争论的一些方面，并在争论中提出新的证据。本文分为三个小节，按以下顺序进行讨论： 1．变体地图与 1677 年两个版本的哈伯德叙述的对照。 2. 切割两块的可能原因。 3、雕刻的优先级。作为结论，作者对与两张变体地图的发布相关的主要事件进行了简短的建议重建。
In the small body of literature pertaining to the Foster woodcut maps and Hubbard's Narrative, many authors have attempted to present evidence indicating which map belonged to which edition, why two blocks were cut, and which was cut first. Much of the subsequent controversy has resulted from a failure to examine all the available evidence, especially the physical evidence of the impressions themselves. The paper of 1960 by Holman, to which I have already alluded, was therefore extremely welcome as it offered detailed, original observations of the maps themselves. It is somewhat surprising, however, that after forty pages of closely reasoned and profusely illustrated discourse, one of Holman's conclusions should be that" any attempt to credit either map with significant priority over the other can only be an exercise in pedantic nonsense". His apparent condemnation of future studies on the maps would be more valid if his own conclusions relative to the maps were incontrovertible. They are far from being so, and consequently the" Foster woodcut map controversy" is still open for discussion. This paper attempts to review some facets of the controversy and to present fresh evidence in the debate. The paper is divided into three short sections to be discussed in the following order:1. Collation of the variant maps with the two 1677 editions of Hubbard'sNarrative. 2. Possible reasons for cutting two blocks. 3. The priority of engraving. By way of conclusion, the author offers a short suggested reconstruction of the main events connected with the publishing of the two variant maps.