Quote:
Originally Posted by Architype
Well, here's what Wikipedia says, it seems he was "Zuan Chabotto", and not Giovanni Cabotto, as you said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Cabot
And - I have heard about the destroyed documents, it's absolutely incredible that someone would do that unless she was in doubt about some of her facts and thought they might be misinterpreted. |
This is actually a particular "case study" that we talked about a lot in class. With respect to intellectual property, she probably viewed her findings as her belongings and not wanted anyone else to get credit for the discoveries that she had made. It's actually common practice, especially within history academia since finds of this magnitude are rare, to not allow any of your findings to reach the public until you have everything completed and are ready to submit to a peer reviewed journal. Colleagues at the same unversity are often completely in the dark with respect to what everyone else is working on because there is a fear of having your work hijacked or leaked to someone else with similar interests and having them beat you to the punch.
You can certainly make a case that she may have doubted her findings but, more likely, she did feel worried about being misinterpreted. If she hadn't tied up all the loose ends she would be leaving herself open to criticism upon cross-examination. Publishing, even posthumously, could ruin her reputation if this were to have happened. Though reputation means little to you after you are gone: A) Historians are an odd bunch, and B) it could cast doubt on all her work over her entire career, and who wants their legacy to be a lifetime of doubted work?