"that is exactly what should have been done for those counties which had not
yet been covered by the EPN Survey (and even for the early ones which were
covered"
But John, it took Victor nearly twenty years as it was, and he died before
it was published! Collecting and editing material, even from printed
sources, is extremely time-consuming, and would have meant employing an army
of county experts. Now if we lived in Scandinavia.....
John Freeman
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Briggs" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 3:26 PM
Subject: Re: [EPNL] Sicklesmere (Suffolk)
> John Freeman wrote:
>>
>> Sicklesmere (Suffolk)As far as I know, no new collecting from original
>> sources was done for CDEPN. If it had, the book would never have been
>> published!
>
> To be fair, Keith was only suggesting new collecting from published
> sources - and with the benefit of hindsight, that is exactly what should
> have been done for those counties which had not yet been covered by the
> EPN Survey (and even for the early ones which were covered: I grumbled a
> few years back about Speen, Bucks.) Presumably the EPNS files cover major
> names, but Sicklesmere is one of those awkward "minor" names which occur
> on the 1983 OS Road Atlas! It must be a village which isn't a parish, etc.
>
> This raises awkward questions about the the methodology for the "popular"
> series volumes - I have consistently argued that they should be based on
> the 1:50,000 gazetteer: for some counties (eg Bucks) that would make them
> considerably more detailed than the main series volumes! (And implies
> doing all the work again.)
>
> As for *Sicel, Victor made the classic mistake of assuming that because it
> had already been postulated (for Sicklinghall, YWR), it was more likely to
> exist!
>
> John Briggs
|