YOUR article about George Hudson aired some of the old, discredited clichs about the subject yet again (February 25). The piece ended with an extraordinarily vicious contention that Dr A J Peacock, who has written at great length on Hudson, is now a discredited historian. Why? Because he wrote something using a pseudonym.
He often does, and so have hundreds of writers before him. Not only that but he has sometimes not signed his work and has done some ghosting for people who did not have the literary skills of Robert Beaumont.
Has Mr Beaumont ever contributed anything to the Press, for example other than under his own name? If he has access to one of the dictionaries of pseudonymous and anonymous literature, he will agree that Peacock is in good company. Two people who spring to mind who have done this terrible thing are the great Eric Partridge and 'Saki'.
I am chairman of the Trust which produced Dr Peacock's recent three volumes on York in the 20th century.
Why does Mr Beaumont not take Peacock's contentions one by one, say they are wrong if he can, and let the Doc reply to them? No relying on myths or Civic Trust-type wishful thinking. Proper history.
Maybe the York Settlement Trust could publish the results. Here is an opportunity to discredit that user of pseudonyms for once and all. What bets on the outcome?
W King,
Chairman,
York Settlement Trust,
Deramore Drive, York.
Updated: 11:18 Tuesday, March 05, 2002
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article