Medieval encyclopaedists included material without asserting its truth

Evidence

The encyclopaedist in any case included all the material that was available to him, without intending thereby positively to signify assent to it, still less actively to assert its truth. Any relevant matter was interesting and should be included without further examination. … Both Varagine and Higden quoted stories that they explicitly realised were irreconcilable; for themselves, they preferred the better, but, as was the custom in such cases, they retained the discredited passages in their texts. As a general rule, there is a wide gap between the most sensible and the least sensible story in a single text. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1295 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Medieval encyclopaedists retained discredited passages rather than omitting them. — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1295; Medieval copyists reproduced contradictory views without vouching for them; Medieval writers could hold mutually exclusive views without noticing contradiction (+2 more)

Related

• Medieval encyclopaedists retained discredited passages rather than omitting them. (similarity 0.95)
• Medieval copyists reproduced contradictory views without vouching for them (similarity 0.91)
• Medieval writers could hold mutually exclusive views without noticing contradiction (similarity 0.85)
• Medieval writers kept discredited anti-Muslim stories alongside accurate claims (similarity 0.84)
• Medieval polemicists blended amusement, instruction, and controversy without sorting reliable sources. (similarity 0.83)
• Medieval Christian polemicists blended entertainment with controversy, favoring polemically useful facts over accuracy (similarity 0.82)
• Medieval polemicists quietly dropped claims lacking cross-tradition confirmation (similarity 0.82)
• Copying an assertion does not imply a writer’s assent to it (similarity 0.80)
• Medieval polemicists used Muslim sources to validate anti-Muslim legends (similarity 0.80)
• Medieval Christian polemicists attacked Islam with knowingly false evidence (similarity 0.80)
• Medieval Christian writers were accurate only where accuracy favored Christianity (similarity 0.80)
• Even well-informed medieval authors chose implausible stories when framing Muslims (similarity 0.80)
• Medieval interreligious polemics operated without shared evidentiary premises (similarity 0.79)
• Medieval disputation records were largely constructed strawman debates (similarity 0.79)
• Medieval critics saw Islamic truths as deliberate bait for deception (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Medieval encyclopaedists retained discredited passages rather than omitting them. #corroborates (0.90) — Norman Daniel, Islam and the West, 1295
• Medieval copyists reproduced contradictory views without vouching for them #corroborates (0.88)
• Medieval writers could hold mutually exclusive views without noticing contradiction #corroborates (0.82)
• Medieval scholarly method privileged authoritative books over direct sensory evidence #expands (0.80)
• Medieval disputation records were largely constructed strawman debates #complicates (0.75)