Conjectures:
Missing
Information
One problem with understanding the past intimately and fully is that we
have no candid visual or sound recordings of private, face-to-face
interactions. We have to rely on written official records, diaries, and
letters. And these can be misleading.
Perhaps the most obvious difficulty is the interpretation of a lack of
evidence. What does silence really mean? What does terseness really
indicate?
In some cases, letter-silence may simply mean that the parties were
able to talk face to face. While some individuals, due to personal
preferences, did write frequently, even when the other person was
nearby (the way some people today constantly text), others may have
preferred to save some conversations for the next visit.
Conversely,
the difficulty and length of time for delivery may have discouraged
some people from writing. A sense that the rare event of a letter must
be made worthwhile might increase the reluctance of some people. And of
course, papers get lost or destroyed over time, even when the
destruction isn't deliberate. We can't assume that letters or diaries
were burned for privacy unless
someone who saw the act says they were. And if they were burned for
certain, we shouldn't assign a motive other than the one given by the
burner (who probably wasn't telling anyone). In most circumstances,
nonexistent
documents signify nothing. There are simply too many ordinary, natural
reasons them not to be written or for paper to disappear.
The fact of scant mention of a topic isn't necessarily very
significant, either. It may be due to a lack of time, or of paper. Or
the style of record keeping may simply be short and factual. Many
family Bibles have lists of deaths and divorces without any outpouring
of grief -- or relief, or any other emotion -- on the page. They're
just lists of factual information, and were never meant to be anything
else. And it's certainly possible for a person of the past to not have
anything to hide, yet still not have anything to say to you, a
stranger
from posterity.
So the fact that we have no letters between Thomas Jefferson and his
brother for years my simply mean that they saw each other enough to say
everything they needed to say. Or the letters just didn't survive over
the decades.
And the fact that the mention of his mother's death in his account book
gives only the detail of the date and time is likely to be simply
because it was meant to be a record of fact -- precise and to the
point. The lack of extensive discussion of her in his
autobiography is readily explained by the fact that it was written as a
straightforward record of his
political career, rather than an emotional memoir. Neither case is
proof -- or even part of a proof -- of a cold
relationship, or any other emotional problem.