Jag: I agree with you on all the points in your latest post. I even wondered whether he cut out paragraphs to keep the page count down! Otherwise, Harker is a good writer, even if somewhat bilious in tone at times.

@ Steve:

1 I knew people would challenge Harker on some detail! Harker definitely says Buchan was 'acquainted with' Scott. I think Harker might agree with you that Buchan knew of the 'fashion' for antiquarianism and wouldn't quibble at all with your suppositions regarding Buchan's reading matter.

2 Of course you are right not to have anything against 'mediation' per se, since in a general sense it seems inevitable.

As I mentioned above, the earliest use of the term 'mediation' within folkloric studies that I know if Vic Gammon's. He was at the time being supervised by a historian, so it appears to be a term used by historians. If they don't use the term, they certainly use the general concept and it is taught in school history at age 16 if not before. Students are taught to look at primary sources and discuss whether/what their bias was. So two eye-witness or contemporary accounts of the Peterloo Riots/Massacres would be very different, for example, depending on the point of view of the personage involved.

3 The term 'mediation' is not synonymous with 'fakery' or 'dishonesty'. There is no contradiction between opposing 'fakes' and accepting mediation.