QCQ1: “Christian saints, feel admonished or inspired by model faith and fortitude–but these are destinies beyond deploring or contesting”. I agree that there is more to following a discipline than shaming others for following the discipline poorly or not at all. Rarely do people make a change, but often people shame others for not changing as well. Would it be plausible to have a movement without the distinction of leaders and followers (of those who act and those who deplore)? 

QCQ2: “ With time, many staged photographs turn into historical evidence, albeit of an impure kind– like most historical evidence”. Much of historical evidence is evidence of the propaganda and editing that leaders wanted. The evidence may not be valid for what it was claimed for, however, it can be used as evidence for political and personal motives. Is biased history still as valid as unbiased history, simply in a different context than it was initially conceived for?