Jenny, Tad, Laura, and John commented on Historians as Translators this week. I posted a comment on Laura’s blog, but decided to copy it into my own posting.
The historian has to be an interpreter. Historians create a narrative about the past to be understood in the present. Language, ideas, and methodology all perform subtle interpretation. Think of histories from a hundred years ago, they are anachronistic when compared to recent histories on the same topic. No matter how objective we are, we are translating the past as we create a fresh narrative.
Comment posted at Laura’s Three Cheers for Digital History
Other comments this week:
Comment on Ken’s “I’d love to take a public beating.”
Comment on Walaa’s “Footnotes”
Comment on Lee Ann’s “Who do polyglot historians talk to?”
February 15, 2007 at 7:58 am
Bill,
I don’t know if you got the word, but next week there are some interesting presentations at NWC for the visiting Japanese delegation to CMH. If you send me your email address I would be more than happy to send you the schedule.
Clio Wired II looks interesting- wish I was there…
Dieter
February 15, 2007 at 8:40 am
Yes, Bill, in creating a narrative about the past, historians act as an “interpreter” of that past. However, I was speaking directly about what “The Polyglot Manifesto” had to say when it quoted Jaroslav Pelikan:
Perhaps it’s Pelikan’s conflating the terms “interpreter” and “translator” —when it applies to a person who translates from one language to another, it makes sense; when it applies to a historian, I’m not so sure. When you think of a translator, you think of someone who translates word for word, idea for idea (with some room for the differences between the languages). The interpreting historians do, I think, is much less literal, much more interpretive. As you rightly pointed out, histories written a century ago differ greatly from histories written today. Clearly new perspectives bring new ideas to interpreting the past. So, interpreter, yes, but translator no.
February 15, 2007 at 8:57 am
Re should the digital historian act as a digital archivist or a polyglot–well, I think the easy answer is also the best one in this case. How about both or either/or, depending upon the kind of digital resource we’re talking about and the audience for that resource? For researchers, you’re absolutely right–the engagement comes as we work with the archives. But other kinds of engagement are possible as well with some kinds of archival material. Geopositioning and tagging come to mind off the top.