THE HISTORIAN AND HIS FACTS

In art history classes in college, I was shown a painting by Toulouse Lautrec, a nineteenth century French artist and asked what i thought about it, not knowing anything about it but the genre it came from. I commented on the style, the forms and pretty much dismissed it immediately. Others glared in awe. Why? We interpreted the painting by picking up cues. The same painting had about ten different interpretations. It amazes me how there can be such diversity in thought and interests. Then we were briefed on its context and told in detail about the artist himself, his miseries overpowering his success. My opinions about the painting began to change, more out of sympathy. My teacher so passionately talked about the subject, I suddenly started to acknowledge and admire what I was looking at. The others were swooning already.

History means interpretation.

And the first step of interpretation is translation. No two interpretations can be the same as they are the outcome of personal beliefs which differ from one historian to the other and so one may have emphasized a certain fact and interpreted around it while the other may have ignored it completely. The historian is engaged in a continuous process of moulding his facts to his interpretation and his interpretation to his facts. It is essential that one learns about the historian before studying his work. When I look for a translation that a great poet made of another poet, I am not expecting something literally similar to the original, I look for a poetic translation because I already know the original and I want to see how the translator has challenged and emulated his source in his own language. Although I’m left wondering, which should I believe, having had several opinions on the same subject . Still, I feel none in particular is superior to the others. Each is a blend of strengths and weaknesses, due to the difficulty of the task.

There is omission of content with every stage of interpretation/translation from one author to another and even from the author to the reader where the reader may understand it differently from what the author is trying to say. I agree with Acton’s views on how we cannot have ultimate history in this generation. This is where negotiation comes into play, when in order to get something, each party renounces something, and at the end everybody feels satisfied since one cannot have everything. Translation may also be from one language to another. All languages have their own syntax. If we attempt to follow the formal syntax of another language, we reproduce forms which are confusing or abnormal to the target audience. While translating the bible from Greek to Latin, Saint Jerome realized that it was altered to a large extent during translation, so he decided to translate the original text which was in Hebrew. Moses in one language it said to have had rays of light coming from his head when he descended, whereas another made it to be horns! Also, we must be aware of the fact that a given word can signify a number of different things in a number of different contexts. And so it’s better when something is translated not word to word, but sense to sense . The context gives meaning to the content. Martin Luther King’s “letters from prison” are better understood by someone who knows the circumstances under which they were written rather than someone who is oblivious to 20^th century American history. If we know information about the author’s audience, this may also help us to understand the message itself.

I find it hard to agree with Mr. Gradgrind’s statement, ‘facts alone are wanted in life’ and find it easier to agree with ‘the pulpy part on the fruit is more rewarding than the hardcore’. But this is not to say i don’t doubt the ‘pulpy parts’. Yes, our picture has been preselected and predetermined for us by people who believed it and wanted us to believe it. Sometimes, I feel deprived of my own thoughts and opinions when such interpretations are backed up with indisputable facts. I continue to ask, Are these right? Which one should I believe? Who is this person who was given the power to ‘make’ history? ....