> Every translation is already
> an interpretation. Second hand clothes may be acceptable; second
> hand knowledge is not."
> Reactions?...
Indeed, the more one knows of the times, the languages, the customs,
the mores of the past, the better one will understand it, and the better a
historian one can be, but EVERY artifact of the past that survives suffers a
form of translation. Perhaps it is better to read everything in its original
language. Would it be even better to read the original papers themselves?
Perhaps even better to read facsimiles, so that the pages wouldn't be brittle
and the bindings loose, and to read by candle light, without the benefit of
indoor plumbing?
Perhaps I stretch my understanding of Foucault beyond its limits, but
the purpose of studying history isn't to bottle it, or to re-live it. The key
isn't documentation, but interpretation.
Personally, I prefer to read things in the original language, when I
can, and when I can afford the time, but there are times I have to trust the
translators.
Ed Sandifer