Non-historian here, very interested in history based on a recent delve into the Fall of Civilizations podcast. Guys, what you do is so awesome, thank you for your contributions to our world!
I have a process question for you. How do historians learn from primary historical sources written in different / ancient languages? Specifically, I am thinking about the Mayan codices and the Florentine Codex / surviving Aztec codices, some of which I gather were originally written in both Nahuatl and Spanish. The question is more general, though, too, and covers historical documents written in languages the historian does not understand as well--be it French, German, etc.
As an English speaking non-historian, it seems like the ridiculously obvious answer is to rely on translations into your own fluent languages, but isn't that a major limiting factor in this area of study? It would seem to mean a whole swath of historians that do not speak the original or thus-far translated languages of the historical works cannot study that source, and even those that do understand the translated language(s) are relying on the translator's accuracy and fidelity in the translation. I am guessing there are cases where translators differ in their opinions of meaning, which could have a major impact in understanding.
When a primary source is translated for the first time into a language like English, French, etc., is there a corresponding spike in study and academic literature, resulting from a whole new population of historians being able to access the information?
Thanks for helping me understand how historians "do history"!
Historians are expected to learn the requisite languages for their subfield, both ancient and modern. This is one of the reasons it can take quite a while to finish a PhD in history (10 years is not unheard of).
I've touched on language requirements with regard to Egyptology in a couple of posts:
In my experience, I worked with primary sources in French and sat in the library for hours with my pocket dictionary by my side. I knew I wanted to focus on French history when I was an undergraduate, and so I was fortunate enough to take French language classes while I was taking history courses at the same time. By the time I went for my history MA, I had taken enough French that I could do longer translations and incorporate them into my dissertation. I focused on literature written during the German Occupation which involved a lot of reading. You're definitely right that you need to consider translators' biases when you read a primary source secondhand. It's also worth mentioning that many history Phd programs require students to be fluent in at least one language other than English.
I work in the special collections department and I encounter a lot of French texts when I curate exhibits and lecture to students. If I need to use something in Aramaic, I definitely rely on a translation. When other historians visit my job and examine an object from the collection for their book/academic paper, they're usually fluent in the language of the material. A good historian will mention whether they're relying on translations, and how these translations influence the text. This is especially true regarding ancient languages, but many historians holding Phds had access through their coursework to learn dead languages.
To answer the last part of your post, when a primary source is discovered for the first time there's a spike in academic interest, not necessarily when it's translated. For example, the Vatican opened up its archives not too long ago and there's a long waitlist for scholars who want to examine the texts. This will probably result in a lot of publications over the next few years in academia, but not necessarily mass market books at first.
Speaking as someone who's been through the process of getting a PhD, a huge part of being a historian of any particular period is outstanding reading knowledge of the languages your sources are written in, as well as knowledge of modern languages that articles and research about your period are likely to be written in. Advanced-level study in history is never done with translations of texts. Those historians read sources in the original languages, and know the nuances enough to have arguments over the meanings of particular words.
As (initially) a classicist and then a medievalist, my Latin skills had to be superior, especially since my thesis involved producing a critical edition of a medieval Latin text. There were no translations available of this text--I had to understand it all on my own, including specialist terms (it was a theology text). Not only that, I had to be able to understand, when looking at three different manuscripts with different readings of a particular passage or word, which was most likely to be correct. I started this process as an undergraduate, using my Latin skills to translate some of Cassiodorus' Variae as an honours thesis project. I did classwork at the masters' level specifically in medieval Latin to help bring my comprehension skills up to speed.
Also as part of my undergraduate degree, I worked with a number of scholars of more ancient civilizations. Undergrads primarily looked at translated texts from these civilizations, but to specialize in them in graduate work scholars absolutely had to know those ancient languages. One professor of the Ancient Near East I worked with had proficiency in 12 different languages.
This goes for more recent periods as well. I've recently become more interested in medieval Novgorod, but am hindered a bit at the moment as I am still very much a beginner in even just modern Russian--not to mention older forms of the language. If I were interested in Norse cultures, I would need to learn Old Norse.
Language knowledge is key in any historical field, but particularly so in ancient history--where surviving written sources are fewer, so reliance on those sources is higher.
/u/LegalAction has previously written about Textual Criticism, or How We Know What That Old Book Really Said
/u/Valkine has previously written about studying history in languages other than your own.
/u/Astrogator has previously written about epigraphy as a primary source, written in Latin.
(more below)