Subtext

Trying to read between the lines can be hard if you do not speak the language. A group or individual can have their or her own language that only others within the group fully understand. Or only those of their or her immediate life can understand. What is the context and meaning behind the author of a journal or letter when one is removed from it? A historian has to figure out what the individual was thinking and meaning when she wrote in her journal or her letter. Sometimes a historian can get the meaning all wrong if she is not careful, or she can tease out too much meaning. So, historians (and other scholars/researchers/writers) have to be careful and rely on as much concrete evidence as possible before throwing about suppositions and theories. Theory can help understand or interpret the past, but it should not be the only thing. Substance, we need substance.

Right now, I am reading documents that test my ability to discern the truth (yes truth) about the past. Words and ideas were conveyed in a polite and official voice. What lay beneath this veneer of fidelity and civility? How much of what was written was true for the author of the letter? And how well did she capture and report the words and ideas of others? Can I reasonably suggest or conclude there was more truth than spin in what she had to say? What is the real meaning of her language?

One could argue that it does not matter how meticulous I am about this one series of documents. I could give suppositions and leave it to others to determine. (Fortunately, Unfortunately), I have a responsibility to be truthful and reach deep beneath the nice language to the subtext of the document.