Professional Documents
Culture Documents
HISTORY ASANOCEAN
But there isahuge difference between writing ahistorical novel Alicja Bemben
andwriting history. IfImay put itlike this: history islike ariver, University ofSilesia
and the historian is writing about the ways the river flows in Katowice
Poland
andthecurrents andcrosscurrents intheriver. But, within this river,
there are also fish, and[] Iam interested inthefish. Thenovelists
approach tothepast, through theeyes ofcharacters, issubstan-
tially different fromtheapproach ofthehistorian. (Kooria, 2012: 718)
36
within poetry rather than byandlarge antithetical. Secondly,
37
Just asthrongs ofGreco-Roman historians followed these rules,
sodid theChristian authors who, however, reworked them after
their own fashion. Inasmuch asthelatter ones also considered
history abranch ofgrammar orrhetoric (Deliyannis, 2003: 13)
andborrowed models fortheir writings fromtheGreco-Roman
works (Breisach, 1994: 82, 85),3 theworld-view framing their nar-
rations was somewhat different andtheir rhetorical style more
modest (Ainsworth, 2003: 265). Onthebasis oftheconcept
oftheages ofman, Christian theoreticians ofhistoryEusebius,
Jerome, St.Augustine, Isidore ofSeville, Bede, Thomas Aqui-
nasformulated their own version ofthe(hi)story ofthefall
oftheman. Forexample, inSt. Augustines TheCity ofGod,
themost fundamental historical periodization oftheepoch4,
weread that there are six ages oftheworld corresponding tosix
days ofcreation; that humanity moves fromtheperiod ofblissful
happiness totheSecond Coming which isto bring theseventh
agetheKingdom ofHeaven (Grabski, 2003: 60).
A consequence ofadopting such frame isthat early Christian
andmedieval history, just like its Greco-Roman equivalent, was
apreordained series with events, people andobjects tobe slot-
ted into typological constructs. Thus, theChristians did notbring
about thefall oftheRoman Empire (Augustine), theten plagues
ofEgypt did notdiffer much fromtheten Roman persecutions
(Orosius), saints were heroes, heroic men grand, theprudent wise,
thejust upright (Henry ofHuntingdon), thenoble pious (Richard
ofDevizes).5
Oceans Apart:
In Search of New Wor(l)ds
3 Eusebius andJerome modeled onCastor ofRhodes, Augustine onCicero,
rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014
Livy andSeneca.
4 Grabski quotes Bhner andGilson who aver that: In theMiddle Ages
historiosophy was shaped mostly byideas ofSt. Augustine. History was
conceived asagreat drama designed byGod andwith thehuman astheactor.
Theframe was given intheHoly Bible. Three great events divide thehis-
tory: theCreation, theRedemption andtheApocalypse (Grabski, 2003: 60).
5 Apart fromthese remarks ofBreisach, see also: [] thestories ofsaints
acquired some standard features. Thesaints youth was either precociously
pious orflawed until aconversion experience changed everything; miracles
were performed andhardships endured; andafter death thebody might remain
incorrupt. Thesimilarities did notmatter, since these biographies wished
topresent notinnovative stories butthetypical manifestations oftheholy
inthis world (Breisach, 1994: 86, 98); andThey reflected theChristian image
38
Another corollary, regardless ofwhether we are talking about
39
Isidore ofSeville, although still inarhetoric manual, distanced
history fromfables inthat [h]istories are true deeds that have
happened, plausible narrations are things that, even ifthey have
nothappened, nevertheless could happen, andfables are things
that have nothappened andcannot happen, because they are
contrary tonature (Isidore ofSeville, 2006: 67). This insistence
ontruthfulness differentiated history fromfable butstill left
theseparation ofhistory fromliterature forfuture generations.
On theone hand, theRenaissance conception ofreality didnotdif-
fer radically fromits predecessors. Based ontheantique andmedieval
traditions (Kelley, 1991: 312), St. Augustines claim that Gods law was
themodus operandi oftheworld was widely shared bytheRenais-
sance luminaries ofhistory. Ontheother hand, thechanges that
were introduced toaprovidential understanding oftheworld
affected late fifteenth-, sixteenth- andseventeenth-century
historiography deeply. According totheAugustinian conception
mentioned above, humans were passive enactors, puppets inGods
hands. Defying such aview, Machiavelli initiated, andJean Bodin
developed, atheory ofthree histories. Theassumption was that
there existed divine andnatural histories governed bytheprinciples
outside ofhuman relations. There was, however, also ahuman
history that, asmuch aswas entangled inthelatter two, was
considered tobe largely aproduct ofthehuman will (Grabski,
2003: 167168; Breisach, 1994: 158).
Acknowledging thehuman potential ofcreating history impli-
Oceans Apart: cated anumber ofchanges inhistoriography. Without rigorous
In Search of New Wor(l)ds divine determination, thehuman past called foranew concep-
tualization. Theensuing classificatory anxiety led Renaissance
rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014
there were avariety ofliterary forms through which that past could
be represented; that notallofthese were actually histories accord-
ing to the strict classical definition of the scope and language that
were tobe found inworks socalled; that among that subset ofworks
about thepast deemed tobe histories there was animplied hierarchy
ofgenres (and within that aranking ofauthors according toboth stylis-
tic andnon-stylistic considerations) atthebottom ofwhich one found
thenow disparaged chronicle; and, most important, that thequality that
connected allworks purporting tomake true statements about thepast
was that ofbeing historical. (Woolf, 2005: 2830)
40
Thus, what thehistoriographers oftheera did todelineate
41
observed that, inasmuch asthey depart fromthestance that
reason alone grants truth (Bates, 2001: 45, 12), they end up
acknowledging: therole ofintuition, asin Vicos andHerders intui-
tive grasping ofinsights (Breisach, 1994: 205) orMser andLockes
intuitive knowledge (Bates, 2001: 14); subjective judgment, asin
Kantian subjective understanding; andmost importantly, thelit-
erary, asthecases ofCoyer, Voltaire andHume, Gibbon, Schlzer,
Bodmer, Condorcet, Fresnoy (Grabski, 2003: 300, 31718, 34445;
Breisach, 1994: 216, 221222; Bates, 2001: 16; Fresnoy, 1730: 319).
Although thehistorians oftheage hailed their trade ascience dif-
ferent fromfabulating literature, ittook theRomantics andtheir
concept ofsacred versus historical writing toinstigate adefinite
break between historiography andliterature.
The French Revolution put paid tothesocial order ofthelate
eighteenth-century Europe andmade theintellectuals ofthetime
get stuck between arock oftheno longer meaningful past
andahard place oftheunstable present. Toovercome this impasse,
theRomantics embarked onredefining theprevailing basic
conventions andcategories oftheir world. Narrowing theterm
literature toa corpus ofprivileged texts, atreasury inwhich value,
truth, andbeauty had been piously stored, andgiving history
themeaning ofthe faithful record of[empirical] reality turned,
according toLionel Gossman, these two modes ofwriting into
opposites (Gossman, 1990: 229). However, even acursory glance
atthedefinitionsboth kinds oftexts are torender truthmight
Oceans Apart:
cast doubts ontheviability oftheRomantic literature-history
In Search of New Wor(l)ds dichotomy. Acloser look athow theRomantics perceived both
trades, what therole oftheir practitioners was andwhat their
rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014
44
andwar) did cede pole position toanalytical accounts ofdeep structures
45
definition seems tobe anumbrella term intheAristotelian fashion,
Gadamer does notsee imitation astheunifying principle ofalltexts;
instead, he opts foraconcept ofunderstanding asthecommon
base. According tohim, regardless ofwhether we talk about
reading aliterary orahistorical piece, their production issubject
tothesame process ofunderstanding/interpreting.
Understanding anytext starts with aprojection ofasense that
might be encountered init. Theproject isdetermined byhidden
prejudices which shape our fore-meanings . These, inturn, are
either incessantly spurred orrevised bywhat continually emerges
inthetext (Gadamer, 2004: 269).10 Theunderstanding we achieve
intheprocess ofreading isthus arealization ofour projections,
our interpretation ofthetext, nota simple reflection ofwhat
isgiven tothesenses (Gadamer, 2004: 155, 269272). Thus, read-
ing ahistorical text orsource does notguarantee access towiees
eigentlich gewesen (how things have really been), butrather
creating aninterpretation ofit. Consequently, writing professional
history andhistorical novels that follow such aninterpretation turns
out tobe creating ones vision ofthepast formed onthebasis
ofyetanother vision.
However, inasmuch asGadamers theory ofunderstanding
locates historical texts within anall-encompassing concept
ofliterature andthus justifies literary analyses ofhistorical texts,
itisalso crucial toask whether areverse maneuver ismethod-
Oceans Apart: ologically viable. Todemonstrate that aliterary text, inthis case
In Search of New Wor(l)ds thehistorical novel, might be asubject ofhistorical inquiry, Iwould
rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014
46
like torefer toHayden Whites concepts ofthehistorical text
48
Works Cited
49
Gossman, L. (1990) Between History andLiterature. Cambridge andLon-
don: Harvard University Press.
Grabski, A. F. (2003) Dzieje historiografii. Pozna: Wydawnictwo Poznaskie.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1892) Lectures ontheHistory ofPhilosophy. E. S. Hal-
dane, K. Paul, Trench (trans). London: Trbner & Co.
Herodotus (2006) TheHistories. N. Luraghi (trans). InMeta-histori:
Method andgenre intheHistories, inC. Dewald andJ. Marinc-
ola (eds), TheCambridge Companion toHerodotus. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 7692.
Isidore ofSeville (2006) TheEtymologies ofIsidore ofSeville. Stephen
A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach, O. Berghof and M. Hall
(trans). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelley, D. R. (1991) Versions ofHistory: FromAntiquity totheEnlighten-
ment. New Haven andLondon: Yale University Press.
Kooria, M. (2012) Between theWalls ofArchives andHorizons ofImagi-
nation: AnInterview with Amitav Ghosh, Itinerario 36. http://
journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=onlin
e&aid=8845430&fulltextType=CR&fileId=S0165115313000028
Marincola, J. (2007) Speeches inClassical Historiography, inJ. Marin-
cola (ed), ACompanion toGreek andRoman Historiography,
Volume I, series ofBlackwell Companions totheAncient World.
Malden, Oxford andCarlton: Blackwell Publishing, 118132.
Munslow, A. (2006) Deconstructing History. London: Taylor andFrancis.
Schiller, F. (2006) What Is, andto What End DoWe Study, Universal History?,
Oceans Apart: inC. Stephan andR. Trout (eds andtrans), Friedrich Schiller Poet
In Search of New Wor(l)ds
ofFreedom Volume II. Washington, DC: Schiller Institute. http://www.
rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014
schillerinstitute.org/transl/Schiller_essays/universal_history.html
White, H. (1975) Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nine-
teenth-Century Europe. Baltimore andLondon: Johns Hopkins
University Press.
(1978) Fictions of Factual Representation, H. White (ed),
Tropics of Discourse. Essays in Cultural Criticism. Baltimore
andLondon: Johns Hopkins University Press, 121135.
Woolf, D. R. (2005) From Hystories totheHistorical: Five Transitions
inThinking about thePast, 15001700, inHuntington Library
Quarterly 68 (12): 3370.
50