To what extent does history combine fact and fiction?

History, as a means of understanding the past, constantly adapts to its current climate. It is
this unrelenting evolution, as Sarah Maza argues, that is a driving force behind the recurring
conversation as whether history tows the line of more ‘fact’ or ‘fiction’1. Whilst fiction has
gained prominence from the growth of postmodernism, and even in the Ancient World, fact
remains the bedrock of Historians and help to fill out areas when sources are scarce. Fact can
be seen as agreed upon, fixed things (for instance, the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066)
– these ideas manifest themselves in more empirical/‘Rankeon’ practices – whereas fiction
has the potential to inaccurately represent the past, and this is down to Historians forming
their own interpretation specific to their viewpoint, or the narrative they wish to convey. This,
then, suggests there is a split over Historians’ methodologies and approaches to research that
consequently drives at the distinction between producing ‘fact’ or ‘fiction’. Indeed, E.H. Carr
defined history as the “continuous process of interaction between the historian and his facts,
an unending dialogue between the present and past”2, suggesting that it is the role of a
Historian to chose what they do with the facts they have, in particular whether to adopt the
empirical-analytical practices associated with Leopold Von Ranke, fact, or Hayden White
influenced post-modern beliefs, fiction. Yet it is not binary, in fact, history has on multiple
occasions proven to combine both elements in order to cultivate conclusions on an event
where sources are lacking. As history, as Carr describes it, is a ‘continuous process of
interaction’3, it is fair to suggest that current methodologies have now come to adapt a
combination of these ideals to better connect to what came before us. To fully grasp the extent
of this, it is best to explore both the methodologies and instances of ‘fact’ and ‘fiction’ being
used in different periods. This ‘combination’ is most heavily present within the ancient and
medieval world, where sources are scarce in areas, so historians are, therefore, forced to fill
in some of the gaps left. Then, as society progresses, this idea losses its prevalence due to
society undergoing a shift towards more scientific/empirical methods of research; however,
in spite of this, the idea of imposing narratives grew in the modern age, becoming a highly
contested topic over what could be viewed as ‘fact’ or ‘fiction’.
Primary sources have always been considered the bedrock on which all history is built. 19 th
Century German Historian, Leopold von Ranke, is seen as the pre-eminent force behind the
shift towards empirical based approaches to conducting historical research. In Theory and
Practice of History, he argues that history is wrongly considered in the same category as an
‘art’ (i.e. Philosophy) as its own existence is enough to demonstrate the truth4, it is not an
abstract art, but a rigorous scientific endeavor.

1
Sarah Maza, Thinking About History (University of Chicago Press, 2017) , p.221.
2
E. H. Carr, ‘The Historian and his Facts’ What is History? (London Penguin, 1961), p. 5.
3
Carr, What is History?, p. 5.
4
Leopold Von Ranke, The Theory and Practice of History (Routledge, 2010), pp. 33-34.
Ranke placed primary sources at the centre of his approach and believed that it was the job
of the Historian to rigorously present the facts of history (i.e. showing how it really was5), no
matter how ugly it was and dissuaded any notion of historical interpretation within primary
source evaluation. Despite Ranke’s history being seemingly built on pure, cold facts, fiction
has played an important role in forming the basis of primary sources within history. The Iliad
(by Homer) is a poem that details the end of the Trojan War, it has allowed historians to
uncover the war and why it came to be a defining moment in Greece. Historians can never
know for certain if the Trojan War played out as the Iliad details, but it has helped to provide
an outline of a major battle. Much of Ancient Greek historiography is supported by literature
and poetry, and form a collective past within a nation; this has occurred in other periods such
as Irish folk songs and Indigenous North Americans using skins to depict/record events. This
highlights the variety of ways primary sources may be presented to Historians, fiction is
utilized too as primary sources as they detail the opinions of those there at the time, but no
matter if they are fact/fiction they all have the purpose of trying to understand/represent the
past as it really was.
Records, however, may be missing and cannot always be relied upon to give accurate accounts
of the past. Herodotus, the father of history, used his work to prevent the erasure of the past
by time and to document events as he saw them6. The Graeco-Persian War continues to have
few sources, so Herodotus remains to be one of the crucial there is. The account is from
Herodotus’ point of view and, therefore, is his interpretation of events and is unique to his
perspective on events. Whilst it is a primary source, it still could contain elements of fiction
and could misrepresent the past. The common adage ‘history is written by the victors’ relates
here. Ranke’s approach was impacted by the growth of a national history that manifested
itself in the creation of archives that published new primary sources. However, it cannot be
trusted that the records do not miss/erase people or ideas that the ‘nation’ does not want
written into history. This has been seen most commonly in indigenous peoples, for instance
the Native Americans before Columbus discovers America (1492), most people believe that
the English were the original colonizers due to us being the ‘victors’ in this case. Yet the
practice of record keeping has been utilized by the Eastern World since the Ancient World. In
Ancient Asia, their approach to history was based around succession in each era, and not a
strict linear timeline. No other empire has, according to Daniel Woolf, ever placed such
continual emphasis on recording and understanding its past as the Chinese; historical-writing
was more developed than in the west and even appointed people to look after this7. From
around 90BC, the ‘Shiji’ (Records of the Grand Historian), these detailed annals of the major
dynasties, chronological tables, chronicles of the dynasties and branches of knowledge,
Historian Sima Qian was a part of a lineage that held this position8. Although these records
could have subjectivities or inconsistencies or be missing parts of history, they still provide a

5
Car, What is History, p.2.
6
Robin Waterfield, Herodotus: The Histories (Oxford’s World’s classics, 2008), p. 3.
7
Maza, Thinking about History, pp.228-229.
8
Maza, Thinking about History, p. 229.
useful account of the culture at the time, and historians can utilize them as a basis for research
and then conduct further research to properly uncover the facts of the past.
Due to these missing records, Historian’s interpretations, therefore, play a critical role in
understanding the past. The 1st False Dmitrii was a prominent figure in Russia during what is
dubbed as ‘the Time of Troubles’, between 1598 – 1613, who attempted to take control of
Russia away from its then leader, Boris Godunov, by pretending to be the son of Ivan the
Terrible. There is great dispute as to the real identity of this figure within Russian
historiography – Godunov’s Government believes him to be a renegade noble Monk, Otrep’ev,
whereas Chester Dunning argues he is the Dmitrii of Uglich9. Dunning believes that due to
Muscovy having limited sources in which to allow Historians to come to an empirical
judgement, by Rankeon standards, their interpretations have been based on the general
opinion of the Dmitrii at the time10. To this day the False Dmitrii’s identity is unconfirmed and
is deeply contested by historians, however, Historians have been able to use elements of both
fact (the known movements of Monk Otrep’ev) and fiction (personal interpretation) in order
to give an idea of who this pretender to the throne was. Furthermore, interpretation has
allowed for greater work in areas of microhistory. The Book is a re-telling of a real life court
case about a man who leaves for war, and then upon his return another man calling himself
Martin Guerre appears, leading to the question as to who the real Martin Guerre was. Natalie
Davis even makes it explicit that her work combines both in order to create a complete picture
of the story – “What I offer is part my invention, but held tightly in check by the voices of the
past”11. By acknowledging that the narrative is a construct of both fact and fiction, it highlights
that sometimes historians have to work with limited empirical evidence, in this case sources
remained limited to a couple in-depth accounts published by court officials. Davis conveys that
the sources at the her disposal, and her interpretation of the narrative within, formed the
basis of her writing and that history to a large extent can utilize a combination of fact and
fiction – so long as Historians are not misrepresenting the past. This type of methodology best
applies to those who specialize in micro-history, where sources are limited due to the scale of
their research, perhaps the combination and extent of fact and fiction is dependent on
whether a Historian is studying a more macro or micro area. Furthermore, Carr is critical of
the use of empiricism as a methodology and advocates for the use of interpretation. He argues
that empiricism relies on the historian being able to separate himself, from the object (the
fact), and is skeptical that historians can do this. His fish analogy supports the idea that facts
are the bedrock of historical research – but – suggests that Historians then take these facts
and make selections as to which ones best suit their argument12, similarly to the 1st False
Dmitrii. Carr uses the example of Ancient Greece, in so far as there is a detailed history on 5 th
Century Athens – however – there is limited knowledge of the experiences of a Spartan, or

9
Maurie Perrie, Cambridge History of Russia: ‘The Time of Troubles’, (Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp.
410 – 411.
10
Chester Dunning, Who Was Tsar Dmitrii? (Slavic Review, 2001), p.770.
11
Maza, Thinking about History, p.256.
12
Carr, What is History?, p.3
Theban for instance; Carr describes history then as having been “preselected and
predetermined for us”13. Carr’s argument would probably extend to empiricists like Ranke as
whether they are conscious of it or not, they will end up disregarding some facts. This
highlights how facts can be presented in different ways to support vastly different arguments,
and that interpretation can be considered fiction itself as it is based on the conclusions of
historians.
There is a danger that when interpreting primary sources Historians could get carried away
and end up spreading disinformation. The 20th Century saw the greatest clash over history and
its use of fiction, in particular the rise of Post-Modernism in the 1980s. Postmodernism argues
that in spite of the cultural shift, two pillars remained consistent: empiricism and rational
analysis14. Munslow commented that postmodernism is both rooted in “empirical analytical
structures” but took into account the “unavoidably fictive nature of history”; he identified that
there was a turn towards narrative-linguistics focusing on reading into the language of a
source and its impact on the truth15. Hayden White identified that this practice of reading into
the language of a source allows for the use of interpretations within history, and that for
something to be ‘historical’, the event must be able to be interpreted in at least two different
ways. The danger of this being that historians are able to impose false narratives upon the
sources to spread hate, anger and bigotry that it becomes dangerous. Postmodernist
methodology led to the growth of Holocaust Denialism towards the late 20th Century, and to
the Irving v Lipstadt case. David Irving in ‘Hitler’s War’ (1977)/‘Churchill’s War’ (1987) had
conveyed the narrative that Hitler was unaware of the Jewish Genocide, and that if he was,
he opposed it; in court it was proven that Irving’s references/evidence was grossly skewed in
order to impose his narrative upon history, with the intention of creating hate and sell more
books. Evans, a Modern German Historian, believes the proliferation of historical
interpretation/fiction via post-modernism created ‘barbarians at the gate’, and that if
Historians argue against facts in their view of history they end up undercutting primary source
evaluation and the overall study of history16. As postmodernists see analyzing sources the
same as analyzing a piece of literature where various inferences may be drawn from the same
source, it leads to history being more based in fiction than fact. Therefore, while postmodern
methodology does place facts at its bedrock, the dangers it poses through allowing Historians
to possibly distort events by misinterpreting/fictionalizing the past could undercut the
practice of history altogether.
On balance, Historians predominantly utilize facts as the basis for their approach to history
and to aid in forming their opinions. It can be subsequently combined with fiction when
analyzing primary sources and when sources may be scarce, creating the idea of a
‘combination’. The issue that Historians must be wary of is trying to represent the past

13
Carr, What is History?, p. 5.
14
‘What is History?’, History in Focus, https://archives.history.ac.uk/history-in-
focus/Whatishistory/munslow6.html, accessed 30th October 2023.
15
What is History?, History in Focus.
16
Maza, Thinking about History, p. 243.
accurately when there is a vast array of knowledge to comb through; it is how they interact
with the selected facts that determines whether the study of history is more fact or fiction.
Moreover, there is a real danger when historians choose to prioritize the use of fiction in their
interpretation of events, i.e. postmodernists/David Irving, over facts as they will end up
misrepresenting the past. In conclusion, History does in fact combine fact and fiction, but
Historians use primary sources as the bedrock of their research and so lean more towards
facts to allow for greater efficacy and pursuit of understanding the reality of the past.
 Bibliography
Sarah Maza, Thinking about History (University of Chicago Press, 2017), pp.220 – 258.
E. H. Carr, ‘The Historian and his Facts’ What is History? (London Penguin, 1961), pp. 2 – 6.
‘What is History?’, History in Focus, https://archives.history.ac.uk/history-in-
focus/Whatishistory/munslow6.html, accessed 30th October 2023.
Maurie Perrie, Cambridge History of Russia: ‘The Time of Troubles’, (Cambridge University
Press, 2006), pp. 410 – 411.
Robin Waterfield, Herodotus: The Histories (Oxford’s World’s classics, 2008), p. 3.
Stephen Berger, The Invention of European National Traditions in European Romanticism
(Oxford History of Historical Writing, 2011), pp. 26 – 28.
Leopold Von Ranke, The Theory and Practice of History (Routledge, 2010), pp. 33-44.
Chester Dunning, Who was Tsar Dmitrii? (Slavic Review, 2001), p.770.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Leopold_von_Ranke