FEATURES

HISTORY ASANOCEAN

But there isahuge difference between writing ahistorical novel

andwriting history. IfImay put itlike this: history islike ariver,
and the historian is writing about the ways the river flows
andthecurrents andcrosscurrents intheriver. But, within this river,
there are also fish, and[] Iam interested inthefish. Thenovelists
approach tothepast, through theeyes ofcharacters, issubstantially different fromtheapproach ofthehistorian. (Kooria, 2012: 718)

Dipesh Chakrabarty notices that tocraft their own visions ofhistoryand itmight be added that ofliterature aswellSouth Asian
intellectuals borrow European concepts andcategories. Unavoidable
andindispensable assuch borrowings are forhim, they entail both
global andregional effect; theeffect isglobal inthesense that
theexchange ofideas makes them spread worldwide andregional
inthesense that their constant interactions caused one central
anduniversal notion ofhistory tocollapse infavor ofamultitude
ofdispersed historical perspectives (Chakrabarty, 2000: 36).
An attention-grabbing case ofhistory view that might be
juxtaposed with Chakrabartys claims isAmitav Ghoshs idea
ofriver-like history according towhich literary andhistorical
writings are unlike. Although theoretically viable when viewed
fromChakrabartys global perspectiveit appears tobe acontemporary version ofHegels idea ofriver-like history (Hegel,
1892: 2)the concept does notseem toacknowledge theachievements ofpost-positivist historiography andpromotes thenotion
ofuniversal history. Thepurpose ofthis study, however, isneither toexplore theincompatibility ofChakrabarty andGhoshs
35

Alicja Bemben
University ofSilesia
in Katowice
Poland

rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014

Oceans Apart:
In Search of New Wor(l)ds

ideas, norto deplore thelatters thought, butrather tooffer

analternative toit. Inmy understanding, history islike anocean
ofevents, people, concepts, andobjects that interact intheir
incessant flow. Embedded init, both thewriter andthehistorian
write fromtheperspective ofthefish andabout thefish world.
Asanall-embracing framework, theocean enables us totreat
their writing alike. Iintend tojustify thethesis bymeans ofan
examination ofthechanges inrelations ofliterature andhistory,
interwoven with arguments pointing tosimilarities between
literary andhistorical writings.
Whether one ascribes alikeness ordissimilarity toliterature
andhistory writing depends onthecontext inwhich they are
located andthedefinitions ofboth elements. Fromits very
beginning up totheeighteenth century, therelation between
literature andhistory was that oftheall-encompassing practice
ofwriting andamode ofwriting about thepast. This dependency was theaftermath oftheAntique-elaborated1 perspective
ontherelation between reality andart. Theorganizing principle
oftheworld, asoutlined inHesiods Theogony, were thefive
ages ofman. Orchestrated bydivine forces, thefate ofhumanity was put into theframe ofthefall ofman fromtheGolden
totheIron Age (Breisach, 1994: 8). Ifthereality was conceived
assuch aframe and, asAristotle suggests, theimitative arts drew
fromit, then their understanding was bound tofit intheconcept.
InPoetics, theArts ofPoetry are defined asverbal imitations
ofthis reality (Aristotle, 1922: 1) andunderstood asanumbrella
term forallantique oral andwriterly products, history included.
When Aristotle introduces thedistinction between thepoet who
isto write about what can happen, todevise serious philosophical compositions about universals, andthehistorian who aims
atwhat has happened inparticular situations, this difference
does notlocate literature andhistory ontwo different sides
ofthebarricade. Firstly, iftheArts ofPoetry isanumbrella
term, then thehighlighted differences are classificatory ones
1 Neither this epoch noranyother inthis study isunderstood asgiving
on, uniform concept. Toadmit thecomplexity ofsuch phenomena Itreat
each epoch, touse J. Rogers phrase, asa constellation ofideas andmental
attitudes.
36

2 The role ofdemonstrating, arguing andpersuading isascribed toforensic

rhetoric.
37

review of international american studies

within poetry rather than byandlarge antithetical. Secondly,

theabovementioned set ofdistinctionscan happen-has happened, general-particular, single action-single periodis questioned
byAristotle himself. Itturns out that thepoet can write about
a historical subject andthat many writers mixed intheir works
what could andwhat has happened (Marincola, 2007: 130), general andparticular, actions andperiods. Moreover, theargument
that poetry ismore philosophical andserious than history does
notmake thelatter non-philosophical ornon-serious (Aristotle,
1922: 1, 3539, 89). Thus, what we might perceive aseither poetic
orhistorical products oftheera seem tobe informed andunified
bythesame overarching principle, i.e. being masterpieces ofpoetry
imitating thereal.
Hesiods andAristotles observations constitute themilestones
inthestudies ontherelation between literature andhistoriography.
Hesiods fall-of-man frame reverberated intheEuropean historiography up totheend oftheeighteenth century. Aconsequence
ofadopting such frame was that history became apreordained
series with events, people andobjects tobe slotted into ready
constructs;years tocome would bring merely new variations
oftheold human drama, notices Ernst Breisach (1994: 22).
Ifthepurpose ofwriting was first ofall toimitate thegrand fallof-man orprogress ofhumanity story, theneed todifferentiate
between true orfalse accounts, history andliterature might have
seemed secondary (Burrow, 2008: 284). That iswhy thefather
ofhistory avers that his first andforemost task inthewhole
logos isto write down what everybody says, as[] [he hears] it
(Herodotus, 2006: 85). Obviously, his progeny declares that although
the first law ofhistoriography isnot daring tosay anything false,
andthesecond isnot refraining fromsaying anything true: there
should be nosuggestion ofprejudice for, orbias against, when you
write [] theactual superstructure consists ofcontent andstyle
(Cicero, 2009: 1516). Atatthesame time, history isto narrate
andmemorialize andtherefore considered a kind ofprose poem
(Gossman, 1990: 227).2

Alicja Bemben
University of Silesia
in Katowice
Poland

rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014

Oceans Apart:
In Search of New Wor(l)ds

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 narrations 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 Aquinasformulated 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 slotted 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
3 Eusebius andJerome modeled onCastor ofRhodes, Augustine onCicero,
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 thehistory: 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

ofthecosmos with its spiritual unity andhierarchy ofall things andevents.

Gods decree governed allandit was forthemost part mysterious. Insuch
aworld therecords ofevents, besides telling ofwhat happened, contained
divine messages forhuman beings. Anearthquake oraswarm oflocusts
warned people, avision evoked hope, andthefate ofan individual provided
alesson (Breisach, 1994: 102); aswell asIn these chansons less was said about
thepiety ofnobles than about their deeds, characters, motives, andloves,
andtruth was notwhat actually happened butamixture oftheactual,
theideal, andtheimagined. Typically, areal figure ofhistory was transformed
into aheroic figure bytheaddition offictitious elements, forexample,
ElCid orRoland. [] Henry IIs successor, Richard I, theLionheart, provided
anideal subject foraheroic history andnot only because ofhis adventures
during theThird Crusade. Inhis Chronicle oftheTime ofRichard I, Richard
ofDevizes turned allofRichards rule into asort ofchanson de geste. Theking
was ashining hero, while his opponents, especially Philip Augustus, were
villains with souls darker than amoonless night. When theforces ofdarkness andoflight confronted each other, dramatic battles were fought with
lances andarrows traversing thesky, shields clashing, andswords whistling
through theair (Breisach, 1994: 119, 131).
6 For theAristotelian perspective (Aristotle, 2005: unpaginated page),
theproducts oftheimitative arts are noteternal things, ergo they are
notmost true. Thepurpose ofart isnot tobe true, butto give happiness
(the writer excels increating tomake himself happy) oraesthetic pleasure
(the reader isto feel touched). According toGrabski, intheMiddle Ages
something istrue when anauthority declares itassuch, even though itmay
be obviously false (Grabski, 2003: 7275). Theidea oftruth inthose times
also has apeculiar character. Ifsome truth inspired byGod was offered
andauthorities accepted it, then only thequestion oftechnique was left
fordiscussion.
39

review of international american studies

Another corollary, regardless ofwhether we are talking about

Greco-Roman orChristian historiography, isthat thequestion
oftruth6 seemed secondary totheaesthetic anddidactic purposes
ofwhat then was considered historical writing. Ontheone hand,
pre-modern historians lied blatantly; instead ofproviding afair
account ofthepast, they aimed atgaining reputation andfame
bymeans ofrhetorical shows orsuccumbed topolitical orreligious
pressures andneeds. Ontheother hand, inestablishing their own
trade, thehistorians made truth their main banner. Byemphasizing thetruthfulness oftheir accounts, notonly did they try
toensure theplace ofhistory among the-world-functioning
explanatory measureshistory was topass thedivine truths
butalso pressed historiographys separation fromliterature.

Alicja Bemben
University of Silesia
in Katowice
Poland

rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014

Oceans Apart:
In Search of New Wor(l)ds

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 didnotdiffer radically fromits predecessors. Based ontheantique andmedieval
traditions (Kelley, 1991: 312), St. Augustines claim that Gods law was
themodus operandi oftheworld was widely shared bytheRenaissance 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 implicated anumber ofchanges inhistoriography. Without rigorous
divine determination, thehuman past called foranew conceptualization. Theensuing classificatory anxiety led Renaissance
historiographers totheconclusion that
there were avariety ofliterary forms through which that past could
be represented; that notallofthese were actually histories according 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 stylistic 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

7 Truth seemed tobe apossible property ofliterature, with kinds ofliterature

differing with respect tothedegree ofprovable truthfulness.
41

review of international american studies

Thus, what thehistoriographers oftheera did todelineate

theboundaries oftheir trade was toupgrade theargument
ofanall-encompassing literature.7 Since Aristotle, literature
covered allverbal imitations ofreality andtherefore history was
considered aliterary form. Following Aristotle, theRenaissance
acknowledged theoverarching character ofliterature anddistinguished between non-historical andhistorical works using
their own concept oftruth. Thedifference lay inthefact that
forAristotle truth was, first ofall, aquestion ofrecognizing
acorrespondence between words andtheir referents (Aristotle,
2005: unpaginated), whereas forEdward Lord Herbert ofCherbury
andhis contemporaries, itwas also aquestion ofproving this
correspondence (Woolf, 2005: 36).
Although literature maintained its all-embracing position
throughout theRenaissance, historical writing about thepast
included initwas more andmore visibly marked. Historys radical
separation fromliterature came only after anew global vision
ofthereal had been introduced intheseventeenth century Europe.
Intheaftermath ofadopting theconcept ofmaterial andspiritual
progress ofhumanity, theEnlightenment historians found themselves inneed ofdesigning anew method ofstudying thepast.
Todo so, firstly, they distanced themselves fromtheir predecessors
ideas and, thus, fromwhat they considered historically biased,
unprofessional andmost importantly false; that isthefable.
History istherecital offacts given astrue, incontra-distinction
tothefable, which istherecital offacts given asfalse, argued
Voltaire. Secondly, toestablish historiography asanautonomous
branch ofknowledge (Kelley, 1991: 440; Breisach, 1994: 209), they
borrowed fromNewtonian mechanics tolay thefoundation fortheir
own science. Thus, theconcept ofmechanistic laws ofnature was
transplanted tothesocial world, thedisclosure oftheuniversal
laws governing theworld was made theobjective ofhistorical
inquiries, andimpeccable logic was declared thebasis tofind truth.
All this was supposed toturn history into ascience ofreason
andto separate itfromliterature. Nevertheless, were thespecific
truth-finding methods oftheera tobe investigated, itmight be

Alicja Bemben
University of Silesia
in Katowice
Poland

rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014

Oceans Apart:
In Search of New Wor(l)ds

observed that, inasmuch asthey depart fromthestance that

reason alone grants truth (Bates, 2001: 45, 12), they end up
acknowledging: therole ofintuition, asin Vicos andHerders intuitive grasping ofinsights (Breisach, 1994: 205) orMser andLockes
intuitive knowledge (Bates, 2001: 14); subjective judgment, asin
Kantian subjective understanding; andmost importantly, theliterary, 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 different 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
cast doubts ontheviability oftheRomantic literature-history
dichotomy. Acloser look athow theRomantics perceived both
trades, what therole oftheir practitioners was andwhat their
practice was like, might demonstrate more clearly that, despite
alleged differences, Romantic historiography shared many similarities with its alleged literary counterpart.
In What Is, andto What End DoWe Study, Universal History?,
Friedrich Schiller declares that there exists thecourse oftheworld
the real succession ofevents [that] descends fromtheorigin
ofobjects down totheir most recent orderingand thecourse
ofhistory, aselective record ofevents which are put into acoherent
whole bythehistorian (Schiller, 2006: unpaginated). Bydoingso,
Schiller establishes therelation ofahistorical text toreality
42

43

review of international american studies

inanAristotelian, andthus literary, fashion. Asthepoint ofdeparture, he takes thereal andmakes the(historical) text its mimetic
record. Although thedivision concerns thefield ofhistorical studies,
itfinds its correspondence inthe-real-and-the-text pair asit exists
inthefield ofliterary studies. Acknowledging this parallel seems
tojustify theargument that, what links history andliterature
atthemost basic level isthat intheir Romantic versions, they
are understood asnarratives drawing fromreality. Furthermore,
they are both designed torecognize andtry toovercome thegap
between the(past) reality andits (re)construction for, asLionel
Gossman notices, thefractions ofthereal were perceived assymbols
that could be understood only when located inanarrative order.
Theconcept underlying aliterary aswell asahistorical product
ofthis process was that they both were meant tobe realizations
ofaprophetic, truth-giving andrevolutionary act ofrestoring
theold world atwhich thewriter andthehistorian aimed.
This seemed possible forthenineteenth-century sages asthey,
ontheone hand, were convinced they had thebest possible perspective ontheever-unveiling scroll ofthepast and, ontheother,
thought ofthemselves asequipped with thedivine powers tobuild
thebridge between thepast andthepresent. Ascribing tooneself therole ofthedecipherer andinterpreter ofthepast aswell
ascrediting oneself with divine traits put theRomantic historian
abreast theRomantic poet. Intheend, itwas also theRomantic
poet who experienced thecollapse oftheeighteenth-century
concepts andideals, who wanted tofind appeasement indescribing thereal andconsidered himself theinterpreter, thegod-like
prophet andthepriest oftruth.
Similarities intheperformed function also led toconvergences
inthehistorians andpoets practice ofwriting. Firstly, thereliance
onametaphysical understanding oftheworld entailed forboth
ofthem comprehending reality bymeans ofimagination. Itwas
imagination that provided a true insight into thenature of[reality]
where both individual phenomena andthevital relations among
them could be grasped intheir immediacy andpresence . Secondly,
asLionel Gossman notices, both modes ofwriting relied upon
theorganicist model ofexplanation. Whether inliterature orhistoriography, [i]ndividual facts were revealed asrational andintelligible

Alicja Bemben
University of Silesia
in Katowice
Poland

rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014

Oceans Apart:
In Search of New Wor(l)ds

[] bydiscovering their meaningfulness asparts ofalarger whole.

Thirdly, andperhaps most importantly, atthelevel ofdescription
historical texts borrowed thetechniques ofthenineteenth-century
novel. Notonly can we observe tendencies todesign thehistorical
text according tothefashion offiction, i.e. notas amodel tobe
discussed [] butastheinmost form ofthereal orintroducing
the narrator asaprivileged reporter recounting what happened;
there are also attempts atevoking inthereader asense that there
was noboundary between him orher andthedescribed object
(Gossman, 1990: 244, 260, 297, 305).
Were we totreat Romantic history, historians andhistoriography aselements ofacobweb ofnotions andcategories,
andtodo thesame with theRomantic literature, writer andliterary practice, itseems that thehistorical cobweb evinces rather
parallels totheliterary one than contrasts. They both departed
fromthesame world-view, used thesame concepts andfeatured
thesame techniques. What they share weaves such athick thread
that itishardly possible totell which thread belongs towhich
cobweb orto draw ademarcation line between thetwo. However,
theRomantics saw thedivide, andso did modern historians.
The crystallization oftheparadigm ofthenatural sciences that
took part intheeighteenth century entailed hierarchic perceptions
ofparticular branches ofknowledge. When thehumanities formed
their separate model ofscience inthenineteenth century, their
methodology owed much tothat ofthealready widely acknowledged natural sciences. Inconsequence, historyengaged with
finding andordering facts whose truth could be authenticated,
measured, assessed according tosome material valuemoved
towards thenatural sciences. Theidea that thehistorian could
access andoffer knowledge, whereas thewriter could present only
fictional, intangible andimpressionistic views onthereal, created
awall between thetwo discourses. This state ofaffairs lasted
until aseries oftwentieth-century intellectual turns questioned
thevalidity ofnatural-sciences-based, historiographic reflection:
After about 1960 history did seriously andirrevocably begin todecompose into a plethora of smaller histories (social, economic, religious,
intellectual, cultural, womens andso forth), narrative history ofevents
(meaning typically large-scale public events of politics, diplomacy
44

Only then was itrecognized that ahuman sciences paradigm

demands aredefinition, that is, anadoption ofadifferent perspective ontheobjects itscrutinizes, andconsequently areformulation
ofthequestions itasks. Out oftheturns googol ofcorollaries,
theones that concern thecontemporary understanding oftherelationship ofliterature andhistory are crucial forthis study. Literary
reflection ofthetwentieth century, ontheone hand, continued
toemploy theperspectives that adhere tothefact-fiction aswell
ashistory-literature divides.8 Ontheother, italso created theories
which question such divisions. Hans-Georg Gadamer writes that
[l]iterature inthebroadest sense isbounded only bywhat can be
said, foreverything that can be said can be written [ ] theconcept
ofliterature embraces notonly works ofliterary art buteverything
passed down inwriting (Gadamer, 2004: 155156).9 Although this
8 The Russian Formalism istheonly methodology that still recognizes
literary vs. non-literary texts division.
9 See Gadamers Truth andMethod: There are works ofscholarship whose
literary merit has caused them tobe considered works ofart andpart ofworld
literature. This isclear fromthepoint ofview ofaesthetic consciousness,
inasmuch asthelatter does notconsider thesignificance ofsuch works
contents butonly thequality oftheir form asimportant. Butsince our criticism ofaesthetic consciousness has shown thelimited validity ofthat point
ofview, this principle dividing literary art fromother written texts becomes
dubious forus. We have seen that aesthetic consciousness isunable tograsp
theessential truth even ofliterary art. Forliterary art has incommon with
allother texts thefact that itspeaks tous interms ofthesignificance ofits
contents. Our understanding isnot specifically concerned with its formal
achievement asawork ofart butwith what itsays tous.
The difference between aliterary work ofart andanyother text
isnotsofundamental. Itistrue that there isadifference between thelanguage poetry andthelanguage ofprose, andagain between thelanguage
ofpoetic prose andthat ofscientific orscholarly prose. These differ45

review of international american studies

andwar) did cede pole position toanalytical accounts ofdeep structures

andspatio-temporal conjunctures, andnew -isms (especially feminism,
comparativism and constructionism) have joined the older empiricist
andMarxist tendencies. [] Worse still, fromthepoint ofview ofconservatives, self-styled progressive historiography, most noticeably
initspostmodernist orNew Historicist forms, notonly has abandoned
even the weakest versions of the nineteenth-century positivist claim
that history was ascience, nomore andno less, buthas even questioned
thesacred notion ofhistorical truth, inthename either ofarhetoric ofdiscourse orofan ethical and/or cultural relativism. (Gossman, 1990: 45)

Alicja Bemben
University of Silesia
in Katowice
Poland

Oceans Apart:
In Search of New Wor(l)ds

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, reading 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 ismethodologically viable. Todemonstrate that aliterary text, inthis case
thehistorical novel, might be asubject ofhistorical inquiry, Iwould

rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014

ences can certainly also be considered fromthepoint ofview ofliterary form.

Buttheessential difference between these various languages obviously
lies elsewhere: namely inthedistinction between theclaims totruth that
each makes. Allwritten works have aprofound community inthat language
iswhat makes thecontents meaningful. Inthis light, when texts are understood by, say, ahistorian, that isnot sovery different fromtheir being
experienced asart. And itisnot mere chance that theconcept ofliterature
embraces notonly works ofliterary art buteverything passed down inwriting (Gadamer, 2004: 155156).
10 Gadamer defines things themselves aswhich, inthecase oftheliterary critic, are meaningful texts, which themselves are again concerned
withobjects (Gadamer, 2004: 269).
46

47

review of international american studies

like torefer toHayden Whites concepts ofthehistorical text

asliterary artefact andproduct ofhistorical imagination.
The entire concept ofmetahistory might be said tohave been
developed fromHayden Whites understanding ofhistorical work
asa verbal structure intheform ofanarrative prose discourse that
purports tobe amodel, oricon, ofthat past structure andprocesses
intheinterest ofexplaining what they were byrepresenting them
(White, 1975: 2). Ahistorical text, then, instead ofoffering access
tothepast itself, offers thewriters vision ofthis past, andhis
orher interpretation ofthepast events isgiven tous inanarrative form (Munslow, 2006: 36; White, 1978: 128). Should we think
ofliterary works inthese terms, itseems that this definition
might be applied aswell tothehistorical novel. Intheend, itisalso
atext written inprose intended torepresent past events, people,
objects andprocesses.
Nevertheless, forWhite, historical andliterary texts are similar
notonly atthis most overt, narrative level. Similarly toGadamers
view that understanding istheprocess that underlies allmodes
ofwriting about thepast, White talks about thedeep structure
ofhistorical imagination aspreconceptual andpoetic. Even without
getting into thedetails ofhis theory, itmight be deduced that
Whites claims parallel those ofGadamer: both thinkers point
out intheir theories that both literary andhistorical texts are
theresult ofan interpretation ofpast events. Ifthis isso, then
Whites theory provides areason fortreating historical novels
asproducts oftheauthors historical consciousness andmakes
itpossible toapply tools ofmetahistorical analysis tothem.
To conclude andsimultaneously tocome back tothethesis
fromthebeginning ofmy presentation, Iwould like tosum up
myfindings first andthen refer toGhoshs perspective onhistory.
Through ages, history has been conceptualized aseither astory
ofthefall orprogress ofman, astherepository ofmeanings,
asinterpretation, andin numerous other ways. Similarly, thesearch
forliterariness continues assiduously, andincessantly provides us
with ever new definitions ofwhat literature might be. Realizing
theamount ofchanges that these two notions have undergone,
aswell astheir internal complexity andtheproblematic relations
they have enjoyed, may make one think about Amitav Ghoshs

Alicja Bemben
University of Silesia
in Katowice
Poland

rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014

Oceans Apart:
In Search of New Wor(l)ds

historical perspective asapeculiar one foratwenty-first century

thinker. Should we look atthepast fromhis river-like perspective,
avariety ofconcepts that have been devised could notbe explained
inits terms. Treating events ashappening inaunidirectional,
chronological sequence through which humans go frompoint
Ato Zor asGhosh might probably say, flow fromthesource
oftheriver toits endis ofcourse possible, andsuch concepts
have already been offered previously (Heraclitus, Hegel). However,
theidea doesnt seem totake into consideration thefact that such
concepts have also been already discarded due totheir simplistic
propensities. History andliterature andtheir possible relationships toeach other are complex enough totake intoaccount their
intricacies. Should we consider history anocean ofevents that
interact intheir incessant flow, then such thinking allows one
tounderstand that various concepts ofwhat history isare possible. Anocean seems theframe sufficiently broad toencompass
allthevarieties ofhistorical perspectives that we can encounter
inthepost-human age. What ismore, such aperspective might
also enable us tounderstand that labelling apiece ofwriting
ashistory orliterature depends ontheassumptions ofboth
author andreader.

48

Ainsworth, P. (2003) Contemporary and Eyewitness History,

in D. M. Deliyannis (ed), Historiography in the Middle Ages.
Leiden, London: Brill, 249276.
Aristotle (2005) Metaphysics. W. D. Ross (trans). Adelaide: University ofAdelaide. http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/a/aristotle/
metaphysics/book4.html
(1992) The Poetics of Aristotle. H. Butcher (trans). London:
Macmillan.
Bates, D. (2001) Idols and Insight: An Enlightenment Topography of Knowledge. Enlightenment Pathologies, in Duncan
and D. Henkin (eds), Representations. Berkeley: University
ofCalifornia Press, 123.
Breisach, E. (1994) Historiography: Ancient, Medieval andModern. Chicago andLondon: TheUniversity ofChicago Press.
Burrow, J. (2008) AHistory ofHistories. New York: Random House.
Chakrabarty, D. (2000) Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought
and Historical Difference. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press.
Cicero, (2009) De Oratore. A. J. Woodman (trans). InL. Pitcher (ed) Writing Ancient History: AnIntroduction toClassical Historiography.
London: I. B. Tauris, 1516.
Deliyannis, D. M. (2003) Introduction, inD. M. Deliyannis (ed), Historiography intheMiddle Ages. Leiden, London: Brill, 116.
Fresnoy, N. L. du (1730) Anew method ofstudying history, geography, &
chronology. With acatalogue ofthechief historians ofall nations,
thebest edition oftheir works, & characters ofthem. Written originally inFrench byM. Languet du Fresnoy, Librarian toPrince Eugene.
And now made English, with variety ofimprovements & corrections.
Towhich isadded, adissertation byCount Scipio Maffei ofVerona,
concerning theuse ofinscriptions & medals, byway ofparallel. Intwo
volumes. ByRichard Rawlinson, L. L. D. andF. R. S. London: Printed
forCha. Davis inPater-noster-Row. http://babel.hathitrust.org/
cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015073728019;view=1up;seq=327
Gadamer, H. G. (2004) Truth andMethod. J. Weinsheimer andD. G. Marshall (trans). London, New York: Continuum.
49

review of international american studies

Works Cited

Alicja Bemben
University of Silesia
in Katowice
Poland

Gossman, L. (1990) Between History andLiterature. Cambridge andLondon: Harvard University Press.
Grabski, A. F. (2003) Dzieje historiografii. Pozna: Wydawnictwo Poznaskie.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1892) Lectures ontheHistory ofPhilosophy. E. S. Haldane, K. Paul, Trench (trans). London: Trbner & Co.
Herodotus (2006) TheHistories. N. Luraghi (trans). InMeta-histori:
Method andgenre intheHistories, inC. Dewald andJ. Marincola (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 totheEnlightenment. New Haven andLondon: Yale University Press.
Kooria, M. (2012) Between theWalls ofArchives andHorizons ofImagination: 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. Marincola (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.

rias vol. 7, spring-summer 1/2014

Oceans Apart:
In Search of New Wor(l)ds

Schiller, F. (2006) What Is, andto What End DoWe Study, Universal History?,
inC. Stephan andR. Trout (eds andtrans), Friedrich Schiller Poet
ofFreedom Volume II. Washington, DC: Schiller Institute. http://www.
schillerinstitute.org/transl/Schiller_essays/universal_history.html
White, H. (1975) Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-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