History and Literature. Two Competing or Complementary Narratives of the Past?

Abstract

The relationship between history and literature has long been the subject of debate among both historians and writers. It is worth revisiting this discussion today, at a time when the broadly understood past – in its many forms – not only continues to be the subject of academic study but also holds a prominent place in public discourse and mass culture. In most cases, the past returns to us in the form of memory – a key term that encapsulates both the hopes and anxieties tied to its presence in our lives. The enduring “memory boom,” sometimes referred to as the “revenge of memory” against the long-dominant narrative of official history, legitimised by its claim to scientific objectivity, prompts us to once again consider the differences in how the past is perceived by history and by literature.

To put it simply, there are two fundamental ways in which we have sought to deal with the good and bad history that has surrounded us for centuries: one offered by historiography, the other by literature.

The essential difference between these two narratives lies in what we might call common sense. The world of historical narrative concerns events that actually occurred – or, depending on one’s epistemological stance, events that should or could have happened. In contrast, literary narrative belongs to the realm of fiction, even when it draws on real historical facts. In this context, the distinction between fiction and non-fiction becomes foundational.

Contemporary historiography increasingly departs from the classical, or correspondence, theory of truth, derived from Aristotle. This is not to say that there are no longer many historians who still subscribe to this traditional view. However, scholars are now more inclined to adopt non-classical definitions of truth – those grounded either in scholarly consensus or in the principle of coherence with existing knowledge.

This shift has led to growing acceptance – once seen as heretical – of the idea of plural truths in historical writing: the belief that history is just like the historian writing about it. In this light, much attention has been paid to the many non-scientific factors that shape a historian’s work: the culture in which they were raised, their personal value system, political leanings, and so forth. An increasingly popular view holds that historical truth is largely a construct – extracted from the available evidence and shaped according to the professional rules of the craft. It is a truth rooted in selection and responsibility, and thus it carries an ethical dimension.

The dualism between these two narratives of the past is a natural phenomenon that we should accept. Yet this does not mean that the two discourses should be equated or treated as interchangeable. We should resist such conflation, not only to defend the value of scientific knowledge – which is being increasingly called into question – but also for ethical reasons. From this perspective, one may provocatively repeat a thesis that has long accompanied me: “history is the most difficult way to write fiction”.