Essay on Examine the Use of Fiction by Historians

This essay will examine the use of fiction by historians and the implications this has on truth and objectivity. Rather than support the positivist interpretation of truth (that it can be measured and understood) I will be utilising the postmodern approach, that there is no absolute truth and individual perceptions of the world are subjective.[1] Like Rudner I will be combining the notion of truth and objectivity to only mean truth.[2] Fiction has been used by historians as both a source and as a method of presenting their personal historical perspective. This essay will be subdivided into two sections, assessing the impact of both uses on truth and objectivity. I will be using a case study of Davis’s publication, The Return of Martin Guerre to assess whether a fictive style of reconstruction has an effect on truth, as this is in my opinion a prominent example.

What implication fiction has on truth is the subject of debate by postmodernist/poststructuralist historians and traditional/realist scholars.[3] Postmodernists, (such as Davis), argue that historical writings with fictional elements are just another way of constructing a historical argument, it does not distort truth.[4] White maintains there is no longer a distinction between fact and fiction as they are both synthesised within the structure of any historical narrative.[5] Eagleton concurs with this view, citing Icelandic sagas to demonstrate that there is little difference between historical truth and artistic truth.[6] Even historians who may not consider themselves postmodernists argue that fiction does not negatively impact upon truth and objectivity. Marwick believes that ignoring historical fictions can in fact lead to a less well rounded understanding of the subject,[7] a notion supported further by Engles who considers that he has learnt more about French society from Balzac, than by studying the interpretations of historians and archival sources.[8]

A number of historians such as White, Kellner and Berkhofer also argue that history is not something which can be described in the way that it actually happened; this is referred to as the linguistic turn of historiography.[9] Fiction does not have a negative impact on truth as historians are unable to ever verify the exact truth of an historical event. The linguistic turn also dismissed the idea that historical study should be viewed as the scientific search for truth. This essay will be supporting the postmodernist view and views advocated within the linguistic turn, that fiction does not have negative implications on truth, whether used as a historical source, or as a style of narrative, (particularly as there is no absolute truth anyway within the postmodern ideology). However, other historians challenge this view; Aydelotte argues that historians should avoid using fiction as a source.[10] Collingwood also supports traditional arguments that fictional writing has no place in historical research.[11] Himmelfarb dismisses postmodernist theories and the ideals expressed following the linguistic turn, asserting that there is a truth to be discovered and furthermore fiction does not aid this exploration.[12]

Tosh is correct when he asserts that the use of fiction as a historical source is advocated in the main by contemporary historians.[13] Postmodernism has gained real impetus in recent decades.[14] Prior to this the view that fiction had a negative effect on the ‘science’ of history, was the dominant view since the Nineteenth Century (I will be referring to this theory as the ‘traditional’ view throughout this essay).[15] However, it is interesting to note that prior to Ranke and other nineteenth-century German scholars there was less of a divide between fiction and history. In the Eighteenth Century, Gibbon used fiction to study context and significance for his historical works.[16] Around this time history and fiction were both categorised under the term literature.[17] Renaissance intellectuals also believed historiography was not a science but an art; the use of fiction was not uncommon in historical study.[18] The definition of the French Histoire is also ‘story’, an acknowledgement that history and fiction are similar narratives. The view that fiction does not have negative implications on truth is not only a contemporary, but a long-established idea for historians.

Fiction as a historical source

Even without analysing the content of a fictional source, its very publication can be used as evidence. For example the rise in novels shows the rise in the bourgeoisie, as the increase in ‘penny dreadfulls’ in the Nineteenth Century can show an increase in working class literacy.[19] Dependant upon what the historian is studying and the evidence that study requires, fiction has the potential to have a positive implication upon truth and objectivity within historian’s writings. Fiction can be studied to gain information about the language used within a particular period. Freud argues that this is particularly useful as it facilitates the study of a psychoanalytical examination of an individual or historical era.[20] Martines sourced fictions from the Renaissance to learn more about different turns of phrases and everyday speech used at the time.[21] Fiction can preserve language which may otherwise be lost. For example, one could use Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn as evidence of Southern American accents. P.G Wodehouse characters such as Jeeves and Wooster could be used to discover slang used in the 1920s. One could even view the comic series Only Fools and Horses in order to learn about 1980s and 1990s South London colloquialisms. If a historian wishes to study language then fiction can have positive implications on truth as it is a truthful representation of language and the context in which it was used.

Fiction can preserve other types of evidence. Movies can often show what types of clothes and utilities existed within a period more effectively than a photo image as the items are portrayed in use. Commonly, movie credits and slating authenticate evidence, ensuring a historian can verify the movie was filmed where the plot states. This is particularly useful for those who utilise evidence within film, such as Bannam, who cites various American films within his Architectural studies.[22] It can be useful to check how popular a fictional source was. Realist fiction has to accurately reflect reality otherwise it is not believable and won’t have mass appeal. Even if a fiction is only popular for its artistic prowess rather than its ability to reflect society, this can demonstrate what was admired within a given period. Whatever relation to real life fiction may have, it can show what sentiments and reactions an author believes would be plausible within a given period.[23] In any case, fiction can have a positive implication on truth if the fiction lends evidence to confirm a historians theoretical argument.

Fiction can be useful for finding veiled evidence which would not be found within other sources. Renaissance tales have been used as evidence to study sexual misconduct by Renaissance clergy;[24] this may not have been documented in any other form for fear of reprisal, or due to the power of the clergy. Thomas Hardy’s novels are also used as a forum for the historical accounts of ordinary people, a subject largely ignored until the recent rise in social history.[25] Facts are public, whilst values are private and gratuitous.[26] Fictions were often an unwitting representation of values. Racism was common in pre-World War Two films,[27] a reflection upon the casual acceptance of discrimination during this period. George Elliot’s Middlemarch has been used within studies about institutional morality.[28] The disdain workforces held for their employers in France can be studied through The Great Cat Massacre of Rue Saint-Severin. This fictive story brought this theory to historian’s attention; the truth behind it was later confirmed by other sources.[29] Sassoon’s war poetry and novels such as Mine Own Executioner by Balchin show the negative experiences of war. This would be contrary to what officials would want the masses to know for propaganda purposes; this mood could remain otherwise hidden within the context of the period.[30] This shows fiction can have positive implications as it can reveal precise evidence which would otherwise be unknown.

Fiction is not always the best source for a historian to use. If a historian was studying marriages within the Sixteenth Century, they would be led to believe that the ages of married women were younger than official records show if Shakespearian plays were used as evidence.[31] Historians could also gain knowledge on poverty and class struggle from wage sheets or mortality rates more factually than through Dickens. However, just because information is contained within an archive does not mean it is correct. Similarly, historical facts which are assumed to be true are often questionable, for example there is still debate concerning whether Guy Fawkes was involved in a plot to blow up Parliament.[32] Where and when Caesar died is also as debated, as is whether Caesar existed.[33] Vincent summarises that ‘all sources are suspect; their destiny is to add to understanding’.[34] Although fiction can have positive implications on truth, for reasons previously discussed, it should be treated with the same scepticism as any source. There are certain elements of historical study which fiction can be useful for, such as the aforementioned study of language, but in some cases other sources are more reliable. However, this does not mean fiction has an overall negative implication on historical writings.

Fiction as a historical writing style

Some historians use a narrative style similar to that used by writers of fiction when constructing their historical arguments. The Return of Martin Guerre (Davis) is an archetypal example. The writing style may be dissimilar from traditional methods, but this does not mean it has negative implications on truth. Davis still applies footnotes to the historical claims she makes to ensure other historians can scrutinize her work. She also uses phrases such as ‘maybe’, or ‘perhaps’ to show that the claims she makes are only hypothesis, a technique used by traditional historians.[35] Davis supports her claims with evidence,[36] where direct evidence was unavailable other sources were used in order to make assumptions to what the most logical occurrence would have been.[37] Contrary to what Jenkins argues, history is not a science.[38] Historians cannot examine the event they are studying, only the remnants left behind. All historians are making assumptions based upon the available evidence, Davis still follows historical practice but frames her argument within a fictitious narrative.

Historians such as Finlay criticise this style, however the criticisms made could be directed at any historical reconstruction. Finlay is surprised Davis made claims no other is yet to make, within the sources or by historians.[39] However, unless historians make new assertions from sources then historiography will never move forward. Just because a historical argument is constructed in a traditional manner does not make it more truthful by proxy, as shown by the discredited works of Abraham.[40] Historical narratives can often focus almost exclusively upon one theory, whilst disregarding others, an extreme example being the Nazi’s anti-Semitic theories on why the First World War was lost. This misleading representation has a more negative impact on truth than a fictive style. It is not the manner of reconstruction which has an implication on truth, but how the author has engaged with the sources available. The only difference between the fictive style and traditional method is that fiction does not require the historian to speak in ‘their own voice’.[41] The tone of an argument does not effect how accurate it is.

Possibly with the exception of Chroniclers, historians impose a narrative; otherwise there is no context or argument. The work of Queneau proved how incomprehensible an explanation can be without narrative.[42] Any narrative will be subject to the motives and constraints upon the historian, the writing produced will never be an entirely true account of events that took place. For example, because of social constraints, a historian is unlikely to write a historical piece glamorising the Third Reich, whatever the accuracy of the factual content.[43] Any narrative is also subject to literary genres, these genres are imposed on to a historical story and do not accurately reflect reality. A historical event can also be told from another perspective as every historian will have different restraints biases and viewpoints which will affect their interpretation. Whatever the narrative a historian chooses, it will never be able to entirely reach truth in its purest form.

One could argue that not only do narratives misrepresent truth but so do the words used in their construction. Words do not possess an inherent link with what they represent.[44] Any method of reconstructing the past will always have a negative implication on truth. McCullagh argues that this theory means abandoning almost all our beliefs in historical study.[45] I disagree, what it does mean is that fiction is no worse a form of reaching historical truth then any other form of an account. If we accept that reaching an ultimate truth on a subject is impossible, we can attempt to gain as close a representation as possible, in a fictive or traditional form, as both methods can encounter the same problems effecting truth.

Conclusion

Using fiction as an historical source can have positive implications on truth in the historian’s writings. There are certain types of evidence which exist in fictive sources more prominently than other types of sources. Without fictional texts, such as Renaissance tales, colloquial language from the period would otherwise be lost. Although language can be conserved today with the development of voice capturing technology, (for example the Dictaphone), modern day fictional films and television series can still aid in the preservation of everyday language. Evidence can also be found within fiction which may be limited within other types of sources, particularly the values which existed within a given period. For example the abundance of pre-World War Two films which contain racism reflects the social values the masses had concerning this subject. Even for those who question whether fiction reflects social values or changes them, fiction can be used to support evidence concerning debates on either perspective. This is not to say evidence from fictive sources are always accurate, often data would be better obtained from an archival source. This does not indicate fiction is a source which automatically has a negative impact on truth, but signifies fiction should be treated with the same critical scepticism as any other source.

Using fiction as a model for making an argument does not have any implication on truth. Whatever narrative the argument is framed within, historians still follow traditional practices. Davis makes historical assumptions based upon the evidence available to her, as well as providing footnotes to support her hypothesis. Whatever narrative form is used, as long as historical protocol is utilised, a fictive style of historical writing will have no implication on truth. A number of traditional methods of reconstruction are less factually based, for example the works of discredited historian Abraham, or narratives which focus on a single issue and disregard others. Any narrative the historian chooses will have an equal impact on truth based upon the social and personal constraints upon the historian. A narrative is a personal construction and will always have some impact on truth. Since the linguistic turn in historiography, an argument has developed that no reconstruction will ever be able to truthfully depict an historical event. Although I am not demeaning the value of traditional methods of historical study, fictional narratives are no less accurate than traditional methods, and therefore have no implication on truth and objectivity.

Bibliography

Bentley, Michael, Companion to Historiography (London, 1997)

Cohen, Ralph and Roth, Michael Roth, S., History and . . . Histories within the human sciences (Virginia, 1995) de Certeau, Michel, The Writing of History (New York, 1988)

Clark, Elizabeth A., History, Theory, Text, historians and the linguistic turn (London, 2004)

Danto, Arthur C., Narration and knowledge (New York, 2007)

Davis, Natalie Zemon, The Return of Martin Guerre (London, 1983)

Dobson, Miriam and Ziemann, Benjamin, Reading Primary Sources, the interpretation of texts from nineteenth and twentieth-century history (New York, 2009)

Dray, William H., Philosophical Analysis and History (New York, 1966)

Eagleton, Terry, Literary Theory, an introduction (Oxford, 1994)

Fay, Brian, Pomper, Phillip and Vann, Richard T., History and Theory, contemporary readings (Oxford, 1998)

Fulbrook, Mary, Historical Theory (London, 2002)

Gossman, Lionel, Between History and Literature (London, 1990)

Jenkins, Keith, The Postmodern History Reader (London, 1997)

Jenkins, Keith and Munslow, Alan, The Nature of History Reader (London, 2004)

Jordanova, Ludmilla, History in Practice (London, 2009)

Lindenberger, Herbert, The History in Literature, on value, genre, institutions (New York, 1990)

Lloyd, Christopher, The Structures of History (Oxford, 1993)

Mandelbaum, Maurice, The Problem of Historical Knowledge, an answer to relativism (New York, 1938)

Marius, Richard and Page, Melvin E., A short guide to Writing about History, seventh edition (New York, 2010)

Martines, Lauro, Strong Words, writing and social strain in the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore, Maryland, 2001)

Marwick, Arthur, The Nature of History, third edition (London, 1989)

McCullagh, Behan C., The Logic of History, putting postmodernism in perspective (London, 2004)

Meyerhoff, Hans, The Philosophy of History in our time (New York, 1959)

Mithchell, Kate, History and Cultural Memory in neo-Victorian fiction, Victorian afterimages, (Hampshire, 2010)

Munton, Alan, English Fiction of the Second World War, (London, 1989)

Pallares-Burke, Maria Lucia, The New History, confessions and conversations (Cambridge, 2002)

Pompa, Leon, Human Nature and Historical Knowledge (Cambridge, 1990)

Queneau, Raymond, Exercises in Style (London, 1979)

Smith, Paul, The Historian and Film (Cambridge, 1976)

Spargo, Tamsin, Reading the Past, literature and history (New York, 2000)

Tolstory, Leo, War and Peace (Oxford, 2008)

Tosh, John and Lang, Sean, The Pursuit of History, aims methods and new directions in the study of modern history, fourth edition (Harlow, 2006)

Vincent, John, An intelligent person’s guide to History (London, 2001)

White, Hayden, The Content of the Form, narrative discourse and historical representation (Maryland, 1990)

Yerxa, Donald A., Recent Themes in Historical Thinking, historians in conversation (Columbia, 2008)

Articles

Robert Finlay, “The Refashioning of Martin Guerre”, in The American Historical Review Vol. 93, No. 3 (Chicago, 1988)

On Truth and Reality, Philosophy and Postmodernism <http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Postmodernism.htm> (Accessed, 20^th December, 2011)

[1] On Truth and Reality, Philosophy and Postmodernism <http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Philosophy-Postmodernism.htm> (Accessed, 20^th December, 2011)

[2] Rudner suggests that when people say something is truth and objective they only mean that it is truthful, for an elaboration on this argument see Brian Fay, Phillip Pomper and Richard T. Vann, History and Theory, contemporary readings (Oxford, 1998) p. 320

[3] The two schools of thought are very similar, the main difference is that poststructuralists believe their is a collection of ideas that do not connotate an atmosphere promoted by a particular period, for more information see, Michael Bentley, Companion to historiography (London, 1997) p. 490

[4] Natalie Zemon Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre (London, 1983) p. vii

[5] Vann, History, p. 31

[6] Terry Eagleton, Literary Theory, an introduction (Oxford, 1994) p. 1

[7] Arthur Marwick, The Nature of History, third edition (London, 1989) p. 214

[8] Miriam Dobson and Benjamin Ziemann, Reading Primary Sources, the interpretation of texts from Nineteenth and Twentieth-century history (New York, 2009) p. 162

[9] Mary Fulbrook, Historical Theory (London, 2002) pp. 22-24

[10] Dobson, Reading, p. 162

[11] Fay, History, p. 17

[12] Michael Bentley, Companion to Historiography (London, 1997), p. 855

[13] John Tosh and Sean Lang, The Pursuit of History, aims methods and new directions in the study of modern history, fourth edition (Harlow, 2006) p. 67

[14] Dobson, Reading, p. 159

[15] Elizabeth A. Clark, History,Theory,Text, historians and the linguistic turn (London, 2004) p. 86

[16] Kate Mithchell, History and Cultural Memory in neo-Victorian fiction, Victorian afterimages (Hampshire, 2010) p. 15

[17] Lionel Gossman, Between History and Literature (London, 1990) pp. 227-229

[18] Ibid., p. 228

[19] Dobson, Reading, p. 161

[20] Michael de Certeau, The Writing of History (New York, 1988) p. 316

[21] Lauro Martines, Strong Words, writing and social strain in the Italian Renaissance (Baltimore, Maryland, 2001) p. 178

[22] Paul Smith, The Historian and Film (Cambridge, 1976) p. 65

[23] Davis, Return, p. 1

[24] Martines, Strong, pp. 169-171

[25] Marwick, The nature, p. 312

[26] Eagleton, Literary, p. 13

[27] Smiths, The historian, p. 72

[28] Maria Lucia Pallares-Burke, The New History, confessions and conversations (Cambridge, 2002) p. 38

[29] Tamsin Spargo, Reading the Past, literature and history (New York, 2000) pp. 28-30

[30] Alan Munton, English Fiction of the Second World War (London, 1989) p. 72

[31] Marwick, The nature, p. 229

[32] Leon Pompa, Human Nature and Historical Knowledge (Cambridge, 1990) Queneau, Raymond, Exercises in Style (London, 1979) p. 204

[33] Pompa, Human, p. 200

[34] John Vincent, An intelligent person’s guide to History (London, 2001) p. 20

[35] Robert Finlay, “The Refashioning of Martin Guerre”, in The American Historical Review Vol. 93, No. 3 (Chicago, 1988) p. 571

[36] Davis, Return, p. 3

[37]Ibid., p. 5

[38] Keith Jenkins and Alan Munslow, The Nature of History reader (London, 2004) p. 68

[39] Finlay, “The Refashioning” p. 555

[40] Fulbrook, Historical, p. 170

[41] White, Hayden, The Content of the Form, narrative discourse and historical representation (Maryland, 1990) p. 27

[42] Raymond Queneau, Exercises in style (London, 1979) p. 37

[43] Keith Jenkins, The Postmodern History Reader (London, 1997) p. 395

[44] Ludmilla Jordanova, History in Practice (London, 2009) p. 85

[45] Donald A Yerxa, Recent Themes in Historical Thinking, historians in conversation (Columbia, 2008) p. 58