Co-authoring History: Montpellier, the Vendée, and the Co-authorship of the Sources

The discourses of literature and history are generally regarded as two distinct genres. This essay sets out to investigate the use of fictitious, that is, the invented, as well as real elements, in addition to narrative tools in some literary and historical texts to examine whether there is evidence...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: István M. Szijártó
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2013-10-01
Series:Humanities
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/2/4/449
id doaj-30b2a966fd2649fb99da410ed8ba71cf
record_format Article
spelling doaj-30b2a966fd2649fb99da410ed8ba71cf2020-11-24T22:34:16ZengMDPI AGHumanities2076-07872013-10-012444946110.3390/h2040449Co-authoring History: Montpellier, the Vendée, and the Co-authorship of the SourcesIstván M. SzijártóThe discourses of literature and history are generally regarded as two distinct genres. This essay sets out to investigate the use of fictitious, that is, the invented, as well as real elements, in addition to narrative tools in some literary and historical texts to examine whether there is evidence for a fundamental difference between them in this respect. In the first half of the article, from the juxtaposition of Merle’s historical novel, En nos vertes années, to Le Roy Ladurie’s The Beggar and the Professor, we shall see that real and fictitious elements are also interwoven in Merle’s text, just as history uses fictitious elements, necessarily and tacitly, or, in some works, in a rather provocative way. In the second half of this essay, in examining literary and historical narratives of the counter-revolution in the Vendée, it will become evident that historians also use the same narrative techniques as writers to orientate readers. While these findings would confound the normative distinction between history and literature, we cannot, however, finally conclude that there is no fundamental difference between literary fiction and history. Arguing against Alun Munslow, who claims in Authoring the Past that “’doing history’ is an authorial activity,” this present article tries to argue that, while in many aspects writing history is indistinguishable from writing fiction, the historian has co-authors: the sources themselves may enter the process of writing history. This is a conclusion that emerges from the analysis of Simon Schama’s Citizens. His text about the revolt in the Vendée points to a potential advantage of history when compared to literary fiction: historians may feel obliged to change their original point of view under the burden of the fact they themselves have enumerated—something we can call the latent but inherent co-authorship of the sources in historical narratives.http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/2/4/449historyliteraturenarrativesourcesauthorship
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author István M. Szijártó
spellingShingle István M. Szijártó
Co-authoring History: Montpellier, the Vendée, and the Co-authorship of the Sources
Humanities
history
literature
narrative
sources
authorship
author_facet István M. Szijártó
author_sort István M. Szijártó
title Co-authoring History: Montpellier, the Vendée, and the Co-authorship of the Sources
title_short Co-authoring History: Montpellier, the Vendée, and the Co-authorship of the Sources
title_full Co-authoring History: Montpellier, the Vendée, and the Co-authorship of the Sources
title_fullStr Co-authoring History: Montpellier, the Vendée, and the Co-authorship of the Sources
title_full_unstemmed Co-authoring History: Montpellier, the Vendée, and the Co-authorship of the Sources
title_sort co-authoring history: montpellier, the vendée, and the co-authorship of the sources
publisher MDPI AG
series Humanities
issn 2076-0787
publishDate 2013-10-01
description The discourses of literature and history are generally regarded as two distinct genres. This essay sets out to investigate the use of fictitious, that is, the invented, as well as real elements, in addition to narrative tools in some literary and historical texts to examine whether there is evidence for a fundamental difference between them in this respect. In the first half of the article, from the juxtaposition of Merle’s historical novel, En nos vertes années, to Le Roy Ladurie’s The Beggar and the Professor, we shall see that real and fictitious elements are also interwoven in Merle’s text, just as history uses fictitious elements, necessarily and tacitly, or, in some works, in a rather provocative way. In the second half of this essay, in examining literary and historical narratives of the counter-revolution in the Vendée, it will become evident that historians also use the same narrative techniques as writers to orientate readers. While these findings would confound the normative distinction between history and literature, we cannot, however, finally conclude that there is no fundamental difference between literary fiction and history. Arguing against Alun Munslow, who claims in Authoring the Past that “’doing history’ is an authorial activity,” this present article tries to argue that, while in many aspects writing history is indistinguishable from writing fiction, the historian has co-authors: the sources themselves may enter the process of writing history. This is a conclusion that emerges from the analysis of Simon Schama’s Citizens. His text about the revolt in the Vendée points to a potential advantage of history when compared to literary fiction: historians may feel obliged to change their original point of view under the burden of the fact they themselves have enumerated—something we can call the latent but inherent co-authorship of the sources in historical narratives.
topic history
literature
narrative
sources
authorship
url http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0787/2/4/449
work_keys_str_mv AT istvanmszijarto coauthoringhistorymontpellierthevendeeandthecoauthorshipofthesources
_version_ 1725728494058471424