|
|
 |
The Question of The Question of Hu
BRUCE MAZLISH
History and Theory 31 May, 1992), 143-152
The article examines Jonathan Spence's book The Question of Hu, asking the central question as to what difference it makes if the book is viewed as history or fiction. (Spence's own question is whether Hu, the Chinese, is mad.) In addition to raising specific questions as to Spence's treatment of his materials, the article addresses the question of the historical novel, following on the work of Georg Lukács and Sir Walter Scott, and concludes that Spence's work is not of this genre. Neither is it a history à la Herodotus or Thucydides, where analysis--the raising of historical questions and sharing the evidence and inference with the reader--and narrative must go together. The article concludes that, wonderful as is The Question of Hu as literature, it is not a true piece of historical narrative. In coming to this judgment, the article has used Spence's book as a way of reflecting on fundamental questions concerning the nature of history, fiction, analysis, and narrative.
JSTOR || top || Volumes 31-35 Contents listing
Border Crossings: History, Fiction, and Dead Certainties
CUSHING STROUT
History and Theory 31 May, 1992), 153-162
Simon Schama's Dead Certainties is assessed in the light of the complex relationship between history and fiction, which share some limited common territory. Examples are cited from Mary Chesnut, Oscar Handlin, Georg Lukács, Herman Melville, Robert Penn Warren, P. D. James, and Wallace Stegner.
Schama's book has some kinship to the skepticism found in "the new historicism" and "deconstruction," but also has its own differences from the fashionable "inverted positivism" which concludes that since evidence is not an open window on reality, it must be a wall precluding access to it. Only two of Schama's three narratives cohere, and while uncertainty may be a common theme, his historian's judgment tends to dissipate much of the mystery his fictionalizing technique creates. His idea of historical uncertainty arises from a fallacy that a "communion with the dead" (as in Henry James's The Sense of the Past), possible only for a time-traveler, represents authentic knowledge.
Affirming that asking questions and relating narratives are not mutually exclusive, Schama joins the company of philosophers (Collingwood, Dray, Mink, Ricoeur) and historians (Hexter, John Lukacs, Veyne, and Strout) who have also made this case.
JSTOR || top || Volumes 31-35 Contents listing
Recognizing the Past
ELLIOT L. JURIST
History and Theory 31 May, 1992), 163-181
The philosophical past, once a thing of the past, is with us again. I examine three recent positions about how to understand the philosophical past: the presentism of Richard Rorty, the traditionalism of Alasdair MacIntyre, and the interpretism of Charles Taylor. Rorty, MacIntyre, and Taylor all acknowledge a Hegelian influence upon their views; thus, I also explore Hegel's own view of the history of philosophy. Finally, I offer my own view that our relation to the past ought to be guided by "recognizing" it. Although the concept of recognition is found in Hegel, I argue that Hegel as well as Rorty and MacIntyre end up conceiving of our relation to the past as one of appropriation. Recognition as I define it eschews such appropriation; rather, it consists in a "working through" of the past in a sense the paper specifies.
JSTOR || top || Volumes 31-35 Contents listing
Writing Music History
LYDIA GOEHR
History and Theory 31 May, 1992), 182-199
Influenced by methodological trends in contemporary cultural history, recent writings in music history now share a common and very basic concern: to reconcile the desire to treat musical works as purely musical entities with value and significance of their own with the desire to account for the fact that such works are conditioned by the historical, social, and psychological contexts in which they are produced. This essay places these modern reconciliations within a broader discussion of the uneasy relations that hold between the domains of the musical and the extra-musical. It shows how both the logic and the history of this relationship has reflected the need to establish borders of the musical domain, and, following upon that, criteria of relevance for determining what is and what is not to be included in the writing of music history.
JSTOR || top || Volumes 31-35 Contents listing
|
|
|
