Is Literary History Possible
Introduction
Literary history refers to the past chronological development of writings and poetry which are meant to provide enlightenment, entertainment and instruction to the audience[1]. Literary history also encompasses the development of literary styles that have been used to come up with the literary works in the past. Literary history is a very complex academic field. Most of the time, scholars have attempted to simplify literary history by classifying works of art from a particular time period together and labeling this as a movement or period.[2] The other way of classifying history is by way of genres. However, classification of literature by way of genre overlooks the historical aspect of literature. Literary history is thought to be as old as the existence of man. For this reason, literary history is sometimes thought to be the history of everything. However, literary history in itself is so complex that some scholars think it is impossible to have a complete error-free history of literature. This paper is an essay that looks into the impossibilities of literary history in an attempt to answer the question, “is literary history possible?”
Literary History is Impossible
Literary history is too complex to be possible. In this age and time it, looks impossible to have a complete account of something with dates back to the very beginnings and the emergence of man.[3] This means that literature was present before literature that can store literature was in place. The current literary history has so many pitfalls that make it incomplete and therefore lead us to conclude that complete literary history is a simple impossibility.
The first and most conspicuous problem of literary history is the fact that the historical time periods or movements of literature are not homogenous and cannot be separated; there is constant overlap between the periods.[4] Each period of literary history had its own characteristics. Theoretically, the literary styles that were dominant in the various periods of literary history have been documented. Each period of literary history had its own dominant genre of literature and had a different dominant theme.[5] Having said that, it is fully evident when one practically examines the characteristics of the various literary periods that there is a massive overlap of the characteristic features of the various periods. Numerous similarities exist between one time period and the two time period flanking it – this makes the time periods look like one continuous time period in which very subtle changes occur.
Moreover, there is no single literary work that fully epitomizes the characteristics of a single period of literary history. Every literary work has characteristics that make it fit in two or even more periods. Historical periods are therefore abstractions and generalizations, which seem to cover and obstruct the uniqueness of individual literary works.[6] This means that literary history undermines the features of literature itself. This means that developing literary history will inevitably undermine literature itself. This one pitfall can enable us to conclude that literary history is impossible since the basis of literary history, the historical time periods, is in itself impossible and undermines literature itself.
Secondly, the boundaries of the time periods in literary history are not clear and sharp. The boundaries are vague – no time period has been described precisely from the time it began to the time it ended. Even in various scholarly sources, the time periods that have been quoted for the various periods of literary history clearly overlap.[7] For instance, the history of English Literature identifies a number of time periods which clearly overlap. For instance, the historical period from Chaucer to Spenser is thought to have begun in 1400 AD and ended in 1599 AD whereas the Shakespearean era began in 1564 AD and ended in 1616 AD.[8] This clearly shows us that the two times periods in the history of English Literature overlapped for about thirty-two years.[9] These are not the only periods of English Literature which overlap in their time frames. This vagueness in timeframes of the various periods is even worse for the time periods which are thought to have started in the pre-historic time periods and before writing and other methods of storing literature were in place.
In addition, the historical time periods in literary history are determined by complex events. One may be tempted to think that the periods are strictly due to timeframes. However, this is not true, different grounds have been used to identify different time periods. A good example is the fact that the Restoration period is determined by a political event. To make the situation more complex, the literary works that are identified to the Restoration period do not necessarily relate to the political event that identifies this time period.[10] The same applies to the Victorian and Elizabethan eras which are named so after the monarchical queens who ruled England during the times of the literary works.[11] Some periods are based on chronology, for example, the eighteenth century. Grouping all literary works of the eighteenth century in one group poses numerous problems: the literary works do not originate from a similar place, they do not belong to the same genre and they do not bear the same theme.[12] The complexity of some time periods, for example, the renaissance period is increased by giving the name of a period in literary history the same name as that of the art of the time. Literature and art are two different things and should never be mixed up. The fact that the time periods used in the study of literary history lack clearly defined boundaries and are defined by complex events of those periods despite the fact that the events do not relate to the literature of the time make literary history an impossible area of study.[13]
Thirdly, of recent times there has been a clash on what exactly defines a time period in literary history. Traditionally, a time period in history was classically defined by canonical masterpieces of that period. The characteristic features and the predominant genres of a time period were defined based on the canonical masterpieces that were collected from the time period.[14] However, of recent times, some scholars argue that other works that have been recovered, for example, private letters, diaries, and other extra-canonical works should be utilized in characterizing the periods in literary history.[15] Moreover, it has been argued that social, cultural, political and technological contexts should be considered when characterizing a period in literary history.[16] Use of these extra-canonical literature and consideration of various sociopolitical and technological contexts will definitely change the whole course of literary history from what we know it to be now. Definitely, consideration of the sociopolitical and technological contexts will change the characteristic features of the time periods totally. Incorporation of extra-canonical literature could lead to complete reclassification of the periods. [17]
Context is very important in any work of literature. Failure to consider context is in itself a massive failure of literary history. Moreover, failure to consider extra-canonical literature which could also carry important clues about the nature of literature of a certain time period is a failure of literary history.[18] The fact that correction of these failures will lead to a whole different view of what literary history is made literary history a delicate and simply impossible field of academia.
Fourth, there has been a constant clash between scholars over the importance of certain works of art in the classification of the time periods. Some scholars argue that not all canonical works that look to be from the past can be analyzed in a bid to find out the characteristic features of a certain time period.[19] However, ignoring some works which have been done frequently could not only leave information gaps but also cause some features of a period in literary history to be overlooked. If one was to go back and use all canonical masterpieces that have been recovered in characterizing a certain time period in literary history, literary history would be a whole different thing. This is because the current literary history which was deduced after omission of certain canonical masterpieces that the researchers of the time deemed unimportant has so many information gaps. A bid to fill these information gaps would change the whole discipline of literary history rather than complement the existing history. This fact makes literary history an impossibility.
As we discover more about literary history, the gap between the present and the past seems to increase. As we learn more about literary history, the conclusion that emerges is that literary history is more of an unsatisfactory and arrested experience and a set of speculations into the origins of man and literature rather than the confident narrative it was thought to be initially.[20] Discoveries of past literature and the features of this past literature have converted radical self-understanding and unitary meaning of literature, two concepts on which interpretation of literary history has been dependent on, into myths.[21] The unitary meaning of literature is the concept that unifies all literature from various parts of the world bearing different themes and classifies them based on their timeframes. A perspective from the current era of accountability tends to accentuate the flaws of literary history; since most concepts upon which literary history is based cannot be accounted for, they are essentially myths. A view that these concepts are indeed myths makes the whole concept of literary history seem like a myth too. It is impossible to have a whole academic field whose interpretations based on mythical concepts.
Moreover, in any field of study, the discovery of more knowledge should enrich rather than cause the existing knowledge to be questioned. The fact that discovery of more information on literary history seems to make the field less familiar and in fact ruins the whole basis of already existing information makes this field impossible.[22] With this trend, the discovery of other information in future is likely to dismantle the whole field.
Lastly, the fact that literary history itself is based on an assumption makes this field an impossibility. For one to understand literary history, they must assume that the literary works of certain time periods bare certain similarities which are clearly and conspicuously evident.[23] As earlier alluded to, this is not necessarily true. Some literary works from certain time periods sharply differ from the rest in that group and have their own characteristics.
Literary History is Possible
Despite its seemingly many flaws, literary history is an essential field of study. Like any other field of study, delving into literary history is possible and is something which has been done and can be done.[24] The paragraphs that follow discuss why literary history is actually possible.
First, despite subtle differences between various works of art, similarities between works of art originating from a similar chronological time zone have been described. Moreover, it has been possible to tell the chronological timeframe that various literary works that were discovered late on by other means rather than analysis of the characteristic features.[25] The characteristics features that were found to be common among literary works that belong to a similar time period the themes, assumptions, and norms. Even though literary history does not consider the sociopolitical and technological context of a literary work, in some cases, it has been possible to associate the characteristic features of a literary work with the sociopolitical circumstances occurring in the place of origin of the work of art at the time when the work was made.[26] It has been shown that these features especially the norms of the literary works differ markedly from one time period to another. For instance, an understanding of Elizabethan politics is necessary for one to understand some crucial aspects that are presented by Spenser in ‘Fairie Queene.’[27] These differences are like a proof that the historical time periods of are a reality and that they are accurate. This approach has also shown us how literature actually evolved from one time period to another. Just like everything else, it is clear that the literature of olden times was far more primitive than literary works of modern times. The accuracy of these time periods which is indeed the main strength of literary history proves that literary history is indeed possible.
Secondly, the concept of literary history is an old field which is invariably important to the way we interpret literature. Classification of works of art based on their time frames gives the audience an insight into the context of a literary work.[28] A clue of the context of a literary work is very important to the interpretation and understanding of that piece of literature. For instance, classification of ‘Troilus and Criseyde’, a worker by Chaucer, under the medieval period of literary history is important for the interpretation of this piece.[29] Without knowledge of the time period upon which this literary work belongs to would make this work senseless. The fact that literary history is very important to the interpretation of various works of art makes this whole field a possibility.
Thirdly, literary history is the history of everything; wherever a chronological account of man’s past events exists, literary history exists there.[30] There many sources of the history of both pre-historic and historic eras – all these history stems from the literature of the time which could be retained until now. In essence, any existing literature stems from the literature of a certain time frame hence the fact that literary history is indeed the history of everything else. Moreover, the fact that literary history is indeed the history of everything justifies the study of literary history; for one to understand the history of a certain period, they have to understand the literature of that particular time period.[31] The present literary history has been shown to be plausible with the history of other things that occurred in similar time periods. For instance, the art of renaissance and the literature of renaissance share some crucial aspects including themes and assumptions.[32] The fact that history of other things has been accounted makes literary history, the source of the history that has been accounted, a possibility.
Conclusion
Literary history is a very useful field of study. As earlier alluded to, literary history being the history of everything else can help us to understand the history of everything else. Literary history is also key in helping us to understand and interpret the various works of art of olden days.[33] It is hard for one to interpret a literary work without being able to classify the work into a particular period of literary history. It is more fruitful to analyze material after grouping them well. Despite its usefulness and importance to the field of literature, literary history has far too many flaws. As is evident in the discussion above, the flaws that are present in literary history outweigh the strengths of literary history by far. The flaws show that literary history is indeed a weak field that scholars of literature should not depend on. Coming up with a perfect literary history upon which scholars can depend on is an impossible task. We can, therefore, conclude that literary history is impossible.
Works Cited
Brown, Marshall. The Uses of Literary History. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996.
Chapman, Rosemary. What is Québécois literature?: reflections on the literary history of Francophone writing in Canada. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2013.
Chaucer, Geoffrey. Troilus and Criseyde. Champaign, Ill: Project Gutenberg, 1990.
DeJean, Joan E. Tender Geographies: Women and the Origins of the Novel in France. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.
Duangsamosorn, Suthira. Re-imagining Language and Literature for the 21st Century: Selected Proceedings of the Xxii International Congress of Fillm Held at Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand from 19-23 August 2002. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005.
Elliott, Emory, Martha Banta, and Houston A. Baker. Columbia Literary History of the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.
Fokkema, Douwe W. Literary History, Modernism, and Postmodernism. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co, 1984.
Grabes, Herbert. Literary History – Cultural History: Force Fields and Tensions. Tübingen: Narr, 2001.
Grabes, Herbert. Literature, Literary History, and Cultural Memory. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 2005.
Graff, Gerald. Professing literature: An institutional history. University of Chicago Press, 2008.
Guillén, Claudio. Literature As System: Essays Toward the Theory of Literary History. 1971. <http://alltitles.ebrary.com/Doc?id=11017758>.
Helgesson, Stefan, and Gunilla Lindberg-Wada. Literary History: Towards a Global Perspective. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2006.
Howard, David J. Kingston: A Cultural and Literary History. Northampton, Mass: Interlink Books, 2005. Print.
Howsam, Leslie. Old Books and New Histories: An Orientation to Studies in Book and Print Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006.
Jauss, Hans Robert, and Elizabeth Benzinger. “Literary history as a challenge to literary theory.” New literary history 2.1 (1970): 7-37.
Lévi-Strauss, Claude. The Savage Mind. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1966.
Lindberg-Wada, Gunilla. Studying Transcultural Literary History. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2006. <http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3572431>.
Literary History (2015) <https://btk.ppke.hu/uploads/articles/135505/file/introduction/satellite/literary_history.html> [accessed 28 October 2016].
Literary Periods, Movements, and History (2015) <Simpson, David, Is Literary History the History of Everything? The Case for “Antiquarian” History* (2001) <https://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/contemporary/simpson/simpson> [accessed 28 October 2016].> [accessed 28 October 2016].
London, April. Literary History Writing, 1770-1820. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. Print.
Magnus, Bernd. The Cambridge Companion to Nietzsche. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997.
Moretti, Franco. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. London: Verso, 2005.
Pettersson, Anders, Gunilla Lindberg-Wada, Margareta Petersson, and Stefan Helgesson. Literary History: Towards a Global Perspective. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2006
Saldívar, José David. The Dialectics of Our America: Genealogy, Cultural Critique, and Literary History. Durham: Duke University Press, 1991. <http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=1167648>.
Simpson, David, Is Literary History the History of Everything? The Case for “Antiquarian” History* (2001) <https://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/contemporary/simpson/simpson> [accessed 28 October 2016].
Spenser, Edmund, and John W. Hales. Fairie Queene. London: Dent, 1909
Spitzer, Leo. Linguistics and literary history: essays in stylistics. Princeton University Press, 2015.
Spolsky, Ellen. Gaps in Nature: Literary Interpretation and the Modular Mind. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993.
Tarrant, Richard. “Ovid and ancient literary history.” The Cambridge Companion to Ovid (2002): 13-33. Wendell, Barrett. A Literary History of America. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1900.
Wendell, Barrett. A Literary History of America. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1900.
[1] Brown, Marshall. The Uses of Literary History. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996. 23
[2] Pettersson, Anders, Gunilla Lindberg-Wada, Margareta Petersson, and Stefan Helgesson. Literary History: Towards a Global Perspective. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2006. 15
[3] Jauss, Hans Robert, and Elizabeth Benzinger. “Literary history as a challenge to literary theory.” New literary history 2.1 (1970): 15.
[4] Literary History (2015) <https://btk.ppke.hu/uploads/articles/135505/file/introduction/satellite/literary_history.html> [accessed 28 October 2016].
[5] Spitzer, Leo. Linguistics and literary history: essays in stylistics. Princeton University Press, 2015. 15
[6] Tarrant, Richard. “Ovid and ancient literary history.” The Cambridge Companion to Ovid (2002): 15.
[7] Graff, Gerald. Professing literature: An institutional history. University of Chicago Press, 2008. 15
[8] Moretti, Franco. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. London: Verso, 2005.
[9] Literary Periods, Movements, and History (2015) <Simpson, David, Is Literary History the History of Everything? The Case for “Antiquarian” History* (2001) <https://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/contemporary/simpson/simpson> [accessed 28 October 2016].> [accessed 28 October 2016].
[10] Literary History (2015) <https://btk.ppke.hu/uploads/articles/135505/file/introduction/satellite/literary_history.html> [accessed 28 October 2016].
[11] Howard, David J. Kingston: A Cultural and Literary History. Northampton, Mass: Interlink Books, 2005. 90
[12] London, April. Literary History Writing, 1770-1820. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 25.
[13] Grabes, Herbert. Literature, Literary History, and Cultural Memory. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 2005. 87
[14] Literary History (2015) <https://btk.ppke.hu/uploads/articles/135505/file/introduction/satellite/literary_history.html> [accessed 28 October 2016].
[15] Grabes, Herbert. Literature, Literary History, and Cultural Memory. Tübingen: Gunter Narr, 2005. 82
[16] Lindberg-Wada, Gunilla. Studying Transcultural Literary History. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2006. <http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3572431>. 43
[17] Fokkema, Douwe W. Literary History, Modernism, and Postmodernism. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Pub. Co, 1984. 20.
[18] Helgesson, Stefan, and Gunilla Lindberg-Wada. Literary History: Towards a Global Perspective. Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2006. 15
[19] Simpson, David, Is Literary History the History of Everything? The Case for “Antiquarian” History* (2001) <https://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/contemporary/simpson/simpson> [accessed 28 October 2016].
[20] Brown, Marshall. The Uses of Literary History. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996. 51
[21] Duangsamosorn, Suthira. Re-imagining Language and Literature for the 21st Century: Selected Proceedings of the Xxii International Congress of Fillm Held at Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand from 19-23 August 2002. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005. 15
[22] Duangsamosorn, Suthira. Re-imagining Language and Literature for the 21st Century: Selected Proceedings of the Xxii International Congress of Fillm Held at Assumption University, Bangkok, Thailand from 19-23 August 2002. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2005. 19
[23] Grabes, Herbert. Literary History – Cultural History: Force Fields and Tensions. Tübingen: Narr, 2001. 18
[24] Guillén, Claudio. Literature As System: Essays Toward the Theory of Literary History. 1971. <http://alltitles.ebrary.com/Doc?id=11017758>.
[25] Spolsky, Ellen. Gaps in Nature: Literary Interpretation and the Modular Mind. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1993. 56
[26] DeJean, Joan E. Tender Geographies: Women and the Origins of the Novel in France. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991. 40.
[27] Spenser, Edmund, and John W. Hales. Fairie Queene. London: Dent, 1909. 20.
[28] Elliott, Emory, Martha Banta, and Houston A. Baker. Columbia Literary History of the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. 25.
[29] Chaucer, Geoffrey. Troilus and Criseyde. Champaign, Ill: Project Gutenberg, 1990. 15
[30] Howsam, Leslie. Old Books and New Histories: An Orientation to Studies in Book and Print Culture. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. 65
[31] Brown, Marshall. The Uses of Literary History. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1996. 93
[32] Wendell, Barrett. A Literary History of America. New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1900. 54.
[33] Guillén, Claudio. Literature As System: Essays Toward the Theory of Literary History. 1971. <http://alltitles.ebrary.com/Doc?id=11017758>.
