Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Introduction
En las palabras de Walpole, la historia es a species of romance that is belived, mientras
que una novela es a species of history that is not belived (citado por Gossman 3).
Chapter 7
History and Literature: Reproduction or Signification
LA HISTORIA ERA UNA RAMA DE LA LITERATURA
For a long time the relation of history to literature was not notably problematic.
History was a branch of literature. It was not until the meaning of the world
literature, or the institution of literature itself, began to change, toward the end of
the eighteenth century, that history came to appear as something distinct from
literature (227).
Por mucho tiempo la historia fue una rama de la literatura y no es sino en el siglo XVIII
que las palabras literatura e historia comienzan a ser vistas como algo diferente
(227).
Quintiliano trata a la historia como una forma de pica (227).
EL RENACIMIENTO
Renaissance reflection on historiography conformed, as one would expect, to the
precepts of the ancients. History writing was viewed as an art of presentation and
argument rather than a scientific inquiry, and its problems belonged therefore to rhetoric
rather than to epistemology. Though seventeenth- and eighteenth-century theories of
poetry usually left room for a neo-Platonic notion of divine inspiration inherited
from the Renaissance, literature had, for the most part, the sense of a practice, a
technique (228).
En el renacimiento la historia escrita es vista como un arte de presentacin de un
argumento en lugar de una indagacin cientfica y su problemtica es vista como parte de
la retrica en lugar de la epistemologa (228).
PEQUEA BRECHA ENTRE ESCRITOR Y LECTOR
Speaking of France, Sartre observes that the gap between writer and reader in the
seventeenth century was not great. Every reader was himself, in a lesser way, a writer.
Literature thus referred to the practice of writing. And historyalong with sermons,
eulogies, and letterswas one of the kinds of writing that could be practiced. The subjects
varied and required different treatment, but the craft was the same (228).
Hablando sobre Francia, Sartre observa que en el siglo XVII la brecha entre escritor y
lector no era grande. Todo lector era en menor medida un escritor. La literatura se
refera a la prctica de escribir y la historia al igual que los sermones, las elegas y las
cartas era uno de los tipos de escritura que podan ser practicadas. Los temas variaban y
requeran de tratamiento diferente pero el oficio era el mismo (228).
LOS SIGNIFICANTES
This historians narrative is constructed not upon reality itself or upon transparent
images of it, but on signifiers which the historians own action transforms into signs. It is
not historical reality itself but the present signs of the historian that limit and order the
historical narrative (just as, conversely, the historical narrative limits and orders them).
Almost all historians acknowledge this implicitly in the act of placing their notes
sources, evidence at the foot of the page (250).
NARRATIVA HISTRICA: SISTEMA SEMIOLGICO SECUNDARIO
I have already suggested that historical narrative constitutes a secondary semiological
system whose elements events, actions, and so on already have a meaning within the
system of ordinary language, prior to being appropiated by the secondary system and
adapted to its ends (251).
REPUDIO DE LA LITERATURA COMO MITO, pgina 252: