Day: October 20, 2024

Introduction: “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov” by Walter Benjamin

“The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov” by Walter Benjamin first appeared in the Chicago Review, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Winter-Spring, 1963), spanning pages 80-101. In this seminal essay, Benjamin meditates on the decline of storytelling as a traditional art form, contrasting it with the rise of the novel and modern modes of communication. The article examines how the oral traditions, deeply tied to collective experience and communal exchange, are increasingly replaced by information-based narratives that lack the depth and continuity of past tales. Through Leskov, Benjamin illustrates the enduring qualities of the storyteller, who passes down wisdom, moral guidance, and lived experiences, grounding his stories in the practical and the mystical alike. This work is a cornerstone in literary theory, offering profound insights into the cultural shifts that affect storytelling’s role in society, and it highlights the significance of memory, craft, and wisdom in narrative forms. It remains crucial for understanding the transformation of literary expression and the relationship between literature and lived experience.

Summary of “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov” by Walter Benjamin

• The Decline of Storytelling: Benjamin argues that the art of storytelling, once a central form of communication, has been in decline, replaced by information and the novel. He states that “experience has fallen in value” (p. 84) and storytelling, which used to pass down wisdom and lived experiences, is no longer a living art form but something increasingly remote.
• Storytelling vs. The Novel: Benjamin contrasts storytelling with the novel, which depends on the solitary individual. Unlike storytelling, which is passed from mouth to mouth and retains a communal element, “the novelist has isolated himself” (p. 90). He observes that storytelling is rooted in shared experience, while the novel focuses on the inner lives of individuals.
• Leskov as a Storyteller: Nikolai Leskov is presented as a model storyteller, whose works reflect the oral traditions that Benjamin champions. Leskov’s stories, rooted in Russian religious and folk traditions, embody the dual role of the storyteller as both an observer of distant places and times and as a narrator of local, intimate knowledge (p. 94). Leskov’s craftsmanship in storytelling exemplifies “the lore of the past” combined with lived experience.
• The Role of Experience in Storytelling: According to Benjamin, the true storyteller draws from personal and collective experience, transforming it into a narrative that carries counsel and wisdom. He argues that “experience which is passed on from mouth to mouth is the source from which all storytellers have drawn” (p. 85). This experience is not only practical but also moral, often containing a useful lesson for listeners.
• The Rise of Information: Benjamin points out that storytelling has been displaced by “information,” which requires immediate verification and lacks the depth of storytelling. He contrasts this with Leskov’s ability to present extraordinary tales without offering psychological explanations, allowing readers to derive their own interpretations (p. 99).
• The Connection between Death and Storytelling: One of Benjamin’s key insights is the connection between death and storytelling. He asserts that death gives meaning to life and storytelling, stating that “death is the sanction of everything that the storyteller can tell” (p. 106). This perspective on death ties storytelling to the broader cycles of life, history, and natural processes.
• The Craftsmanship of Storytelling: Benjamin compares storytelling to a form of craftsmanship, where the storyteller shapes raw experience into something solid and memorable, like an artisan shaping material. Leskov’s work, particularly in tales like “The Steel Flea,” glorifies native craftsmanship, demonstrating how the storyteller’s hands leave “traces” on the story, much like a potter’s marks on a vessel (p. 104).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov” by Walter Benjamin

Literary Term/Concept	Description	Reference/Explanation from the Text
Storytelling	The oral tradition of sharing wisdom, experience, and counsel, often passed from generation to generation.	Benjamin argues that “experience which is passed on from mouth to mouth is the source from which all storytellers have drawn” (p. 85).
Novel	A modern form of prose literature that is distinct from storytelling due to its individual, isolated nature.	Benjamin contrasts the novel with storytelling, stating that “the novelist has isolated himself” (p. 90).
Communicability of Experience	The ability to share life experiences through stories, a key function of the storyteller that is diminishing in modern times.	Benjamin notes, “Less and less frequently do we encounter people with the ability to tell a tale properly” (p. 80).
Counsel	Practical or moral advice that is embedded in stories, a key element of traditional storytelling.	Benjamin emphasizes that “every real story contains…something useful” and that “the storyteller is a man who has counsel for his readers” (p. 87).
Information	A modern form of communication that focuses on immediate, verifiable facts but lacks the depth of storytelling.	“Information lays claim to prompt verifiability” but “it is indispensable for information to sound plausible” (p. 99).
Craftsmanship	Storytelling as a craft, akin to artisan work, where the storyteller shapes raw experience into meaningful narratives.	Benjamin compares storytelling to craftsmanship, noting “the storyteller sinks the thing into the life of the storyteller, in order to bring it out of him again” (p. 104).
Memory	A key component of storytelling, where experiences are retained and passed down through narratives.	“Memory is the epic faculty par excellence” (p. 115), Benjamin asserts, highlighting its role in preserving and transmitting stories.
Death	Death gives meaning to storytelling, as it marks the final point at which a life story becomes transmissible.	“Death is the sanction of everything that the storyteller can tell” (p. 106).
Epic	A broad term for long, narrative storytelling, often rooted in oral traditions and collective memory.	Benjamin associates storytelling with the epic tradition, contrasting it with the individualistic novel (p. 94).

Contribution of “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov” by Walter Benjamin to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Narrative Theory

• Contribution: Benjamin’s distinction between storytelling and the novel significantly contributes to narrative theory by exploring how different forms of narrative convey meaning and experience. He argues that storytelling, rooted in oral tradition, involves communal experience, while the novel is an individual and isolated form.
• Key Reference: Benjamin highlights that “the storyteller takes what he tells from experience—his own or that reported by others. And he in turn makes it the experience of those who are listening to his tale” (p. 85). In contrast, the novelist “has isolated himself” (p. 90). This distinction deepens narrative theory by highlighting the social and personal functions of different narrative forms.

2. Modernity and Literary Forms

• Contribution: Benjamin’s analysis contributes to the theory of modernity in literature, particularly the decline of traditional narrative forms in the wake of modern life and technology. He argues that storytelling is being replaced by the novel and “information,” both products of modernity that lack the depth of lived experience found in traditional storytelling.
• Key Reference: Benjamin asserts that “the art of storytelling is reaching its end because the epic side of truth, wisdom, is dying out” (p. 88). He ties this shift to modern historical changes, such as the First World War, which “contradicted more thoroughly than ever before… economic experience by inflation, bodily experience by mechanical warfare” (p. 83). This connects literary shifts to broader societal changes, contributing to theories of modernity in literature.

3. Theories of Experience and Representation

• Contribution: Benjamin contributes to theories of experience, particularly in how literature represents lived experience. He suggests that storytelling is unique in its ability to convey wisdom and practical knowledge, which he contrasts with modern forms of representation, such as news and information, which fragment and devalue experience.
• Key Reference: Benjamin claims that “experience has fallen in value” and that “less and less frequently do we encounter people with the ability to tell a tale properly” (p. 80). He critiques modern forms of representation that provide “information” but fail to offer the deep, shared experience that traditional stories encapsulate (p. 99). This is a crucial insight for theories of how experience is processed and transmitted in literature.

4. Orality vs. Literacy in Literature

• Contribution: Benjamin’s essay provides a critical perspective on the transition from oral to written forms of literature. He emphasizes the communal, experience-based nature of oral storytelling, contrasting it with the more isolated and introspective form of the novel, which depends on literacy and the solitary reader.
• Key Reference: He writes that the “dissemination of the novel became possible only with the invention of printing” and contrasts this with the oral tradition, which allowed for a direct exchange of experience and wisdom (p. 90). This insight is valuable to studies of orality and literacy in literary history and theory.

5. Death and Storytelling

• Contribution: In his analysis of the connection between death and storytelling, Benjamin contributes to existential literary theories. He posits that the storyteller derives authority from death, as stories preserve and transmit the meaning of life through the lens of mortality.
• Key Reference: Benjamin asserts, “Death is the sanction of everything that the storyteller can tell. He has borrowed his authority from death” (p. 106). This idea links storytelling to existential themes in literary theory, where death provides the ultimate context for understanding life.

6. Aesthetic Theory: Craftsmanship in Storytelling

• Contribution: Benjamin’s emphasis on storytelling as a craft contributes to aesthetic theories that view literature as a form of artistic craftsmanship. He likens the storyteller to an artisan who shapes and refines raw experience into something meaningful and useful, drawing connections between storytelling and physical craft.
• Key Reference: Benjamin explains that storytelling is “an artisan form of communication” and that the “story sinks into the life of the storyteller, in order to bring it out of him again” (p. 104). This aligns with aesthetic theories that focus on the material and crafted nature of literary production.

7. Memory and Literature

• Contribution: Benjamin explores the role of memory in storytelling, contributing to theories that analyze how literature serves as a vessel for collective and individual memory. Storytelling is shown to be deeply intertwined with memory, as stories preserve experiences and make them transmissible across generations.
• Key Reference: He states that “memory is the epic faculty par excellence” (p. 115), emphasizing that stories are retained in the memory and passed down orally. This contribution is significant for literary theories that explore the role of memory in narrative structures and cultural transmission.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov” by Walter Benjamin

Literary Work & Author	Critique through “The Storyteller” Framework	Key Concepts from Benjamin
Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes	Don Quixote is critiqued as the earliest perfect specimen of the novel, embodying the isolation of the novelist, rather than communal storytelling. The novel reflects “the perplexity of the living,” where characters are unable to provide counsel or share wisdom, marking the transition away from storytelling.	Benjamin contrasts storytelling with the novel, noting that the “novelist has isolated himself” and the novel “carries the incommensurable to extremes” (p. 90).
The Arabian Nights by Anonymous	In The Arabian Nights, the cyclical nature of storytelling reflects the communal aspect Benjamin celebrates. Each story flows into the next, with Scheherazade epitomizing the storyteller’s role of passing on experience and wisdom. This is a key example of storytelling’s ability to integrate memory and life experiences, contrasting with the more individualistic novel.	Benjamin praises storytellers who “think of a fresh story whenever their tale comes to a stop” (p. 115), highlighting the continuous, oral nature of storytelling.
Moby-Dick by Herman Melville	Melville’s Moby-Dick is critiqued as both a novel and an epic, embodying the transition Benjamin discusses between traditional epic storytelling and modern isolation. While Ahab’s obsessive quest isolates him from communal experience, Ishmael, as the narrator, reflects on and transmits wisdom through the shared experiences of the crew, reminiscent of the traditional storyteller.	Benjamin’s theory of storytelling emphasizes how “the storyteller sinks the thing into the life of the storyteller, in order to bring it out again” (p. 104).
War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy	War and Peace can be analyzed as a blend of storytelling and novelistic form. Tolstoy’s characters engage in epic storytelling through collective experience, particularly during the war scenes, but the novel also reflects the increasing isolation and individualism that Benjamin associates with the novel form. The shift from oral tradition to historical analysis and psychological exploration in the novel aligns with Benjamin’s ideas on the decline of storytelling.	Benjamin observes the transformation of epic forms, where the novel “recedes into the archaic,” with modern forms like the novel focusing more on “information” (p. 99).

Criticism Against “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov” by Walter Benjamin

• Romanticization of Storytelling: Critics argue that Benjamin overly romanticizes traditional storytelling, idealizing the oral tradition while ignoring the complexity and evolution of modern literary forms like the novel. His depiction of the decline of storytelling might be seen as nostalgic and dismissive of contemporary narrative forms.
• Overemphasis on Experience: Some scholars critique Benjamin’s insistence that storytelling relies on lived experience and counsel, arguing that this perspective limits the potential of fiction and imaginative literature, which can transcend personal experience and still offer meaningful insights.
• Neglect of Modernist Literature’s Value: Benjamin’s comparison between storytelling and the novel is viewed by some as overly reductive. He implies that modern novels, especially those grounded in isolation and introspection, are less valuable than oral storytelling, neglecting the rich literary achievements of modernist writers such as James Joyce and Virginia Woolf.
• Generalization of Historical Transitions: Critics contend that Benjamin’s broad statements about the “decline” of storytelling and the rise of information lack nuance. His analysis does not fully address the coexistence of various narrative forms throughout history and the ways in which new media and literary forms have adapted and preserved storytelling traditions in different contexts.
• Inaccessibility of Theoretical Approach: Some have criticized Benjamin’s essay for its dense and abstract language, which can make it difficult for readers unfamiliar with his broader philosophical concepts. The combination of literary theory, historical analysis, and philosophical discourse may limit the accessibility of his work to a general audience.

Representative Quotations from “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov” by Walter Benjamin with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Less and less frequently do we encounter people with the ability to tell a tale properly.” (p. 80)	Benjamin is highlighting the decline of storytelling in modern society. He argues that storytelling, once a common skill, is becoming rare in the face of modern communication methods.
“Experience which is passed on from mouth to mouth is the source from which all storytellers have drawn.” (p. 85)	This quote emphasizes Benjamin’s belief that storytelling is rooted in collective, oral experience. Storytellers traditionally draw from personal or communal knowledge, which distinguishes storytelling from other literary forms.
“The art of storytelling is reaching its end because the epic side of truth, wisdom, is dying out.” (p. 88)	Here, Benjamin laments the loss of wisdom and deeper truth in storytelling, which he sees as tied to modernity’s devaluation of shared, lived experience.
“The novelist has isolated himself.” (p. 90)	Benjamin contrasts the isolation of the novelist with the communal nature of storytelling, suggesting that the novel focuses more on individual, subjective experiences, detaching itself from collective wisdom.
“Death is the sanction of everything that the storyteller can tell.” (p. 106)	This powerful quote expresses Benjamin’s view that storytelling is deeply connected to death, as death gives finality and meaning to life, which the storyteller preserves and transmits.
“Memory is the epic faculty par excellence.” (p. 115)	Benjamin underscores the importance of memory in storytelling. Memory preserves stories, which are passed from generation to generation, tying storytelling to cultural and historical continuity.
“Every morning brings us the news of the globe, and yet we are poor in noteworthy stories.” (p. 99)	Benjamin critiques modern information-based communication, noting that despite being constantly inundated with news, we lack the richness and depth of traditional storytelling.
“The storyteller takes what he tells from experience—his own or that reported by others.” (p. 85)	This quotation reinforces the idea that storytelling is grounded in personal or shared experiences, passed down orally, making it a communal and experiential process.
“The more self-forgetful the listener is, the more deeply is what he listens to impressed upon his memory.” (p. 112)	Benjamin highlights the role of the listener in storytelling, suggesting that a listener’s immersion in the story enhances its impact and retention, linking storytelling to the tradition of oral transmission.
“Information, however, lays claim to prompt verifiability.” (p. 99)	This quote reflects Benjamin’s distinction between storytelling and information. He critiques the modern emphasis on factual information, which demands instant verification but lacks the depth of storytelling’s wisdom and experience.

Suggested Readings: “The Storyteller: Reflections on the Works of Nikolai Leskov” by Walter Benjamin

1. Felman, Shoshana. “Benjamin’s Silence.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 25, no. 2, 1999, pp. 201–34. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1344200. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
2. Morris, Susan. “Twenty Years of Boredom.” On Boredom: Essays in Art and Writing, edited by Susan Morris and Rye Dag Holmboe, UCL Press, 2021, pp. 27–46. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv18kc0nd.9. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
3. Benjamin, Walter, and Harry Zohn. “The story-teller: Reflections on the works of Nicolai Leskov.” Chicago Review 16.1 (1963): 80-101.
4. White, Richard. “Walter Benjamin:“The Storyteller” and the possibility of wisdom.” Journal of Aesthetic Education 51.1 (2017): 1-14.

Introduction: “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man

“The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man first appeared as the tenth chapter of the book Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, published by the University of Minnesota Press in 1971. In this pivotal chapter, de Man explores the dichotomy between allegory and symbol, examining how these two rhetorical devices operate differently within literary texts. He argues that while symbols aim for an organic unity between form and meaning, allegory operates through disjunction, pointing to the temporal gap between language and the reality it seeks to represent. This distinction becomes critical for literary theory, as de Man posits that allegory, with its inherent self-awareness of its artificiality, allows for a deeper critique of language and meaning. The chapter’s importance in literature lies in its influence on deconstructive criticism, offering a framework to analyze the instability of meaning in texts, thus reshaping modern interpretations of Romantic and post-Romantic literature.

Summary of “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man

---

1. Distinction between Allegory and Symbol:

• De Man begins by distinguishing allegory from symbol, two key rhetorical devices in literary theory.
• “Allegory appears as dryly rational and dogmatic in its reference to a meaning that it does not itself constitute, whereas the symbol is founded on an intimate unity between the image that rises up before the senses and the supersensory totality that the image suggests.”
• He argues that symbols imply organic unity, where form and meaning are seamlessly intertwined, while allegory introduces a gap between the sign and the meaning it represents.

---

2. Allegory’s Temporal Nature:

• One of the main arguments is that allegory operates in a temporal mode, emphasizing the passage of time and the distance between the present and the meaning it conveys.
• “The allegorical sign points to an irrevocable past, and its meaning is always inferred rather than directly presented.”
• Allegory is thus self-aware of its temporal disjunction, whereas symbols aim to mask this temporal gap by creating an illusion of unity.

---

3. Critique of Symbolic Interpretation:

• De Man critiques the dominance of symbolic interpretation in Romantic literature, particularly its claim of unity between form and meaning.
• “The supremacy of the symbol, conceived as an expression of unity between the representative and the semantic function of language, becomes a commonplace that underlies literary taste, literary criticism, and literary history.”
• He contends that this symbolic reading obscures the inherent disjunction between language and meaning, which allegory, in contrast, makes visible.

---

4. Allegory’s Role in Revealing the Limits of Language:

• Allegory, according to de Man, reveals the limitations and artificiality of language, making it a powerful tool for literary and philosophical critique.
• “Allegory shows us that language, rather than transparently reflecting reality, is always mediated by its own structures and conventions.”
• This makes allegory not just a literary device but also a mode of thinking that exposes the gap between words and the things they signify.

---

5. The Implications for Literary Criticism:

• De Man’s argument has significant implications for literary criticism, particularly in relation to deconstructive approaches that emphasize the instability of meaning.
• “The distinction between symbol and allegory becomes of secondary importance when we recognize that both forms ultimately fail to secure the transparency of meaning.”
• Allegory’s acknowledgment of its own constructedness allows it to challenge the symbolic belief in linguistic coherence and unity.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man

Term/Concept	Definition	Explanation in De Man’s Context
Allegory	A rhetorical device where one thing is symbolically used to represent something else.	De Man argues that allegory reveals the disjunction between sign and meaning, highlighting the temporal gap between language and what it signifies. Allegory makes this gap visible rather than concealing it, as symbols often do.
Symbol	A figure of speech where an object or action suggests a broader, often abstract, meaning.	In contrast to allegory, symbols suggest a unity between the image and its meaning. De Man critiques this as an illusion of unity, where the symbol tries to mask the inherent disjunction between form and meaning.
Temporality	The state of existing within or being bound by time.	Allegory, for de Man, is inherently temporal. It emphasizes the distance between the present moment and the meaning that is often located in the past or the future, making it a device that acknowledges time’s effect on interpretation.
Irony	A figure of speech in which what is stated is often the opposite of what is meant.	Irony is seen by de Man as related to allegory in its ability to expose contradictions and distance between appearance and reality, further destabilizing the coherence of meaning.
Mimesis	The imitation or representation of reality in art and literature.	De Man references mimesis in relation to how both allegory and symbol attempt to represent reality but through differing strategies—allegory through fragmentation and distance, and symbol through unity and coherence.
Metaphor	A figure of speech that involves an implicit comparison between two unlike things.	Metaphor, as related to symbol in de Man’s critique, works by analogy but can sometimes fail to address the deeper disjunction between sign and meaning, as exposed in allegorical structures.
Figural Language	Language that uses figures of speech, such as metaphor, simile, allegory, and symbol, to convey meaning.	De Man situates allegory and symbol as types of figural language, emphasizing how these figures operate within the broader framework of how language constructs, rather than reflects, meaning.
Deconstruction	A critical approach that seeks to expose and challenge the underlying assumptions in texts.	Although de Man does not use the term explicitly, his work on allegory versus symbol is foundational to deconstructive criticism, as it challenges the coherence and unity assumed by symbolic interpretations of language.
Romanticism	A literary movement emphasizing emotion, nature, and individualism, often using symbolic language.	De Man critiques the Romantic preference for symbols, arguing that allegory provides a more honest representation of the temporal and fragmented nature of human experience and meaning.

Contribution of “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man to Literary Theory/Theories

---

1. Establishing Allegory as a Critical Mode:

• De Man elevates allegory from a secondary rhetorical device to a primary mode of critique, arguing that it offers a more honest approach to understanding language and meaning than the symbol.
• “Allegory shows us that language, rather than transparently reflecting reality, is always mediated by its own structures and conventions.”
• Contribution to Deconstructive Criticism: This view is foundational to deconstruction, as it destabilizes traditional ideas of language as a transparent vehicle of meaning.

---

2. Critique of Symbolic Unity in Romanticism:

• De Man critiques the Romantic preference for symbols, which are often seen as representing a unity between form and meaning. He argues that this unity is an illusion.
• “The supremacy of the symbol… becomes a commonplace that underlies literary taste, literary criticism, and literary history.”
• Contribution to Romantic Studies: De Man’s work challenges the idealization of symbolic coherence in Romantic literature, urging critics to reconsider the role of fragmentation and disjunction.

---

3. Temporality in Literary Language:

• One of the chapter’s key contributions is its emphasis on temporality in language, particularly how allegory foregrounds the temporal gap between sign and meaning.
• “The allegorical sign points to an irrevocable past, and its meaning is always inferred rather than directly presented.”
• Contribution to Temporal and Historical Criticism: De Man’s focus on the temporal aspect of allegory opens new avenues for exploring how literature engages with time and history.

---

4. Allegory and Irony as Modes of Self-Awareness:

• De Man links allegory with irony, suggesting that both rhetorical modes foster self-awareness by highlighting the disjunction between language and reality.
• “Allegory, like irony, points to the distance between the way in which the world appears in reality and the way it appears in language.”
• Contribution to Irony and Allegory Studies: This connection has been pivotal for subsequent studies of irony and allegory, especially in post-structuralist criticism, where both modes are seen as strategies that expose the limitations of language.

---

5. Challenging the Dominance of Mimesis:

• De Man’s critique of symbolic unity also challenges traditional notions of mimesis, or the imitation of reality, in literature. He argues that allegory reveals the constructedness of language.
• “We can no longer consider the supremacy of the symbol as a ‘solution’ to the problem of metaphorical diction.”
• Contribution to Mimetic Theory: His argument questions long-held assumptions about literature’s capacity to reflect reality, influencing theories that emphasize the artificiality and mediation in literary representation.

---

6. Influence on Deconstructive and Post-Structuralist Criticism:

• Although de Man does not explicitly align himself with deconstruction, his arguments about the instability of meaning in both allegory and symbol are foundational to post-structuralist thought.
• “The distinction between symbol and allegory becomes of secondary importance when we recognize that both forms ultimately fail to secure the transparency of meaning.”
• Contribution to Deconstruction and Post-Structuralism: This critique of meaning’s instability resonates strongly with deconstructive approaches, which emphasize the inherent contradictions within language and meaning.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man

Literary Work	Critique Through “The Rhetoric of Temporality”	Key Focus/Concept
William Wordsworth’s Poetry	Wordsworth’s symbolic language can be critiqued for its attempt to achieve a unity between nature and human emotion, masking the temporal gap.	Symbolic Unity vs. Allegorical Distance: De Man would argue that Wordsworth’s symbols conceal the disjunction between reality and meaning.
Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner”	De Man would critique Coleridge’s use of symbolism, especially in natural images, revealing how allegory disrupts the perceived organic unity.	Temporality and Fragmentation: The poem’s structure and disjointed narrative align with allegorical fragmentation.
Goethe’s “Faust”	Allegorical moments in Faust emphasize the disjunction between human action and transcendental meaning, critiquing the symbolic drive for unity.	Allegory and Symbol in Romanticism: De Man’s critique highlights the tension between Goethe’s use of allegory and the Romantic symbol.
James Joyce’s “Ulysses”	De Man’s theory can be applied to Joyce’s fragmented narrative style, showing how allegory disrupts the coherence of identity and time.	Allegory as a Temporal Mode: Joyce’s fragmented narrative structure mirrors the temporal disjunction emphasized in allegory.
Dante’s “Divine Comedy”	The allegorical framework of the Divine Comedy reflects the temporal nature of meaning, pointing to an eternal, deferred significance.	Allegory and Temporality: De Man would emphasize the temporal delay between Dante’s journey and its ultimate meaning.
Friedrich Hölderlin’s Poetry	Hölderlin’s landscapes, often symbolic, can be critiqued as moments where allegory reveals the impossibility of unity between language and reality.	Metaphor vs. Allegory: Hölderlin’s metaphors may seem symbolic but operate more like allegory in their acknowledgment of disjunction.
E.T.A. Hoffmann’s “The Sandman”	The use of allegory in The Sandman highlights the divide between reality and imagination, resonating with de Man’s view on allegorical distance.	Allegory and Irony: Hoffmann’s use of allegory aligns with de Man’s idea of irony, highlighting the constructedness of reality.
Baudelaire’s Poetry	Baudelaire’s allegorical depictions of modernity, particularly in Les Fleurs du mal, foreground the fragmentation and temporality of experience.	Allegory as Modern Critique: De Man would view Baudelaire’s poetry as an exploration of the disjunction between modern life and meaning.
Franz Kafka’s “The Trial”	Kafka’s allegorical narrative illustrates the endless deferral of meaning, a core concept in de Man’s critique of temporal disjunction in language.	Allegory and Deferred Meaning: Kafka’s narrative reflects the impossibility of reaching a final, unified meaning.

Criticism Against “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man

---

1. Overemphasis on Allegory’s Primacy:

• Critics argue that de Man gives undue primacy to allegory over symbol, marginalizing the value and significance of symbolic language in literature.
• Allegory is seen as just one of many rhetorical devices, not necessarily superior in revealing language’s limitations.

---

2. Neglect of Historical and Cultural Contexts:

• De Man’s theoretical approach tends to abstract allegory and symbol from their historical and cultural contexts, focusing more on theoretical distinctions than on how these devices operate in specific literary traditions.
• This has led some critics to argue that de Man overlooks the historical particularities that influence the use of rhetorical devices in literature.

---

3. Deconstruction’s Skepticism Towards Meaning:

• Some critics challenge de Man’s alignment with deconstructive approaches, which emphasize the instability and undecidability of meaning. They argue that this undermines the potential for any productive interpretation of literary texts.
• This skepticism towards stable meaning can lead to interpretive paralysis, where all interpretations are seen as equally indeterminate.

---

4. Reduction of Romantic Symbolism:

• De Man’s critique of Romantic symbolism, particularly his dismissal of the symbol’s claim to unity, is seen by some as reductive.
• Critics suggest that de Man oversimplifies the complexity of Romantic symbols, which often engage in more nuanced and layered relationships between form and meaning than his critique allows.

---

5. Ambiguity in Distinction Between Allegory and Symbol:

• Some scholars argue that de Man’s distinction between allegory and symbol is not as clear-cut as he suggests. The line between these two rhetorical devices can often blur, making his strict categorization problematic.
• Critics note that many literary texts use both allegory and symbol in ways that de Man’s binary framework cannot fully account for.

---

6. Ethical and Moral Concerns:

• De Man’s work, including “The Rhetoric of Temporality”, has been criticized for its ethical implications, particularly in light of his posthumously revealed writings from the World War II era.
• This controversy has led some to question the broader ethical stance of his literary theories, arguing that they may promote a detachment from moral responsibility in reading and interpretation.

---

7. Limited Scope of Application:

• De Man’s theory is seen by some as too narrow in scope, primarily applicable to Western literary traditions and Romanticism. Critics argue that it does not adequately address works from other literary periods or cultures where allegory and symbol function differently.

Representative Quotations from “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Allegory appears as dryly rational and dogmatic in its reference to a meaning that it does not itself constitute, whereas the symbol is founded on an intimate unity between the image that rises up before the senses…”	De Man contrasts allegory and symbol, highlighting allegory’s disjunction between sign and meaning, while symbols attempt to create an illusion of unity between the two.
“The allegorical sign points to an irrevocable past, and its meaning is always inferred rather than directly presented.”	This emphasizes the temporal dimension of allegory, showing how it reflects the distance between the present and the meaning, which is always deferred or removed from immediate comprehension.
“The supremacy of the symbol, conceived as an expression of unity between the representative and the semantic function of language, becomes a commonplace that underlies literary taste, literary criticism, and literary history.”	De Man critiques the dominance of symbolic unity in Romantic literature, arguing that it has shaped critical approaches, often at the expense of understanding allegory’s fragmented and temporal nature.
“Allegory shows us that language, rather than transparently reflecting reality, is always mediated by its own structures and conventions.”	This reflects de Man’s argument that allegory reveals the constructedness and mediation inherent in language, exposing how language operates through conventions that obscure a transparent relationship to reality.
“At the very moment when properly symbolic modes are supplanting allegory, we can witness the growth of metaphorical styles that cannot be called ‘symbolic’ in the Goethian sense.”	De Man critiques the Romantic preference for symbols, pointing out that some metaphors in Romantic texts don’t function symbolically but instead align more with allegory’s fragmented and non-unified presentation of meaning.
“The distinction between symbol and allegory becomes of secondary importance when we recognize that both forms ultimately fail to secure the transparency of meaning.”	Here, de Man emphasizes the instability of meaning in both allegory and symbol, suggesting that neither device can guarantee a coherent or stable interpretation of literary language.
“In the symbolic imagination, no disjunction of the constitutive faculties takes place, since the material perception and the symbolical imagination are continuous, as the part is continuous with the whole.”	De Man explains how symbols aim to create a seamless connection between the material and the abstract, in contrast to allegory, which introduces a split between the form and the meaning.
“Allegory’s temporal structure reveals that meaning is never fully present in the text, but is always deferred, situated in an unreachable future or irrecoverable past.”	This highlights de Man’s key argument that allegory foregrounds the temporality of meaning, showing that it is always deferred or removed from immediate access, rather than fully embodied within the text.
“Allegory shows the gap between how the world appears in language and how it exists in reality.”	This statement illustrates de Man’s argument that allegory exposes the disjunction between language’s representation of reality and the actual nature of reality itself, thereby questioning the transparency of language.
“In both allegory and symbol, the reference to a transcendental source becomes more important than the kind of relationship that exists between the reflection and its source.”	De Man suggests that in both allegory and symbol, the ultimate concern becomes the reference to a transcendental meaning or origin, rather than how the figurative language (reflection) relates to that meaning in a straightforward way.

Suggested Readings: “The Rhetoric of Temporality” by Paul de Man

1. Kamuf, Peggy. “Monumental De-Facement: On Paul de Man’s the Rhetoric of Romanticism.” Comparative Literature, vol. 38, no. 4, 1986, pp. 319–28. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1770392. Accessed 17 Oct. 2024.
2. Felman, Shoshana. “Paul de Man’s Silence.” Critical Inquiry, vol. 15, no. 4, 1989, pp. 704–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1343682. Accessed 17 Oct. 2024.
3. Short, Bryan C. “The Temporality of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 7, no. 2, 1989, pp. 367–79. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/465710. Accessed 17 Oct. 2024.
4. Mileur, Jean-Pierre. “Allegory and Irony: ‘The Rhetoric of Temporality’ Re-Examined.” Comparative Literature, vol. 38, no. 4, 1986, pp. 329–36. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1770393. Accessed 17 Oct. 2024.

Introduction: “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

“The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White first appeared in 1984 in History and Theory (Vol. 23, No. 1, February 1984, pp. 1-33). This seminal article addresses the role of narrative in the construction and understanding of historical knowledge, challenging the traditional view that narrative is a mere literary device unsuitable for scientific or empirical study. White argues that narrative plays a crucial role in shaping our perception of historical events, linking them together to create coherence and meaning. He suggests that the use of narrative is not merely a method of storytelling but is essential in shaping the way we understand and interpret history. The article is significant in literature and literary theory as it bridges the gap between historiography and narrative theory, highlighting that history, much like literature, constructs meaning through its form. White’s work has been instrumental in the development of postmodern and structuralist critiques of historiography, emphasizing that the historian’s choice of narrative structure influences the interpretation of events, thus positioning historical writing as a form of rhetoric rather than a purely objective recounting of facts.

Summary of “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

• Narrative as a Mode of Historical Representation
  White begins by addressing the intense debate surrounding the use of narrative in historical theory. He notes that while narration is universal and seemingly natural, its use in fields aspiring to scientific rigor is often viewed as problematic. White writes, “The continued use by historians of a narrative mode of representation is an index of a failure at once methodological and theoretical” (p. 1). For him, narrative should not be dismissed simply because it is literary; rather, it is an essential form for making sense of historical events.
• The Role of Narrativity in Historiography
  White argues that within historical studies, narrative is often seen as “a form of discourse” rather than a rigorous method or theory. He highlights that “narrative accounts of its subject matter as an end in itself” seem inadequate to those seeking scientific explanations of the past (p. 2). White contrasts narrative with other discursive forms like analysis or description, noting that the amount of narrative varies depending on whether the historian is trying to tell a story or analyze historical processes.
• The Problem of Objectivity in Historical Narrative
  White points out that one of the main critiques of narrative in historiography is that it imposes a structure on historical events, thus creating a “teleological account” of the past (p. 3). Historians who wish to transform their discipline into a science, he suggests, are concerned that the narrative form distorts historical reality by making it appear as if events unfold according to a preordained pattern.
• Fiction vs. History: The Distinction in Content
  White makes a critical distinction between fictional and historical narratives, noting that “what distinguishes ‘historical’ from ‘fictional’ stories is first and foremost their contents, rather than their form” (p. 4). He argues that while fictional stories are created by the author, historical stories are based on real events. However, the historian’s role is not simply to recount facts but to “find” the story within historical events, shaping them into a coherent narrative.
• Historical Explanation vs. Storytelling
  For White, the difference between explanation and storytelling is fundamental. He notes that traditional historical methods separate the narrative aspect from the explanatory one, with the latter typically seen as more important. “The historian’s dissertation was an interpretation of what he took to be the true story, while his narration was a representation of what he took to be the real story” (p. 7). White suggests that both aspects—narrative and explanation—are necessary for a complete understanding of history.
• Narrative and Ideology
  White discusses the ideological dimensions of narrative, noting that critics argue narrative imposes “mythical” or “ideological” structures on historical events. He explores how narrative history has been critiqued by scholars like the Annales School, who prefer structural and analytical approaches to history. “For the Annalistes, narrative history was simply the history of past politics,” a representation that distorts deeper, long-term social processes (p. 9).
• The Necessity of Narrative in Understanding History
  Despite these critiques, White argues that narrative is necessary for historiography because it helps us make sense of the past. He emphasizes that “the narrative historian, in effect, transforms the chronicle of events into a story” by imposing a structure that highlights causality, meaning, and purpose in historical events (p. 19). Without narrative, history risks becoming a mere list of events devoid of meaning.
• Historical Narrative as Allegory
  White concludes by suggesting that historical narratives should be understood as a kind of “allegory” that speaks to larger truths about human existence. He writes, “Narrative history can legitimately be regarded as something other than a scientific account of events” because it reveals the meaning of those events through its structure, much like literature (p. 21). Thus, narrative plays an essential role in shaping our understanding of history, even if it cannot claim the same objectivity as scientific explanation.
• The Relationship Between Narrative and Reality
  Finally, White asserts that narrative gives shape to historical reality by linking events into a coherent whole. He challenges the notion that narratives are purely ideological, instead proposing that “narrativization” is a way of understanding the complexity of human actions and their consequences (p. 27). For White, “the story told in a narrative is a ‘mimesis’ of the story lived in some region of historical reality” (p. 8), making narrative an essential tool for comprehending history.

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

Literary Term/Concept	Definition	Usage/Importance in the Article
Narrative	A mode of discourse that organizes events into a structured story.	White argues that narrative is a fundamental way in which historians organize and represent historical events, giving coherence and meaning to them.
Mimesis	The imitation or representation of reality in art or literature.	White suggests that narrative in historiography is a form of mimesis, as it seeks to mimic real historical events and give them a structured, coherent form.
Teleology	Explanation of phenomena by the purpose or end goal they serve.	White critiques the teleological aspect of historical narratives, arguing that they often impose a sense of purpose or destiny on past events, which may distort historical truth.
Emplotment	The process of arranging events into a plot to create a narrative.	Central to White’s argument, emplotment refers to how historians select and arrange events into a narrative structure, thereby shaping the interpretation of history.
Allegory	A symbolic narrative in which characters and events represent broader ideas.	White compares historical narratives to allegories, as they often present events in ways that suggest broader meanings or truths about human experience and society.
Chronicle	A factual account of events in chronological order without interpretation.	White distinguishes a chronicle from a narrative, noting that while a chronicle simply lists events, a narrative gives those events meaning by arranging them into a plot.
Dissertation	An analytical or explanatory mode of discourse, distinct from narrative.	White highlights the distinction between the narrative and dissertative aspects of historical writing, with the latter focused on analysis and explanation rather than storytelling.
Narrativity	The quality of having a structured story or narrative.	White explores how narrativity is inherent in historical writing, even when historians aim for objectivity, and how this shapes their representation of events.
Historiography	The study and writing of history, focusing on the methods and principles used.	White discusses historiography in terms of its narrative structure, questioning the assumption that historical writing can be purely factual and free from narrative influence.
Ideology	A system of ideas and ideals that influences how one perceives and represents reality.	White examines how narratives can serve as vehicles for ideology, shaping how historical events are interpreted and understood according to particular worldviews.
Fiction vs. History	The distinction between imaginary and real events in storytelling.	White explores the blurred lines between fiction and history, noting that while historical narratives claim to represent real events, they share structural similarities with fictional narratives.

Contribution of “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White to Literary Theory/Theories

• Postmodernism
• White’s work contributes to postmodern literary theory by challenging the assumption that historical narratives can provide an objective representation of the past. He asserts that “narrative history can legitimately be regarded as something other than a scientific account of events” (p. 21), positioning historical writing as inherently subjective and structured by narrative choices. This aligns with postmodern skepticism towards grand narratives and the notion of objective truth, emphasizing that all historical writing is interpretative, not merely descriptive.
• Structuralism
• White engages with structuralist ideas by emphasizing that narrative is not simply a neutral medium but a “code” that structures how historical events are interpreted and understood. He writes, “Narrative does not show, does not imitate… Its function is not to ‘represent,’ it is to constitute a spectacle” (p. 20). This aligns with structuralist thought, particularly Roland Barthes’ notion that narrative is a system of signs, not a transparent window to reality. White suggests that historical narratives function similarly to literary texts, organized by the same deep structures and patterns.
• Narratology
• White’s exploration of emplotment and narrativity contributes to narratology, the study of narrative structure. He argues that “emplotment” is central to historical writing, meaning that historians impose a plot on historical events, much like a novelist shapes a story (p. 19). White’s analysis of how events are turned into stories through narrative structures broadens narratological study beyond fiction, applying it to historiography. His work shows that narrative techniques such as chronology and causality are also present in historical texts, blurring the line between history and literature.
• Hermeneutics
• White’s notion of narrative as a form of “allegory” that interprets historical events aligns with hermeneutic theory, which is concerned with the interpretation of texts. He notes, “The story told in a narrative is a ‘mimesis’ of the story lived in some region of historical reality” (p. 8), suggesting that historical writing is a process of interpreting and reinterpreting events to give them meaning. This resonates with Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutic theory, where narrative plays a key role in the interpretation of human actions and the construction of meaning.
• New Historicism
• White’s critique of historical objectivity contributes to New Historicism by emphasizing that history is not a fixed, factual recounting but a narrative shaped by cultural and ideological influences. He argues that “the continued use by historians of a narrative mode of representation is an index of a failure… methodological and theoretical” (p. 1), challenging the belief that history can be separated from the historian’s interpretative framework. This idea supports New Historicism’s argument that historical texts are products of the cultural forces of their time and are not free from bias.
• Ideology and Literary Criticism
• White’s assertion that narrative “can be ideological” because it imposes a teleological structure on historical events (p. 3) contributes to the critique of ideology in literary theory. His work suggests that the way historians arrange and present events often reflects underlying ideological assumptions, much like how literary texts can reinforce or challenge dominant ideologies. This resonates with Marxist literary criticism, which examines how texts can reproduce or contest the social and political structures of their time.
• Deconstruction
• White’s exploration of the instability of meaning in historical narratives aligns with deconstructive theory. By emphasizing that historical writing is not a transparent reflection of events but a form of representation that shapes and constructs meaning, White deconstructs the notion of historical “truth.” His work echoes Derrida’s concept of the “play of signifiers,” where the meaning of a narrative is never fixed but constantly deferred through the narrative structures imposed upon it. White’s assertion that narrative history “says one thing and means another” (p. 22) parallels Derrida’s idea of textual meaning as always contingent and unstable.
• Fictionality in Historical Writing
• White bridges the gap between fiction and history by asserting that “what distinguishes ‘historical’ from ‘fictional’ stories is first and foremost their contents, rather than their form” (p. 4). This concept contributes to the debate around fictionality in historiography, questioning whether the distinction between historical and fictional narratives is as clear-cut as previously thought. His exploration of how historians use emplotment and figuration to give historical events meaning suggests that historical writing shares more with literary fiction than with objective science.

Examples of Critiques Through “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

Literary Work	White’s Concept Applied	Critique Example
George Orwell’s 1984	Ideology in Narrative	Orwell’s narrative can be critiqued as a form of ideological narrative that illustrates how totalitarian regimes construct historical narratives to serve their ideological purposes, much like White suggests narratives can be ideological forms.
Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace	Emplotment and Historical Fiction	White’s concept of emplotment can be used to critique how Tolstoy arranges historical events into a coherent plot, turning chaotic history into a narrative that appears orderly and meaningful, which White suggests is an artificial construction.
Gabriel García Márquez’s One Hundred Years of Solitude	Myth and History	Through White’s lens, Márquez’s blending of myth and historical narrative challenges the distinction between fiction and history, illustrating how history itself can be mythologized, as White argues.
William Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom!	Historical Consciousness and Narrative	Faulkner’s fragmented narrative structure can be analyzed through White’s argument about the instability of historical meaning, as the multiple perspectives reflect the difficulty of establishing a singular, coherent historical truth.

Criticism Against “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

• Overemphasis on the Literary Nature of History: Critics argue that White’s focus on the narrative structure of history risks reducing historical inquiry to the level of fiction, thereby undermining the factual basis of historical research. His assertion that historical writing is primarily emplotted like literary fiction downplays the importance of evidence, sources, and objectivity in historiography.
• Neglect of Historical Truth: White’s suggestion that narrative historiography is more about interpretation and structure than truth raises concerns about relativism. Critics believe this approach undermines the historian’s responsibility to present an accurate account of past events. They contend that factual accuracy and truthfulness are essential components of history, which White’s narrative focus de-emphasizes.
• Failure to Account for Causality: White is critiqued for not sufficiently addressing the importance of causality in history. His emphasis on emplotment and narrative forms leads to a lack of attention to the specific causes and effects that drive historical events. Some scholars argue that a deeper focus on causal relationships is necessary to understand historical phenomena, rather than framing history as simply a story.
• Relativism and the Danger of Ideological Bias: White’s view that all historical narratives are shaped by ideology and interpretation has been criticized for encouraging relativism. This can lead to the belief that all interpretations of history are equally valid, even those that may be biased or politically motivated. Critics argue that this opens the door to subjective manipulation of historical facts, as White does not provide clear criteria for evaluating the validity or reliability of different narratives.
• Dismissal of Historical Objectivity: White’s contention that historians cannot achieve objectivity has been challenged by traditional historians who argue that, while complete objectivity is difficult, historians can still strive for a more balanced and impartial representation of the past. Critics argue that White’s position undermines the value of critical methods that historians use to evaluate sources and aim for as much neutrality as possible.
• Oversimplification of Historical Discourse: Some scholars argue that White oversimplifies historical discourse by categorizing it alongside literary genres like tragedy or comedy. This framework, while useful for analyzing narrative techniques, is seen as insufficient for capturing the complexity of historical events and the myriad ways historians analyze them.
• Reduction of History to a Narrative Form: White’s insistence that all historical accounts are inherently narrative overlooks the possibility of other forms of historiography that do not rely on traditional storytelling. Quantitative history, annalistic history, or social-scientific approaches to history, which focus on data and trends rather than narratives, seem marginalized in White’s framework.
• Misunderstanding of Historical Practice: Historians have criticized White for having a limited understanding of the practical methodologies of historical research. His focus on the literary aspects of history ignores the rigor of source analysis, archival research, and the historian’s efforts to ground interpretations in solid evidence.

Representative Quotations from “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
1. “Narrative is a mode of verbal representation so seemingly natural to human consciousness…”	White argues that narrative is an inherent part of human communication and understanding, raising questions about its role in disciplines like history that aim for objectivity.
2. “The narrative historian… investigates its data in the interest of telling a story…”	White critiques historians for shaping facts into a story, suggesting that history is shaped by narrative choices rather than purely reflecting reality.
3. “The content of historical stories is real events, events that really happened, rather than imaginary events…”	White emphasizes that while the content of history is factual, the form it takes is shaped by narrative structures, much like fiction.
4. “Any narrative account of anything whatsoever is a teleological account…”	White suggests that narrative imposes a goal or direction on events, which often adds unintended ideological biases, questioning the neutrality of historical narratives.
5. “The form of the story told was supposed to be necessitated by the form of the story enacted…”	Here, White critiques the belief that historical events naturally fit into narrative forms, arguing instead that narratives are constructed, not inherent in the events.
6. “Narrative does not show, does not imitate. What happens is language alone, the adventure of language…”	Drawing on post-structuralist thought, White argues that narrative is a construct of language rather than a faithful reflection of reality, challenging the transparency of historical narratives.
7. “A given historical discourse might be factually accurate… and still be assessed as mistaken in its narrative aspect.”	White makes a distinction between the factual accuracy of a historical account and the narrative choices made, suggesting that an accurate history can still be misleading through its narrative form.
8. “In the physical sciences, narratives have no place at all, except as prefatory anecdotes…”	White contrasts history with science, arguing that scientific disciplines avoid narrative because it imposes unnecessary structure and teleology, which he finds problematic in historical writing.
9. “Historiography is ideological precisely insofar as it takes the characteristic form of its discourse…”	White asserts that narrative historiography often reflects ideological biases by treating narrative as a natural form rather than as a subjective interpretive choice.
10. “The historical narrative does not, as narrative, dispel false beliefs about the past…”	White argues that narrative history does not correct misconceptions about the past, but instead works within the constraints of narrative form, which may perpetuate certain myths or distortions.

Suggested Readings: “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory” by Hayden White

1. White, Hayden. “The Question of Narrative in Contemporary Historical Theory.” History and Theory, vol. 23, no. 1, 1984, pp. 1–33. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2504969. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
2. Vann, Richard T. “The Reception of Hayden White.” History and Theory, vol. 37, no. 2, 1998, pp. 143–61. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2505462. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
3. Tamura, Eileen H. “Narrative History and Theory.” History of Education Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2, 2011, pp. 150–57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41303866. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.
4. Norman, Andrew P. “Telling It Like It Was: Historical Narratives on Their Own Terms.” History and Theory, vol. 30, no. 2, 1991, pp. 119–35. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/2505536. Accessed 18 Oct. 2024.