“Narrative versus Description in Historiography” by Laurent Stern: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “Narrative versus Description in Historiography” by Laurent Stern

“Narrative versus Description in Historiography” by Laurent Stern first appeared in New Literary History, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Spring 1990), a special issue titled New Historicisms, New Histories, and Others, published by the Johns Hopkins University Press. In this influential article, Stern explores the epistemological divide between narrative and description within historical writing, arguing that while descriptions can account for observable circumstances, only narratives can render intelligible the purposeful actions of historical agents. He critiques the assumption that historical accounts can rely solely on neutral descriptions, asserting instead that interpretations—rooted in the attribution of beliefs, desires, and intentions—are essential for understanding non-natural events. Stern’s analysis is significant in literary theory and historiography because it underscores the role of narrative as a constitutive, not merely representational, element of historical knowledge. Drawing on examples such as St. Bartholomew’s Massacre and Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon, Stern emphasizes that narratives are not reducible to rhetorical flourishes but are epistemically indispensable, as they structure our understanding of past events through imaginative yet evidence-bound reconstructions. His work contributes meaningfully to debates around objectivity, interpretation, and the narrative turn in the humanities.

Summary of “Narrative versus Description in Historiography” by Laurent Stern

• Distinction Between Natural and Non-Natural Events:
  • Historians must use narrative to distinguish between natural disasters and public events like wars or revolutions, which require understanding of intention and purpose (p. 555).
  • “If historical accounts are limited to descriptions of observable events, historians cannot succeed in telling us how non-natural events happened” (p. 555).
• Interpretation vs. Explanation:
  • Historians interpret what happened (what-questions) and explain why it happened (why-questions), but often the distinction is blurred in practice (p. 555–556).
  • Interpretations are “confirmed by what [historians] do in exercising their craft” (p. 555).
• Narratives as Interpretations:
  • Assigning beliefs, desires, and intentions to historical agents is inherently interpretative. Competing narratives show the provisional nature of these interpretations (p. 556).
  • “Our story becomes merely an interpretation as soon as it is defeated by a competing story” (p. 556).
• Evaluative and Descriptive Significance in Narratives:
  • Narratives confer both evaluative and descriptive significance to events; for example, the Battle of Lepanto requires narrative to give it historical meaning (p. 557).
• Limitations of Descriptions:
  • Descriptions can only account for observable circumstances, not the internal experiences or motivations of historical agents (p. 561).
  • “Descriptions need not have a point. They merely tell us about what a witness has observed” (p. 561).
• Narratives Provide Meaning and Understanding:
  • Narratives allow historians to make sense of actions by reconstructing intentions and goals based on available evidence and reasonable projection (p. 562).
  • “Narratives about human actions have a point… what agents did, and what they brought about” (p. 561).
• Historiography and Perspective:
  • All narratives are constructed from a narrator’s viewpoint; there is no “definitive” narrative outside interpretive frames (p. 564).
  • The case of St. Bartholomew’s Massacre exemplifies how narratives change over time based on new evidence and evolving standards of judgment (p. 563–564).
• Events vs. Accounts of Events:
  • Events (res gestae) are distinct from their historical representations (historia rerum gestarum). Our understanding changes, not the events themselves (p. 562).
• Role of the Historian:
  • Historians talk for past agents who cannot speak for themselves. Even firsthand accounts are subject to later reinterpretation and correction (p. 560).
  • “Only historical accounts talk for experiences and human actions; experiences and actions cannot talk for themselves” (p. 560–561).
• Mutability of Historical Understanding:
  • Interpretations shift over time; understanding of past events is inherently provisional and dependent on the present context and knowledge (p. 565–566).
• Descriptions and Narratives Must Complement Each Other:
  • “Narratives that are not supported by descriptions are vacuous; descriptions that do not lead to narratives are pointless” (p. 567).

Theoretical Terms/Concepts in “Narrative versus Description in Historiography” by Laurent Stern

Term/Concept	Definition/Explanation
Narrative	A structured account of events that conveys meaning by interpreting agents’ actions, intentions, and outcomes; essential for understanding non-natural events.
Description	A factual, observational account of what occurred, focusing only on what is visible or measurable, without inferring motives or intentions.
Interpretation	The process of assigning meaning to events by ascribing beliefs, desires, and purposes to historical agents; foundational to narrative historiography.
Explanation	A causal account of why events occurred, often overlapping with interpretation; concerned with reasoning rather than mere recounting.
Res gestae vs. Historia rerum gestarum	Latin terms distinguishing actual events (res gestae) from the narrative or history written about them (historia rerum gestarum).
Evaluative Significance	The importance of an event as judged over time based on its effects or consequences, often determined retrospectively.
Descriptive Significance	The significance of an event in terms of what actually happened, based on observable details.
Imaginative Reconstruction	A method historians use to infer the beliefs and desires of historical agents by creatively projecting plausible motives from available evidence.
Viewpoint / Standpoint	The perspective or position from which a historian constructs a narrative, influencing both interpretation and evaluation.
Defeated Interpretation	An interpretation that is replaced or rendered obsolete by a more convincing or evidence-based competing account.
Principle of Charity	A hermeneutic approach assuming that past agents were rational and that their beliefs were reasonable from their own context, enabling historical understanding.
Historical Understanding	The process of making sense of past human actions through narratives that integrate interpretation and evidence.
Non-natural Events	Events caused by human action and intention, such as wars or revolutions, which require interpretation and cannot be explained by description alone.
Observable Events	Events that can be empirically verified through direct observation, such as natural phenomena or demographic data.

Contribution of “Narrative versus Description in Historiography” by Laurent Stern to Literary Theory/Theories

• Narrative Theory:
  • Stern highlights that narrative is not a stylistic choice but a necessary epistemological form in historiography: “Narratives about human actions have a point… what agents did, and what they brought about” (p. 561).
  • He aligns with key insights from narrative theory that interpretation is embedded in any account of events, reinforcing that “events that occurred (res gestae) must not be confused with our account about them (historia rerum gestarum)” (p. 562).
  • Challenges distinctions in narrative theory (fabula/sjuzhet, histoire/récit) as being non-essential in historical writing (p. 563).
• Hermeneutics and Interpretation Theory:
  • Contributes to philosophical hermeneutics by asserting that interpretation is intrinsic to historical narration: “Interpretation… becomes an object of interpretation only after it has been produced by interpreting” (p. 562).
  • Introduces the idea that understanding history relies on the principle of charity—interpreting past agents as rational actors (p. 566), echoing the hermeneutic approach of Vico and Davidson.
• New Historicism:
  • Anticipates and supports key New Historicist concerns by emphasizing the constructed nature of historical narratives and their dependence on contemporary viewpoints: “There may be narratives about historical events that are definitive from our viewpoint, but there cannot be a definitive narrative that is independent of a given viewpoint” (p. 567).
  • Demonstrates how interpretation shapes understanding of events like the St. Bartholomew’s Massacre, and how dominant narratives change over time, reflecting shifting cultural perspectives (p. 563–564).
• Reader-Response Theory (Indirect Influence):
  • Though not directly discussed, the emphasis on the historian’s (narrator’s) viewpoint and imaginative reconstruction suggests a parallel with the reader’s active role in constructing meaning (p. 564–565).
  • The idea that narratives vary based on who constructs them resonates with reader-response emphasis on interpretation variability.
• Structuralism/Post-Structuralism:
  • Challenges structuralist assumptions of stable meaning by showing how the same event (e.g., the assassination of a politician) can be constructed as multiple, incompatible narratives (p. 565).
  • Indicates a post-structuralist awareness that “not all interpretations are merely interpretations,” though they remain subject to contestation (p. 556).

Examples of Critiques Through “Narrative versus Description in Historiography” by Laurent Stern

Literary Work	Critique Through Stern’s Framework
Virginia Woolf’s To the Lighthouse	Woolf’s stream-of-consciousness style highlights subjective experience and internal perspectives, aligning with Stern’s view that narratives interpret beliefs and desires (p. 562).
William Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom!	Faulkner’s multi-perspective structure exemplifies Stern’s notion of competing narratives. The novel demonstrates how historical understanding is shaped by varying interpretations (pp. 563–564).
Toni Morrison’s Beloved	Morrison reconstructs lost or silenced histories, echoing Stern’s claim that only narratives can speak for human experiences and intentions, which cannot be captured by description alone (p. 560).
George Orwell’s 1984	Orwell’s depiction of history manipulated by ideology reflects Stern’s critique of interpretive dominance. Accepted narratives are upheld until challenged by competing interpretations (p. 556).

Criticism Against “Narrative versus Description in Historiography” by Laurent Stern

---

• Overemphasis on Interpretation at the Expense of Objectivity:
  • Critics may argue that Stern downplays the value of empirical, descriptive history, potentially undermining the historian’s responsibility to represent facts with accuracy and neutrality.
• Insufficient Engagement with Structuralist and Post-Structuralist Theories:
  • While Stern briefly mentions literary distinctions like fabula and sjuzhet, he dismisses their importance in historical writing without fully addressing their theoretical significance (p. 563).
• Ambiguity in Defining “Defeated” Interpretations:
  • The idea that interpretations are “defeated” by others remains vague. Critics may question the criteria or authority by which one narrative becomes more valid than another (p. 556).
• Underestimation of Non-Narrative Forms of Knowledge:
  • Stern’s claim that descriptions without narratives are “pointless” (p. 567) may be seen as dismissive of quantitative, archival, or materialist methodologies that are crucial to historical analysis.
• Risk of Relativism:
  • By asserting that there is no definitive narrative outside a given viewpoint (p. 567), Stern may open the door to relativism, where all historical accounts are equally valid or invalid.
• Neglect of Power Dynamics in Narrative Construction:
  • Unlike Foucauldian or New Historicist approaches, Stern does not fully explore how power, ideology, and institutional authority shape which narratives prevail in historiography.
• Limited Discussion of Non-Western Epistemologies:
  • The argument is grounded in Western philosophical traditions and may not adequately consider alternative ways of knowing or narrating history in non-Western cultures.

Representative Quotations from “Narrative versus Description in Historiography” by Laurent Stern with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“If historical accounts are limited to descriptions of observable events, historians cannot succeed in telling us how non-natural events happened.” (p. 555)	Stern asserts that purely descriptive methods are inadequate for explaining complex human actions, which require narrative to explore motives and contexts.
“Accounts of non-natural events tell us what a purposeful agent did or brought about.” (p. 556)	Emphasizes that historical narratives must involve intentional agents, requiring the reconstruction of actions within a narrative frame.
“Narratives are indispensable in historiography.” (p. 557)	Declares that storytelling is not optional but essential for understanding and representing human history.
“Descriptions… merely tell us about what a witness has observed.” (p. 561)	Differentiates descriptions from narratives by underscoring their observational and limited nature.
“Narratives about human actions have a point.” (p. 561)	Highlights that narratives aim to explain causes, intentions, and consequences—unlike detached descriptions.
“The beliefs and desires ascribed to an agent are products of an interpreting activity.” (p. 562)	Argues that understanding agents’ motives is a result of interpretive storytelling, not empirical observation.
“Talk about past events is dependent on our understanding of these events.” (p. 562)	Suggests that historical knowledge is shaped by evolving interpretations, not static facts.
“Only historical accounts talk for experiences and human actions; experiences and actions cannot talk for themselves.” (p. 560)	Asserts that history gives voice to the past through narration, which transforms silent experiences into comprehensible accounts.
“Not all interpretations are merely interpretations.” (p. 556)	Counters relativism by arguing that some interpretations are more valid due to stronger evidential support.
“Narratives that are not supported by descriptions are vacuous; descriptions that do not lead to narratives are pointless.” (p. 568)	Concludes that historical understanding must integrate both descriptive grounding and narrative meaning.

Suggested Readings: “Narrative versus Description in Historiography” by Laurent Stern

1. Stern, Laurent. “Narrative versus description in historiography.” New literary history 21.3 (1990): 555-568.
2. Ronen, Ruth. “Description, Narrative and Representation.” Narrative, vol. 5, no. 3, 1997, pp. 274–86. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20107124. Accessed 26 Mar. 2025.
3. Stern, Laurent. “Narrative versus Description in Historiography.” New Literary History, vol. 21, no. 3, 1990, pp. 555–68. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/469125. Accessed 26 Mar. 2025.