The Relationship Between History and Literature as Disciplines

Interdisciplinarity Chapter 4 talks about the relationship between the disciplines of literature and history.  This is an interesting topic to me because I am double majoring in History and English.  I’ve always noticed the similarities and connections between the two subjects. A large part of being a history major is writing out a critique or argument based on sources read about a particular historical topic.  Because of this, essay and also book writing is a critical part of the field of history.  Writing essays or books that comment on previous scholars or primary sources is the medium in which historians communicate with each other and the rest of the world.  The written word is also the ultimate and most valued historical source that can be used as evidence.  Literature itself also has a history as a discipline, and so does each book, poem, short story, and author.  This concept ties directly to our conversation of the New Criticism idea, that attempts to separate a work from any evaluation that includes outside-source material. As we have discussed in class, books such as Zulus and Meridian in many ways do not allow for a new critical reading.  The best example of this would be the chapter headings in Zulus, because they are nearly impossible to understand without looking up and further researching the people or terms Everret mentioned. Despite the close ties between literature and history, there are many people that advocate for a further separation of the disciplines.  For example, Rene Wellek and Austin Warren suggest turning literary history away from ‘history proper’ and argue that “the literary period should be established by purely literary criteria.” (Interdisciplinarity, Moran).  Moran explains that it is no coincidence that this viewpoint on literary history emerged at the same time as the new critical and other movements that were “attempting to establish clearly defined boundaries for the discipline.” (Interdisciplinarity, Moran).  With history, there are many difference stances among scholars as to what branch of learning it belongs to, should it be grouped as a science or be paired with literature?  On popular angle on this topic is a statement made by “E.H. Carr’s widely read What is History? which claims that history, rather than being a neutral excavation of events, is a ‘continuous process of interaction between the present and the past.’” (Interdisciplinarity, Moran).  One common thread that I have noticed in my history classes is that we constantly struggle with projecting modern day thought processes and ideology onto past situations and civilizations.  Moran proposes that “Historians are now more likely to believe that the facts do not simply ‘speak for themselves’ and that their work incorporates the literary-critical skills of textual interpretation as well as scientific research.” (Interdisciplinarity, Moran).  The relationship between literature and history has its own written history as debates and new viewpoints continue to emerge and grow.