What makes a writing "Fiction" versus "History"?

[neilgodfrey]

If I understand Paul's (and others') objections correctly, it seems that there is scepticism that an author can indicate through his narrative voice and through certain rhetorical devices that a particular work functions as "history" (whether good or bad, reliable or unreliable history is another question) as distinct from "fiction".

I set out above two models to illustrate what I believe to be the fundamental processes of creating and identifying history and fiction. I commented generally on the models earlier, but will do so again in some more detail here.

I do not address the details of narrative/authorial voice or the specifics of rhetorical techniques here, but rather I attempt to point out where and why those "devices" are significant for identifying a work as "history" or "fiction". If we can agree on their significance here then we can perhaps know if it is worthwhile discussing the specific details of what those devices consist of.

In the first model of the process of creating and recognizing "history":

Creating history

1. The historian selects material from various sources to create a historical narrative. Both the selection and the narrative will be determined by the historian's interests etc. That is, history is “created” by the historian; history does not exist “out there” whole but what happened must be inferred through selection and interpretation of various sources, both primary and secondary.

2. The historian does not merely repeat the content of the sources used but infers from those sources that certain events happened, and it is those inferred conclusions and beliefs that the historian sets out in a narrative order. Hence the slight variation in colour coding between the sources used and the details or events inferred from those sources and written down in the narrative. This narrative order, the details of the narrative, the emphases given to some events over others, are all determined by the historian according to the historian's interests, biases, assumptions about audience expectations, etc.

Indicating history

The historian will also introduce and frame the narrative by indicating to his readership that he is indeed writing a historical narrative and how it compares with other known historical narratives about the same general topic, or why it is of significance if it is the first of its kind.

All of this is done by the historian adopting a narrative voice with which to present and frame the narrative. Through this voice the historian generally seeks to give readers reasons to have confidence in the historical narrative. The historian will often explicitly identify himself and inform readers of his background; he will inform the readership how he came by his information – sometimes very specifically, other times more generally.

Recognizing history

3. Because of the personal narrative voice and references to sources the audience is able to form a judgement about the value of the historical narrative. One often sees within the narrative the historian's voice appealing to his readers why they should accept his scepticism regarding certain sources and stories, or his preference for other sources or stories of the past.

Contrast the author of “historical fiction”

Creating "fiction"

1. The primary function of the narrative produced by this author is not to argue for “what actually happened”; rather, it may primarily be for purposes of a philosophical or theological allegory, or pure light-hearted entertainment, or parody, or any number of other functions. Accordingly, much more than historical sources (primary and secondary) inspire the final narrative: other myths, creative imagination, snippets from conversations, other texts such as epics, plays, novels, etc. come into play.

2. The author constructs from all of these various sources a new narrative that is “not history”, but “fiction” even if it has historical details within it.

Indicating "fiction"

The author presents the story through a narrative voice and literary devices that alert readers to the nature of what sort of narrative is being read: historical fiction or parody or allegory, etc. In each case the particular voice and literary devices used indicate what type of narrative is being presented to the reader.

Recognizing "fiction"

3. The audience accordingly knows they are reading historical fiction or parody or allegory etc because the author has indicated so.

Some less sophisticated readers confuse what they are reading and interpret historical fiction as genuine history (as Lucian himself lamented), but more informed readers will always be able to point to the clear literary markers (the narrative voice and literary devices) of fiction. Authors generally write for readers who they expect will appreciate the true nature of their work.

------

If the above processes are seen as an accurate representations then it remains to identify the details of the literary techniques used and serve the functions they do.

If the processes I have set out are not considered genuine reflections of the processes then I need to understand why and at what points they break down.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Neil

The primary reason for pointing to sources that is common to both ancient and modern historians is to establish credibility or authority for the account.

Simply saying that one has a source without identifying it (or, as in Pliny's case, saying something which could be read as a suggestion that he had a third-party source) does no such thing. "I heard" is an unverifiable fact claim, assuming that it is even meant to be taken literally.

If I already believe Pliny, then his credibility is secure and doesn't increase by making this additional claim. If I am disinclined to believe him, then he can't boost his credibility by making even more unverifiable claims.

That is elementary. I am entitled to doubt, therefore, that "the primary reason" for a practice in ancient times was to accomplish what it cannot possibly accomplish at any time.

Ancient historians generally wanted to impress readers

Probably so. Perhaps one or two of them adopted the strategy of not wasting their readers' time with self-serving blather. Not all of them, obviously, but maybe the more successful ones did.

Pliny is telling his reader why he believes in ghosts.

No he isn't. He's telling that he does, not why he does. His two short stories illustrate his beliefs, and provide a context for his lived-experience story. That he has heard stories facially offers no reason for him to have believed them.

The Gospel of Mark would not be any closer to history if the "immediately"s were replaced with "I heard"s.

Sauce for Pliny is sauce for Mark.

Did the author hear from the Muses (as Greek authors said they did) or did he hear from God or an angel? Or did he hear from gossip? Where is the author and where is this gossip heard? Who is this "I" in "I heard"? --_ That last question is critical.

Many thanks for saving me the trouble of elaborating why "I heard" suggests but does not imply the existence of a third-party source.

One could also recall that Mark depicts people hearing intelligence from clouds or undergoing trials when alone except for spirit beings and wild animals. Some folks actually do experience such things IRL, after all. That in itself explains why it would be self-referentially vacuous for Mark to use the Plinean "I heard." Vacuity is sufficient reason to refrain from something.

Both create different types of authority.

No, both express attitudes about authority. If authority could be created by running your jaw, then the internet would be a council of experts.

as much of the biblical writings do,

We agree that Mark's literary choices are influenced by an earlier literature in which several of his subjects are depicted as experts. Moreover, many of those subjects (and perhaps some of Mark's audience) believe that literature to be a venerable culture's historical writings.

Interesting, then, how Mark aligns his stylistic choices so seamlessly with the attitudes of the people he's writing about (as well as some of the people he may be writing for). Good use of the bandwidth, IMO.

I recall you referring to Mark as a "performance piece". If that's what you are referring to here then surely that suggests even more strongly that it does not function primarily as a work of history.

No, it suggests that Mark isn't the kind of work of history meant principally to be read alone in private, or in parts on separate occasions.

Quite a bit of ancient writing was meant to be read aloud, a propostion which I understand to be uncontroversial. Performance adds little to that: a typically plural audience hearing the whole work within a compact span of time.


Round two

There is a circularity here, I believe. If we assume that an author does not make his identity explicit because it would turn readers' interest away from the work ...

I didn't assume that. I have offered some other possible reasons for anonymity, and also observed that the matter may be moot, since we don't actually know that Mark didn't identify himself to his first audiences.

That is a question of motive and reason for a text being written (and read).

Then there is no textual marker, since it is impossible from first principles for anybody generally to know by natural means the motives of anybody else, and doubtful that anybody knows even their own motives on all occasions.

When we opine that the author learned his story from a character named in the story,

I didn't, so to whom is this addressed?

or that he wants his readers to hear the historical story without being distracted by its assurances of its authenticity,

Like modern people who use footnotes?

then are we not assuming what we really should be setting out to prove -- that the text is indeed written as history or not?

Not me. Recall that I deny that the matter is either-or. So, again, to whom is this remark addressed?

Rounds three and four

What I was hoping for was someone to pinpoint the spot(s) in the model that do not accurately represent the processes of writing and reading history and (historical) fiction.

But that's what we've been discussing. The pictures (so far as I could tell) restated what you'd already presented in prose.

Similarly

If the processes I have set out are not considered genuine reflections of the processes then I need to understand why and at what points they break down.

So far, we can't work out a jointly acceptable analysis of a single brief informal letter. I don't think we're soon going to make any headway with history in general versus fiction in general (particularly since we also disagree whether those categories intersect, as opposed to there being only a distinct third thing which resembles both but is neither).

Which is not to say that laying out a summation of your position, this time in prose rather than in pictures, is in any way unwelcome.


On two matters arising

From your linked source (if there was any doubt about this):

Lucian of Samosata was a writer known for his satire.

And if we take Josephus at his word, then the Jewish Bible qualifies as history. So what's the problem with Mark, or any other piece that resembles this Josephus-certified top quality work of history?

[neilgodfrey]

Neil

The primary reason for pointing to sources that is common to both ancient and modern historians is to establish credibility or authority for the account.

Simply saying that one has a source without identifying it (or, as in Pliny's case, saying something which could be read as a suggestion that he had a third-party source) does no such thing. "I heard" is an unverifiable fact claim, assuming that it is even meant to be taken literally.

I am not disputing that we are entitled to doubt the claim. In fact that very possibility is set up by Pliny or any author saying that what he is about to write is something he heard or read from X or whatever. That is the point.

I am trying not to confuse the "truth" of the claim with what the writer's words serve to indicate about his intentions to the reader.

Ancient historians generally wanted to impress readers

Probably so. Perhaps one or two of them adopted the strategy of not wasting their readers' time with self-serving blather. Not all of them, obviously, but maybe the more successful ones did.

Can you give me an example without resorting to what I think (without sarcasm) is mindreading? (I addressed in another comment what appears to me to be a circular argument underlying your point.)

Pliny is telling his reader why he believes in ghosts.

No he isn't. He's telling that he does, not why he does. His two short stories illustrate his beliefs, and provide a context for his lived-experience story. That he has heard stories facially offers no reason for him to have believed them.

The translation I read says:

What particularly inclines me to believe in their existence is a story which I heard .
. .

and

This story I believe upon the credit of others . . .

That to me means he is explaining "what inclines" him to believe -- that is, he is explaining why he believes.

Isn't Pliny simply expressing what millions have expressed about this very same belief throughout history? They don't want to be thought idiots so they point to third party sources to support their interpretations of their personal experiences.

The Gospel of Mark would not be any closer to history if the "immediately"s were replaced with "I heard"s.

Sauce for Pliny is sauce for Mark.

? There are several significant differences -- of narrative voice as well as literary devices -- between Pliny and Mark that I have covered. These cannot be ignored.

Did the author hear from the Muses (as Greek authors said they did) or did he hear from God or an angel? Or did he hear from gossip? Where is the author and where is this gossip heard? Who is this "I" in "I heard"? --_ That last question is critical.

Many thanks for saving me the trouble of elaborating why "I heard" suggests but does not imply the existence of a third-party source.

I am not sure you are following me. I evidently am careless or unclear in what I am trying to say. Pliny's context and words make it very clear he is relying upon a third party source. (Quotes above.) There is nothing comparable in Mark. That is a significant point of contrast.

My point is that "I heard" is indeed meaningless without context, and it is the context and added detail about the third party sources that is evident in historical writing.

One could also recall that Mark depicts people hearing intelligence from clouds or undergoing trials when alone except for spirit beings and wild animals. Some folks actually do experience such things IRL, after all. That in itself explains why it would be self-referentially vacuous for Mark to use the Plinean "I heard." Vacuity is sufficient reason to refrain from something.

You appear to have misread my point. If Mark had said "I heard from (or some equivalent)...." etc then THAT would have meaning and bring us closer to knowing if he is wanting the reader to think he is writing history or fiction.

Both create different types of authority.

No, both express attitudes about authority. If authority could be created by running your jaw, then the internet would be a council of experts.

We appear to be using the word authority in different senses. I am attempting to address authorial or narrator authority in a text. That voice acts like the MC in charge of the narrative proceedings. Genesis, many biblical books, are written with the authority of an omniscient narrator, mostly impersonal, hidden. A tale that proceeds to tell us what people think and feel or do within the privacy of their homes etc is a tale that is written with an omniscient authority.

It is such authority that helps to give a tale some credibility for the reader.

as much of the biblical writings do,

We agree that Mark's literary choices are influenced by an earlier literature in which several of his subjects are depicted as experts. Moreover, many of those subjects (and perhaps some of Mark's audience) believe that literature to be a venerable culture's historical writings.

The point I was making was "rewritten bible". Intertextuality, mimesis, "midrashic" rewriting. The "biblical" texts are demonstrated to be actual sources. (His John the Baptist is taken straight out of Isaiah, Malachi and 1 Kings; the Passion narrative is a pastiche of scores of biblical texts.) Recall Lucian sarcastically mocking such pretended "histories" (whose real source was Homer).

Interesting, then, how Mark aligns his stylistic choices so seamlessly with the attitudes of the people he's writing about (as well as some of the people he may be writing for). Good use of the bandwidth, IMO.

I don't follow how Mark's "stylistic choices" are "aligned" with "attitudes of people he's writing about" or what it means for the argument.

I recall you referring to Mark as a "performance piece". If that's what you are referring to here then surely that suggests even more strongly that it does not function primarily as a work of history.

No, it suggests that Mark isn't the kind of work of history meant principally to be read alone in private, or in parts on separate occasions.

What historical works were written as "performance pieces"?

Quite a bit of ancient writing was meant to be read aloud, a propostion which I understand to be uncontroversial. Performance adds little to that: a typically plural audience hearing the whole work within a compact span of time.

Reading aloud for audiences is one thing. But that's not what I understood to be meant by the gospel of Mark being written "for performance".

There is a circularity here, I believe. If we assume that an author does not make his identity explicit because it would turn readers' interest away from the work ...

I didn't assume that. I have offered some other possible reasons for anonymity, and also observed that the matter may be moot, since we don't actually know that Mark didn't identify himself to his first audiences.

We have to work with what we have and what the evidence in hand itself indicates or does not allow us to know.

That is a question of motive and reason for a text being written (and read).

Then there is no textual marker, since it is impossible from first principles for anybody generally to know by natural means the motives of anybody else, and doubtful that anybody knows even their own motives on all occasions.

Not sure what you mean by "textual marker" in this context. If there is no indication in the text pointing to a source for the narrative then there is no indication. Mark thereby uses the same techniques as other forms of "fiction" in his day.

When we opine that the author learned his story from a character named in the story,

I didn't, so to whom is this addressed?

I thought you were suggesting the possibility that Mark learned some of his story from reports of Alexander and Rufus, suggesting that there seemed to be no other evident reason for them to be named, iirc.

or that he wants his readers to hear the historical story without being distracted by its assurances of its authenticity,

Like modern people who use footnotes?

This is the point that comes across to me as circular. We can't assume Mark would have mentioned his (historical) sources if he didn't want to lose his audience who he believed simply wanted a good historical story without any distractions about reasons for its credibility.

then are we not assuming what we really should be setting out to prove -- that the text is indeed written as history or not?

Not me. Recall that I deny that the matter is either-or. So, again, to whom is this remark addressed?

As above.

Lucian of Samosata was a writer known for his satire.

And if we take Josephus at his word, then the Jewish Bible qualifies as history. So what's the problem with Mark, or any other piece that resembles this Josephus-certified top quality work of history?

Again, we seem to be confusing the reliability of a historical account from our own perspective with whether a piece of writing conveys the meaning that it is to be read as a genuine historical account.

So I am not quoting Josephus on a particular relevant point for my argument because I think Josephus should be accepted as "true" in all other respects. So showing Josephus was wrong on some other point does not change anything.

[neilgodfrey]

Pliny the Younger (A.D. 62?–c.A.D. 113). Letters.
The Harvard Classics. 1909–14.

LXXXIII. To Sura


THE PRESENT recess from business we are now enjoying affords you leisure to give, and me to receive, instruction.

I am extremely desirous therefore to know whether you believe in the existence of ghosts, and that they have a real form, and are a sort of divinities, or only the visionary impressions of a terrified imagination.

What particularly inclines me to believe in their existence is a story which I heard of Curtius Rufus. When he was in low circumstances and unknown in the world, he attended the governor of Africa into that province. One evening, as he was walking in the public portico, there appeared to him the figure of a woman, of unusual size and of beauty more than human. And as he stood there, terrified and astonished, she told him she was the tutelary power that presided over Africa, and was come to inform him of the future events of his life: that he should go back to Rome, to enjoy high honours there, and return to that province invested with the proconsular dignity, and there should die. Every circumstance of this prediction actually came to pass. . . . .

Now the following story, which I am going to tell you just as I heard it, is it not more terrible than the former, while quite as wonderful? There was at Athens a large and roomy house, which had a bad name, so that no one could live there. In the dead of the night a noise, resembling the clashing of iron, was frequently heard, which, if you listened more attentively, sounded like the rattling of chains, distant at first, but approaching nearer by degrees: immediately afterwards a spectre appeared in the form of an old man, of extremely emaciated and squalid appearance, with a long beard and dishevelled, hair, rattling the chains on his feet and hands. The distressed occupants meanwhile passed their wakeful nights under the most dreadful terrors imaginable. . . .

Consequently the house was at length deserted, as being deemed absolutely uninhabitable; so that it was now entirely abandoned to the ghost. However, in hopes that some tenant might be found who was ignorant of this very alarming circumstance, a bill was put up, giving notice that it was either to be let or sold. It happened that Athenodorus the philosopher came to Athens at this time, and, reading the bill, enquired the price. The extraordinary cheapness raised his suspicion; nevertheless, when he heard the whole story, he was so far from being discouraged that he was more strongly inclined to hire it, and, in short, actually did so. When it grew towards evening, he ordered a couch to be prepared for him in the front part of the house, and, after calling for a light, together with his pencil and tablets, directed all his people to retire. But that his mind might not, for want of employment, be open to the vain terrors of imaginary noises and spirits, he applied himself to writing with the utmost attention. The first part of the night passed in entire silence, as usual; at length a clanking of iron and rattling of chains was heard: however, he neither lifted up his eyes nor laid down his pen, but, in order to keep calm and collected, tried to pass the sounds off to himself as something else. The noise increased and advanced nearer, till it seemed at the door, and at last in the chamber. He looked up, saw, and recognized the ghost exactly as it had been described to him: it stood before him, beckoning with the finger, like a person who calls another. This was accordingly done, and the skeleton of a man in chains was found there; for the body, having lain a considerable time in the ground, was putrefied and mouldered away from the fetters. The bones, being collected together, were publicly buried, and thus after the ghost was appeased by the proper ceremonies, the house was haunted no more.

This story I believe upon the credit of others; what I am going to mention, I give you upon my own. I have a freedman named Marcus, who is by no means illiterate. One night, as he and his younger brother were lying together, he fancied he saw somebody upon his bed, who took out a pair of scissors, and cut off the hair from the top part of his own head, and in the morning, it appeared his hair was actually cut, and the clippings lay scattered about the floor.

A short time after this, an event of a similar nature contributed to give credit to the former story. A young lad of my family was sleeping in his apartment with the rest of his companions, when two persons clad in white came in, as he says, through the windows, cut off his hair as he lay, and then returned the same way they entered. The next morning it was found that this boy had been served just as the other, and there was the hair again, spread about the room. . . .

Let me desire you then to give this question your mature consideration. The subject deserves your examination; as, I trust, I am not myself altogether unworthy a participation in the abundance of your superior knowledge. And though you should, as usual, balance between two opinions, yet I hope you will lean more on one side than on the other, lest, whilst I consult you in order to have my doubt settled, you should dismiss me in the same suspense and indecision that occasioned you the present application.

Farewell.

I don't believe Pliny's ghost stories. They are fiction.

But Pliny's letter is not fiction. It is a piece of "historical" or to be more specific with respect to the type of history, it is a piece of "biographical" writing.

The genre is that of a personal letter. We know the identity of its author and to whom it is addressed. We know the letter follows the conventions of personal letter writing in which one person expresses his personal thoughts to another.

All of these details serve to tell readers that the renowned Pliny is expressing in all sincerity some stories he has really heard and that trouble him to some extent.

Two of the stories he has heard from others, but does not identify them. Presumably their identities would mean nothing to Sura and we may suspect those who told the stories were not close to Pliny, either, since in the third story he expressly commends its credibility on the grounds that it comes from a trusted member, Marcus, of his circle.

Then he throws the decision to believe or not believe in Sura's court. He concludes as he began, asking for Sura's opinion of these stories. Pliny naturally hopes Sura will say, "Gee, yeh, sounds scary... I sure do believe in ghosts, too." But Pliny is also opening up the possibility for Sura to say, "Yeh, right. Just who are these people who have been telling such tall tales? How much do you really know about Marcus?" Or anything in between.

Pliny's stories are obviously fiction. But Pliny himself does not know what to believe, though he does tend to believe the stories. Reading between the lines we may suspect that Pliny does believe and is expressing some distance in order to sound as rational as possible to maintain the respect of Sura. He does attempt to weight the evidence in favour of belief by means of commenting on the supposed post-visionary proofs of the tales and the personal respect he has for one of the storytellers.

The letter can be read as a piece of historical writing insofar as a historian of beliefs in the supernatural in ancient Rome would regard it as significant primary evidence for what some people believed about ghosts at that time.

If, on the other hand, we remove the letter genre, and the personal voice of Pliny, and if any of the ghost stories are written out as a story in their own right, and not as part of some larger argument as they are in Pliny's letter, then we could have a good rollicking fictional ghost story and nothing more.

In that latter case we would not have a piece of evidence for what some Romans believed about ghosts. What we would have instead is evidence of what some Romans found entertaining as literature.

---

One point I do appreciate from postmodernist inroads into historical inquiry is that they have opened the door, I believe, to histories being written about all sorts of things such as what ancient peoples believed about the supernatural, thus stretching the bounds of history from the predominantly political and economic and "social movement" "forces" and "factors".

[Paul the Uncertain]

Neil

We're giving personal takes? OK, it may be relevant.

I wouldn't be surprised if Curtius Rufus met a beautiful tall African woman who told his fortune and got a few things right. (Recall that this is NOT the story which Pliny retells just as he heard it; I'll take him at his word about that much and not begrudge him having spun it to make it more salient, if he did).

I also believe that the lived-experience story is sincerely told. The "middle" story is painfully literary, although its unimproved events are well within the range of the psychologically plausible. I don't completely believe that Pliny is telling what he heard just as he heard it. His say-so is irrelevant to the resolution of the uncertainty.

He has credibly (however shakily) connected some dots between the simply strange lived-experience story and his later discovery of having been in real peril. It's a Jungian synchronicity in full, and thus, within the psychologically plausible.

I think Pliny is credible that he believes in some general scheme of possibly supernatural interventions in the natural world. I do not believe that the story of Curtius Rufus inspired that general belief in him, nor do I think he intended the story's introductory remark to be taken that way. I think he's pointing out its salience to his current query, not its impact on his metaphysical outlook.

Presumably their identities would mean nothing to Sura

Presumably? Why? You have some evidence about that? (See next block below for one person from whom Pliny might have heard the story... possibly an identity that might have meant something to Sura.)

In that latter case we would not have a piece of evidence for what some Romans believed about ghosts.

Tacitus has a version of the Curtius Rufus story (Annals 11.21). I'm unsure we wouldn't pay a second version some mind, to see what we can learn from it, including some insights about Roman attitudes towards the supernatural. We might even be able to estimate Pliny as the author (although, for the Athenian ghost story, which Pliny supposedly tells just as he heard it from somebody else, then I guess not). So I am unsure where we're going with this hypothetical.

Finally, I share your approval that history should embrace all aspects of the human past.

[neilgodfrey]

Applying my model to the process of how a reader identifies "history/biography" as distinct from fiction in Pliny's letter about ghost stories......

Historian2.jpg (25.58 KiB) Viewed 5535 times

How the Audience is given the means to assess the "historicity" of the narrative

By "historicity" here I mean the "truth" of Pliny's account of his personal experiences with stories he has heard and the impact they have had on him.

The reader knows the identity of the author of the letter. It is part of a larger collection of letters Pliny made public.

The letter genre and larger context of the collection itself make it clear that the reader is reading the words and thoughts of the historical Pliny.

The reader reads Pliny saying he has heard certain stories about ghosts and telling Sura what these stories are. Pliny's motive for setting out these stories, as he expresses it, is to elicit Sura's opinion about belief in ghosts.

Pliny explains why he gives special credence to a third story he tells: he knows the source, Marcus, more personally and that he is "a freedman and by no means illiterate".

Pliny encourages Sura to respond with his opinion on the stories he has just related.

From the above, the reader is informed that Pliny heard from others the stories he has just related.

The reader is not reading "ghost stories" per se but a personal letter asking a question about the stories that have been told to the author by other sources.

No doubt Pliny is not repeating exactly, word for word, what his sources told him. It is highly probable that Pliny has reshaped some of what he has heard into his own words, possibly with some slight variation of content.

Pliny presents the stories in such a way to allow the reader to know that the ghost stories did not originate with Pliny, and that Pliny is writing up in a manner appropriate for a letter for Sura what he remembers of stories he has heard, and giving reasons why he tends to believe them.

In the above ways the reader knows that what he is reading is a kind of "historical information" -- what people have told Pliny about their experiences with ghosts.

Contrast the alternative of fiction:

Fiction2.jpg (30.31 KiB) Viewed 5535 times

A"fiction" narrative can take any number of forms except for the "historical" one above -- unless the fiction is a deliberate hoax.

If we take any of the ghost stories out of the narrative frames with which Pliny presents them in his letter we can read "fiction":

When he was in low circumstances and unknown in the world, he attended the governor of Africa into that province. One evening, as he was walking in the public portico, there appeared to him the figure of a woman, of unusual size and of beauty more than human. And as he stood there, terrified and astonished, she told him she was the tutelary power that presided over Africa, and was come to inform him of the future events of his life: that he should go back to Rome, to enjoy high honours there, and return to that province invested with the proconsular dignity, and there should die. Every circumstance of this prediction actually came to pass. . . . .

Or even if we included some of Pliny's framing yet still removed it from its literary context we can still have fiction:

What particularly inclines me to believe in their existence is a story which I heard of Curtius Rufus. When he was in low circumstances and unknown in the world. . . .

Without knowing who the real "I" and "me" is in that first sentence, we do not know how to interpret the story. But if we found the above in a context where other literary indicators point to the "I" being an otherwise unknown narrator of stories, then the whole passage becomes a fictional ghost tale.

The reader is given no means by which to make any other assessment about the story. The story is following all the literary conventions of "fictional" narrative while omitting the techniques used to identify "historical" narrative.

What if the "history" is a lie?

It is also possible that Pliny is making up some or even all of his stories. (Not likely, given what we know of Pliny from his letters as a whole, but for the sake of argument I'll imagine he is really lying and no-one ever told him any of those stories. He just made them up. Perhaps he was sincerely deluded and had a "false memory".)

If that is the case then we still have a work that readers are meant to understand as truly historical or biographical. A lie is meant to deceive, after all, so we can say the author wanted Sura to believe he really did hear those stories just as he set them out.

There is no way we can know if a person is deliberately deceiving us unless we have some independent reason to alert us to that fact. If there were such a sure way of knowing if a person was lying or sincerely deluded we would not need courts and judges to decide persons' guilt or innocence -- or courts and judges would get it right every time. Forgeries would be impossible. Liars would always be exposed. We would be some species other than human.

Such are life's risks.

In real-life circumstances, we would very likely have other indicators in Pliny's letters that demonstrate his unreliability, dishonesty, fabrications, etc. And in that case we probably would not have Pliny's letters at all.

[neilgodfrey]

So I am unsure where we're going with this hypothetical.

I should not have added my sentence beginning with "Presumably". It was not necessary for my argument.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Neil

Applying my model to the process of how a reader identifies "history/biography" as distinct from fiction in Pliny's letter about ghost stories......

Please indulge me to remind you now and then that there are readers who wouldn't begin with the assumption that a work which contains historical and biographical elements might not also contain fictive elements (= might not be "distinct from fiction").

The reader knows the identity of the author of the letter. It is part of a larger collection of letters Pliny made public.

That did not prevent many readers for a very long time from classifying as fiction his epistolary account of the volcanic eruption in which his uncle died heroically. (He has since been fully vindicated, and eruptions of that kind are now named in his and his uncle's honor.)

Our original task, set in the OP, was to find characteristics of the text that accomplish the desired classification. The volcano problem is an example both of the failure to classify correctly based on the text alone, and also of later success after discovering new information beyond the text.

From the above, the reader is informed that Pliny heard from others the stories he has just related.

There is no mention of others in the text. The omission of anybody from whom Pliny might have heard the stories is as much a feature of the text as the presence of his possibly formulaic and figurative "I heard."

I am entitled to give that feature some weight, for reasons already discussed in earlier posts.

No doubt Pliny is not repeating exactly, word for word, what his sources told him.

But again, going by characteristics of the text, that is what he's inviting the reader to infer about his Athenian story. If that invitation can be charitably classified as an "approximation to the truth," then so can his "I heard."

what people have told Pliny about their experiences with ghosts.

There is nothing in the text to support that either of the first two stories lies in within the lived experience of any informant who spoke with Pliny.

If we take any of the ghost stories out of the narrative frames with which Pliny presents them in his letter we can read "fiction"

Really? I've already said that I believe that the Curtius Rufus story may well refer to actual historical events, completely naturally. What is doubtful about the tale is the interpretation of such events. Pliny announces that he's presenting the story in order to advance a discussion of just that, the doubtful interpretation of the story. I know from my own lived experience that people often volunteer fulsome interpretations of entirely natural happenings.

Where's the fiction, then?

How does removing the frame of Pliny's announcement make it fiction? The frame invites me (literally invites Sura) to separate the interpretation from the real possibility that a lady did spook Rufus IRL, but the frame isn't necessary for the separation. I get the same "vibe" from Tacitus' telling of what I think is the same underlying tale.

Also, yet again, supplementing the characteristics of the text being analyzed (viewing Pliny's letter in light of Tacitus' version) is helpful to me. I don't know what happened, but I would classify the uninterpreted story of Curtius Rufus' encounter with the uncanny as truth-respecting discourse about the human past. That is, my idea of history (albeit possibly factually false - but even then not necessarily useless for understanding some real Roman attitudes about such matters).

I should not have added my sentence beginning with "Presumably". It was not necessary for my argument.

That's fine. No blood, no foul.

[neilgodfrey]

Neil

Applying my model to the process of how a reader identifies "history/biography" as distinct from fiction in Pliny's letter about ghost stories......

Please indulge me to remind you now and then that there are readers who wouldn't begin with the assumption that a work which contains historical and biographical elements might not also contain fictive elements (= might not be "distinct from fiction").

Don't follow you, sorry. My sentence is expressing the view that there is both "history" and "fiction" in Pliny's letter and addressing the question of how the two can be distinguished. This is not an assumption but the point of my argument. Or have I misread or misunderstood you?

(I really would like to know what weaknesses or faults are in my model. I take it you think the whole thing is nonsense, so much so you hardly know where to begin? )

The reader knows the identity of the author of the letter. It is part of a larger collection of letters Pliny made public.

That did not prevent many readers for a very long time from classifying as fiction his epistolary account of the volcanic eruption in which his uncle died heroically. (He has since been fully vindicated, and eruptions of that kind are now named in his and his uncle's honor.)

I have never meant to imply in any way that everything Pliny writes is "history" or true on the basis of his self-identification. Far from it. That has not been my argument at all. I have been addressing various literary devices (of which self-identification is but one) that enable readers to make their own assessments of what is written -- the implicit agreement that is set up between author and reader by the way the author frames and presents his narrative.

Our original task, set in the OP, was to find characteristics of the text that accomplish the desired classification. The volcano problem is an example both of the failure to classify correctly based on the text alone, and also of later success after discovering new information beyond the text.

Probably most histories ever written contain errors. Thucydides' account of the Athenian plague is another instance of what is very likely a fictional insertion in an historical narrative. That doesn't mean we don't "classify" Thucydides work as "history" if we are into classifications of works per se. It only means we approach Thucydides like we approach any history, with critical nous.

Authors have their biases, interests, cultural influences, etc, and that's all part of the consideration the reader takes into account.

What makes a work history, in my view, is that an author presents a narrative in a certain way that enables readers to understand that it is a serious attempt to narrate the past based on relevant evidence.

From the above, the reader is informed that Pliny heard from others the stories he has just related.

There is no mention of others in the text. The omission of anybody from whom Pliny might have heard the stories is as much a feature of the text as the presence of his possibly formulaic and figurative "I heard."

I don't understand why you say there is no mention of others. Pliny does not name two of them, but he does name one, and those who remain unnamed are clearly "others" who, he says, told him stories.

No doubt Pliny is not repeating exactly, word for word, what his sources told him.

But again, going by characteristics of the text, that is what he's inviting the reader to infer about his Athenian story. If that invitation can be charitably classified as an "approximation to the truth," then so can his "I heard."

I mean "word perfect". I don't think you're saying that Pliny somehow expects his readers to assume that he is repeating word-for-word, without any slip, exactly the story as he heard it.

When we say "I heard X" we are normally referencing the content of what is heard: in the case of a lengthy story I don't think anyone thinks a person can recollect what another said at length word for exact word.

what people have told Pliny about their experiences with ghosts.

There is nothing in the text to support that either of the first two stories lies in within the lived experience of any informant who spoke with Pliny.

My point has been that these are stories that Pliny has heard. That is the content of his source. You are quite correct that we don't know who told those stories or how they came to be. What we do know is that someone told him those stories. (Unless he is lying, which is a point I discussed elsewhere.)

Again, I am not addressing the actual truth or historicity of the details Pliny has come to believe or cite. The point is that Pliny says he has heard these stories and they have raised questions in his mind and he wants Sura's opinion on them.

Sura may indeed reply that he thinks someone is pulling Pliny's leg with lots of made up stories.

If we take any of the ghost stories out of the narrative frames with which Pliny presents them in his letter we can read "fiction"

Really? I've already said that I believe that the Curtius Rufus story may well refer to actual historical events, completely naturally. What is doubtful about the tale is the interpretation of such events.

It may well, as you say. My point was a conditional "if" to illustrate a particular literary point -- what the alternative to a historical account would look like.

Pliny announces that he's presenting the story in order to advance a discussion of just that, the doubtful interpretation of the story. I know from my own lived experience that people often volunteer fulsome interpretations of entirely natural happenings.

Where's the fiction, then?

The fiction is in the supernatural details and very unlikely coincidences.

How does removing the frame of Pliny's announcement make it fiction? The frame invites me (literally invites Sura) to separate the interpretation from the real possibility that a lady did spook Rufus IRL, but the frame isn't necessary for the separation. I get the same "vibe" from Tacitus' telling of what I think is the same underlying tale.

I don't follow you when you say the "frame isn't necessary for the separation", sorry. My point is that if we take the tale without Pliny's framing of it and just read it as an isolated ghost story without Pliny's context then it reads as purely and simply a ghost story. That is, fiction.

It is only the framing (including the Sura context) that makes it "historical" to any extent at all.

Also, yet again, supplementing the characteristics of the text being analyzed (viewing Pliny's letter in light of Tacitus' version) is helpful to me. I don't know what happened, but I would classify the uninterpreted story of Curtius Rufus' encounter with the uncanny as truth-respecting discourse about the human past. That is, my idea of history (albeit possibly factually false - but even then not necessarily useless for understanding some real Roman attitudes about such matters).

My point is to take the story out of all framing -- including Tacitus. Independent testimony changes everything, of course.

[Paul the Uncertain]

Neil

Don't follow you, sorry. My sentence is expressing the view that there is both "history" and "fiction" in Pliny's letter and addressing the question of how the two can be distinguished. This is not an assumption but the point of my argument. Or have I misread or misunderstood you?

Maybe I shouldn't have used the term "work," since it connotes a lengthy composition, or a "whole" composition. I chose the Pliny-Sura letter because it offers a good working density of parts, whose historical or fictional statuses plausibly differ, all in a compact package.

My reminder was that I disagree that "the two can be distinguished," by tests grounded chiefly in the characteristics of the text (our original task), regardless of granularity (how finely a "whole" work is broken out into component sub-texts).

I take it you think the whole thing is nonsense, so much so you hardly know where to begin? )

I'd propose a different approach, maybe an "index of historical construction," rather than try for a classifier. Scholarly works about the human past would easily score high, shamelessly vulgar works of never-never fantasy would score low.

Hard cases (Tom Wolfe's novels) could be mined for possible second (or more) dimension(s) of disambiguation. If you were lucky, then your suite of dimensional scores might be cast as a classifier after all, but with several categories (like Myers-Briggs or "Five Factor Model" personality classes) rather than just two.

Under this approach

I have been addressing various literary devices (of which self-identification is but one)

Pliny would get some points for identifying himself. Mark is a little trickier, since we don't know whether or not he identified himself, but we could probably make an adjustment for our confidence in evaluating factors. If that's just one factor among many, and the end result isn't a classification anyway, all is not lost even if we get a few wrong.

I don't understand why you say there is no mention of others.

"I heard" suggests a role for another, but doesn't imply one, and surely doesn't explicily evoke another's presence. If the remark wasn't intended to be taken literally, as it may not have been here, then even the suggestion evaporates.

I don't think you're saying that Pliny somehow expects his readers to assume that he is repeating word-for-word, without any slip, exactly the story as he heard it.

No, I take his statement "Now the following story, which I am going to tell you just as I heard it," to be, more likely than not, at best an approximation to the truth. So, too, may be "I heard."

Given the tale's polished literary style as it appears in the letter, I think the truth lies somewhere between:

- He read it, or it was read to him, and now he's copying it over verbatim from the text he read or heard read, (so, yup, his "just as" statement is true as written) or

- Pliny actually wrote the story in its present form himself, and his "just as I heard it" is a frankly fictional device (which also carries his build-of-three in progress up from the first step). I'd call that a white lie since "restless ghost" tales are attested, therefore there'd be no harm in Pliny offering Sura a high-quality entertaining faux-example.

In contrast, in the volcano case Tacitus had asked Pliny to speak "on the record, for attribution" as we would say today. It would NOT have been a white lie for Pliny to exaggerate then (and he didn't, but the accusation was serious).

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~afutrell/404b ... suvius.htm

Now,

Thank you for asking me to send you a description of my uncle's death so that you can leave an accurate account of it for posterity

That's a marker.

The fiction is in the supernatural details and very unlikely coincidences.

The supernatural is in the interpretation, easily distinguished from what the speaker could possibly know. (A tall African woman who tells fortunes? Yeah, that could be. She says she's a goddess? Maybe she did. She actually was a goddess? Well, Pliny or Curtius Rufus might sincerely believe that, but it would be at least conclusory on their part.)

Unlikely things happen all the time. When they do, we may well hear about it and retain what we've heard.

I don't follow you when you say the "frame isn't necessary for the separation", sorry. My point is that if we take the tale without Pliny's framing of it and just read it as an isolated ghost story without Pliny's context then it reads as purely and simply a ghost story. That is, fiction.

Ah, I didn't appreciate that you'd argue against that any meeting between Curtius Rufus and a tall African beauty took place. I'm open to that much being true, because with or without knowing that Pliny brings this up while writing about the supernatural, any supernatural interpretations are easily separated from the narrated natural events.

Storytellers lard up already cool stories with cosmic significance all the time. Nevertheless, cool stuff happens now and then.