“The Artifice of Eternity”: Memory, History, and Literature

Abstract History and literature are different ways to satisfy the basic human desire to preserve what is memorable, beautiful, or painful against all-devouring time and the transience of human experience, and to commemorate what is meaningful and valuable in our personal or collective memories. It is thus not surprising that history and literature share certain structural similarities in recuperating the past with vivid descriptions, believable characterizations, and coherent, convincing narratives. The sense of history is not an antiquarian interest in a dead and detached past, but a vivid and living experience of what is relevant at the present, and H-G. Gadamer’s hermeneutic concept of “contemporaneity” ( Gleichzeitigkeit ) offers a helpful theoretical framework for understanding the immediacy of our experience of the past in literary or historical representations. But there is also an important difference between literary and historical representations in that the historian is epistemologically and morally bound to what actually happens, while the poet or the novelist is free to construct a fictional representation through imagination unrelated to actuality. In the Chinese tradition, there is the concept of “the historian’s virtue” and a historian is committed to the true record of history at any cost, even his life. By drawing on some exemplary works of ancient Chinese literature and historiography, this essay discusses some of the theoretical issues related to the writing and the understanding of history and try to lead to the mutual illumination of poetry and history rather than their opposition and mutual exclusion.