We’ve already explored one problem with Aristotle’s claim about
theatre: namely, that it’s difficult to say just which universals are being
presented in any one play (see Chapter 2). But even supposing that
theatre does present universals: how, in that case, does history fail to do
so? After all, if the story of Oedipus can tell us about‘what would
happen’, then why can’t the story of Xerxes or Leonidas? When Aristotle
criticises history, he singles out Herodotus.^16 By way of comparison, then,
here is the famous moment in Herodotus’history when Xerxes surveys his
vast army:
As he looked out over the whole Hellespont, whose water was completely
hidden by all his ships, and at the shores and plains of Abydos, now so
full of people, Xerxes congratulated himself for being so blessed. But then
he suddenly burst into tears and wept. [...]‘I was suddenly overcome by
pity as I considered the brevity of human life, since not one of all these
people here will be alive one hundred years from now.^17If a play can offer us universals about human life (and we have seen reasons
to doubt that this is the case), then it is far from clear why histories like
this cannot.^18 To put the point another way: the passage just quoted would
have its effect (whatever that is) whether or not I treat it as a historical
account or afictional one.^19
There is also a second, much more contemporary line of objection to
the question as it currently stands. This goes as follows: that we are
asking about the connection betweenfiction and history; but (according
to this line of argument) these are in fact much the same thing. Shakespeare
offers one narrative; other sources offer other narratives; there is either no
truth about what‘really happened,’or, if there is, it is necessarily distorted
by the mode in which we present it.^20 It is certainly true that ways of writ-
ing about history have a great effect on how it is received and understood,
and there is a great deal more to be said about the claims made along
these lines; but I will not pursue the radical thought that there is no
distinction betweenfiction and history, because I share the common view
that this conclusion has not beenfirmly established.^21
Finally, some philosophers have argued that, far from being the same
thing, the distinction betweenfiction and history is so severe that one
should refrain from treating them as potentially encoding the same kinds
of information.Julius Caesaruses historical material for inspiration, but it
is a work offiction. The definition of‘fiction’in question matters little:
the historical claims have not been properly‘asserted’; the performance
was just a game of make-believe or a special social practice. In any case,
thefictional nature of the performance renders insignificant the connec-
tion with historical truth. If you want to know about history, read a
80 From the World to the Stage