14 Poetics51b.
15 Poetics51b. For an interpretation in terms of‘types’see, e.g., Frede (1992).
16 Reference to Herodotus at 51b. Aristotle mentions Herodotus elsewhere, but never Thucydides.
17 Herodotus, Book 7, (2007: 45–6).
18 Some philosophers argue something stronger about history and universals: namely, that the study
of history reveals (more or less) strict universal laws about human activity. I have not explored
this thought, because that is not what Aristotle means by‘universals’; and, more importantly, the
whole idea of strict laws of history seems implausible. But see Day (2008), especially Chapter 4,
for introduction and analysis.
19 Walton (1990: 97) makes a similar point:‘Sophocles’portrayal of the Oedipus story may improve
my understanding of matters of contemporary interest as much if I consider it apocryphal as it
would if I thought it true.’
20 Versions of this view are offered in White (1980) and Barthes (1981), amongst others. White is
often accused of confusing the latter two.
21 See Carroll (1990) for discussion.
22 Hence, for example:‘Fictionality has nothing to do with what is or is not real or true or factual;
[...] It is hoped that asking whether a given work is fiction or nonfiction [...] will lead to a better
understanding of what it is.’(Walton 1990: 102–3)
23 Lamarque and Olsen (1994: 280). In addition to being‘literature’as opposed to‘history’,itis
likely thatJulius Caesaris also covered by‘the fictive mode’for Lamarque and Olsen, because
undoubtedly, as withWar and Peace,‘there is some undisputed fictional content.’(1994: 285)
24 See Booth (1995).
25 Lukács (1983: 89–91).
26 Lukács (1983: 97–99).
27 Lukács (1983: 93, 114, 117, 147).
28 See Hegel (1977: Sections 438–476).
29 For more on both of these points, see e.g. Pinkard (1996: 135–46) and Hoy (2009).
30 E.g. Lukács (1983: 103, 127).
31 There is obviously a great deal more to say about his view of the historical novel–characters in novels,
as fictional creations, needn’t be aligned with one side or other and the history may consequently be
represented in a different way. I won’t pursue this here, because our focus is on theatre.
32 The historical figures who count as the‘most important’for Lukács just are the ones who most
concisely and effectively embody the relevant social conflicts. So they may not be the historical
figures we normally think of as the most significant–and they certainly won’t necessarily be the
greatest or best. (1983: 123–6)
33 Lukács (1983: 150–1, 153).
34 Lukács (1983: 156).
35 Lukács (1983: 166).
36 Heller (2002: 317).
37 Elsewhere, Lukács argues that one’s level of historical awareness is determined (in part) by the
age in which one lives. Hence,whenone is alive directly relates to the way in which one is able to
understand history. See‘Class Consciousness’in Lukács (1971).
38 Lukács (1983: 108).
39 Lukács (1983: 95; see also 1983: 115).
40 Or, if they did write plays, the plays would be unsuccessful. Or, as Lukács suggests, if they were
to write successful plays, those plays would be more novelistic than dramatic. The latter is his
explanation for the success of Ibsen.
41 Lukács (1983: 155–6).
42 Lukács (1983: 156).
43 See the discussion of Schiller’sDon Carlos(Lukács 1983: 165); Lukács can also treatRomeo and
Julietas a history play depicting Italy at the close of the Middle Ages (1983: 118).
44 A further point, of course, is that a play likeThe Persiansis valuable as primary historical evidence
for later historians; that is not our focus here.
45 Henry V,Prologue, Lines 26–7; Pushkin quoted in Carlson (1993: 241).
History in the making 97