| Sumario: | In this article several controversial issues surrounding literary history as sub-genre are scrutinised. Literary histories are written with the intention of presenting a single unified image of the literary past. This necessitates a dual construction, for not only is the depiction of the literature a construct, but so is the depiction of the past. This implies that literary history is inherently hermeneutical, and that any presentation of the literary past is a narrative that eludes scientific objectivity. Despite this, a narrative is intuitively assessed according to its persuasiveness, range, comprehensiveness, and logic; i.e. on its "illocutionary force". The focus of this article is on some recently published South African literary histories; those of Chapman, Heywood and Kannemeyer. In keeping with the present emphasis on "literary fields", Brems is also discussed for his conviction that a literary history should ideally focus on literature as a social phenomenon.
|
|---|