relationship of history and literature?

Answer 1

History and literature may be related in several ways. One general way of breaking this down is to move from opposite directions, considering how history may influence/shape literature, and how literature may influence history. Note that BOTH may be happening at the same time.

A) History shapes literature:

1) literature REFLECTS history

I'm thinking first of all of writing that is a 'product of its time' without necessarily intending to be. That is, we get an idea of how people lived and thought by what they write. This includes the 'fuller portrait' or daily living and 'what it was like to be there' that others have mentioned. But it also may include inadvertent reflections of how people at the time of the writing thought (esp. the author)

In fact, that last point perhaps deserves its own point... so
2) literary reflects factors, including THOUGHT, that shaped history

This may be esp. important. Sometimes literature reveals the point of view and way of thinking that helps us understand WHY various people and groups behaved as they did. That is, literature can EXPLAIN what happened in history. I'm not referring here to literary works that intentionally go back to muse about and explain the past (that's #4 below), but literature from the SAME time as events, or even BEFORE them, that reveals things about the society, ideas that were dominant, etc., that WE can use to understand how they acted.

3) history shapes literary FORMS, customs ....

Another way history and literature relate is that literature is expressed in traditional forms that have gradually developed in a particular society. The very best writers may be able to 'break outside' these forms, but radically different forms usually take time to develop.

We need to be a bit careful here that we appreciate the forms of a particular time, with their strengths and limitations and without OVER-interpreting the importance of the particular form. So, for instance, "radical" ideas (challenging the status quo) may be expressed in very different ways in different societies and historical periods, in part based on which literary forms are AVAILABLE to the author.

4) literature reflects ON (that is, interprets) history -

This is more deliberate. It involves interpreting and evaluating what has happened and adopting a point of view about 'what really happened' and what is good or bad in it. In this area, literature can very much shape how people THINK about history. . . and note that how history is REMEMBERED (correctly or IN-correctly), or perhaps, which aspects or PIECES of history are highlighted, may have as much influence as what really took place (or more)

Examples:
* Les Miserables* or *The Count of Monte Cristo* -- actually books like these (esp if you read the unabridged versions!) contain a fair amount of history and directly advocate ways of thinking about it

*Gone with the Wind* reflects a particular of the Civil War and the antebellum South, including the "Lost Cause" mythology -- and many people's idea of what things were like and what happened are shaped more by the depiction in such a book than by the real events. (Personally, I think the historical evidence is very strong that the portrait in this book, though entertaining, is VERY skewed.)

This would also include creative fictional portraits of 'what's going on' and its meaning (e.g. *Animal Farm*), as well as 'what MIGHT happen' (e.g., *1984*, *Brave New World*). The ideas in these portraits may simply reflect common views of the world the author lives in, but they can also shape or focus how readers respond/act.


That leads us to. . .
B) Literature shapes history (by influencing how people think and therefore act):
This may be related to A4), esp. if a writer is DELIBERATELY reflecting on history, evaluating it and moving from that to ADVOCATE (or at least encourage) particular ideas and actions for the future.

1) 'negatively' - literature may draw a picture of the past or present, or even the future (think science fiction), in a way that warns about or criticizes a particular way of thinking of behaving

Example:
* Uncle Tom's Cabin - a fictional portrait of slavery and its effects that galvanized and spread the anti-slavery movement
(perhaps also *1984* and *Animal Farm*, though it is not as clear Orwell INTENDED to advocate a particular response, whereas Harriet Beecher Stowe was writing her story for an abolitionist magazine)


2) 'positively' - not necessary that different from the previous case, since often both are going on at the same time (that is, you are contrasting a portrait of something bad that has been, is or could be, with a positive portrait you hold up as a model or goal), but here the emphasis is on an IDEAL or positive MODEL -- either one that is thought to have been attained in the past, or one that is an unrealized hope


I'm not even including other important writings whose very form and purpose is to advocate an action of point of view -- from propaganda to formal political documents that advance an argument or explain/justify a particular action (think Thomas Paine's pamphlet *Common Sense* or the Declaration of Independence). I'm not sure where we want to draw the line between well-formed ("literary") writings whose FORM and central purpose is to advocate, influence or justify... and more strictly "literary forms" (e.g., stories) in which the author advocates, etc.

Answer 2

Literature fleshes out the small details that historians leave out. In literature we get a fuller understanding of how events impact the populace...how people lived their everyday lives...what tools, what implements they used. In a thousand ways, literature makes history fuller, richer and much more about the people than the events. We also get an understanding of the ways that people thought...their language, society and culture...all important elements for truly understanding history.

Answer 3

History and literature go hand in hand. Literature is full of history. They are stories told but if you read them you will see what it was like back then.