Have to admit I knew nothing of F.R. Ankersmit, he has presented some theories on historiography and historical narratives. He describes narrative logic as “narratio.” Which is to say narrative logic is not found in time, but in “narratio,” or the narrative text taken as a whole. The narratio does not represent anything but itself. Heady stuff, not sure what it means…
But at times his writing makes sense, for example, is his belief that the “point of view” of the historian and how history is presented is key. Ankersmit’s historical narrative or ‘narratio’, is different from other narratives in its ability to accommodate contradictions without being self-contradictory. A historians relationship with his research is the crucial element in creating a proper historical text. Historians must interpret his facts, “rather than factualizing his interpretation.”
Ankersmit’s “Six Theses on Narrativist Philosophy of History”
Historical narratives are interpretations of the past.
Narrativism accepts the past as it is. In the form of a tautology: it accepts what is unproblematic about the past. What is unproblematic is a historical fact.
Narrativism is the modern heir of historism (not to be confused with Popper’s historicism): both recognize that the historian’s task is essentially interpretative (i.e., to find unity in diversity).
Narrative language is not object language.
The statements of a historical narrative always have a double function: 1) to describe the past; and 2) to define or individuate a specific narrative interpretation of the past.
The roots of historicity go deeper than is suggested by either modern historiography or current philosophy (of history).
