A Note on History as Narrative

Among philosophers of it has recently been claimed with increasing frequency that if we are to understand what historians actually do, we should examine what features are characteristic of narratives, and should consider the manner in which a narrative may be said to explain the events included within it. As examples of this view Gallie, Danto, and Morton White may be cited.' Earlier forms of a similar tendency are to be found in Dray's continuous series model of explanation, in W. H. Walsh's account of as significant narrative, and in certain aspects of the theories of Croce and of Collingwood.2 To be sure, the positions of Gallie, of Danto, and of White differ from one another in various respects, and even more important differences exist between their views and those of Croce and of Collingwood. I shall not attempt to deal with these differences; what is here of concern to me is what I take to be a characteristic mark of recent theoretical writings concerning historiography. In the present note I wish to challenge the belief that historical inquiry and historical writing are essentially matters of constructing stories, narratives, or connected chronicles -terms, which, in the present context, I shall take as designating a single concept or a cluster of inseparable concepts. My argument will not be based on the fact that there are instances of historical inquiry which fail to conform to the characterization of as narrative; for example, that there are monographic studies which are not organized as narrative structures. I shall not rely on that argument since an opponent might claim that such studies are merely adjuncts to history proper, rather than being instances of it. My