Hayden Whites Argument on the Creation of Historical Narratives - Essay Example

Hayden White’s Argument on the Creation of Historical Narratives The history as a narrative concept by Hayden White is an interesting concept, particularly when it becomes a debate between postmodernists and empiricists. This debate comes down to the issue of historical knowledge’s nature and about truth and untruth, which is the most fundamental question about history. Looking at Hayden White’s work, conservative critics may consider it only as a provocative argument, which will soon be forgotten. However, Hayden’s argument should make readers and critics alike concede the presence of innovation by scrutinizing. With changes in history, there has also been a change to historical writing. The global nature of the world today necessitates scrutinizing of one’s views because there are so many historical points of view. The development of historiography means that the practitioner must develop his/her practice and conscience. Thus, Hayden White’s concept of narrative history is representative of constructivism in historiography. History is a difficult and ambiguous issue and may seem unreachable. However, it can be apprehended by structural thought. A historian should possess an array of skills, as well as the ability to utilize them in concert. For this reason, using the life of Hadrian to reconstruct history supports Hayden’s argument as it uses literature from other writers, some born a long time after his death, to reconstruct his story and that of the era he lived in. This is because little information about Hadrian exists with only snippets of information in historical texts. The 2nd century AD has numerous literary and documentary sources covering numerous issues. However, it is ironical that that little if any reliable historical narrative on the Roman emperors of this time exists. For this reason, Hadrian’s life can only be reconstructed using abbreviated accounts in Historia Augusta. Senator Marius Maximus, for example, proves to be a major contributor to the reconstruction of this period as he is quoted in the narrative. This is despite the fact that he lived two centuries after Emperor Hadrian’s death. For example, when reconstructing Hadrian’s interactions with the Spaniards after they refused to pay their levies, the text contends that “…to use the very words of Marius Maximus, and the others very vigorously, he took measures characterized by skill and discretion” (HA, Hadrian 39). Marius Maximus’ writings and works are used as the main basis for the Historia Augusta. The HA does seem to be based on hearsay and rumors and has signs of abbreviation and fabrication. For example, the author contends that “Even without the aid of a nomenclator he could call by name a great many people, whose names he had heard but once and then all in a crowd” (HA, Hadrian 65). For this reason, this historical narrative should be cautiously treated. However, seeing, as this is one of the only remaining sources still in existence about Hadrian and this era of emperors, it cannot be discarded. In fact, it becomes vital in filling in the gaps in the historical narrative of this period. Cassius Dio was a Roman Senator of Greek origin, and he lived in the third century. However, this does not stop the author of Historia Augusta from using him as a source to recreate this historical narrative. Again, this is because his writings deal directly with Hadrian and shed light on his life. Different from Marius Maximus, who has an unfavorable view of Hadrian, Dio is more favorable and so offers a different opinion of Hadrian that allows the writer to reconstruct Hadrian’s life. It is Dio who tells of Hadrian’s biography, which has since been lost by saying that, “So desirous of a wide-spread reputation was Hadrian that he even wrote his own biography” (HA, Hadrian 51). While the fact that Hadrian was known to love Greek culture, for example, the fact that he always reclined at table dressed either in a Greek cloak or a toga (HA, Hadrian 69), it offers another view of Hadrian that would, otherwise, not have been in public knowledge. It is only when a historian constructs the history of Hadrian from such disparate sources that he can create a historical narrative, which shed light on Hadrian’s life. Because there is no biography about Hadrian that exists close to the time he was alive, it becomes crucial to reconstruct his history from the few passing references that authors from the second century make about him. Pliny the Younger mentions Hadrian in passing, especially when talking about Hadrian’s predecessor, Trajan. The author of Historia Augusta uses Pliny’s recollections, such as, “Dispatching to the senate a carefully worded letter, he asked for divine honors for Trajan” (HA, Hadrian 21). Pliny was a known writer on Trajan; it is through him that we get an idea of what Hadrian was like in his youth, and before he became emperor. The author also uses various other writings to reconstruct his history, including Dio of Prusa, Plutarch, Aelius, Arrian, Pausanias, Aristides, and Philostratus. All of these writings provide useful snippets about Hadrian and tell us about his love for the culture of the Greeks, which ties in with what is known about this era of Roman emperors. What is clear, even with the use of these sources, is that there is little literary evidence about the reign of Hadrian. For this reason, it is important to reconstruct his reign with the only information possible and to use the information to form a narrative. The lack of literary resources also necessitates the use other documentary evidence like inscriptions and coins to understand the reign of Emperor Hadrian. It is by studying the coins that Hadrian issued during his reign that the author is able to record Hadrian’s travels in the Roman Empire. For example, the author tells us that, “…After this he travelled to Spain” (HA, Hadrian 39). The author qualifies his trip to Spain by referring to the presence of the coins with the Adventui Augusti Hispiniae legend, which show that he was in Spain as the Roman emperor. Without reconstructing Hadrian’s coins and where they can be found, it would be impossible to prove his journey to Spain. However, by use of structural thought to understand the competing Roman currency and economics theories, as well as a good understanding of legend coins, it is possible to reconstruct Hadrian’s travels through the empire. It is clear that a good understanding of Hadrian’s reign in order to document it requires one to scrutinize various points of view and constructivism. This is due to the fact that little evidence of his reign or this period exists and, therefore, it required the author of Historia Augusta to construct Hadrian’s history. This meant that he had to study various writings in different languages and carry different agendas, have a broad understanding of Roman and Greek History, an ability to use critically written sources, and the ability to synthesize all the material on Hadrian in a coherent manner. This requires structural thought and supports Hayden White’s argument on the creation of historical narratives. Work Cited HA, Hadrian. Historia Augusta - Life of Hadrian . 1921. Web. 8 October 2013 . Read More