Revue belge de philologie et

d'histoire

Narratives Between History and Fiction

Jan Tlustý

Citer ce document / Cite this document :

Tlustý Jan. Narratives Between History and Fiction. In: Revue belge de philologie et d'histoire, tome 95, fasc. 3, 2017.
Langues et littératures modernes – Moderne Taal- en Letterkunde. pp. 549-560;

doi : https://doi.org/10.3406/rbph.2017.9060

https://www.persee.fr/doc/rbph_0035-0818_2017_num_95_3_9060

Fichier pdf généré le 07/01/2020

Résumé
Narrations entre histoire et fiction.
L’article analyse la pertinence des théories de mondes fictifs de Lubomír Doležel et de Dorrit Cohn
par rapport à l’interprétation de la fiction historique et de la métafiction historiographique. Ces
théories sont complétées par l’herméneutique de Paul Ricoeur. L’auteur de l’article utilise le
concept de monde fictif de Lubomír Doležel en tant que monde possible dont les entités n’ont
aucune référence au monde réel. Cependant, suivant la terminologie de Paul Ricoeur, l’auteur
postule par la suite que le texte littéraire porte une «référence productive » au «monde de la vie »
(Lebenswelt) du lecteur. Dans le cas de la fiction historique et de la métafiction historiographique,
cette référence productive entraîne la révélation de la nature historique de l’existence humaine
autant que de la mémoire culturelle (ou bien, dans les termes de Pierre Nora, «lieux de mémoire »
). Le concept de la référence productive est appliqué dans l’analyse deux fictions contemporaines
(livres écrits par Kateřina Tučková et Martin Fibiger) qui traitent de la période traumatique de
l’histoire tchèque – celle de l’expulsion forcée des populations germanophones de
Tchécoslovaquie d’après-guerre.

Narratieven tussen geschiedenis en fictie.

Dit artikel onderzoekt de relevantie van de theorieën over fictionele werelden van Doležel en
Cohn, in het licht van de interpretatie van historische fictie en historiografische metafictie. Deze
theorieën worden gepaard aan de hermeneutiek van Paul Ricoeur. De auteur gebruikt Doležels
concept van een fictionele wereld als een mogelijke wereld waarin de entiteiten geen verband
hebben met de echte wereld. In de lijn van Ricoeurs terminologie stelt de auteur evenwel dat
literaire teksten een ‘ productieve referentie’ in zich dragen aan de leefwereld (Lebenswelt) van de
lezer. In het geval van historische fictie en historiografische metafictie behelst deze productieve
referentie in de eerste plaats de revelatie van de historische aard van het menselijke bestaan,
evenals het culturele geheugen (of, in de woorden van Pierre Nora, «de sfeer van het geheugen »
). Het concept van productieve referentie wordt in het artikel verder toegepast op de analyse van
hedendaagse Tsjechische historische fictie (van Kateřina Tučková en Martin Fibiger) die een
traumatische periode uit de Tsjechische geschiedenis behandelt -de gedwongen uitdrijving van
Duitssprekende bevolkingsgroepen uit het naoorlogse Tsjechoslowakije.

Abstract
The paper analyses the relevance of Doležel’s and Cohn’s theories of fictional worlds with respect
to the interpretation of historical fiction and historiographic metafiction. These theories are
complemented with Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics. The author uses Doležel’s concept of a fictional
world as a possible world whose entities have no reference to the actual world. Following
Ricoeur’s terminology, however, the author further postulates that literary texts bear a “ productive
reference” to the “ lifeworld” (Lebenswelt) of the reader. In the case of historical fiction and
historiographic metafiction, this productive reference entails primarily the revelation of the historical
nature of human existence as well as cultural memory (or, in Pierre Nora’s terms, “ the realm of
memory”). The concept of productive reference is applied further in the paper in the analysis of
works of contemporary Czech historical fiction (by Kateřina Tučková and Martin Fibiger) that deal
with a traumatic period of Czech history – the forced expulsion of Germanspeaking populations
from post-war Czechoslovakia.
 Narratives Between History and Fiction

Jan TLUSTÝ
Masaryk University of Brno

In my paper, I am going to focus on the issue of representing history in

fiction. I am going to explore the process of transferring historical figures
and historical events into the realm of fiction, as well as the nature of
fictional entities and the strategies of interpretation that may be assumed
by the readers when concerning historical fiction. My methodology will
be based on the theory of fictional worlds, particularly Dorrit Cohn’s and
Lubomír Doležel’s approaches, which bring new methodological insights
into the relationship between historical and fictional narratives. These
insights include the theories of reference and the ontological status of
fictional entities. However inspiring these theories might be, they may not
be able to describe the specific aesthetic impact related to the reception
of historical prose. It is Paul Ricœur’s hermeneutics that tackles the issue,
namely the way a literary work refers to the lifeworld of the reader. I would
like to use Ricœur’s hermeneutics to enrich fictional worlds theory in this
respect, by means of analyzing contemporary Czech historical fiction that
deals with a traumatic moment in Czech history – the forced deportation
of German-speaking population from post-war Czechoslovakia. My paper
aims to show the heuristic relevance of the said theories, as well as detailing
the contribution of contemporary Czech literature towards examining the
complex and traumatic issue of post-war deportations in Sudetenland and
elsewhere.

1. Theoretical framework

The concept of fictional representation of historical events is closely

connected to the relationship between historical discourse and fictional
discourse. This problem has been studied by both literary scholars and
historians. In 1967, Roland Barthes published a famous essay called The
Discourse of History, where, using linguistic analysis, he concluded that
historiography suffers from a referential illusion. Also, he reasoned that
historical discourse and fictional discourse do not stand in direct contrast.
Historiography has undergone a similar debate. Historians Hayden White
and Paul Veyne have pointed out certain similarities between historical and
fictional discourses. According to White, a writing historian is influenced
by literary norms that are – based on Northrop Frye – specified as four
types of plots (White: 1975). From White henceforth, historiography has,
then, come to terms with its narrative nature. However, at the same time,
the question arose as to whether this nature means we can identify history
with fiction. In the early 1980s, this question was addressed by the French
philosopher Paul Ricœur who, in his study Time and Narrative, worked out a

Revue Belge de Philologie et d’Histoire / Belgisch Tijdschrift voor Filologie en Geschiedenis, 95, 2017, p. 549-560
550 J. TLUSTÝ

complex mimetic theory of narrative that dealt with the relationship of both
discourses, based on the concept of reference. I am going to address this
theory later on in my paper, as I consider it highly inspiring.
However, even at the beginning of the 1990s, Gérard Genette, in his book
Fiction and Diction, concludes that structuralist narratology is unable to
resolve the different natures of factual and fictional narratives in a sufficient
manner. Genette provides a thorough analysis of his own terminology from
Narrative Discourse and concludes, in agreement with John Searle (a theorist
of speech acts), that fictionality may not be derived from the semantic or
syntactic characteristics of a text; it may only be analyzed on the level of
pragmatics. Fictionality is linked with certain guidelines for the treatment
of texts; the reader is given instructions whether to read the text as a factual
narrative or a fictional one, chiefly through paratexts such as the subheading,
the annotation, the afterword etc.
The “literary” or narrative nature of historiography, however, provided
a constant challenge to narratology, especially in its attempts to define the
differences between historical and fictional narratives. In the 1990s, fictional
world theorists such as Dorrit Cohn, Ruth Ronen or Lubomír Doležel provided
a new cognitive framework. They began to study the very nature of fictional
events and entities. In her work The Distinction of Fiction (1999), Dorrit
Cohn dealt with postmodern approaches in historiography. These approaches
equated fictionality with narrativity, thus assuming historical narrative to be
a form of fiction. Cohn complements “story” and “discourse” with another
term – “reference.” She claims that while historical texts have a reference to
the real world, fictional texts lack such a reference. In agreement with Ricœur,
she considers fiction a non-referential narrative, which allows her to make
a clear distinction between fiction and historical narrative. However, Cohn
does not fully use the potential of Ricœur’s concept of reference. Ricœur
assumes no reference in fiction on the level of events and entities; however,
he endows fiction with the ability to provide metaphorical or productive
reference (Ricœur: 1984, p. 80). This term refers to the ability of works of
fiction (and works of art in general) to create a new attitude to reality in
the reader, thus changing his understanding of the world and transforming
his “lifeworld” (Lebenswelt). In the act of reception, the truth of a work of
art is realized. This truth is radically different from the verifiable, scientific
truth of historical texts; it is truth in the original meaning of the Greek
word alétheia, that is, truth as the event of revelation. (1) Through historical
fiction, the very historicity of our human experience is revealed, while it is
through imaginative play with the historical events and the guiding forces
of an epoch that the reader discovers how history becomes inscribed in
human lives, influencing our individual fates. Similarly, historical fiction
has the power to attract our attention to the very concept of history and
the problems of historiography, which was thoroughly analyzed by Linda
Hutcheon in her concept of “historiographic metafiction” (Hutcheon: 1988,
pp. 105-123). I will later attempt to demonstrate both these frameworks of
aesthetic influence, using concrete texts.

 (1)  To find out more about the issue of literary reference and the aesthetic impact, see
Ricœur (1981, pp. 140-144).
 NARRATIVES BETWEEN HISTORY AND FICTION 551

Dorrit Cohn’s study contains another important point. She is critical

of Searle’s claim that it is impossible to distinguish between fictional and
factual narratives on the basis of textual characteristics. Cohn claims, on the
other hand, that narrative techniques, such as the inner monologue, allow us
to label a particular text as a fictional one – since a historian has no such
access to the minds of historical figures. Inner monologues, which express
the hidden thought processes of different characters, appear only in fiction
and record the state of one’s mind at a specific point in time. Of course, a
historian is able to relate the inner world of historical figures to a certain
extent (based on correspondence, diary entries, etc.), but he or she cannot
have direct insight in the character’s mind – such as we see in Herman
Broch’s The Death of Vergil, a novel describing the last hours in the life of
the Roman poet.
As stated above, the key problem of historical fiction is the question
of “transfer” or migration of historical events and figures from the actual
world into the realm of fiction. What happens if historical events and figures
become elements of a fictional world? How shall we regard them, and what
strategies of interpretation can we assume on the part of the reader? These
issues were addressed by Lubomír Doležel in his book entitled Possible
Worlds of Fiction and History (published in 2008 in Czech and in 2010 in
English). Doležel’s methodology is grounded in the theory of fictional worlds,
as developed in the 1990s in his book Heterocosmica. In the more recent
publication, Doležel applies this methodology to the issue of historical and
fictional narratives. Like Cohn, Doležel deals with postmodern views that
equate history with fiction. The analysis of discourse may not, in Doležel’s
view, provide a clear distinction between history and fiction. However, he
finds solution in a new understanding of the term “world.” Inspired by
Leibniz and modal logic, Doležel introduces the so-called “possible worlds,”
which represent a non-actual, possible state of affairs. The important thing
is, however, that possible worlds do not constitute metaphysical entities, but
are, on the other hand, products of the human mind. Using this framework,
Doležel postulates four basic distinctions between historical and fictional
worlds. I will try to summarize them briefly.
The first distinction comprises functional differences. In Doležel’s
view, “fictional worlds are imaginary alternates of the actual world,
historical worlds are a cognitive model of the actual past” (Doležel: 2010,
p. 33). The second distinction deals with structural differences. A writer of
fiction is ultimately free to create fantastic, supernatural or even logically
contradictory worlds – which is something a historian may not do. “In
contrast, historical worlds are restricted to the physically possible ones”
(Ibidem, p. 35). The third distinction concerns “agents,” or characters in
narratives. While the characters described by historians must at one point
have existed in the actual world, characters inhabiting fictional worlds are
always – by definition – fictional. While characters in historical worlds
need to carry verifiable character traits, writers of fiction may change these
characteristics at will. Historical fiction is a peculiar example, for it presents
a world where “fictional persons coexist and interact with counterparts of
historical persons. […] A possible world in which counterparts of historical
persons cohabit, interact, and communicate with fictional persons is not a
552 J. TLUSTÝ

historical world” (Ibidem, p. 36). The fourth and last distinction dwells on
incompleteness. Both historical and fictional worlds are incomplete worlds
with gaps. However, while in the historical worlds, the gaps are epistemic and
may be filled by new discoveries, the gaps in fictional worlds are inscribed
in the very structure of the world and such gaps may not be filled. These
four distinctions are summarized by Doležel as the contrast between the
“freedom of the fiction maker and the constraints imposed on the historians”
(Ibidem, p. 39).
The theory of fictional worlds may be used to explain the aforementioned
issue of transfer (or migration) of historical persons or figures into the realm
of fiction. Doležel claims that “the historical migrants adjust to the semantic
and pragmatic conditions of the fictional environment” (Doležel: 1999, p.
264), thus changing from historical characters into fictional ones. Such
characters are, then, as fictional as entirely imagined characters; however,
they are the counterparts of real historical figures. This dualism exhibits
a key feature of the genre of historical fiction. If we did not grant these
characters a fictional status and instead considered them real historical
figures, we would be guilty of misinterpretation. We would thus disrespect
the different natures of historical and fictional discourse. While the chief
aim of historical discourse is exploring the past, fictional narratives have
aesthetic goals, which will be addressed further in my paper.

2. History or fiction?

For theorists of fictionality, determining the ontological status of a text

is a key issue. Deciding whether a text is a fictional narrative or a historical
one has important consequences for the readers’ interpretative strategies.
It also marks the difference between a successful literary communication
and an unsuccessful one. Failing to understand the difference between
historiography and fiction may breed confusing or misleading interpretations.
I will demonstrate these assumptions using a number of different examples.
Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code became widely popular amongst readers.
However, some interpreters have accused Dan Brown of manipulating or
misinterpreting historical fact. This objection would only be valid if it
were a historical novel, where an author is bound to respect historical data.
However, even then, some errors or imperfections are not a fatal flaw – the
quality of a work of fiction is measured primarily by its ability to affect
its readers aesthetically. Dan Brown wrote a thrilling book that plays with
alternative history, has a detective subplot and ignites conspiracy theories.
To create an aura of “authenticity,” it pretends to be faithful to historical fact.
Barth Ehrman, author of Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, displays
a grave misunderstanding of this concept. Ehrman praises The Da Vinci
Code for its literary qualities; however, at the same time, he accuses the
author of misleading the reader by pretending to have detailed knowledge of
historical materials. Ehrman’s approach to the book is that of a historian –
he meticulously cites every historical error and every distortion of historical
fact, thus allowing the reader to learn about real historical findings. In
other words, Ehrman assesses fictional discourse from the point of view of
 NARRATIVES BETWEEN HISTORY AND FICTION 553

historical discourse. However, the aim of literature does not lie in giving a
truthful account of historical events; the essence of fiction is a liberating
play of imagination, which puts no epistemic constraints on the author.
We may take a similar approach with Nikos Kazantzakis’s novel The
Last Temptation of Christ. It was its film adaptation by Martin Scorcese in
1988 that brought about a high tide of popular resentment. There was a wave
of protests, the film was branded as blasphemous and the Catholic Church
denounced it. In France, there were even bomb attacks on cinemas that
showed the film. The film portrays Jesus Christ from a human perspective
– as a man who doubts both himself and his mission. The real bone of
contention was, however, the final part of the film, where Jesus, instructed
by an angel, descends from the cross and goes on to live the rest of his life
as a common man, starting a family, raising children, etc. At the end of his
life though, he discovers that by descending from the cross, he failed his
mission and the human race is therefore denied salvation. He prays to the
Holy Father to forgive and help him. God answers his prayers and puts him
back on the cross, where he accepts his fate. Paradoxically then, the film
achieves the opposite of what it was criticized for – which was blasphemy.
By aesthetic means and using a counterfactual narrative, the film allows the
viewer to contemplate the meaning of crucifixion, sacrifice and deliverance.
In many works of (mostly) postmodern literature, which we may call
historiographic fiction (in line with Linda Hutcheon’s terminology),
the blurring of distinctions between history and fiction becomes a key
element in their poetics. These works, on the one hand, create an illusion
of authenticity and direct reference to the actual world, while on the other
hand, they undermine this reference or reveal it as a free play of author’s
imagination (e.g. by means of parody, intertextual references, metafictional
commentary, etc.). This dance on the edge between historiography and fiction
usually pursues self-reflexive goals and, as Hutcheon explains at length,
it shows historical fiction as a construct that might be covertly guided by
ideology (Hutcheon: 1988, p. 224). Thus, previously unknown motivations
or marginal events might take the foreground, with an interpretation of
historical events divergent from the so-called “canonical narrative.” Umberto
Eco used this approach in many of his novels, where he merges canonical
historical narratives with fictional events and characters (e.g. in Baudolino
or The Prague Cemetery). Any difficulties with respect to reference may be
resolved with the help of fictional worlds theory. Just like historical fiction,
historical metafiction is, as a whole, a type of fiction – a possible world
created by free imagination that plays around with history. The differences
between historical metafiction and history may be observed using all four of
Doležel’s distinctions (structure, function, agents and incompleteness) that
he uses in differentiating between historical worlds and fictional ones.
Let us examine two examples of a metafictional play with history. In
1998, a book by Josef Urban called Poslední tečka za Rukopisy (with the
subheading “new non-fiction writing”) was published in the Czech Republic.
The narrator, a historian, relates to the reader the story of his search for
the authenticity of the Zelenohorský and Královedvorský manuscripts – two
relics from the time of the Czech national revival, whose authenticity was
much debated at the time. The book deploys various means to create the
554 J. TLUSTÝ

illusion of a scholarly work – the subheading reads “new non-fiction writing”

and the narrator’s name is the same as the author’s (though the name itself
is a pseudonym of another Czech writer, Miloš Urban). The illusion is
further enhanced in the introduction (which offers a summary of the debate
about the manuscripts to date) and in the final chapter, which contains the
introductory passage to a scholarly article by Josef Urban – “Poslední tečka
za rukopisy.” However, the book displays a postmodern, playful attitude to
history – both in the narrative style and the way the author works with
historical events – Urban creates a parody of historical discourse, making
shocking discoveries, etc.
We may discover a similar approach in Wolfgang Hildesheimer’s book
Marbot. Using a range of textual strategies, the author creates an illusion of
historical discourse – the subheading of the book reads “a biography,” the
narrative – which relates the story of an English connoisseur of art named
Marbot – displays the kinds of epistemic limits we tend to find in historical
narratives. The narrator works with primary sources and quotes secondary
sources, forms hypotheses, cites from Marbot’s correspondence and diaries.
There are notes about Marbot’s meetings with popular figures of his era,
such as William Blake, William Turner and others. The only problem is
that Andrew Marbot himself is a completely fictitious character. The game
that Hildesheimer started by publishing the book confused a host of critics,
who assumed Marbot was a real historical figure. That was rather easy to
believe, as Hildesheimer’s previous book was a biography of Mozart. Using
his literary experiment, Hildesheimer addressed questions concerning the
relationship between history and fiction – which particular features of a text
allow us to decide whether it is a fictional narrative or a factual (historical)
one? How exactly is reference different in historical and fictional narratives?
How do readers’ expectations come to play, and what influences them? I
believe that the aesthetic value of Marbot lies in its ability to lead the reader
straight towards these crucial questions. (2)
In conclusion, fictional worlds theory provides useful methodological
tools that help avoid inadequate interpretations, such as those where literary
texts are set against the requirements of historical texts (e.g. Brown and
Kazantzakis). It also helps to avoid confusion when dealing with reference in
historiographic metafiction (e.g. Eco, Urban, Hildesheimer). While rejecting
reference to the actual world and creating the concept of a “possible world,”
however, we do not necessarily shun all connection between this world and
the fictional one. Paradoxically, literary texts take us back to the real world,
via a detour through the aesthetic experience. The reference here is not on
the level of events and entities; rather than that, it is the productive reference
that Ricœur deliberated upon. He describes the historical world as a lifeworld
(Lebenswelt), in which humans experience their existence as a historical
existence – as one that is molded into shape by a specific historical situation.
I am going to describe productive reference in a more concrete form in the
following section, using examples from contemporary historical fiction.

 (2)  Hildesheimer’s Marbot was also analyzed by D. Cohn in her article “Breaking
the Code of Fictional Biography: Wolfgang Hildesmeimer’s Marbot,” see Cohn (2000,
pp. 79-95).
 NARRATIVES BETWEEN HISTORY AND FICTION 555

3. Productive reference: deportation of the German-speaking

population as a trauma depicted in contemporary historical fiction

I am going to look at two contemporary Czech writers, Kateřina Tučková

and Martin Fibiger, whose texts reflect upon a traumatic period of Czech
history – the post-war acts of violence towards the German-speaking
population and the ensuing forced expulsion. This topic is not entirely novel
in the Czech literary context – the 1960s and 1970s saw the publication
of Jaroslav Durych’s Boží duha (God’s Rainbow, 1969, manuscript from
1955), Vladimír Körner’s Adelheid (1967), as well as the creation of Václav
Vokolek’s Pátým pádem (The Vocative Case, written in the 1970s and
published in 1996). However, despite their high artistic merit, these works
did not inspire a wider debate in the society. This may be due to the fact that
for a long period of time, this part of Czech history was a taboo in Czech
culture – there was a peculiar lack of both willingness and courage to bring
to light the dark sides of the country’s history.
It was only 15 years ago that historiographers started to reflect on
the problem. In history classes at elementary and secondary schools, this
topic is scarcely discussed even today. Therefore, any attempt to provide
a different than a black-and-white interpretation of the events is highly
commendable, as it reveals one of the darker elements in Czech post-war
history. Historiography itself gradually attempts to fill the gaps; previously
unseen documents are being published and analyzed, historians also use
“oral history” – for instance, The Antikomplex publishing house has already
published a significant number of books that present this part of history
through the eyes of its surviving witnesses. (3) Also, there was the highly
popular Zmizelé Sudety/Das Verschwundene Sudetenland exhibition, which
showed how the forced deportation of the German speaking population from
Sudetenland changed the Czech landscape.
Therefore, the works of Kateřina Tučková and Martin Fibiger, published
in the first decade of the 21st century, enter a completely different socio-
cultural context. Apart from the aforementioned historical studies, a number
of literary texts appeared that attempted to come to terms with the trauma
using the devices of fictional narrative. Aside from the aforementioned
authors, Radek Fridrich’s poetry received popular acclaim – the poems
are inspired by fragments of inscriptions on the tombstones from long
gone cemeteries in Sudetenland (Erzherz). Another example would be Petr
Mikšíček’s meditative travelogue called Sudetská pouť aneb Waldgang.
However, let us focus on Tučková and Fibiger. How do these literary
works deal with historical events, how do they reconstruct the memory of
the place and how do they make an impact on the reader? Both populate
their narratives with a great number of historical and personal documents.
They quote personal correspondence and official records, thus achieving a
feeling of authenticity, “immersion” in the historical narrative. In Tučková’s

 (3) Oral history was given further voice in publications such as Sudetské příběhy/
Sudetengeschichten by S. Scholl-Schneider (2010), Rozděleni dějinami, spojeni
vzpomínkami/Getrennte Geschichte gemeinsam erzählt by V. Dudková a kol. (2015) and
Odchody a návraty by P. Fassl a kol. (2015).
556 J. TLUSTÝ

novel called Vyhnání Gerty Schnirch (The Expulsion of Gerta Schnirch,

2010), we meet an ethnic German woman from Brno who experienced –
together with a few thousand other Germans – forced deportation known
as the “death march to Pohořelice.” It was an uncoordinated march, with
Czechs committing rapes and brutal tortures on the way – more than two
thousand Germans died. In preparation for her book, Tučková studied
historical records and interviewed historians. The story of Gerta is itself a
fictional one; however, it may be interpreted on a symbolic level, because
her fate was shared by thousands of others. Gerta never came to terms with
her trauma, carrying it through life like an unhealed scar. The narrative
is chronological; in the second part of the book, the events are told from
the point of view of various characters. Thus, the author creates a narrative
polyphony, confronting different views and approaches. Gerta’s daughter,
for example, feels distant from her mother’s troubled past; then there is the
revived interest on the part of Gerta’s granddaughter, who attempts to make
the forced deportations an issue of public interest while trying to elicit a
political apology.
Tučková’s prose thus shows the deportations and the stigma of collective
guilt from different angles – not only does it revive the forgotten history
and the stories of the people involved, but it also depicts the contemporary
cultural context and how it reflects upon the said historical epoch, from
political and socio-cultural perspectives. The book became very popular and
inspired an interest in history in many readers. And this is where the book
offers the greatest potential for aesthetic influence – in attracting attention
to taboo issues in history, and in allowing the reader to approach the events
from a fresh perspective.
Martin Fibiger’s works Aussiger (2004) and Anděl odešel (The angel
has gone, 2008) are short, multilayered narratives that challenge readers’
interpretation skills. Fibiger also focuses his attention on historical events –
namely the pre-war migration of Czechs from Sudetenland and the post-war
deportation of Germans from the region. Like Tučková, Fibiger quotes many
sources, including official records and correspondence, but he also deviates
from the actual world (he makes up his own names of villages and streets,
while changing the topography to suit his aesthetic purposes). Unlike in
Tučková’s case, Fibiger’s narrative is not linear – it moves through different
time frames, thus allowing the reader to confront the present with the past
and to reflect on the very idea of temporality. The multilayered narrative
and its fragmentation put interpretative strain on the reader; a lot of fictional
events lack an outcome and there is an accent on facts unknown in the
fictional world. Much is left unfinished or unsaid – personal stories as well
as the history of the landscape are shown in fragmentary form; there is no
coherent, linear story – history takes shape through minute flashbacks of
human memory. Thus, Fibiger’s prose is not merely an analysis of historical
time – it also touches upon Kundera’s “wisdom of uncertainty” (Kundera:
2003, pp. 6-7); both the landscape and the people retain their secrets, any
revelation contains heaps of further questions and the reader is left without
definite answers. Fibiger’s prose is demanding, filling the reader with
uncertainty and making him question the very possibility of learning about
history and other people. These themes of ignorance and uncertainty stand
 NARRATIVES BETWEEN HISTORY AND FICTION 557

in direct opposition to Tučková’s The Expulsion of Gerta Schnirch – a novel

much more revealing, which brings into light events mercifully forgotten
and turns them into publicly relevant issues (which is documented by the
wide critical acclaim her novel generated). Fibiger’s texts, on the other hand,
are meditative, they offer more silence for contemplation and doubts, which
in turn disqualifies them from acquiring a wider readership.
Both Fibiger’s texts derive a lot of their energy from the genius loci of
Sudetenland. Fibiger narrates the history of a landscape – a deserted village
with remnants of inscriptions on run-down houses, things that were left
behind, old, overgrown apple orchards – all of that reflects in the history
of the region that had to be deserted by people who once loved it. In the
short prose called Anděl odešel, Josef, a deportee, comes back to his native
country for one day, visiting a mountain village called Vitín where he was
born and that had long disappeared. He recollects his childhood, remembers
the people, who had to come to terms with harsh living conditions and who
had to leave their homes in the end. Fibiger’s narrative reconstructs the
narrative of a landscape, the fictional space becomes a realm of memory
(lieux de mémoire), as Pierre Nora writes (Nora: 1989, p. 12, 24). And
once again, in the ability of a text to activate cultural memory, we may see
its productive reference, which was mentioned by Paul Ricœur. Through
fictional narratives, the reader not only learns about the unsettling history of
Sudetenland – he or she also realizes that history reflects itself in concrete
landscapes, leaving its traces inscribed in them. And similarly, a fictional
world leaves an imprint in the reader’s memory and changes his or her view
of the world. The space of the novel transgresses into the reader’s living
space. We learn that every place has its memory, harboring hidden stories
that have never before been told.

Works quoted

ANTIKOMPLEX a kol.: 2015, Zmizelé Sudety/Das Verschwundene

Sudetenland (Praha: Antikomplex).
BARTHES (Roland): 1981, “The Discourse of History,” transl. by Stephen
Bann, Comparative Criticism, 3, pp. 7-20.
BROWN (Dan): 2003, The Da Vinci Code (New York: Doubleday).
COHN (Dorrit): 1999, The Distinction of Fiction (Baltimore: The Johns
Hopkins University Press).
DOLEŽEL (Lubomír): 1999, “Fictional and Historical Narrative: Meeting
the Postmodernist Challenge,” in HERMAN (David), ed. Narratologies
(Columbus: Ohio State University Press), pp. 247-273.
___ : 2000, Heterocosmica (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press).
___ : 2010, Possible Worlds of Fiction and History: The Postmodern Stage
(Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press).
DURYCH (Jaroslav): 1969, Boží duha (Praha: Československý spisovatel).
DUDKOVÁ (Veronika): 2015, Rozděleni dějinami, spojeni vzpomínkami/
Getrennte Geschichte gemeinsam erzählt (Praha: Antikomplex).
ECO (Umberto): 2003, Baudolino, transl. by William Weaver (Orlando: A
Harvest book).
558 J. TLUSTÝ

___ : 2012, The Prague Cemetery, transl. by Richard Dixon (New York:
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt).
EHRMAN (Barth D.): 2006, Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code
(Oxford: Oxford University Press).
FASSL (Peter) a kol.: 2015, Odchody a návraty (Praha: Antikomplex).
FIBIGER (Martin): 2004, Aussiger (Olomouc: Votobia).
FIBIGER (Martin): 2008, Anděl odešel (Brno: Weles).
FRIDRICH (Radek): 2000, Erzherz (Olomouc: Votobia).
GENETTE (Gérard): 1993, Fiction and Diction, transl. by Catherine Porter
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press).
HILDESHEIMER (Wolfgang): 1983, Marbot. A biography, transl. by Patricia
Crampton (New York: G. Braziller).
HUTCHEON (Linda): 1988, A Poetics of Postmodernism (New York:
Routledge).
KAZANTZAKIS (Nikos): 1960, The Last Temptation, transl. by Peter A.
Bien (New York: Simon Schuster).
KŐRNER (Vladimír): 1967, Adelheid (Praha: Československý spisovatel).
KUNDERA (Milan): 2003, The Art of The Novel, transl. by Linda Asher
(New York: Perennial Classic).
MIKŠÍČEK (Petr): 2005, Sudetská pouť aneb Waldgang (Praha: Dokořán).
NORA (Pierre): 1989, “Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de
Mémoire,” transl. by Marc Roudebush, Representations, 26, pp. 7-24.
RICŒUR (Paul): 1981, Hermeneutics and the human sciences, transl. by
John B. Thompson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
___ : 1984, Time and Narrative, vol. 1, transl. by Kathleen McLaughlin and
David Pellauer (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).
SCHOLL-SCHNEIDER (Sarah): 2010, Sudetské příběhy (Praha:
Antikomplex).
TUČKOVÁ (Kateřina): 2010, Vyhnání Gerty Schnirch (Brno: Host).
URBAN (Josef): 1998, Poslední tečka za rukopisy (Praha: Torst).
VOKOLEK (Václav): 1996, Pátým pádem (Praha: Triáda).
WHITE (Hayden): 1975, Metahistory. The Historical Imagination in
Nineteeth-Century Europe (Baltimore & London: John Hopkins University).

ABSTRACT

Jan TLUSTÝ, Narratives Between History and Fiction

The paper analyses the relevance of Doležel’s and Cohn’s theories of

fictional worlds with respect to the interpretation of historical fiction and
historiographic metafiction. These theories are complemented with Paul
Ricœur’s hermeneutics. The author uses Doležel’s concept of a fictional world
as a possible world whose entities have no reference to the actual world.
Following Ricœur’s terminology, however, the author further postulates that
literary texts bear a “productive reference” to the “lifeworld” (Lebenswelt)
of the reader. In the case of historical fiction and historiographic metafiction,
this productive reference entails primarily the revelation of the historical
nature of human existence as well as cultural memory (or, in Pierre Nora’s
 NARRATIVES BETWEEN HISTORY AND FICTION 559

terms, “the realm of memory”). The concept of productive reference is

applied further in the paper in the analysis of works of contemporary Czech
historical fiction (by Kateřina Tučková and Martin Fibiger) that deal with
a traumatic period of Czech history – the forced expulsion of German-
speaking populations from post-war Czechoslovakia.

Fictional Worlds Theory – Historical fiction – Historiographic Metafiction

– Productive Reference – Lubomír Doležel – Dorrit Cohn – Paul Ricœur –
Kateřina Tučková – Martin Fibiger.

RESUME

Jan TLUSTÝ, Narrations entre histoire et fiction

L’article analyse la pertinence des théories de mondes fictifs de Lubomír
Doležel et de Dorrit Cohn par rapport à l’interprétation de la fiction historique
et de la métafiction historiographique. Ces théories sont complétées par
l’herméneutique de Paul Ricœur. L’auteur de l’article utilise le concept de
monde fictif de Lubomír Doležel en tant que monde possible dont les entités
n’ont aucune référence au monde réel. Cependant, suivant la terminologie
de Paul Ricœur, l’auteur postule par la suite que le texte littéraire porte une
« référence productive » au « monde de la vie » (Lebenswelt) du lecteur.
Dans le cas de la fiction historique et de la métafiction historiographique,
cette référence productive entraîne la révélation de la nature historique de
l’existence humaine autant que de la mémoire culturelle (ou bien, dans les
termes de Pierre Nora, « lieux de mémoire »). Le concept de la référence
productive est appliqué dans l’analyse deux fictions contemporaines (livres
écrits par Kateřina Tučková et Martin Fibiger) qui traitent de la période
traumatique de l’histoire tchèque – celle de l’expulsion forcée des populations
germanophones de Tchécoslovaquie d’après-guerre.

Théorie des mondes fictifs – Fiction historique – Métafiction historiographique

– Référence productive – Lubomír Doležel – Dorrit Cohn – Paul Ricœur –
Kateřina Tučková – Martin Fibiger.

SAMENVATTING

Jan TLUSTÝ, Narratieven tussen geschiedenis en fictie

Dit artikel onderzoekt de relevantie van de theorieën over fictionele werelden
van Doležel en Cohn, in het licht van de interpretatie van historische fictie
en historiografische metafictie. Deze theorieën worden gepaard aan de
hermeneutiek van Paul Ricœur. De auteur gebruikt Doležels concept van
een fictionele wereld als een mogelijke wereld waarin de entiteiten geen
verband hebben met de echte wereld. In de lijn van Ricœurs terminologie
stelt de auteur evenwel dat literaire teksten een ‘productieve referentie’ in
zich dragen aan de leefwereld (Lebenswelt) van de lezer. In het geval van
historische fictie en historiografische metafictie behelst deze productieve
560 J. TLUSTÝ

referentie in de eerste plaats de revelatie van de historische aard van het

menselijke bestaan, evenals het culturele geheugen (of, in de woorden van
Pierre Nora, «de sfeer van het geheugen»). Het concept van productieve
referentie wordt in het artikel verder toegepast op de analyse van hedendaagse
Tsjechische historische fictie (van Kateřina Tučková en Martin Fibiger) die
een traumatische periode uit de Tsjechische geschiedenis behandelt - de
gedwongen uitdrijving van Duitssprekende bevolkingsgroepen uit het na-
oorlogse Tsjechoslowakije.

Fictionele Werelden theorie – Historische fictie – Historiografische metafictie

– Productieve Referentie – Lubomír Doležel – Dorrit Cohn – Paul Ricœur –
Kateřina Tučková – Martin Fibiger.