A Critique of the Linear Method in Literary Historiography

The linear style has been the common approach of literary historiography from the past to the present. Despite its educational value and facilitating the learning of literary history, this method cannot be an effective method for accurate literary historiography, and ultimately leads to incomplete and ambiguous reports about literary events. The present article examines some of the weaknesses of this method in the study of the history of literature and identifies five common shortcomings that exist in contemporary literary historiography:

Failing to describe gradual changes in literary works and traditions
Failing to identify multiple relationships between literary events
Symbolically interconnecting points of rupture
Homogenizing different historical periods regardless of the actual contribution of each
Determining the beginning and end of literary events contrary to historical facts

 
Extended Abstract

Introduction

The linear style has been the common approach to literary historiography from the past to the present. This method, despite its educational value and its capacity for facilitating learning about the main events in the history of literature, is not an effective method for research in literary historiography as it ultimately leads to incomplete and ambiguous reports on literary events. The present study examines some of the weaknesses of this method in the study of the history of literature and identifies some common weaknesses in contemporary literary historiography, such as its inability to describe gradual changes in literary works and traditions, its inability to identify multiple relationships between literary events, and its tendency to symbolically interconnecting periods that are separate and homogenizing different historical periods regardless of the actual contribution of each.
 

Theoretical Framework

Linear methodology in history, introduced by Ahmad Pakatchi, provides the framework of the present study.
 

Methodology

The present study uses the descriptive-analytical methodology to examine linear methodology in historiography.
 

Discussion and Analysis

In the present paper the principles of the linear method of historiography have been identified and discussed and the problems resulting from this method have been pointed out.
 

Conclusion

Despite its different educational advantages, the linear method of writing about the history of literature results in the production of an incomplete, ambiguous image of the history of literature. Therefore, it seems that in literary research, particularly in research papers, theses, and dissertations, new methods should be utilized so that more precise and comprehensive results are achieved.
 
Bibliography
Fotouhi, M. 1395 [2016]. “Negahi beh Sabk-e Hendi.” Markaz-e Pajuheshha-ye Irani va Eslami. http://www.cgie.org.ir/fa/news/129897.
Homayi, J. n.d. Tarikh-e Adabyat-e Iran. Tehran: Foroughi.
Jafarinejad, A. 1386 [2007]. “Nofuz-e Farhang, Zaban va Adabyat-e Farsi dar Farhang va Hoviyat-e Melli-e Hendustan va Shebheh-Qarreh.” Nameh-ye Parsi 12/1 & 2.
Mohammadi-Malayeri, M. 1379 [2000]. Tarikh va Farhang-e Iran. Tehran: Tous.
Pakatchi, A. 1388 [2009]. “Naqd-e Olgouha-ye Khati dar Pajuhesh-e Tarikhi-e Andisheh-ye Siasi-e Eslam.” Ravesh-shenasi dar Motale’at-e Siasi-e Eslam. A. A. Alikhani. Tehran: Emam Sadeq University.
Safa, Z. 1363 [1984]. Tarikh-e Adabyat-e Iran. Tehran: Ferdowsi.
Sarli, N. 1392 [2013]. “Naqd va Bazandishi-e Dowreh-bandi dar Tarikh-e Adabi.” Faslnameh-ye Elmi Pajouheshi-e Naqd-e Adabi 23: 11-36.
Shiri, Q. 1389 [2010]. “Pichidegi-ha-ye Sabk-e Esfahani ya Hendi va Zamineh-ha-ye Paydayesh-e An.” Pajuheshha-ye Zaban va Adabyat-e Farsi 5: 44-45
Zarrinkoub, A. 1392 [2013]. Tarikh-e Mardom-e Iran az Payan-e Sassanian ta Payan-e Al-e Bouyeh. Tehran: Amirkabir.
Zarghani, M. 1388 [2009]. Tarikh-e Adabi-e Iran va Qalamrow-e Zaban-e Farsi. Tehran: Sokhan.