Over the past fifteen years there has been a marked increase in scholarly interest in historical approaches to questions of literary theory and practice. Alongside authorship studies, historical narratology is a field particularly thriving. Since classical narratology was either explicitly ahistorical or focused primarily on modern literature, scholars have increasingly explored the particularities of premodern narrative and its conceptualisation in ancient Greek and Roman as well as medieval literary culture and criticism (for Classics see R. Nünlist, The Ancient Critic at Work. Terms and Concepts of Literary Criticism in Greek Scholia [2009]; I. De Jong, Narratology and Classics. A Practical Guide [2014]; S. Feddern, Elemente der antiken Erzähltheorie [2021]; J. Grethlein, Ancient Greek Texts and Modern Narrative Theory. Towards a Critical Dialogue [2023]). More recently, research within the individual disciplines has been complemented by interdisciplinary collaborations between scholars of Classics and Medieval Studies (see E. von Contzen and S. Tilg [edd.], Handbuch Historische Narratologie [2019]; E. von Contzen and K. Philipowski [edd.], Journal of Literary Theory 19.2, Special Issue: Theorizing Transtextual Characters in Ancient and Medieval Literature [2025]). These interdisciplinary approaches have proved fruitful: focusing on different ancient and medieval literatures has revealed the wide variety of premodern concepts and practices, highlighting the need for comparative approaches specifically aimed at analysing their differences and similarities.
Discussions of premodern ideas of fiction and fictionality have played a major role in this development (see S. Feddern, Der antike Fiktionalitätsdiskurs [2018]; J. Franzen et al. [edd.], Geschichte der Fiktionalität. Diachrone Perspektiven auf ein kulturelles Konzept [2018]), as they are essential for understanding how other narratological categories – such as the narrator or the literary character, and their relationship to the author – were conceived in ancient and medieval contexts. They also affect how narrative techniques such as metalepsis were employed by ancient and medieval authors and how they were perceived by their audiences (see U. Eisen and P. von Möllendorff [edd.], Über die Grenze. Metalepse in Text- und Bildmedien des Altertums [2013]; S. Matzner and G. Trimble [edd.], Metalepsis. Ancient Texts, New Perspectives [2020]).
The volume under review ties in with this emerging line of research by collecting six case studies that address questions concerning premodern literary fictionality. Its scope is less broad than the title might suggest, comprising three chapters on Latin literature, two on medieval German literature and one offering the perspective of analytical philosophy. It is obvious that a volume of 151 pages can provide only a glimpse into such a broad field of studies. As both the subtitle (‘Beiträge zu Problemen und Perspektiven’) and the editors’ introduction indicate, the book does not aim at a systematic or comprehensive treatment of the subject, but positions itself as a ‘Debattenbeitrag’ (p. 8). The papers examine selected texts and issues as case studies to discuss, more or less explicitly, the extent to which a modern concept of fictionality needs to be modified when applied to premodern literature, or whether it should be abandoned as unsuitable.
In modern literary theory fictionality is often defined as a pragmatic mode of narration that makes no claim to referential truthfulness (see J.-M. Schaeffer, ‘Fictional vs. Factual Narration’, in: P. Hühn et al. [edd.], The Living Handbook of Narratology [2012, §1]). In this sense fictionality (‘Fiktionalität’) must be distinguished from fiction (‘Fiktion’), which refers to the content of a narrative – its invented events, characters and entities – not its pragmatic status (see F. Zipfel, Fiktion, Fiktivität, Fiktionalität. Analysen zur Fiktion in der Literatur und zum Fiktionsbegriff in der Literaturwissenschaft [2001]). However, this definition remains contested, and an inconsistent usage of the term complicates comparative approaches.
In the introduction Rühl and Siemoneit highlight this difficulty, which becomes even more pronounced when the historical dimension of fictionality is discussed. While scholars of Classics and Medieval Studies agree that modern concepts cannot be applied unaltered to earlier contexts, their perspectives differ. In Classics it has been emphasised that ancient texts show hybrid forms and a scaling notion of fiction instead of a dichotomy between fictional and factual narrative. Yet, the negotiation processes that these texts exhibit align well with modern pragmatic definitions of fictionality. Medievalists, on the other hand, stress the lack of autonomy characteristic of medieval literature and the fact that knowledge of what was true, existent or possible in the world was generally less pronounced. Consequently, they tend to regard the concept of fictionality as anachronistic and more emphatically advocate its abandonment. Acknowledging this heterogeneity, the editors broadly define the book’s scope as ‘die diachrone Erforschung literarischer Fiktionalität … sei es, um das Konzept in Abhängigkeit von historisch variablen Praktiken angemessen zu modifizieren oder zu ergänzen, sei es, um es als ungeeignet zu verabschieden’ (p. 10). They do not commit to one definition of fictionality. While the former choice is convincing, the latter makes it somewhat difficult to relate the contributions to one another. They all point to the conclusion that the boundaries between fact and fiction, and between text and world, are more permeable in ancient and medieval literature – suggesting that a purely text-based approach neglecting extraliterary reality is not productive for analysing premodern contexts. Nonetheless, more detailed conclusions could have been drawn from the collection, if the findings of the individual papers had been related more explicitly to each other.
Chapter 1, by M.E. Reicher, asks from the perspective of analytical philosophy how fictional works can be sources of propositional knowledge about the extrafictional world. Reicher argues that authors communicate indirect propositions that readers can infer through processes explained by P. Grice’s cooperative principle. The contribution does not engage with literary theory, even though several of the issues addressed have been treated extensively in literary studies. Among them are the presence of facts within fictional narratives, a topic discussed with regard to historical characters in the chapter by S. Glauch, and questions of authorial intention. Reicher’s assertion that readers of literary texts generally recognise an author’s intentions (p. 31), touches on a major debate in literary studies and on important particularities of premodern attitudes towards literature. It would have been useful if that dimension had been reflected in the chapter.
With this last point Chapter 1 relates to Chapter 2, in which S. Feddern examines the long-standing question of how antiquity viewed the relationship between the lyrical I and the author. Analysing three famous apologies of erotic poetry (Catull. 16; Plin. Ep. 4.14; Ov. Tr. 2) alongside a lesser-known controversia by Seneca the Elder (6.8), Feddern demonstrates that, when poets distance themselves from their works, they do not invoke a concept of the lyrical I categorically different from the empirical author. Instead, they debate the author’s (lack of) familiarity and personal involvement with what is said in the poems. Underlying this argument is the concept of mimesis, which Feddern shows to operate on the levels of both production and reception. His analysis corresponds well with current research into ancient perceptions of literary characters and the narrator, both of which were easily identified with the author.
Chapters 4 and 5, by Siemoneit and Glauch respectively, can be read productively together, as both investigate premodern attitudes towards literary characters in relation to questions of fictionality. Each offers valuable general reflections – Siemoneit on ancient notions of fiction and reality and on how they relate to each other and to modern ontological theories, Glauch on character theory and on the prevalence and significance of transtextual characters in medieval literature. Methodologically, they propose contrasting views on how modern theory and the analysis of premodern literary culture can be brought together. Siemoneit argues that current philosophical research on fictionality, for example on theories of Possible Worlds and Abstract Objects, can illuminate ancient concepts of fiction and reality. He illustrates this through an analysis of Cicero’s reflections on Chremes, a character from Roman comedy, and other fictive entities. Glauch contends that modern theories of the literary character conversely would benefit from a deeper engagement with premodern phenomena. In medieval (and ancient) literature transtextual characters are the norm rather than the exception, generating effects quite different from those usually discussed in theories derived from modern literary practice.
Chapter 3, by H. Wulfram, also focuses on a Ciceronian text, analysing ‘visuelles Erzählen und fiktionales Überzeugen’ (p. 62) in the narratio (27–9) of Pro Milone. Starting point of his close reading – and an argument for discussing a juridical speech in a volume on fictionality – is the premise that the circumstances surrounding Milo’s killing of Clodius were known to the lay judges. The question raised by Cicero as to whether it was murder or self-defence was therefore a ‘Scheingefecht’: it enabled the judges to save face in case of an acquittal by tacitly proposing a fictional contract with the orator (pp. 64–5). This reading raises important questions about the genres relevant when examining premodern concepts of fictionality. While traditional narratology focuses on the modern novel, historical approaches have repeatedly emphasised that, with the blurring of boundaries between factual and fictional narrative, other genres (should) come into focus. It would be useful to discuss how exactly this broadened scope of analysis affects the concept of fictionality. As the relation to the extratextual world remains crucial in a juridical context, the fictional contract described in this chapter with regard to Pro Milone conceptually differs from that governing the reading of a novel.
Chapter 6, by C. Schneider, offers valuable insights in this regard, as it explicitly discusses the historical dynamics of notions of fictionality. He argues that the modern concept is inadequate for analysing medieval literature, as it fits neither the institutional contexts in which literature was produced nor the contemporary social perception of fiction. Nonetheless, he identifies a mode of reception that may be termed fictional in that it allowed recipients to become immersed in the narrative through its experiential qualities. Drawing on M. Fludernik’s concept of experientiality, on theories of immersion, and on the ‘handlungsentlastenden Effekt der Einklammerung’ described by W. Iser (p. 137), Schneider posits that in such a mode of reception recipients do not feel compelled to act upon the emotions and impressions evoked by the literary work. He illustrates this approach with respect to Hartmann von Aue’s Iwein. It could be profitably applied to Wulfram’s discussion, too.
The volume presents several innovative theoretical perspectives and stimulating case studies. The extent to which these can be integrated into a broader, coherent framework remains to be explored in future research. In this respect the book is indeed a welcome contribution to ongoing debates on premodern fictionality.
