ABSTRACT
Historical works represent past events. This presupposition is sometimes taken to be so trivial and indisputable that it is left unnoticed. However, a critical examination of the notion of representation shows it is far from clear and unproblematic. Usually, representation is understood as synonymous or fairly close to straightforward description or reconstruction. Still, there are authors who challenge such a direct and simplistic understanding of representation and advocate for a more complex and sophisticated interpretation of what is going on when historical works represent past events. In this chapter, I focus on three different approaches towards representation. The first one links representation to the notions of correspondence, agreement with, or description of reality. When applied to history, it takes to be the goal of historical representations to depict past reality as faithfully as possible. The second approach, influenced by such movements as post-positivism, narrativism, or postmodernism, interprets historical representations as more complex, indirect, and constructed than usually understood. Finally, the third approach questions the notion of representation as such because it is too closely associated with the framework of mirroring and correspondence. Drawing on a discussion about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, I critically compare these three positions and conclude by raising the question of whether it is viable to distance historical works from the notion of representation.
