In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

L YND FORGUSON Autobiography as History Despite its perennial popularity, and notwithstanding the fact that some of the most notable literary achievements have been autobiographies, there has been scarcely any critical or theoretical literature about the genre. The few studies there are have mainly been concerned with autobiography as a literary form. Philosophers and historians have almost entirely ignored the subject, although of course more than a few of them have written autobiographies. Mention is frequently made by historiographers of the caution with which the historian must approach autobiographical source-material, including diaries and letters as well as autobiographies proper. But autobiography does not seem to have been seriously considered as a form of historical writing in its own right, though its sister genre, biography, has long been recognized as a branch of history, albeit a minor one. Yet autobiography is a form of history, and as such is beset with many well-known problems of historiography, as well as a number of interesting problems unique to the genre: problems arising from the fact thatin autobiography the historian is the subject of his history. Philosophers are much concerned with problems of self-knowledge, self-awareness, memory, personal identity, and the like, all of which bear on the autobiographical enterprise. Yet philosophers have given even less attention than historians to the subject. It is my conviction that autobiography is a worthy subject for philosophical investigation; and it is especially germane to the philosophy of history. For it is one of those areas in which general philosophical problems and histOriographical issues come into close contact. We can hope to learn something about the nature of autobiography by considering it in the light of the philosophical and historiographical problems it engenders. And we stand to gain a new perspective on some main philosophical and historiographical problems by viewing them as they arise in connection with autobiogEarlier versions of this paper were read at a colloquium on the philosophy of history at the University of Cincinnati in November 1976, and at the annual meeting of the Canadian Philosophical Association in May 1977. On the first occasion I benefited from remarks by William Dray, Haskell Fain, Kenneth Henwood, Thomas Langan, and Lionel Rubinoff. I am grateful to Patrick Nowell-Smith and J.T. Stevenson for helpful criticisms on the second occasion. UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO QUARTERLY, VOLUME XLIX , NUMBER 2, WINTER 1979/80 0042-0247/80/0100-01 ~q$ol. '>0/0 © UNlVERSITY OF TO RONTO PRESS 140 LYND FORGUSON raphy. What follows is a sample only of some issues that arise when autobiography is considered as a form of history. An initial problem consists in the need to delimit the boundaries of the genre. This is no easy task, for they are not at all 'naturally' clear. An entire essay could be written on this question, an endeavour which would be as helpful as it would be tedious. I have no intention of exploring this issue in detail. But some preliminary staking-out of territory is desirable. All sorts of writings, or more generally utterances, are likely to be produced in the course of a person's life by himself about himself. Any of these might naturally be considered by a biographer or general historian as 'autobiographical sources: to be approached, perhaps, with the same sort and degree of caution in an attempt to discover the truth about the person who produced them. However, I wish to distinguish from this miscellany what I consider to be autobiography proper. As a rough definition I shall say that an autobiography is a historical self-portrait, composed retrospectively. Within such limits many varieties of autobiography may be distinguished. But the definition does serve to exclude some types of writing by oneself about oneself with which I do not think autobiography proper should be confused. Although my definition is mainly a heuristic device, and is to some extent stipulative (since some types of writing ruled out by my definition are often considered to be autobiographical), it does, I think, draw attention to a certain type of writing which is of special interest to philosophers and historians. If we think of an autobiography as a historical self-portrait, composed retrospectively...

pdf

Share