The Theoretical and Methodological Foundations of Writing the History of Arabic Literature

Abstract

The writing of literary history as a scientific discipline was initiated by Western researchers in the late 18th century, as a result of a modern research endeavor, distinct from the long-standing tradition of literary works. In the modern era, firstly the literature of the history of nations was written. Arabic literary history also benefited from this process, and it is considered one of the earliest examples of literary historiography. In the second half of the 19th century, the works of writers such as Hammer Purgstall (d. 1856) and Alfred von Kremer (d. 1889) on the history of Arabic literature emerged as pioneering studies. The writing process accelerated with Carl Brockelmann's (d. 1956) comprehensive work, leading to the production of numerous Arabic literary history books in both the West and the East, continuing to the present day. While this process contributed to enriching the literature of literary history, it also sparked various theoretical and methodological debates. Since the 19th century, different approaches have been proposed in the writing of Arabic literary history, and there is no theoretical unity in this regard. This situation, which complicates the understanding and interpretation of literary history works, poses an obstacle to developing literary history writing based on scientific criteria. To benefit greatly from reading literary history books, it is crucial to know the authors' perspectives, approaches to the subject, and methods. Aware of this importance, our article focuses on the theoretical and methodological framework used in studies of Arabic literary history. The article examines the writing theories and methods that are often not clearly and explicitly expressed by the authors in the writing of Arabic literary history. However, philosophical differences between the East and the West in literary historiography, the relationship between literature and history, criteria for determining periods, and the ideal method for writing literary history, which is beyond the scope of the article, are not discussed. The main aim of the article is to provide information about the methods and theories applied in Arabic literary history writing, to raise the awareness of researchers about the background of works in this field, offer a more informed reading perspective, and draw attention to the many aspects of the subject that still await further study. Today, despite the numerous studies on Arabic literary history that focus on specific periods, literary figures, and genres, research on theoretical approaches and methodology is almost nonexistent, leaving a significant gap in the field. Our article can be considered a modest step toward filling this gap. To substantiate the conclusions reached in the article, descriptive methods of qualitative research were employed throughout the study, and the obtained data were evaluated by using analytical methods. In this context, the emergence of Arabic literary history and its transmission to the Eastern world were highlighted to provide a better understanding of the scope of the subject. The article discusses how writing of literature history was applied among Arabic literary historians as a theoretical and methodological problem during this transmission process from the West to the East, based on primary sources. At this point, the methodological foundations and areas of influence in Arabic literary history writing were discussed. Additionally, the most widely adopted literary history method and its implications among the methodological problems were examined. As a result of the evaluations, it was determined that the methods followed in the writing of Arabic literary history were highly diverse and that some methods were synthesized. The article concludes that there is a need for indepth new research to evaluate holistically the accumulated knowledge in this area, given the diverse methods employed by literary historians, the complex and multifaceted nature of the field, and the lack of consensus on a single method.