What is the classic in history? What is a classic in historical writing? Very few historians and critics have addressed these questions, and when they have done so, it has been only in a cursory manner. These are queries that require some explanation regarding historical texts because of their peculiar ambivalence between science and art, content and form, sources and imagination, scientific and narrative language. Based on some examples of the Western historiographical tradition, I discuss in this article to what extent historians should engage the concept of the classic – as has been done for literary texts. If one assumes that the historical text is not only a referential account but also a narrative analogous to literary texts, then the concept of the classic becomes one of the keys for understanding the historical text – and may improve our understanding not only of historiography, but of history itself. I will argue in this article that it is possible to identify a category of the classic text in some historical writings, precisely because of the literarity they possess without losing their specific historical condition. Because of their narrative condition, historical texts share some of the features assigned to literary texts – that is, endurance, timelessness, universal meaningfulness, resistance to historical criticism, susceptibility to multiple interpretations, and ability to function as models. Yet, since historical texts do not construct imaginary worlds but reflect external realities, they also have to achieve some specific features according to this referential content – that is, surplus of meaning, historical use of metaphors, effect of contemporaneity without damaging the pastness of the past, and a certain appropriation of literariness. Without seeking to be normative or systematic, this article focuses on some specific features of the historical classic, offering a series of reflections to open rather than try to close a debate on this complex topic.

历史上的经典是什么？历史写作中的经典是什么？很少有历史学家和批评家讨论过这些问题，而且当他们这样做的时候，也只是粗略的。这些问题需要对历史文本进行一些解释，因为它们在科学与艺术、内容与形式、来源与想象、科学与叙事语言之间存在特殊的矛盾。基于西方史学传统的一些例子，我在这篇文章中讨论了历史学家应该在多大程度上参与经典的概念——就像对文学文本所做的那样。如果一个人假设历史文本不仅是一种参考说明，而且是一种类似于文学文本的叙述，那么经典的概念就成为理解历史文本的关键之一——它不仅可以提高我们对史学的理解，而且可以提高我们对历史本身的理解。我将在这篇文章中论证说，在一些历史著作中确定经典文本的一个类别是可能的，正是因为他们拥有的文学性又不失其特定的历史条件。由于其叙事条件，历史文本具有文学文本的一些特征——即持久性、永恒性、普遍意义、对历史批评的抵抗力、对多种解释的敏感性以及作为模型的能力。然而，由于历史文本不是建构想象世界，而是反映外部现实，因此它们也必须根据这种指称内容达到一些特定的特征——即意义过剩、历史隐喻的使用，在不破坏过去的过去的情况下产生当代性的效果，以及对文学性的某种挪用。本文不求规范或系统化，而是着重于历史经典的一些具体特征，提供一系列反思，以开启而不是试图结束对这一复杂话题的辩论。