Presentism and Other Anachronisms in Nonfiction…

Presentism. It is defined as erroneously interpreting past phenomena in terms of current beliefs and knowledge. Anachronism is anything that is chronologically out of place in a specific time period.

The differences between the two are subtle, yet noteworthy. Anachronism denotes the erroneous positioning of a person, object, or custom in a time period where it is not appropriate, whereas presentism is a specific type of anachronism that entails using modern attitudes, beliefs, or moral standards to assess or interpret historical events. So presentism is an anachronism, yet a little more specific.

Let’s be honest: all of us use these lenses, and not just writers.

I particularly notice presentism in dialogue. I have recently completed reading St. Helena, by Steve Castlen, a narrative nonfiction account set in the 3rd Century Roman Empire. Let me repeat: 3rd Century, Roman Empire. It’s about a tavern maid, Helena, and an army general, Constantius, who fall in love, get together, and proceed to give birth to one of history’s most noteworthy leaders, Constantine. During one of their early conversations, Helena comments on the general’s “sales pitch.”

Sales pitch. Indeed, this straightforward and modern notion refers to an informal dialogue that flows naturally, effortlessly conveying the worth of an idea, product, or suggestion. In St. Helena, this sales pitch propels Helena from her role as a tavernkeeper to embark on her path toward becoming an empress.

So why use presentism? Employing it in any piece of literature—whether it is a nonfiction narrative or historical fiction—is simpler, as it taps into the writer's natural modern viewpoint, rendering historical events relatable to today's readers. Without it, I’d guess, reading an account of a Roman emperor’s mother would be a chore.

As an English major, one of my college classes was about Chaucer. In that class, we explored his works in the original language in which they were composed. It was composed in Middle English, an era spanning approximately the 12th to the 15th century. It felt as if every character was speaking an entirely different language. Talk about a chore.

I have no desire to read Chaucer in the original language again. Moreover, I have no desire to read Chaucer at all. That being said, methinks presentism is a useful tool, especially when communicating an age-old idea or concept to a contemporary audience. As an English Teacher, I do something quite similar. I make age-old texts readable, if not engaging, enough for students to comprehend the major concepts of the particular piece.

But presentism does not seem to account for, or even acknowledge, literary purists. My friend Francine Roche Kay is such a person. She scoffs at presentism and all its forms.

As for me? I’m on the fence, balancing, not leaning towards one side or the other. I appreciate the purists’ viewpoint that language, dialect, and even idioms should be consistent with the era that is being presented in literature. Yet the English Teacher in me—a role that I have been in for the past thirty years—welcomes interpretation, even presentism, as long as the reader/student understands the concepts, people, events that are being “taught.”