JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Wiley-Blackwell and Wesleyan University are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to History and Theory. What is the relation between a narrative and the events it depicts? This is one of the questions that have been debated by many contributors to the lively interdisciplinary discussion of narrative in recent years.The debate concerns the truthfulness, in a very broad sense of that term, of narrative accounts. Traditional narrative histories claim to tell us what really happened. Fictional narratives portray events that of course by definition never happened, but they are often said to be true-to-life; that is, to tell us how certain events might have occurred if they had really happened. Some histories may be inaccurate and some stories invraisemblable, but nothing in principle prevents such narratives from succeeding at their aim. Indeed, we take certain exemplary cases to have succeeded brilliantly.But against this common-sense view a strong coalition of philosophers, literary theorists, and historians has risen up of late, declaring it mistaken and naive. Real events simply do not hang together in a narrative way, and if we treat them as if they did we are being untrue to life. Thus not merely for lack of evidence or of verisimilitude, but in virtue of its very form, any narrative account will present us with a distorted picture of the events it relates. One result for literary theory is a view of narrative fiction which stresses its autonomy and separateness from the real world. One result for the theory of history is skepticism about narrative historical accounts. I want to argue against this coalition, not so much for the common-sense view as for the deeper and more interesting truth which I think underlies it. Narrative is not merely a possibly successful way of describing events; its structure inheres in the events themselves. Far from being a formal distortion of the events it relates, a narrative account is an extension of one of their primary features. While others argue for the radical discontinuity between narrative and reality, I shall maintain not only their continuity but also their community of form.Let us look briefly at the discontinuity view before going on to argue against it. IIn the theory of history one might expect such a view from those, from the positivists to the Annales historians, who believe narrative history has always 118 DAVID CARR contained elements of fiction that must now be exorcised by a new scientific history. The irony is that skepticism about narrative history should have grown up among those who lavish on it the kind of attention reserved for an object of admiration and affection. Consider the work of Lou...

No abstract

No abstract

In order to overcome the limitations of sputter depth profiling, the authors have introduced focused ion beam-time-of-flight secondary ion mass spectrometry (FIB-TOF-SIMS). In this article, the authors summarize our investigation into the capability of Ar-gas cluster ion beam (GCIB) to remove FIB-induced molecular damage. The analysis of organic-inorganic hybrid mixture samples is applied and discussed. The authors demonstrate a method whereby the accurate and reproducible chemical depth distributions of atomic and molecular moieties in hybrid materials are successfully acquired. Our results reveal the approach of using Ar-GCIB for molecular recovery of FIB straggle to be highly reproducible and amenable to three-dimensional materials characterization.

This book rethinks both the methods and historical orientation points for research into the growth of the Hebrew Bible. Building on his prior work, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart (Oxford, 2005), the author explores the possibilities and limits of reconstruction of pre-stages of the Bible. The method advocated is a “methodologically modest” investigation of those pre-stages, utilizing criteria and models derived from the author’s survey of documented examples of textual revision in the Ancient Near East. The result is a new picture of the Bible’s formation, with insights on the emergence of Hebrew literary textuality, the development of the first Hexateuch, and the final formation of the Hebrew Bible. Where some have advocated dating the bulk of the Hebrew Bible in a single period, whether relatively early (Neo-Assyrian) or late (Persian or Hellenistic), the author uncovers evidence that the Hebrew Bible contains texts dating across Israelite history, even the early pre-exilic period (10th-9th centuries) where many recent studies have been hesitant to date substantial portions of the Bible. He traces the impact of Neo-Assyrian imperialism on eighth and seventh century Israelite textuality, uses studies of collective trauma to identify marks of the reshaping and collection of traditions in response to the destruction of Jerusalem and Babylonian exile, develops a picture of varied Priestly reshaping of narrative and prophetic traditions in the Second Temple period, and uses manuscript evidence from Qumran and the Septuagint to reveal the final literary reshaping that produced the proto-Masoretic text.