Abstract
Narrative historiography and historical drama can be revealingly compared with respect to authorial perspective. Classical, Elizabethan, and modern drama are contrasted with narrative history in a consideration of the representation of the past "from within and without at the same time." The historian is expected to present envisioned action indirectly, while the playwright directly re-presents action. The content of historiographical narrative and the dialogue form of drama claim to offer unmediated insight into the past, while the form of the former and the content of the latter acknowledge the reproduction of represented events in a human mind. The playwright's retrospective attitude toward the represented action is considered historically. The narrative historian's dual vision of events from within and without is explored by an analysis of his use of verbal signs compared to that of the scientist and novelist.