This article is concerned with several different concepts of literary history. It concludes thata multi‑disciplinaryapproach spanning a number of different media is now often used in synthetichistories of literature. It is no longer possible to write a history of literature in terms ofa single, unified narrative or as a text governed by a single overarching idea. One must nowuse a multiplicity of approaches: literature as an autonomous evolutionary process, literatureas part of cultural history, literature in the transnational context, and literature in the comparativecontext. The series of literary histories published by Harvard University Press (A New Historyof French Literature, A New History of German Literature, and A New Literary History ofAmerica) is particularly thought‑provokingin this respect since these works consider literaturewithin a broad cultural and social context. The point of departure for each chapter is a literaryor a social and/or political event. The History of the Literary Cultures of East‑CentralEurope,of which three volumes have been published so far (2004, 2006, and 2007) is unconventional and noteworthy. Czech literary history has, traditionally, struggled with national ideology and itsprejudices. After the Communist take‑overof 1948, this was superseded by Marxist ideology,which was similarly limiting. The article analyzes three recent histories of Czech literature, whichhave tried to overcome these boundaries. Dějiny české literatury (A History of Czech Literature)by Hana Voisine‑Jechováwas published in Czech in 2005 (and in French as Histoire de la littératuretchèque, in 2001). Although the author says she is using a comparative approach, herwork contains a large number of mistakes, inaccuracies, and teleological and causal constructions.The third volume of Schamschula’s voluminous Geschichte der tschechischen Literatur(A History of Czech Literature, 2004) is much more successful. This work covers the periodfrom 1918 to the present day. Schamschula manifests much greater literary‑historicalknowledgethan Voisine‑Jechová,but his approach is marred by an anti‑Czechbias. What is more,Schamschula’s and Voisine‑Jechová’streatment of Czech literature after 1968 is quite inadequate.In many respects, these shortcomings have been rectified by the extensive, four volumeproject Dějiny české literatury 1945–1989 (A History of Czech Literature, 1945–89, vols I–II ,2007, vols III–IV, 2008), a collective work produced by the Prague‑basedInstitute of Czech Literatureunder Pavel Janoušek. This work uses a much broader definition of the concept of literature(taking into account, for example, the cultural context, the mass media, and rock andfolk music). There are inaccuracies and problems even in this work, but on the whole this historyhas managed to overcome the teleological concept and some of the traditional constraintsof Czech literary history.