تاريخ بهمثابه روايت

‫● ﻧﻮﺷﺘﻪ‪ :‬ﭘﻞ ﺳﻮﺗﺮﻣﺎﻳﺴﺘﺮ‬
‫● ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ‪ :‬ﺣﺒﻴﺐﺍﻟﻪ ﺍﺳﻤﺎﻋﻴﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫ﺷﻬﺮﻳﻮﺭ ‪1 3 8 7‬‬
‫ﻣﻘﺪﻣﻪ‬
‫ِ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‪ 1‬ﺁﻣﺮﻳﻜﺎﻳﻰ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬــﻮﻡ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﺍ‪ ،‬ﻧﺨﺴــﺘﻴﻦ ﺑﺎﺭ‪ ،‬ﻫﺎﻳﺪﻥ‬
‫ﻣﺘﺨﺼﺺ ﺩﺭ ﻓﻠﺴــﻔﻪﻯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﻛﺮﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﺑﺮﺁﻧﻴﻢ ﺗﺎ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﻫﻴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻯ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩﻯ ﺭﺍﻩﮔﺸﺎ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﺍﺭﺍﻯ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﺑﺨﺶ ﺍﺳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫‪ (1‬ﺧﺎﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻭ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺗﺌﻮﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‬
‫‪ (2‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫‪ (3‬ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﻴﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‬
‫‪ (4‬ﻋﻠﺖ ﺍﻳﻦﻛﻪ ﺗﺌﻮﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩﻱ ﺭﺍﻩﮔﺸﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﺆﺧﺮﻩ ﻧﻴﺰ ﺭﺍﻩﮔﺸــﺎﻳﻲ ﺗﺌﻮﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻳــﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﺑﻪﮔﻮﻧﻪﺍﻯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬‬
‫‪ (1‬ﺧﺎﺳﺘﮕﺎﻩ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪﻱ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪﻃﻮﺭ ﻣﺸــﺨﺺ ﺩﺭ »ﻓﺮﺍ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ« ﻧﻤﻮﺩ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﺎﻥ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺭﻭﻧﺪ »ﺑﺎﺯﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﻨﺴﺠﻢ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻲ ﺭﻭﻳﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﺤﻮﻻﺕ ﭘﻴﺎﭘﻲ‪ «2‬ﻋﻤﻮﻣﺎ ً ﺷﻜﻠﻲ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩ ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ‬
‫ﻭ ﺩﺭﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﺗﺒﻴﻴﻦﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺑﺎﻟﺬﺍﺕ ﺑﻼﻏﻲ ﻭ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ .3‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺳﺎﺑﻘﻪﺍﻱ ﻃﻮﻻﻧﻲ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ ﻧﻤﻮﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩ‬
‫ﭘﺴﺖﻣﺪﺭﻧﻴﺴــﺘﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﭘﻴﺶﺭﻭ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .4‬ﭘﺴﺖﻣﺪﺭﻧﻴﺴﻢ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻮﻡ‪،‬‬
‫ﺷﻜﺎﻛﺎﻧﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ ﻫﺮ ﻧﻮﻉ ﻗﻄﻌﻴﺘﻲ ﻣﻲﺍﻳﺴﺘﺪ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﺎ ﺍﻭﻟﻮﻳﺖ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﺷﻨﺎﺳــﻰ ﮔﺮﺍﻳﺶ ﭘﻴﺪﺍ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .5‬ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﺮ ﺍﺳﺎﺱ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﺎﺕ‬
‫ﭼﻬــﺎﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺥ‪ :‬ﻣﻴﺸـﻠﻪ‪ ،‬ﺭﺍﻧﻜﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻮﻛﻮﻳﻞ ﻭ ﺑﻮﺭﻛﻬﺎﺭﺕ ﻭ ﻧﻴﺰ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﻓﻴﻠﺴــﻮﻑ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ :‬ﻫﮕﻞ‪ ،‬ﻣﺎﺭﻛﺲ‪ ،‬ﻧﻴﭽﻪ ﻭ ﻛﺮﻭﭼﻪ‪ 6‬ﺍﺳــﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﻭﻯ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺄﻣﻞ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﻋﻨﺼﺮ ﻣﺠﺎﺯﻯ ﺩﺭ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺑﻴﺎﻥ‪ ،7‬ﻳﻌﻨﻰ ﺍﺳــﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩ‪ ،‬ﻣﺠﺎﺯ‪ ،‬ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﻣﺮﺳﻞ ﻭ‬
‫ﺁﻳﺮﻭﻧﻲ )ﻣﻄﺎﻳﺒﻪ‪ (8‬ﻭ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ژﺍﻧﺮ‪ 9‬ﺗﺮﺍژﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺣﻤﺎﺳــﻪ‪ ،‬ﺗﻐﺰﻝ ﻭ ﻛﻤﺪﻱ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻰﮔﻴﺮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ ﻓﺮﺍﻳﻨﺪﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥﻫﺎﻳﻲ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﻫﺮﻛﺪﺍﻡ‬
‫ﻳﻜﻰ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﻮﺍﻉ ﺍﺩﺑﻰ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮ ﻛﺮﺩﻩﺍﻧﺪ‪.10‬‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮ ﻭﺍﻳــﺖ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨــﻲ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺁﺛﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺩﺑــﻲ‪ ،‬ﺗﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ )‪ (history‬ﻭ ﺩﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥ)‪ (story‬ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺑﺮﻣﻲﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .11‬ﻧﻮﻳﺴﻨﺪﮔﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺍﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﺍﻧﺘﺨﺎﺏ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪﻱ ﺧﻮﺩﺵ‪ ،‬ﻛﺴــﺎﻧﻲ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‬
‫ﻛــﻪ ﭘﻴﺎﻣﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﻣﺘــﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺧﻮﻳﺶ ﺗﺤﻤﻴﻞ ﻭ ﮔﺬﺷــﺘﻪﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻭﺳــﻴﻠﻪﺍﻱ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﻳﻔﺎﻱ ﺭﺳﺎﻟﺘﺸــﺎﻥ ﺗﺒﺪﻳﻞ ﻣﻰﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ .12‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‪،‬‬
‫ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫــﺎﻱ ﻗﺪﺭﺗﻤﻨﺪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺧﻮﺍﻧﻨﺪﻩ ﺭﺍ ﺩﻗﻴﻘ ًﺎ ﺑﻪ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪﺍﻱ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺆﻟﻒ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﻲﺭﺳﺎﻧﻨﺪ‪.13‬‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ‬
‫ﺍﮔﺮ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﺎﺯﺁﻓﺮﻳﻨﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﻲ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺷﻜﺴﺖ ﻣﻲﺧﻮﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺩﺷﻮﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺯﺁﻓﺮﻳﻨﻰ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥﻛﻪ ﻣﻌﻄﻮﻑ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪﻯ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﻲ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪﻯ‬
‫ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ؛ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮﻱ ﻧﻬﻔﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫‪ (2‬ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﺮ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ‪:‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺧﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﻫﺎﻯ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﻳﻦ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺵﺷﻨﺎﺳﻰ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻰ ﻭ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ‬
‫ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﻭﻯ ﺑــﺎ ﺗﻌﺒﻴﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻳــﺎ ﻳﻚ ژﺍﻧﺮ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﺩﻋﺎﻯ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻰ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺒﻨﻰ ﺑﺮ ﺩﺳﺘﻴﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ‪ 14‬ﻭ ﻋﻴﻨﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﻣﻰﻃﻠﺒﺪ‪.15‬‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﻩﻱ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺩﺍﺳﺘﺎﻥﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻲ ﺑﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍ ﺑﻴﺸــﺘﺮ ﺍﺑﺪﺍﻋﻲﺍﻧﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻣﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺳﺎﺧﺘﺎﺭ ﻭ ﻓﺮﻡ ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺍﺩﺑﻰ‬
‫ﻫﺴــﺘﻨﺪ ﺗﺎ ﻋﻠﻤﻰ‪ .16‬ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﻳﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﻭ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩﻫﺎﻳﻲ ﺣﺎﺻﻞ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺷــﻮﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪ ﺍﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻣﻰﻳﺎﺑﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺑﺮﺍﻯ ﮔﻨﺠﻴﺪﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺎﻟﺐ ﺩﺍﺳﺘﺎﻧﻰ‬
‫ﻣﻨﻄﻘﻰ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻧﺎﭼﺎﺭ ﺍﺯ ﺗﺨﻴﻞ ﺑﻬــﺮﻩ ﻣﻰﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ‪ .17‬ﻋﻼﻭﻩ ﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ‬
‫ﮔﺰﻳــﺪﻩﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ ﺭﻭﻳﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻣﻨﻌﻜﺲ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨــﺪ؛ ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳﻦ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ‪،‬‬
‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪.18‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﺪ ﺍﮔﺮ ﻫﺪﻑ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﺎﺯﺁﻓﺮﻳﻨﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﻲ ﮔﺬﺷــﺘﻪ ﺑﺎﺷــﺪ‪ ،‬ﺷﻜﺴﺖ‬
‫ﻣﻲﺧﻮﺭﺩ‪» .‬ﺩﺷــﻮﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺑﺎﺯﺁﻓﺮﻳﻨﻰ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥﻛﻪ ﻣﻌﻄﻮﻑ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪﻯ‬
‫ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﻋﻴﻨﻲ ﻳﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪﻯ ﺍﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ؛ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺑﻮﺩﻥ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺗﻔﺴــﻴﺮﻱ ﻧﻬﻔﺘــﻪ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﻨﺎﺑﺮﺍﻳــﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻛﺸــﻒ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ ﺑﺎﻳﺪ ﺳــﻌﻰ‬
‫ﻛــﺮﺩ ﺭﺍﻫﺒﺮﺩﻫــﺎﻱ ﺑﻼﻏﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﺳــﺘﻌﺎﺭﻱ ﻭ ﺍﻳﺪﺋﻮﻟﻮژﻳﻚ ﻣﻮﺭﺧــﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺣﺬﻑ‬
‫ﻛــﺮﺩ‪ «.19‬ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﭼﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﭘﺪﻳﺪ ﺁﻣــﺪﻥ ﺭﻭﻳﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ‬
‫»ﺗﺤﺖﺍﻟﺸﻌﺎﻉ ﻣﻔﺮﻭﺿﺎﺕ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ ﻭ ﻧﻴﺮﻭﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮﮔﺬﺍﺭ ﺑﺮ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺗﻌﻠﻴﻞ‬
‫ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻰﮔﻴﺮﻧﺪ ﻭ ﻋﻨﺎﺻﺮﻱ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﻧﮋﺍﺩ‪ ،‬ﺟﻨﺴﻴﺖ‪ ،‬ﻃﺒﻘﻪ‪ ،‬ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮓ‪ ،‬ﺁﺏﻭﻫﻮﺍ‪،‬‬
‫ﺗﺼﺎﺩﻑ‪ ،‬ﺍﻗﻠﻴﻢ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺎﺳــﺖ ﻭ ﻏﻴﺮﻩ ﺑﺮ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﺍﺛﺮ ﻣﻲﮔﺬﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﮔﺮ ﻳﻚ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩﻱ‬
‫ﻣﻔﺮﺩ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺩﺭﺳــﺖ ﻳﺎ ﻧﺎﺩﺭﺳﺖ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﻪﺍﻱ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩﻫﺎ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺗﻚﺗﻚ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻣﺤﻞ ﺗﺮﺩﻳﺪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪«.20‬‬
‫‪ (4‬ﭼـﺮﺍ ﺗﺌﻮﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﻭﻳﻜـﺮﺩﻱ ﺭﺍﻫﮕﺸـﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺳﺖ؟‬
‫ﺖ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻫﻤﭽﻨﺎﻥ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺑﺎ ﺗﻤــﺎﻡ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳ ِ‬
‫ﺭﺍﻩﮔﺸــﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﻧﻈﺮﻳــﻪﻯ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ ﺳــﻄﺢ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ‬
‫ﻋﻘﻼﻧﻲ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺷــﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ :‬ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ ﺣﺮﻓﻪﺍﻱ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻧﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺳــﻄﺤﻲ ﻋﻤﻴﻖﺗﺮ ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻋﻠﻢ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ‪ 35‬ﻭ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻤﺖ ﺗﺤﻮﻟﻲ ﺳﺎﺯﻧﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﺍﻭ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫ﺷﻬﺮﻳﻮﺭ ‪1 3 8 7‬‬
‫‪ (3‬ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﻴﻦ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‪:‬‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺧــﺎﻥ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ ﺳــﻄﺢ ﻓﺮﻡ ﻭ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍ ﻧﻘﺪ‬
‫ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻒ( ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ »ﻛﻢﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺟﻠﻮﻩ ﺩﺍﺩﻥ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻱ ﻛﺎﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ«‬
‫ﺷــﻜﻞ ﻭ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ .21‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻣﻌﻤﻮ ٌﻻ ﮔﻔﺘﻪ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻛــﻪ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻮﺟــﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺯﻣﺎﻥ‪ 22‬ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﻣﺴــﻴﺮ ﻭﺍﻗﻌــﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﺑﺎﺯﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﮔﺬﺷــﺘﻪ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .23‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩ ﻛﻪ ﻛﻪ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴــﺖ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺑﺎ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ‬
‫ﻭﺍﺳﻄﻪﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻗﺎﺑﻞ ﺩﺳﺘﺮﺳﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﻟﻴﻞ ﻣﻮﺟﻬﻲ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺤﺪﻭﺩ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ‬
‫ﻣﻄﺎﻟﻌﺎﺕ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪.24‬‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩﻫﺎ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥ ﺟﻬﺖ ﺑﻴﺸــﺘﺮ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻛﻪ ﻣﺒﻨﺎﻱ ﺍﺳﺘﻨﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻭﻯ ﺗﻨﻬــﺎ ﻣﺘﻮﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻗﺮﻥ ﻧﻮﺯﺩﻫﻢ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﻭ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶﻫﺎﻯ ﻣﻌﺎﺻﺮ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ‬
‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺩﺭ »ﺭﻭﺷﻨﮕﺮﻱ‪ «25‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﺆﺛﺮﺗﺮ ﺑﺎﺷﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻧﺎﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺗﻤﺮﻛﺰ ﺑﺮ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﻧﻮﻉ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺍﺩﺏ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﮔﺰﻳﻨﺶ ﭼﻬﺎﺭ ﺻﻨﻌﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﻳﻲ‪ ،‬ﺧﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸــﻪ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪26‬؛ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻰﺭﺳﺪ ﺍﺳﺘﺪﻻﻝ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺸﺘﺮ ﺩﻟﺒﺨﻮﺍﻫﻰ ﺍﺳﺖ ﺗﺎ ﻣﺒﺘﻨﻰ ﺑﺮ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺩﻗﻴﻖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺏ( ﻣﻨﺘﻘــﺪﺍﻥ ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻱ ﺗﺌﻮﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻋﻘﻴﺪﻩ ﺩﺍﺭﻧــﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ‬
‫ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ‪ ،‬ﭘﺎﻳﻪﻫﺎﻯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻯ ﺳــﻨﺘﻰ ﺭﺍ ﺳﺴــﺖ ﻣﻰﻛﻨــﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺍﻳﻦﻛﻪ‬
‫ﺭﺍﻩ ﺟﺪﻳﺪﻯ ﻓﺮﺍﺭﻭﻯ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ ﺑﮕﺸــﺎﻳﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪﻱ ﻭﻳﻠﻲ ﺗﺎﻣﺴــﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑــﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳــﺖ »ﺍﻟﻬﻴﺎﺗﻲ ﺑﺪﻭﻥ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩ« ﻭ ﻣﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‬
‫»ﻭﺣﻲ« ﺷــﺪﻩ ﺑﺎﺷــﺪ‪ .27‬ﺍﻳﻦ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪﻯ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺢ ﻭﺍﺿﺤﺎﺕ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ ،‬ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﻮﻓﻴﻖ ﺧﻮﺩ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺪﻳﻮﻥ »ﺗﻬﻮﻉ ﻭ ﺧﻤﺎﺭ ‪ «196828‬ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﺎﻣﺴــﻮﻥ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺍﻇﻬﺎﺭﺍﺕ‪ ،‬ﺁﺯﺭﺩﮔﻲ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﻣﻰﺩﻫﺪ‪.‬‬
‫ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪﺍﻥ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻫﻤﻮﺍﺭﻩ ﺍﻫﻤﻴﺖ ﺍﺛﺮ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺭﺍ ﮔﻮﺷﺰﺩ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪﻧﺪ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺑﺎ ﺗﻜﻴﻪ ﺑﺮ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﺍﺳــﻨﺎﺩﻱ ﻭ ﺭﺩﻳﺎﺑﻲ ﻣﻮﺷــﻜﺎﻓﺎﻧﻪ ﺟﻌﻞ ﻭ‬
‫ﺗﺤﺮﻳﻒ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎ ﺍﻣﻴﺪ ﺩﺳﺘﻴﺎﺑﻲ ﺑﻪ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﭘﺪﻳﺪ ﻣﻲﺁﻳﻨﺪ‪ .29‬ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﻈﺮ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣــﻮﺭﺥ ﭼﻴﺰﻱ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺑــﺪﺍﻉ ﻧﻤﻲﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻠﻜﻪ ﺑﺮ ﻣﺒﻨــﺎﻱ ﭼﺎﺭﭼﻮﺏﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﺎﻳﺪﺍﺭ ﻭ‬
‫ﻣﺸﺘﺮﻙ ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺴﺘﺮﻩﻱ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺍﻃﻼﻋﺎﺕ ﻭ ﭘﺮﺳﺶﻫﺎ ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ‪.30‬‬
‫ﻛﺎﺭ ﺍﻭ ﺟﻤﻊﺁﻭﺭﻱ ﻛﺎﻣﻞ ﺷــﻮﺍﻫﺪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺍﺭﺍﺋﻪﻯ ﻳﻚ ﺗﻔﺴﻴﺮ ﻗﺎﻧﻊﻛﻨﻨﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻭ ﺩﺭ ﺍﻳــﻦ ﺗﻼﺵ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﮔﺬﺷــﺘﻪ ﻭ ﻓﺮﺿﻴﺎﺕ »ﺟﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﺩﻫــﺪ‪ .«31‬ﺩﺭ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ‬
‫ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻠﻲ‪ ،‬ﺍﺑﺪﺍﻉ ﻭ ﺗﺨﻴﻞ ﻫﻢ ﻧﺎﺧﻮﺍﺳــﺘﻪ ﺩﺭ ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ؛‬
‫ﭼﺮﺍ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺥ ﻣﻮﺟﻮﺩﻱ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.32‬‬
‫ﺑﺮﺧــﻰ ﻣﻨﺘﻘﺪﻳﻦ ﺗﻨﺪﺭﻭﺗﺮ ﻣﻌﺘﻘﺪﻧــﺪ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻭﻇﻴﻔﻪﻯ ﺍﺻﻠــﻰ ﻣﻮﺭﺥ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻰ‬
‫ﺟﺴــﺖﻭﺟﻮﻯ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ ﺭﺍ ﻓﺮﺍﻣﻮﺵ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻣﺜﺎﻝ ﮔﻴﻨﺰﺑﺮگ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺪ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﺪ‪ :‬ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻣﺴــﺄﻟﻪﻱ ﻋﻘﻼﻧﻲ‪ ،‬ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸــﻪ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻛﺸﻒ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .33‬ﻧﺴﺒﻴﺖﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﭘﺪﻳﺪﻩﺍﻱ ﻣﻀﺮﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﻭ ﻧﻴــﺎﺯ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺠﺪﻳﺪﻧﻈــﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﻣﺜ ٌ‬
‫ﻼ ﺑﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﻭﺍﺑــﻂ ﻣﻴﺎﻥ ﺭﻭﻳﺪﺍﺩﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨــﻲ ﺗﻨﻬﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺫﻫﻦ ﻣﻮﺭﺥ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ؛ ﺍﻋﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﺴــﺄﻟﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺍﻧﻜﺎﺭ‬
‫ﭘﻴﻮﺳــﺘﮕﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺣﻮﺍﺩﺙ ﻣﻲﺍﻧﺠﺎﻣﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﺳــﺎﺱ ﺗﺌﻮﺭﻱ ﻭﺍﻳــﺖ‪ ،‬ﻫﻴﭻ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻁ‬
‫ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻲ‪ ،‬ﺑﻴﻦ ﺭﻭﻳﺪﺍﺩﻱ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﮔﺬﺷﺘﻪ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺷﺪﻩ ﻭ ﺁﻥﭼﻪ ﻣﻮﺭﺥ ﺩﺭﻣﻰﻳﺎﺑﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻭﺟــﻮﺩ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﺍﻳــﻦ ﺗﺮﺗﻴﺐ ﻣﺜ ً‬
‫ﻼ ﻣﻰﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﮔﻔﺖ ﻣﻴــﺎﻥ ﺻﺪﺍﺭﺕ ﻫﻴﺘﻠﺮ ﻭ‬
‫‪34‬‬
‫ﺟﻨﮓ ﺩﻭﻡ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺭﺗﺒﺎﻃﻲ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ !‬
‫ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪﻯ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺩﺭ ﺩﻭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻣﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﻋﻘﻼﻧﻲ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺷﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ :‬ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺢ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻯ‪ ،‬ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‬
‫ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ ﺣﺮﻓﻪﺍﻱ ﺭﺍ ﻧﮕﺮﺍﻥ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ؛ ﺍﻣﺎ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺤﻲ ﻋﻤﻴﻖﺗﺮ ﻣﻘﺼﻮﺩ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻢ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺍﺯ ﺑﺤﺮﺍﻥ ﻭ ﻫﺪﺍﻳﺖ ﺁﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺳﻤﺖ ﺗﺤﻮﻟﻲ ﺳﺎﺯﻧﺪﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﮔﻔﺘﻪﻱ ﺧﻮﻳﺶ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﭘﻲ »ﻧﺠﺎﺕ« ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻮﺩ‪ :‬ﺍﻧﻜﺸﺎﻑ ﻋﻠﻤﻲ ﻭ ﻋﻴﻨﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‬
‫»ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﻋﺎﻣﻞ ﺗﺤﻮﻝ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺳــﺮﻛﻮﺏ ﻭ ﺍﻧﻜﺎﺭ ﻛﺮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ «.36‬ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻣﺠﺎﺩﻻﺕ ﭘﺴﺖﻣﺪﺭﻧﻴﺴــﺖﻫﺎ ﻭ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪﮔﺮﺍﻳﺎﻥ )ﻛﻪ ﻣﺪﺍﻓﻌﺎﻥ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﺍﻧــﺪ‪ (37‬ﺩﺭﺑــﺎﺭﻩﻱ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨــﻲ ﺩﺍﻣﻦ ﻣﻲﺯﻧــﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﻪ ﮔﻔﺘﻪﻱ‬
‫ﮔﻴﻠﺪﺭﻫـﺎﻭﺱ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﻪﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻨﺎﻗﺸــﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ ﺑــﺮﺍﻱ ﺩﻓﺎﻉ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺒﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ ،‬ﺍﺯ ﻳﻚﺳﻮ ﻧﺎﭼﺎﺭ ﺑﻪ ﺟﺪﻝ ﺑﺎ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﮔﺮﺍﻳﺎﻥ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﻫﺴﺘﺘﻨﺪ‪،‬‬
‫ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎﻱ »ﻣﻘﺪﺱ« ﮔﺬﺷــﺘﻪ ﭘﺎﻱﻣﻲﻓﺸﺎﺭﻧﺪ‪ ،‬ﻭ ﺍﺯ ﺩﻳﮕﺮﺳﻮ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺷــﻜﺎﻛﺎﻧﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺍﻗﻨﺎﻉ ﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ »ﺷﻨﺎﺧﺖﭘﺬﻳﺮﻱ« )‪ (knowability‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﻣﻲﻛﺸﻨﺪ‪.38‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻳــﺖ ﺑﺎ ﺭﺩ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﺣﻘﺎﻳــﻖ ﻋﺎﻡ ﻭ ﻣﻄﻠﻖ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪﻭﺍﻗــﻊ ﻋﻘﻼﻧﻴﺖ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﻮﺟﻴﻪ ﺍﻋﻤﺎﻝ ﻧﮋﺍﺩﭘﺮﺳﺘﺎﻧﻪ ﻭ ﺳﻮءﺍﺳﺘﻔﺎﺩﻩ ﺍﺯ ﻗﺪﺭﺕ ﺑﻪ ﺑﺎﺩ ﺍﻧﺘﻘﺎﺩ ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﺩ‪:39‬‬
‫»ﺩﺭ ﺍﻧﺤﺼﺎﺭ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﮔﺮﻓﺘﻦ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﻮﺳــﻂ ﺧــﻮﺍﺹ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎﻳﻲﺗﺒﺎﺭ ﺑﻴﺶ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻳﻦ‬
‫ﺟﺎﻳﺰ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ‪ «.40‬ﭼﻨﺪﺍﻥ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓﺘﻪ ﻧﻴﺴﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﻳﻦ ﺳﺨﻦ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﺗﺤﺮﻳﺾ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ‬
‫ﺍﻧﻘــﻼﺏ ﺩﺭ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺗﺄﻭﻳﻞ ﻛﻨﻴﻢ‪ .‬ﺯﻳﺮﺍ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻓﻘﻂ »ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪﮔﺮﺍﻳﻲ ﺍﺑﺘﺪﺍﻳﻲ« ﺭﺍ‬
‫ﻧﻘﺪ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ ﻭ ﭘﺮﺳــﺶﻫﺎﻱ ﺑﻨﻴﺎﺩﻱ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩﻱ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ ﻭ ﻋﻴﻨﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺑﻪ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﻣﻲﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪.41‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫ﺷﻬﺮﻳﻮﺭ ‪1 3 8 7‬‬
‫ﻣﺆﺧﺮﻩ‪:‬‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳــﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑــﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳــﺖ ﻣﺒﺎﺣﺜــﺎﺕ ﻓﺮﺍﻭﺍﻧــﻰ ﻣﻴــﺎﻥ ﺗﺠﺮﺑﻪﮔﺮﺍﻳــﺎﻥ ﻭ‬
‫ﭘﺴﺖﻣﺪﺭﻧﻴﺴــﺖﻫﺎ ﺩﺭﺑﺎﺭﻩﻱ ﺫﺍﺕ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻭ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﭘﺮﺳﺶ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳــﺦ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﺖ ﻭ ﻛﺬﺏ‪ ،‬ﭘﺪﻳﺪ ﺁﻭﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺍﻧﺘﻘــﺎﺩ ﻣﺤﺎﻓﻈﻪﻛﺎﺭﺍﻧﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‬
‫ﻭ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺣﺪ ﻳﻚ ﻣﻌﺘﺮﺽ ﺩﺍﻧﺴــﺘﻦ‪ ،‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﻋﻠﻢ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻧﻔﻌﻲ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ .‬ﺷــﺎﻳﺪ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳــﺦ ﻭﺍﻳــﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺍﺯ ﻳــﺎﺩ ﺑﺒﺮﺩ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻳــﺪ ﺧﻼﻗﻴﺖ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﭘﺬﻳﺮﻓــﺖ‪ .‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭ‬
‫ﭘﮋﻭﻫﺶ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﻧﻴﺰ ﻫﻤﺎﻧﻨﺪ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﺴﺎﻧﻲ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ‪ .‬ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﻛﻨﻮﻧﻲ‬
‫ﻛــﻪ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩﻫــﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﺘﻜﺜﺮ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ ،‬ﺩﻗﺖ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻭﺍﻳــﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﻛﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ‪ .‬ﭘﻴﺸﺮﻓﺖ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ‪ ،‬ﻳﻌﻨﻲ ﺗﻮﺳﻌﻪﻱ ﺩﺍﻧﺶ ﻭ‬
‫ﻋﻤﻞ ﻣﻮﺭﺥ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻫﻤﻴﻦ ﺩﻟﻴﻞ‪ ،‬ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﻭﻳﻜﺮﺩﻱ ﺭﺍﻩﮔﺸــﺎ ﺩﺭ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﺍﺳــﺖ‪ .‬ﭘﻴﭽﻴﺪﮔﻲ ﻭ ﺍﺑﻬﺎﻡ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ )ﺁﻥﮔﻮﻧﻪ ﻛﻪ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻣﻲﺑﻴﻨﺪ(‬
‫ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻣﻲ ﻛﺎﻧﺘﻲ ﺭﺍ ﺷــﻜﻞ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ‪ :‬ﺧﻮﺩ ﺷــﺊ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻧﺎﻳﺎﻓﺘﻨﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸﻪ ﺑﻪ ﭘﺪﻳﺪﺍﺭ »‪ «phenomenon‬ﺁﻥ ﻣﻲﺗﻮﺍﻥ ﺩﺳﺖ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺍﻣﻪ ﻣﻬﻢﺗﺮﻳﻦ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ ﻧﻈﺮﻳﻪﻯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ‪،‬‬
‫ﺩﻳﺪﻩ ﻣﻰﺷﻮﺩ‪ ،‬ﻣﻰﺁﻳﺪ‪:42‬‬
‫‪ -1‬ﻓﺮﺍ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ‪ :43‬ﺗﺨﻴﻞ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎﻱ ﺳﺪﻩﻱ ﻧﻮﺯﺩﻫﻢ )‪(1973‬‬
‫)‪Metahistory: the Historical Imagination In Nineteenth-‬‬
‫‪(Century Europe‬‬
‫‪ -2‬ﻣﺪﺍﺭﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ‪ :‬ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻘﺪ ﻓﺮﻫﻨﮕﻲ )‪(1978‬‬
‫)‪(Tropics of Discourse: Essays In Cultural Criticism‬‬
‫‪-3‬ﻣﺤﺘﻮﺍﻱ ﻓﺮﻡ‪ :‬ﮔﻔﺘﻤﺎﻥ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﻲ ﻭ ﺑﺎﺯﻧﻤﺎﻳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ )‪(1987‬‬
‫)‪The Content of the Form: Narrative Discourse and His-‬‬
‫‪(torical Representation‬‬
‫ﻭ ﻣﻘﺎﻻﺗــﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻣﻔﻬــﻮﻡ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺭﺍ ﺗﻔﺴــﻴﺮ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﻣﺒﻨﺎﻱ‬
‫ﮔﻔﺘﺎﺭ ﺣﺎﺿﺮ ﺑﻮﺩﻩ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫ﭘﻲﻧﻮﺷﺖﻫﺎ‪:‬‬
‫‪ . 1‬ﺍﺳﺘﺎﺩ ﻣﻤﺘﺎﺯ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺁﮔﺎﻫﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﻔﺮﻧﻴﺎ‪ ،‬ﺳﺎﻧﺘﺎ ﻛﺮﻭﺯ‪.‬‬
‫‪2 . THOMPSON Willie, Postmodernism and History, Palgrave‬‬
‫‪Macmillan, New York 2004, p.132.‬‬
‫‪3 . WHITE Hayden, Metahistory: the historical imagination in‬‬
‫‪nineteenth-century Europe, John Hopkins University Press,‬‬
‫‪Baltimore 1973, p.ix.‬‬
‫‪ . 4‬ﺍﻇﻬﺎﺭﺍﺗــﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺻﺒﻐﻪﻱ ﺍﻳﻦ ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ‪ :‬ﻧﻴﭽﻪ »ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺿﻌﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻫﻴﭻ ﺗﻔﺴــﻴﺮ ﻋﻴﻨﻲ‬
‫ﻭ ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕﭘﺬﻳﺮﻱ ﻧﻤﻲﺗﻮﺍﻧﺪ ﻓﺎﺭﻍ ﺍﺯ ﺳــﻮﮔﻴﺮﻱﻫﺎﻱ ﻣﻮﺭﺥ ﺑﺎﺷﺪ‪ ،‬ﺑﻪ ﻋﻨﻮﺍﻥ ﺻﻮﺭﺗﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﻌﺮﻓﺖ‬
‫ﻧﻤﻲﭘﺬﻳﺮﺩ‪ «.‬ﻟﻮﻱ ﺍﺷﺘﺮﻭﺍﺱ ﻧﻴﺰ »ﺍﺩﻋﺎﻱ ﺗﻔﻮﻕ ﺫﺍﺗﻲ ﻋﻘﻼﻧﻴﺖ ﻏﺮﺑﻲ ﻧﺴﺒﺖ ﺑﻪ ﻓﺮﻡﻫﺎﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺳــﻄﻮﺭﻩﺍﻱ ﺗﻔﻜﺮ ﺭﺍ ﺑﻪ ﭼﺎﻟﺶ ﻣﻲﻛﺸﺪ‪ «.‬ﺳﻮﺳـﻮﺭ ﻣﻲﮔﻮﻳﺪ‪» :‬ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺗﺼﻮﻳﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻭﺍﻗﻌﻴﺖ‬
‫ﺭﺍ ﺷــﻜﻞ ﻣﻲ ﺩﻫﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﻪ ﺁﻥ ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﻧﺪﺍﺭﺩ‪ «.‬ﻣﺘﻌﺎﻗﺒ ًﺎ ﻓﻮﻛﻮ‪ ،‬ﺩﻣﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭﻳﺪﺍ‪ ،‬ﺑﺎﺭﺕ ﻭ ﻫﺎﻳﺪﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺗﻀﻤﮕﻲ ﺗﺼﺮﻳﺢ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﻨﺪ ﻛﻪ » ﻣﻔﻬﻮﻡ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ ﺑﻪ ﺷﻜﻞ ﻧﻈﺎﻣﻲ ﻣﺴﺘﻘﻞ ﻭ ﻣﺘﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﺯ‬
‫ﻧﺸــﺎﻧﻪﻫﺎ ﻇﺎﻫﺮ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ ﻛﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺧﻮﺩﺷﺎﻥ ﺍﺭﺟﺎﻉ ﺩﺍﺭﻧﺪ ﺑﻪ ﺑﻪ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﺧﺎﺭﺝ‪ Iggers «.‬ﻣﻮﺭﺥ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻋﻤﻞ‪ ،‬ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺯ ﺍﻧﺪﻳﺸــﻪﻫﺎ‪ ،‬ﻋﻘﺎﻳﺪ ﻭ ﺗﻌﺎﺑﻴﺮ ﻣﺸﺮﻭﻁ ﺑﻪ ﻣﻘﻮﻻﺕ ﺯﺑﺎﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﻴﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‪] .‬‬
‫‪ Georg G. Iggers‬ﺍﺳــﺘﺎﺩ ﺩﺍﻧﺸﮕﺎﻩ ‪ UB‬ﻧﻴﻮﻳﻮﺭﻙ ﻭ ﻛﺘﺎﺏ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦﻧﮕﺎﺭﻱ ﺩﺭ ﻗﺮﻥ ﺑﻴﺴﺘﻢ‬
‫‪ Historiography in the Twentieth Century‬ﺍﺯﺟﻤﻠﻪ ﺁﺛﺎﺭ ﺍﻭ ﺍﺳﺖ[‪.‬ﻡ‬
‫‪GILDERHUS Mark T., History and historians: a historiographical‬‬
‫‪introduction, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ USA 2000,‬‬
‫‪p.134135-.‬‬
‫‪5 . WILSON Norman J., op.cit., p.111.‬‬
‫‪6 . WHITE Hayden, op.cit., p.x.‬‬
‫‪ . 7‬ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺍﻳﻦﻫﺎ ﺭﺍ ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﻣﻲﻧﺎﻣﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺍﻗﻊ ﺍﺻﻄﻼﺣﺎﺕ ﺍﺩﺑﻲ ﻫﺴﺘﻨﺪ‪ ،‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺍﺯ ﺁﻥﻫﺎ‬
‫ﺭﺍﻫﺒﺮﺩﻫﺎﻱ ﭘﻮﺗﺌﻚ ﻣﻮﺭﺧﺎﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺑﻨﺎ ﻛﺮﺩﻥ ﻣﺘﻮﻧﺸﺎﻥ ﺩﺭ ﻧﻈﺮ ﺩﺍﺭﺩ‪ ،‬ﻛﻪ ﺷﺎﻣﻞ ﺍﺳﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩ‪،‬‬
‫ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﻣﺮﺳﻞ ﻭ ﺁﻳﺮﻭﻧﻲ ﺍﺳﺖ‪.‬‬
‫‪THOMPSON Willie, op.cit., p.135.‬‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻣﺘــﻦ ﻓــﻮﻕ ‪ Metonymy‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﺠــﺎﺯ ﻭ ‪ Synecdoche‬ﺑﻪ ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﻣﺮﺳــﻞ ﺗﺮﺟﻤﻪ‬
‫ﺷﺪﻩﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺣﺎﻝ ﺁﻧﻜﻪ ﻫﺮﺩﻭ ﺍﻧﻮﺍﻋﻲ ﺍﺯ ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﻣﺮﺳﻞﺍﻧﺪ ﻛﻪ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻨﺖ ﺑﻼﻏﻲ ﻣﺎ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﺑﻪ‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﻪﻫﺎﻱ ﮔﻠﻴﻪ‪ ،‬ﻣﻌﻴﺖ ﻭ‪ ..‬ﺍﻧﺪ‪ .‬ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺁﻳﺮﻭﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﻧﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﻣﻄﺎﻳﺒﻪﺁﻣﻴﺰ ﺭﺍﻳﺞ ﺩﺭ ﺍﺩﺑﻴﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﺑﻪﻣﺜﺎﺑﻪ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﺟﻬﺎﻥ ﻛﻨﻮﻧﻲ ﻛﻪ ﺩﻳﺪﮔﺎﻩﻫﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻣﻮﺭﺩ‬
‫ ﺍﻭ ﺭﺍ‬،‫ ﺩﻗﺖ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ‬،‫ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻣﺘﻜﺜﺮ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
‫ﺩﺭ ﻛﺎﻧﻮﻥ ﺗﻮﺟﻪ ﻗﺮﺍﺭ ﻣﻲﺩﻫﺪ‬
.‫ ﻡ‬.‫ ﻣﻌﺎﺩﻝ ﻣﻨﺎﺳﺐ ﻓﺎﺭﺳﻲ ﻳﺎﻓﺖ ﻧﺸﺪ‬،‫ﻛﻼﺳﻴﻚ ﻏﺮﺏ ﺍﺳﺖ‬
21 . THOMPSON, Willie, op.cit., p.130.
22 . CARR David, Time, Narrative, and History, Indiana
University Press, Bloomington/Indianapolis 1986, p.9495-.
23 . BENTLEY, Michael, Companion to Historiography,
Routledge, London 1997, p.855.
‫ )ﺍﺳــﺘﻌﺎﺭﻩ( ﻧﻮﻋﻲ ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﻛــﻪ ﭘﺪﻳﺪﻩﻫــﺎ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺭﺍﺑﻄﻪ )ﻋﻼﻗﻪ(ﻱ‬Metaphor . 8
.‫ )ﻣﺠﺎﺯ ﻣﺮﺳﻞ( ﺟﺰء ﺟﺎﻧﺸﻴﻦ ﻛﻞ ﻣﻲﺷﻮﺩ‬Metonymy ‫ ﺩﺭ‬.‫ﺷــﺒﺎﻫﺖ ﺟﺎﻳﮕﺰﻳﻦ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ‬
‫ )ﻣﺠــﺎﺯ ﻣﺮﺳــﻞ( ﺟــﺰء ﺭﺍ ﺑﺮﺍﻱ ﺩﻻﻟــﺖ ﺑﺮ ﻭﺟﻪ ﺩﻳﮕــﺮﻱ ﺍﺯ ﻛﻞ ﺑﻪ ﻛﺎﺭ‬Synecdoche
‫ )ﻣﻄﺎﻳﺒﻪ( ﻣﺠﺎﺯﻱ ﺍﺳﺖ ﻛﻪ ﺍﺯ ﻧﻔﻲ ﭘﺪﻳﺪﻩ ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕ ﺁﻥ ﺭﺍ ﺩﺭ ﺳﻄﺤﻲ ﺩﻳﮕﺮ‬Irony .‫ﻣﻲﮔﻴﺮﺩ‬
.‫ﻣﻨﻈﻮﺭ ﻣﻲﻛﻨﺪ‬
24 . NOIRIEL, Gérard, Qu’est-ce que l’histoire contemporaine?,
Hachette, Paris 1998, p.124125-.
MANNING Patrick, Navigating world history: historians create
25 . CARRARD, Philippe, Poétique de la Nouvelle Histoire: le
a global past, Palgrave Macmillan, New York 2003, p.310.
discours historique en France de Braudel à Chartier, Editions
9 . White calls them emplotment, following the theory of fictions
Payot, Lausanne 1998, p.5. Carrard reproachs White for ignoring
of Northrop Frye. THOMPSON Willie, op.cit., p.130.
the Annales
10 . WHITE Hayden, op.cit., p.426.
26 . THOMPSON, Willie, op.cit., p.59.
11 . WILSON Norman J., op.cit., p.114,
27 . Idem, p.26.
‫ ﺑﻴﺸــﺘﺮ ﺩﺭ ﺣﻴﻄﻪﻱ ﺯﺑﺎﻥ‬،story ‫ ﻭ‬history ‫ﺑــﻪ ﻧﻈﺮ ﻣﻲﺭﺳــﺪ ﭼﻨﻴﻦ ﺑﺤﺜﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺗﻤﺎﻳــﺰ‬
28 . Idem, p.2223-.
29 . IGGERS, Georg G., op.cit., p.140.
.‫ﺍﻧﮕﻠﻴﺴــﻲ ﻣﻄﺮﺡ ﺍﺳــﺖ ﺗﺎ ﺩﺭ ﻭﺻﻔﻲ ﺩﻗﻴــﻖ ﺍﺯ ﺍﺧﺘﻼﻑ ﻏﺎﻳﻲ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺦ ﻭ ﺩﺍﺳــﺘﺎﻥﭘﺮﺩﺍﺯﻱ‬
‫ ﺩﺭ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ‬Geschichte :‫ﺍﻳــﻦ ﺗﻤﺎﻳﺰ ﻭﺍژﮔﺎﻧﻲ ﺩﺭ ﺑﻴﺸــﺘﺮ ﺯﺑﺎﻥﻫــﺎﻱ ﺍﺭﻭﭘﺎﻳﻲ ﻭﺟﻮﺩ ﻧــﺪﺍﺭﺩ‬
.histoire ‫ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ‬histoire ‫ ﻭ‬storia ‫ ﺑﺮﺍﺑﺮ‬Geschichte، storia
30 . FULBROOK, Mary, op.cit., p.67.
31 . THOMPSON, Willie, op.cit., p.62.
12 . MANNING Patrick, op.cit., p.310.
32 . FULBROOK, Mary, op.cit., p.73.
13 . Idem, p.309.
33 . GINZBURG, Carlo, History, Rhetoric and Proof, University
1 3 8 7 ‫ﺷﻬﺮﻳﻮﺭ‬
7
Press of New England, Hanover NH USA 1999, p.49.
‫ ﻭﺍﻳﺖ ﺍﻳﻦ ﮔﺰﺍﺭﻩ ﺭﺍ ﻛﻪ ﺗﻤﺎﻣﻲ ﺭﻭﺍﻳﺖﻫﺎﻱ ﺗﺎﺭﻳﺨﻲ ﺑﻪ ﻳﻚ ﺍﻧﺪﺍﺯﻩ ﻣﻮﺟﻪ ﻭ ﻇﺎﻫﺮﻓﺮﻳﺐ‬. 14
(‫ )ﺍﺛﺒﺎﺕﻧﺎﭘﺬﻳﺮﻱ‬nondisconfirmability ،‫ﻫﺴــﺘﻨﺪ ﻭ ﺑﻪ ﻳــﻚ ﻣﻴــﺰﺍﻥ ﻏﻴﺮﺣﻘﻴﻘــﻲ‬
.‫ﻣﻲﻧﺎﻣﺪ‬
34 . FULBROOK, Mary, op.cit., p.66.
35 . SOUTHGATE, Beverly, Postmodernism in history: fear or
FULBROOK, Mary, Historical Theory, Routledge, London
freedom?, Routledge, London 2003, p.17.
2002, p.29.
36 . FULBROOK citing White, p.55.
15 . WILSON Norman J., op.cit., p.111.
37 . THOMPSON, Willie, op.cit., p.131133-.
16 . WHITE, Hayden, Tropics of discourse: essays in cultural
38 . GILDERHUS, Mark T., op.cit., p.129130-.
criticism, John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore 1978, p.82;
39 . Idem, p.134.
misquotation - as in IGGERS Georg G., Historiography in the
40 . Idem, p.136.
Twentieth Century: from scientific objectivity to the postmodern
41 . FULBROOK Mary, op.cit. p.i.
challenge, University Press of New England, Hanover NH USA
42 . MUNSLOW, Alun, Deconstructing history, Routledge,
1997p.10: “more invented than found” – is grave.
London 1997, p.195.
17 . IGGERS, Georg G., op.cit., p.2.
43 . WILSON, Norman J., History in crisis? Recent directions
18 . GILDERHUS, Mark T., History and historians: a
in historiography, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River NJ USA
historiographical introduction, Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle
1999, p.114.
River NJ USA 2000, p.130.
19 . MUNSLOW, Alun, op.cit., p.9.
20 . Idem, p.10.