I used to be told many stories of Russian and world history, which couldn’t be found in any published book, which were often in direct contradiction to the official accounts, East and West, and which in all probability were never intended to become public knowledge. Raised with the Cartesian intellectual principle to always doubt everything, except in matters of faith (where you either fully accept or fully reject, but never doubt), I was never tempted to trust what I was told just because I respected my source, or because I had received it sub rosa, or, of course, because it was so deliciously contrary to the conventional wisdom. It is indeed such a sinful delight to trust the unconventional just because it is unconventional and it fondles the rebel in you… But, as I say, I have always resisted that kind of temptation.
The only reason why I may have chosen to give conditional credence to any such story was because it made sense, because it explained what the official account failed to explain, because it threw additional bright light on the larger picture, which, so far, left much to be desired…
Still, are any of such stories, even when they make perfect sense, to be trusted?
Generally speaking, no historical account, established or unestablished, is ever to be trusted, except when it enters the realm of historical mythology, where it is judged primarily as edifying fiction. Otherwise, even in the “safe” case, when we have chosen to follow the industrious critical historian, with his one thousand and one unimpeachable original sources, we may well end up buying a very clever forgery, planted, perhaps, even before the event’s inception, and gaining credibility entirely on account of the impressive length of its false paper trail.
Which must not, however, prevent us from actively contemplating history, as long as we are prepared to think with our own head, keeping an open mind, regardless of ipse dixit.
The only reason why I may have chosen to give conditional credence to any such story was because it made sense, because it explained what the official account failed to explain, because it threw additional bright light on the larger picture, which, so far, left much to be desired…
Still, are any of such stories, even when they make perfect sense, to be trusted?
Generally speaking, no historical account, established or unestablished, is ever to be trusted, except when it enters the realm of historical mythology, where it is judged primarily as edifying fiction. Otherwise, even in the “safe” case, when we have chosen to follow the industrious critical historian, with his one thousand and one unimpeachable original sources, we may well end up buying a very clever forgery, planted, perhaps, even before the event’s inception, and gaining credibility entirely on account of the impressive length of its false paper trail.
Which must not, however, prevent us from actively contemplating history, as long as we are prepared to think with our own head, keeping an open mind, regardless of ipse dixit.
No comments:
Post a Comment