ابوالفضل حری - Arak University

Due to the closeness of the two words "history" and "story" the debate between narrative and history has long been a multi-faceted issue: to what extent is "history" narrative, and to what extent can narrative be historical? Is narrative utterly devoid of truth, and does history have a direct relation to truth, so much so that if history is emptied of truth, it loses its validity. If the truth is not recorded in history, will it no longer be the truth? What is the difference between historical narrative and narrative history? What is the difference between a narrative and a non-fiction and, or historical narrative? All the discussion between narrative and history is but between fiction and non-fiction. From this perspective, what is the status of Beyhaqi's History? From White's point of view, Beyhaqi's History is neither a chronology nor a chronicle but contains Beyhaqi's epistemological and teleological selections from the history of this period of Iran, which ironically has both an ideological and a political burden. Beyhaqi has turned "the real" into "the fiction". This article shows firstly how the History of Beyhaqi, as the product of a particular political discourse, has been prevailed in the Ghaznavid era, and secondly how it reflects the characteristics of this discourse, both on and off the screen. The History of Beyhaqi is a transition from a mythical and epic narrative to a historical and worldly narrative.

History, Narrative, the real, the fiction, History of Beyhaqi, تاریخ, روایت, امر واقعی, امر داستانی, تاریخ بیهقی