By Shaykh Rasul Jafariyan

The publication of a collection of correspondence from the Secretariat of the Custodian of Qom — Seyyed Mohammad Baqir Towliat (manager) — covering the years 1927–1940, in two volumes, comprising 2,800 pages and 2,053 letters along with several other texts under the title Be Arz-e Ali Miresanam (“I Present to You”), prompted me to share some remarks during the unveiling ceremony. This is the text I wrote before the speech, in which I described the concept of “reporting events as they happened” as a foundational approach in historical science, along with some additional reflections.

Through the effort of the historian’s pen, life events
Are clarified and illuminated for people of knowledge and virtue.

---

Today, we are here with friends to unveil the two-volume book Be Arz-e Ali Miresanam, which contains 5,053 letters from 1941 to 1960, across 2,800 pages. These letters are of great importance and are a significant source, first for Qom, and second for Iran. I think others will discuss the book itself, so I’d like to take the opportunity to highlight two points in connection with its publication.

The first point is about the late Master Mohammad Golban (1935–2013): a rural man from the Ardistan region — from the village of Kehiyad or Kehiya — who, relying on his own talent, quickly established himself as a researcher in literature and history in Tehran. He left behind dozens of articles, a few books, and several edited works, earning himself a place among respected scholars. Apart from his scholarly work, an important characteristic of his was his collection of valuable and unique books, rare publications, and documents, which created a remarkable archive for him. He used this collection in his research, but during his later years, when illness had weakened him, he donated these items to two libraries. His newspapers went to the Astan Quds Library, which I hope has been cataloged, scanned, and made accessible to the public. His books and a small portion of his newspapers were moved to the Parliament Library, where it was decided they would remain in Library Number 2, previously the Senate Library.

Our friendship had begun years before, and it was this friendship that ultimately led to the documents we now see published in these two volumes being offered to Qom. The collection was purchased and placed in the library, eventually scanned, and today, after several years, revised and available to the public. In the end, the late Golban not only left behind his own scholarly and research contributions but also gathered a valuable collection of books, texts, and publications for others to use, now accessible to researchers in Mashhad or Tehran. The merit of the late Golban lies not only in his academic contributions but also in his dedication; despite working at Mitsubishi for 36 years, he never stopped his writing and editing projects. If one were unaware of his official job, one might think he was entirely devoted to research and scholarship. His various edited works include travelogues from the Qajar period, which are considered essential sources for the history of this era.

My second point, in connection with the publication of this book — the collection of correspondence belonging to the late Seyyed Mohammad Baqir Towliat, consisting of official and personal letters exchanged between Towliat and others from 1927 to 1940 — is that, coincidentally, a valuable book has been translated into Persian after an eighty-year delay: The Historian’s Craft by Marc Bloch. The question I raise here is: what truly is the craft of a historian? In other words, I wanted to use this as an opportunity to reflect on the importance of publishing documents, sources, and historical texts for enriching historical research. The question of what history is, what the historian’s role entails, and fundamentally, what history as a science aims to accomplish is a profound one.

This question has traditional responses that have been discussed for a long time, and various works aligned with these responses have been produced within the field of history. Whether history is considered a science or not, it has held the interest of people, who have always gravitated toward it and utilized it. It is a fact that history, in its traditional form, has existed and that numerous works have been created within this framework. For example, thousands of historical books and treatises have been written in Islamic civilization alone, covering everything from general to local and dynastic histories. For these historians, the concept of history was predominantly about political and royal developments, though work was also done, albeit indirectly, in areas like social and economic history.

In modern times, new approaches have emerged in the conceptual realm of history, yet the same style of historiography — focused on historical narratives and accounts — has persisted. Discussions about methodology, the philosophy of history, epistemological questions, and the depiction of reality are also part of this evolution.

The objective of history up to this point has been “reporting events as they happened” and “relating incidents and occurrences.” The idea that the historian’s task is to analyze events, examine their connections to other events and time periods, or shape events according to certain social theories has gained attention primarily in recent times. The value of “reporting events as they happened” — in other words, narrating “events” that could range from precise to weak or detailed to concise — has retained its foundational importance in the discipline of history, serving as its “cornerstone.” Without a precise record of “events,” or what we call chronicling, there is no basis for “analysis and interpretation.” It is evident that adequate documentation must be available to enable analysis and interpretation.

Up to this point, in the realm of Islamic and Iranian history, due to our lack of resources for publishing sources, one of our most essential tasks remains to complete the “reporting of events as they happened.” The incidents recorded in documents, manuscripts, inscriptions, and other artifacts must be edited and published, as analysis is difficult without them. If individuals with expertise in paleography, literature, and critical editing, or in handling economic documents with an understanding of specialized terminology, publish these kinds of records and sources for us, we should be grateful. An erroneous text or a misread document leads to errors in interpretation and conclusion. Therefore, the foundational work is to accurately publish past texts, documents, and records — those which serve as mirrors of the “reporting of events.”

Regarding Iranian history, we know, for example, that for the Qajar period, hundreds of thousands of financial documents are gathering dust in libraries and archival centers. How, in such circumstances and without these records, can one conduct social and economic analyses of Iran’s history? Similarly, numerous texts from the Safavid period remain unpublished. In this context, how can claims of analytical historiography for these periods be credible?

Analytical history may indeed hold the allure of social and economic insights, and even satisfy — truly or falsely — the demand for an answer to the question of history’s “usefulness,” yet without the foundation of “reporting events as they happened,” progress cannot be made. The best and most accurate analysis is offered by those who have the most information regarding “events.” If someone disparages the chronicling of events, claiming that the science of history is something different and that the historian’s role is primarily social analysis, it seems they are focusing on one aspect and ignoring others. Certainly, without document publication, adequate data, and accessible resources, accurate analysis is impossible.

In this regard, documents must first be published in a comprehensive, accurate, and complete manner, and, in the second step, be read with precision. This second step requires a discerning eye so that, once the document is published, it is accurately read. Such reading can incorporate certain epistemological and methodological theories, for instance, by applying intertextual discourse analysis. Nonetheless, there must be a document available upon which these studies can be conducted. The reader of a document should interpret the nuances between the lines and the connections between the documents and their production context to offer a more precise analysis. This is what it means to “give voice to the document,” and it is exceptionally significant. Historians vary in their ability to utilize records depending on their familiarity with epistemological and methodological theories.

Thus, it can be said that the combination of publishing documents — the so-called “reporting of events” — with their precise interpretation and analysis is achievable within historians’ projects and is crucial for advancing historiography. If you possess tens of thousands of economic documents or records, for example on land ownership, you edit and publish them, and then proceed to analyze them based on their capacity to yield analytical outcomes, these are complementary steps. Of course, you can conduct similar work based on documents published by others, but it is essential to recognize that the publication of these records is foundational to historical work — what we call “reporting events as they happened.” It’s possible that someday your analyses will be questioned upon the discovery of new documents, but in any case, the “chronicle” remains the “core of history.”

Another point is that having greater analytical ability, aside from relying on “reporting of events,” requires additional expertise that political or social scientists should carefully delineate. These skills, too, must be scientific and acceptable, not ideological. There was a time when Marxist historical ideas were as common as currency, widely accepted and popular, but they have now largely lost credibility. If we undertake “grand analyses” based on a few “limited texts” through racial, Marxist, or extreme nationalist social theories, we are both corrupting the work of history and undermining trust in social sciences. If an analysis, developed over years, is suddenly invalidated by the release of a few documents — which happens often — what is the worth of its output? It’s clear that theories evolve, and at times, what was stated based on older theories loses credibility when those theories are critiqued, much like when documents are found to be forged, or more precise records are presented; in such cases, previous analyses need to be revised.

It seems that the most successful historians are those who, based on precise documents — gathered from published collections, manuscripts, or records — provide a reasonable and substantiated analysis. You could write the biography of the Prophet (p) with ten historical books, just as you could with a hundred. What’s crucial is to have a correct assessment of the historical value of these sources. Naturally, your analytical work is appraised based on their historical evaluation or in light of other documents and records. In any case, and for the umpteenth time, the more accurate and abundant the sources, the better the historical interpretation, analysis, and presentation of historical reports within the framework of theories commonly used in the social sciences.

All who work on historical records and publish them are commendable since they engage in foundational historical work. However, it must always be noted that historians — indeed, all individuals — are drawn to history by the desire to answer questions that, while filling the space of history and chronicles, are not necessarily about “reporting events.” In other words, the boundary between narrating events and intertwining them with socio-philosophical questions is very close. Everyone, from chroniclers to analysts, is interested in using history to address philosophical and social questions. A clear example is the emphasis in our culture on the concept of “lesson” as the benefit of studying history. It appears that all nations hold similar concepts and look to history to answer pressing questions of daily life. Humanity faces significant questions, and history seeks to contribute its share of answers. When someone endeavours to publish records of a specific region or a collection of political letters to clarify important historical events, these choices generally follow those philosophical-historical frameworks, with the least being the aim of drawing or imparting “lessons” to others. For instance, a historian may seek to raise awareness about local history, thinking that if people know their local history, they will make better decisions about it: they might defend their heritage, prevent disrespect toward it, increase their social involvement for greater pride, recognize their weaknesses, and strive to overcome them. Whenever the “benefit” of studying history is discussed, this perspective is introduced, casting a shadow on chronicling and influencing theories and methods of research and analysis.

Another point is that chronicles and records endure, while analyses are often period-bound. This does not mean that analyses are useless; rather, it highlights that part of knowledge, especially in the social and human sciences — and indeed in many other sciences — is shaped by the specific historical period it exists within. Great historians stand out within this “period-boundedness,” while some historical works are quickly forgotten. Meanwhile, chronicles that report events as they happened remain valuable, even if they receive less attention at times. Much like the lasting historical value of an inscription — which remains important across eras — a document, letter, or historical text from close to the time of the event always retains its worth. On this side, analytical history, auxiliary sciences of history, research methods, and epistemological perspectives in the field of history are constantly advancing. They correct past mistakes, and apart from a few who rigidly adhere to particular viewpoints, these advances push the science of history forward. These are also esteemed for not only advancing knowledge but also addressing the needs of communities and people awaiting understanding.

For years, the blending of various disciplines, or what we call interdisciplinary research, has given a new face to history, adorning this ancient discipline in such a way that understanding it is now somewhat challenging. History is both a part of the humanities and social sciences, and each of these fields has a direct or indirect link with history. Even in natural sciences and mathematics, history has gained importance, as seen in the history of science. New topics that are discussed within historical contexts, like the history of darkness, the history of color, and hundreds of other such subjects, are so diverse and sometimes astonishing that it’s unlikely they would have even crossed anyone’s mind in the past. All of these transformations have set history onto new paths, and as a science that is characterized by transformation, history continues to progress through new phases. This is the nature of science, and we must understand it, whether we feel pleased by these changes or, due to habit, feel discomfort or anxiety.

Regarding social theories and methods of research, particularly those influenced by philosophical, social, and economic styles and perspectives, I must mention that most of these theories come from Western thinkers and writers, developing alongside the growth of social and human sciences in the West. In other words, the theories we see used in historical books and analyses are largely derived from Western writers, broadly speaking, and shaped within Western intellectual traditions. I do not mention this as a criticism; I merely wish to point out that both the doctoral students who use these theories and the professors who teach them, apart from adding a few comments or coined terms, lack cultural and intellectual ties to these schools of thought. Of course, there is little alternative to this. This path must continue, and as critique and commentary increase, we may eventually see figures capable of finding a school of thought that the global academic community would embrace. Some who remain committed to traditional methods sometimes attempt to create theories based on religious or philosophical texts. Their efforts are commendable, but it must be acknowledged that it will take more time for their ideas to find acceptance in international academic circles and foster the opportunity for discussion and dialogue about them.