Truth and Fiction in History: The Debate Between Hayden White and Roger Chartier

Abstract

There are certain events that, because of their great impact and influence on the present, become the object of numerous historical accounts and new rewritings that reveal previously undeveloped aspects or relations. This is the case, for example, with the French Revolution. However, as Adam Schaff (1971) points out, although all historians agree on the importance of this event, each of them presents the Revolution in his or her own way. They often differ in the selection and description of the elements included, but, fundamentally, they differ in the way these elements are explained and interpreted.

This variety of readings raises the question of whether it is possible for any of these accounts to become established as the true account of the event it explains and, if so, what determines whether one account is true and another false. In particular, this problem reappears in renewed form in philosophies of history that relate historical narrative to literary narrative.

From Paul Veyne and Hayden White onward, the boundaries between historical and fictional narrative become uncertain, and the criterion that would make it possible to distinguish between historical and fictional narrative is no longer clear.

In this paper, we will analyze these questions by taking into account the logical distinction between truth and validity, a key distinction for illuminating the discussion between Hayden White and Roger Chartier on the claim to truth, while also considering Verónica Tozzi’s interpretation of White’s work.