Köken Tartışmaları Ekseninde Katarlara Dair Tarih Yazımındaki Güncel Paradigma Değişikliği

Feyza Saçmali, K. Ataman
{"title":"Köken Tartışmaları Ekseninde Katarlara Dair Tarih Yazımındaki Güncel Paradigma Değişikliği","authors":"Feyza Saçmali, K. Ataman","doi":"10.17131/milel.904355","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Although historical writings on Cathars' date back to the Catholic scholars in the 13th century, it is only in 19th century that a dramatical increase took place on this subject. The mystery of the Cathars has undergone significant changes over the years and allowed for different ideological point of views to prevail at various periods. Cathars' Manichaean origin was perceived as the dominant view for many years in Cathar studies. This perspective, which we call the traditional view, claims that the dualist doctrine, which started with Manichaeism, reached the Cathars of Northern Italy and Southern France through the Paulicians in Anatolia in the 9th century and the Bogomils in the Balkans in the 10th century. This view seems to have been abandoned after the 1950s. Recently, a new trend, known as the “skeptic” view, has emerged whose supporters speculate that the Cathars may have never existed in history and could be an imaginary enemy invented by the Catholics. Contemporary historians of Cathars are divided into two: \"traditional\" and \"skeptic.\" The purpose of this article is to propose a new category, \"the contemporary view,\" which questions the Eastern connections of the Cathars on the one hand and criticizes the “skeptical view” on the other by considering the sufficiency of these two categories and the points on which historians agree and disagree.","PeriodicalId":177296,"journal":{"name":"Milel ve Nihal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Milel ve Nihal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17131/milel.904355","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: Although historical writings on Cathars' date back to the Catholic scholars in the 13th century, it is only in 19th century that a dramatical increase took place on this subject. The mystery of the Cathars has undergone significant changes over the years and allowed for different ideological point of views to prevail at various periods. Cathars' Manichaean origin was perceived as the dominant view for many years in Cathar studies. This perspective, which we call the traditional view, claims that the dualist doctrine, which started with Manichaeism, reached the Cathars of Northern Italy and Southern France through the Paulicians in Anatolia in the 9th century and the Bogomils in the Balkans in the 10th century. This view seems to have been abandoned after the 1950s. Recently, a new trend, known as the “skeptic” view, has emerged whose supporters speculate that the Cathars may have never existed in history and could be an imaginary enemy invented by the Catholics. Contemporary historians of Cathars are divided into two: "traditional" and "skeptic." The purpose of this article is to propose a new category, "the contemporary view," which questions the Eastern connections of the Cathars on the one hand and criticizes the “skeptical view” on the other by considering the sufficiency of these two categories and the points on which historians agree and disagree.
虽然关于卡特里派的历史著作可以追溯到13世纪的天主教学者,但直到19世纪,这一主题才出现了戏剧性的增长。多年来,卡特里派的神秘经历了重大变化,并允许不同的意识形态观点在不同时期盛行。多年来,卡特里派的摩尼教起源被认为是卡特里派研究的主导观点。这种我们称之为传统观点的观点认为,始于摩尼教的二元论教义,通过9世纪安纳托利亚的保利派和10世纪巴尔干半岛的波格米尔派传到了意大利北部和法国南部的卡特里派。这种观点似乎在20世纪50年代以后就被抛弃了。最近,出现了一种被称为“怀疑”观点的新趋势,其支持者推测,卡特里亚教徒可能在历史上从未存在过,可能是天主教徒虚构的假想敌。研究卡特利派的当代史学家分为两派:“传统派”和“怀疑派”。本文的目的是提出一个新的范畴,即“当代观”,一方面质疑卡特利派与东方的联系,另一方面通过考虑这两个范畴的充分性以及历史学家同意和不同意的观点,对“怀疑主义观”进行批评。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信