I don’t think of Contant as a historian, just as someone who sat down one day and wrote about his days as a worker, in particular parts with Leveille. He told stories from his own life, and If I were to tell a story about my times at art camp I doubt many people would consider that history.
The analyzation is most definitely history, because it goes much further beyond the story itself. In order to write this, the author had to have researched superstitions of cats and what they symbolized in certain parts of France during certain time periods. It taught something, and History needs a purpose, whereas just the story Contant shared taught me nothing, and without the context of the account, the story would be meaningless to me. History should be informative, and I now feel very well informed on how to insult a mistress in 1700’s France.
I couldn't really decide if I thought that Contat was a historian or not while I was reading his account of what happened but when I compared it to the account I decided that I didn't think he was a historian. I would classify Contat as more of a story teller. Even in the translated version I could tell that his story was well written and he used a lot of flowery language. It just didn't feel like a historical account.
I did think that the account about Contat was historical because it was obviously full of information that would have needed a lot of in-depth research. It also went into more detail than Contats account.
Well, I don't have too much to say that hasn't been said. Contat is a story teller more than a historian, while the analytical piece is historical because it required research and discussion. I think it might be interesting to discuss where the line of a history and a story is. Contat's story was in the past, and was related to man.... but so far we have trouble calling it a history. Is it the lack of analyzation? Or is it too personal? OR here's a good one! Maybe it's because it's a primary source. We seem to find secondary sources much more historical than primary ones. I don't think I'd call the Aristotle reading historical... but maybe it's scientific. Thoughts?
Knaid, you have a point. History needs a purpose. But what exactly would that purpose be?
or if you rather, What exactly have we gained by "getting" a joke that we will (I hope) never have reason to repeat?
to a certain extent i agree with knaide, Contat was not (as far as i can tell from this source) concerned with writing the histories of people that were beyond his own experience, which i think is a pretty important characteristic for a historian. i see what he wrote as a primary source, an important piece for historians to study but not necessarily the product of the discipline of History. i don't know, are autobiographers technically considered historians? i would disagree with knaide that contat's writing is like her writing about art camp, because we know from darnton's analysis that the cat massacre was representative of a wider feeling during that time period whereas art camp (though perhaps important to knaide) doesn't really say anything about america during the early 21st century.
at first i was tempted to say that contat's piece was not History because it required explanation, but i would call both herodotus and thucydides historians and i learned much more about them from and about what they were writing about when i read the accounts by later historians on them, compared to when i read their own work. perhaps this has something to do with turner's idea that each generation writes history anew, im sure that contat's story would be self explanatory to people living in his own time whereas now we need the context darnton provides us with to understand the humor. maybe thats the job of historians, relating the past so that present generations can understand it and relate to it.
I had a similar reaction to Dylan and agreed with a lot of what he said. Contat's account is definitely a primary source and Darnton's is a secondary source. WIthout even thinking I wrote Contat off as a storyteller and Darnton as a historian, but when you really think about it that seems counter intuitive. We study history to better understand the past, so wouldn't something written first hand be more historical? When we read Contat's account we are literally reading history, but when we read Darnton's we are merely reading a retelling of history, so we're kind of just reading a story of history.
To go off of Dylan's prompt about the line between history and story, I kind of think the secondary sources we read about history like textbooks are the stories. They aren't fictional but they aren't completely true either. TRUTH. There it is again. I'm not sure if secondary sources can be all that true because no matter how impartial the historian is, there is still going to be some bias in there. Not to mention some analyzation of the event. Contant's account though it was embelished and exaggerated for enjoyment was much truer. I'm having a hard time articulating this, but I just feel that the fact that he was writing this in what was the present to him is what makes this history. Is anyone following my train of thought or am I just scheming? If you do agree, could someone try to explain it better?
Also: How truthful do we think history needs to be?
To go off of Dylan's prompt about the line between history and story, I kind of think the secondary sources we read about history like textbooks are the stories. They aren't fictional but they aren't completely true either. TRUTH. There it is again. I'm not sure if secondary sources can be all that true because no matter how impartial the historian is, there is still going to be some bias in there. Not to mention some analyzation of the event. Contant's account though it was embelished and exaggerated for enjoyment was much truer. I'm having a hard time articulating this, but I just feel that the fact that he was writing this in what was the present to him is what makes this history. Is anyone following my train of thought or am I just scheming? If you do agree, could someone try to explain it better?
Also: How truthful do we think history needs to be?
wgownap48ag9nvbn i have such a hard time with this concept. like in our H/T debate when people would argue that herodotus was a lesser historian because he wasn't "truthful". "the truth" is so incredibly subjective. like i'm sure if all of us tried to write a historical account of what happened today in class our responses would be entirely different, even though we were all in the same class doing the same exercise. how can we expect "the truth" from our historians when we can't even understand it or define it? at the same time, if a historian said that an atomic bomb dropped in boston today that would just obviously be untruthful. so i suppose, where do we draw the line between "truth" in our historians and "lies". can there even be a truth independent of men in a discipline that is fundamentally about men?
Conant's narrative is historical, in part because it's an account from the first person. This source was used to show what it would or most likely happened. Canant however is not a historian because he served as a story teller rather than someone who saw these accounts and analyzed them. The only moment in the text where he may have evaluted the occurrences were when he said that "All the workers are in a league against the masters (p. 85)." This account, is both ambiguous and questionably analysis." It is recounted history. [i]The Confessions of Nat Turner,[i] was an empirical account by Nat Turner, published and written by Thomas Grey. After years of historians studies the documents and event in american history, many people refute the idea that it was an accurate representation of what actually happened. Again, in Jerome's account, it was portrayed in the 3rd person, making it a quasi-primary source document.
Darnton makes assumptions for the reader, and asserts that the cat massacre's were down right wrong. He analyzed and gives his incite on the past accounts. He was also able to analyze Contant as the story teller, even though Conant was not present at the Cat Massacre. Perhaps he is the historian.
Going back to Conant's narrative being historical, it is rare to have historical events written from a first person account. And if it it, it's extremely biased and one sided, so it cannot be proven. Historians are always writing history about the past, from the present. How can we prove that these events occurred? Even Science cannot permit us to see whether or not these events transpired.
My question is, do we consider historians to be the individuals who analyze historical accounts, or the individuals who reinvent and recount those accounts?
My other question to the group is what is true historical evidence? Can we deem a third person account true history?
** Please Note that Nat Turner is not the same person as our Frederick Turner**
Last edited by Aundré Bumgardner on Thu Sep 22, 2011 7:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
I don't think Contat is a historian because he didn't really study the history of the printing shop in order to tell the story about the cats. I do agree with Dylan that Contat is more of a storyteller. Contat is talking about a specific time that happened in the printing shop but in an informal way. Contat is similar to Herodotus in the way that he tells the story and how they both based their stories off of personal experiences.
I would say that the story is history though. This happened in the printing shop and seems like it would be one of the most significant times in the printing shop. I think its history because if someone were to write a book about the history of the printing shop, this would be categorized as a part of the history. I'm not really sure how to describe what I'm trying to say but I hope someone will.
I thought this reading was very detailed in its explanation of the death of the cats but in a way it was needed. It helps emphasize the purpose of the story.
ok first things first, this was possibly one of the weirdest/disturbing/ hilarious/ridiculous/ some other words and slashes that i cannot think of now, that i have ever read. So on the question of if Contat is a historian, i think that everyone who has posted saying that he is not, makes really good points. But this is when i think of Herodotus being a story teller, but also having the title of "the father of history." What Knaide said about the art camp thing, i think that would still be considered history. It may not be considered the most important or life changing history, no offense, but it still is history.
The account is definitely history, actually i think that the whole thing is history, even in a small way. It gets complicated when dealing with folktales and myths and such, because these stories are often used as (historical?) references, even though they are not 100% accurate.
Shari I originally agreed with your idea that Contat wasn't a historian because he didn't study the history of the print shop in order to tell the story about the cats, but then changed my mind- I don't think this story was really about the history of the print shop, and the main backround about the "class system" within that job- workers to journeymen to bourgeois. However, Darnton decided to include a brief insight on how surprisingly common cat violence was during that time, which helped change the tone of the action where Contat didn't feel the need to elaborate on because to him, it was a pretty "normal" or at least hilarious thing to do. I think it's part of a historian's job to provide context, even if it is biased, in order to view events in the past (such as murdering cats) through a wider lens so we can understand the "why's" better. So in this sense, Contant didn't really live up to my expectations of a historian and took more of a story-teller role just based on the overall jovial tone of the text.
I like Kate's mention of how Contat's version is more accurate to "his story", and that validates the tone/decision to leave out more context surrounding why a cat massacre is funny. I guess I'm glad we read both because they both seem equally important- Contat's acting more as a primary and Darnton a secondary source.
What Contat wrote is only the description of an event, the cat massacre. He did provided the picture of his society, such as the distinction between the master and workers, the ceremony and his experience of promotion form beginner worker to the craft. He never tried to analyze the prevailing class distinction or ceremonies, but only describing them as everyone does on their diary. This can be nice primary source for one who want to study for the society of 1700s, but insufficient to be called as ‘history.’
Contat also did not intended to leave his writing as a history. Herodotus once said the intention of history is to ‘preserve the essential facts and causes of recent events’ (15) which does not applies to Contat’s writing. To Contat and his fellow craftmen, Massacre of cats is simply a joke. The intention as well as the content does not qualifies to the standard of history.
I have to disagree with almost everything you are saying, Kate. haha sorry.
Have you ever heard the two sides of a disagreement and thought "well someone has to be lying" but both parties are sure they are true? I think people remember what they like to remember, and exagerate and add to their stories to make them more exciting, and that is not history. To be honest, I don't think we will ever know exactly what happened in history. We can never experience it for ourselves, and all sources are going to have a biased or different view that effects the way they interpret 'history'. so basically, the truth will never be reached. I guess that also means we will never reach perfection either. sorry Marx.
Also, I don't think reading Contat's primary document would help me understand history any better-one it would be in french. I don't speak french. second, I'm fairly sure that not many people who did not know about the attitude towards cats in 1700s France would finish the story very confused and maybe a little bit worried about all the stray cats limping around Nice.
kscrimshawhall wrote:
I had a similar reaction to Dylan and agreed with a lot of what he said. Contat's account is definitely a primary source and Darnton's is a secondary source. WIthout even thinking I wrote Contat off as a storyteller and Darnton as a historian, but when you really think about it that seems counter intuitive. We study history to better understand the past, so wouldn't something written first hand be more historical? When we read Contat's account we are literally reading history, but when we read Darnton's we are merely reading a retelling of history, so we're kind of just reading a story of history.
To go off of Dylan's prompt about the line between history and story, I kind of think the secondary sources we read about history like textbooks are the stories. They aren't fictional but they aren't completely true either. TRUTH. There it is again. I'm not sure if secondary sources can be all that true because no matter how impartial the historian is, there is still going to be some bias in there. Not to mention some analyzation of the event. Contant's account though it was embelished and exaggerated for enjoyment was much truer. I'm having a hard time articulating this, but I just feel that the fact that he was writing this in what was the present to him is what makes this history. Is anyone following my train of thought or am I just scheming? If you do agree, could someone try to explain it better?
Also: How truthful do we think history needs to be?
Like most people posting, I believe Contat wasn't a historian, but his story is most definitely history. My definition of historians involve some conscious thought that they are recording "history" for the purpose of future or current study. His account gives us lots of information about the class system in france for printers in the mid-eighteenth century.
In response to Dylans point about where is the line between story telling and history, I think a story becomes history when it can tell us something about the time period. Which is pretty much always, look at the greek myths about the gods, they aren't accurate to events, but they still tell us huge amounts about ancient greek culture.
But perhaps I misunderstood your question, and you were asking what is the line between someone telling a story, and trying to write history. I think the discipline of history is more about looking at the past and analyzing it, as opposed to reporting on the present, but then herodotus and thucydides aren't historians...
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
