Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 6:50 pm Post subject: The Great Cat Massacre
Is Contat a historian? Why or why not?
Is the account history? Why or why not?
I would say that Contat is not a historian. Biography writing is not the study of history. It is the record of it, but historians do not merely write down history, they take the records and they analyze them. Contat is simply telling his own story, and making no attempt to glean anything further from it. Thus he is a storyteller, and not a historian.
I would, however, say that it is history, or at least quite close. And that seems further proven by Robert Darnton's paper on it. The account is a record of the past, and as Darnton says, while it may not be completely accurate, "by treating the narrative as fiction or meaningful fabrication we can use it to develop an ethnological explication de texte." It's not perfect history, and granted, we will never know the exact accuracy of his tale. But at least parts of it should be considered history, as by the word's most basic definition, it is a catalogue (cat-alogue, hehe) of past events.
Is Contat a historian? Why or why not? I believe that Contat is a historian based on the reading we were given. I believe this because my definition of history (as of this morning) is a framework of events that have happened in the past that will affect the future. Even though the event he wrote about might seem insignificant next to large events such as the Holocaust and the Civil War, it somehow affected his life so much that he decided to write about it. This seems very similar to Anne Frank whom wrote about what she experienced into a diary, and we never question whether or not this Diary should be considered a part of history. Contat wrote about an event in his life that he experienced and internally analyzed, which should make him a Historian even though he may not be as well informed as Historians who may do this as a job.
Is the account history? Why or why not? I believe this writing was also an account of history. Unlike Marx I believe that history does not have to be based around productivity and economic stages throughout history. I believe history is simply a recording of all past events. They could be as small as a man mimicking people, or as large as Anne Frank recording what she experienced into a diary that was miraculously found.
I thought the topic was interesting, yet I hated almost every second reading it. I just felt so bad for the cats (Marilyn were you sad when you read it?). At first I felt bad for the workers too because they were treated so badly, but then Contat described a few of their ceremonies, which made them seem almost savagery. They remind me of Marx’s proletariats, and how they will unite, rise and rule. But instead these printers set all those rules: maintain low wage rate, drink excessively, be in debt, etc (which remind me a lot of yolo…). So I guess instead of progression, they decide to go against all moral rules and almost go backwards.
Anyways, I don’t think Contat is a historian for the exact reason as Ben stated before. He reminds me a lot of Herodotus (I was a Thucydides person) and I think by merely recording this series of events without adding in any analysis, he is not really doing historical work.
I also don’t think this piece is a work of history, maybe it’s close, but not quite there yet. It feels more like cultural study, which definitely involves history, yes, but still it’s different. This works to me serves more like a springboard, you jump from there to go into history. Also at first I thought this was a metaphor for French Revolution (I know it mentioned it in the very end), but the more I read the more I thought it was just a historically based story. If works of this form qualify as history, then wouldn’t most novels be about history then? Would that make Dumas and Victor Hugo historians now?
I believe Contant is an accidental historian. Contant provided the reader with interesting information. He gave an account of events that occurred even if he did not mean for it to be interpreted as history.
I wonder whether the recording of history has to be intentional.
I also believe the account is history. Even if it is semi-fictional, much about the time and place can be gleaned from it. And it did seem to have happen. It is someone's history. Though this is slightly unrelated, I enjoy History because I love historical fiction novels. These novels make history accessible to me.
To respond to Mingwei's post, I wonder if you would feel differently had the men been torturing earthworms, evil people, or fish?
What do other people think about the idea of "accidental history/historian"??
Contat is not a historian he is telling a story. in my view being a historian would have required him to be reviewing and analyzing the massacre and its effects rather than recounting a story from his youth. if you could become a historian by telling your funny stories everyone would be a historian.
i do however think the event is history as it is a human event and it is in the past. history in my definition was any past human event.
I would say Contat is not a historian. I think that, as others have mentioned, part of being a historian is notating patterns within your own account and using them to understand the present. Contat merely wrote down what happened, and as such, he can't be considered a historian.
However, I believe that this is a history. I believe that a history as a piece of text merely describes what happened. A piece of history describes the time, place, who was involved; a piece of history only deals with facts. It is then the job of the historian to interpret it. A history is meant to be objective enough so that a historian can draw the most accurate conclusions he can.
I agree with Ben 100%. (by the way, nice joke, I laughed) Contat is not a historian because he did no analysis, found no patterns, and studied nothing. He only recited a story and recorded it and that was it.
The account alone is not history, but the piece by Robert Darnton would be considered history because his work extracts pieces of the cat massacre account and tells the reader about the time period. It was also interesting how he explained that we could not view the story through a modern view, but rather through a lens of the time.
I have a quesion after reading something Mingwei brought up. Both Herodutus and Contat only wrote down events that happened and did not analyse, so why would one consider Herodotus a historian and not Contat? Did anyone change their mind about Heroduts vs. Thucydides?
I agree with Ben that Contat's not a historian. He's recording history but the writing is not History. History is not just recording history. History requires relating historic events to their surroundings. Contat provided a great bit of history for historians like Robert Darnton to make into History. (Sorry if this is too confusing.) But I think this isn't History because it's so isolated. This only shows one event in isolation with little regard to what else was happening at that time. I think a historian has to show a progression of events, how those events cause other things. Yes, contat shows how Leveille's imitation of a cat causes the master to order a massacre of cats but both Leveille and the Master are confined within the same isolated event. Contat was writing "what was meaningful to him (100)" not what was meaningful to the world or to the progression of history.
I believe this story is an account of history. The cat massacre reflects a public sentiment of rebellion that was stirring in the leadup to the French Revolution (99).
Separately from Contat's story being an account of history, I think the account itself is history. The humorous style reflects the culture of printmakers at that time, their modes of expression, and their method of dealing with oppression through laughter (101). COntat's account is history in the way that a lot of literature is history, like how On the Road gives us a picture of that time period through its literary style just as much as its content.
To answer Mingwei, I would say yes, many novels are about history. It's possible to talk about history through fiction or fictionalized versions of real events. I think the Odyssey is a great example. I think more often than novels being about history, novels are history. I'd argue that almost every novel reflects its time period through its style.
What can literary style and language (note the slang on p. 90) tell us about a time period? What can they tell us that simple accounts of the actual events cannot?
I believe that Contat's text was a recording of history. Although Contat's story may not be completely accurate, it is still a description of past events and it still "sets the action in a frame of reference" (pg. 89). His writing gives the reader basic information about the lives of printing apprentices in the 1700s as well as the culture of the working class in Paris at the time. For instance, what they find humorous and what they think of cats
Contat was not a historian because he did not study history. He made a record of his own experiences, but he did not analyze the information. Contat did not find any patterns in the past, or conclude that any events cause other events.
I wouldn't day Constat was a historian. And the account, in my view, cannot be counted as history. Similarly I wouldn't call the journals I wrote that account past events in my life is history either. In order to be called "history", I think there has to be a broader picture (as least multiple households or a town) than the place where the massacre took place; or there has to be a series of events that have some sort of connection with each other (like the history of a family that's not confined in one particular location). A brief account of a single story by one person is not really "history". Without putting much connection with the society in the writing, the anecdote seems very accidental and feasible to be dismissed in a more serious account of history.
Although there is a voice in my mind muttering "this can't be history", I found myself reluctantly admitting Contat's account as history because it seems to fit the criteria of my definition of history such as "showing the progression of humanity" as this account epitomes the revolution of workers under oppression.
After reading the piece by Darnton, I'm more convinced and comfortable to say Contat's account is history, in the form/disguise of fiction. To me, the record of that event was not all that important, instead the social order it revealed was what fascinates me. As Darnton puts it, the awareness that there is a distance of concept between the workers of pre-industrial Europe and us is a starting point for us to unravel the social patterns at the time. And Contat's account then serves as a frame of reference for us to understand the past through their perspective and uses of symbols rather than our modern point of view.
However I can't call Contat a historian, since my definition of historian is an authority who analyses stories like this to summarize into a more objective truth. Contat's account can only be viewed as a primary source (as well as the fictional works people are talking about) and he did a nice job by presenting a very particular perspective to reveal the situation of society at the time.
(And in response to Isabella's "accidental history", I don't think Contat's history was unintentionally at all. As Darnton suggests, Contat was consciously using symbolism to put Jerome's story in a larger context and thus help the reader to understand the situation of society.)
In response to Rowan, I think what separates Herodotus/Thucydides from Contat is that their history is from accumulations of different accounts and evidence rather than entirely from their own perspectives and they also aimed to find pattern in it.
Last edited by mijiawang on Wed Jan 23, 2013 10:48 pm; edited 1 time in total
I do not believe Contat qualifies as a historian, since his writing is limited to being subjective and biographical.That being said this story provides excellent insight into the treatment of apprentices in artisan trades and the general inequity between them and there masters. For this reason it is great first-hand document, and any embellishment/ exaggeration of the story doesn't so much detract from the story, but further illuminates the exasperated feelings of the author towards his position of apprenticeship- which in itself has social relevance. Robert Darnton remarks on this as well, "by treating the text as fiction or meaningful fabrication we can use it to develop an ethnological explication de texte" (89). In this way all art/ literature has historical merit and implications.
The story definitely is historically feasible, and the inclusion of background information, events and causality, factions/affiliations, customs,etc. ( All generally understood/grounded in reality) at least crudely describes this as a historical account.
I can't decide whether or not Contat is a historian or not. On the one hand, he does show how people have changed over time (like Mijia said, human progression). On the other hand, his is the experience of the apprentice only, not the master, and does not describe the master's reaction nearly as extensively as his own. He also does not describe the culture of the masters as thoroughly as he describes the culture of the apprentices and journeymen, which gives the reader insight into only one class' attitudes towards the cats.
I'd say the reading is a work of history because it describes a period of human society, even though it is an incomplete account. Like I said above, if it was a more complete account, it would obviously be history. But since it contains so many autobiographical elements, it is hard to distinguish the reading as solid history.
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
