I don’t think that Contat is an historian. His account of the cat massacre could have been taken from a letter to a friend just as much as it could have been a synecdoche taken from a text he authored to illustrate Parisian print shop working conditions in the 1700s. The key thing that’s makes him a storyteller, as opposed to an historian is his lack of analysis. Contat merely lists a series of events; he doesn’t look critically at the events pull some sort of truth or understanding from the events of the cat massacre. Not that all historians have to pull have ideas from texts, I think Contat would’ve been an historian had he said, we can see from these events that apprentices don’t like their masters, or some other basic truth that’s evident. Robert Darnton (the author of the second article) is an historian.
That being said I think this account is history because it is something in the past we can interpret and analyze, pull some truths out of, and reach some sort of understanding.
I'm inclined to agree with Keaton. Although Contat's story can be interpreted in a historical context, the piece itself is not history in itself. I would call it historical fiction, because there is no way of verifying the events other than to assume that they are a thinly veiled autobiographical account from Contat's own past. Whatever it is, Contat's story is too literary, too much of a personal account to be called history. History is grounded in events of the past, but not ones on an inidividual scale. Since history is about man/nature/society as a whole, their has to be a broader social focus in any historical account. If Contat had taken the story and then discussed a pattern, I think that this would more clearly fall into the domain of history. Evidently, Contat is not an historian, because an historian is someone who "does" history. I think this story is an interesting application of history to fiction, but that does not make it history. Even if this piece reflects history, it is primarily about the specific situation of the characters. I think what this piece shows that something containing historical knowledge or displaying historical ideas is not necessarily history. History needs to have intent behind it, and this story seemed to have more of a literary intent.
Perhaps the best way to summarize the above rant is that history must be what Kant called a "thing-in-itself", otherwise we can't call it history. History needs to clearly analyze the events of the past for the sake of informing the future, and it needs to explain why the past is important. The Great Cat Massacre is a wonderful example of something that is historical, but still not history.
I think for now, Keaton and Hannah, I'm going to disagree with you, if not simply by virtue of wanting to be devil's advocate. At first glance, I would agree that Contat is not an historian, because his account seems to be a simple comedic jab at the bourgeois. But Robert Darnton does an impressive job of pointing out that, by looking at Contat's syntax and symbolism, he is consciously allowing the reader to understand Jerome's life, and therefore the life of the French working force under the STN. I thought it was fascinating how Darnton dissected the role of humor in Contat's account/fictional narrative: "Where is the humor in a group of grown men bleating like goat and banging with their tools while an adolescent reenacts the ritual slaughter of a denfenseless animal?" (8. Through trying to understand the somehow "apparent" humor in the killing of cats, we discover a rich set of customs that the printing shop set up, in mockery of the devout and superstitious lot of bourgeois masters and mistresses. According to Darnton (We can't really know, because we didn't read the account in the original French), Contat's use of humor in his memoirs is so perfect and witty, how could it not be intentional? He is an historian without calling himself one.
But then this makes me wonder: Is Shakespeare an historian? Is Langston Hughes an historian? What role do artists, writers, comedians, and musicians play a role in history? In some ways, they depict the reality of past cultures better than self-defined historians do, by revealing the customs, humor, and therefore perspective of the everyday individual. It's often said that history is written by winners, and although this is a huge generalization, I think it highlights how important it is to understand the life that the masses lead. Maybe, à la Hegel's dialectic method, the synthesis of history is in the struggle between the accurate account of history written by self-defined historians, and the folklore and peculiarities of everyone else.
But does all of this make Contat an historian? I question the purpose and intention of Contat: did he really mean to write a history? Obviously Darnton seems to think so, but I also wonder if his intentions really matter. Could he be an historian simply by creating a piece of history??
I also want to address Hannah's point that Contat's story may not be "accurate". I would argue that this accuracy is, in some ways, not relevant. Even if Contat's story is a complete and utter lie (that clever French bastard!), it still gives us great perspective into the lies of French apprentices and journeymen, if not to just say that they were clever and witty liars. With historians, we feel the need to accurate accounts that are backed-up (at least, this was my reaction when reading/reading about Herodotus), but in the case of Contat's memoirs, maybe this accuracy is unnecessary, because he's describing a certain perception of things, not "the truth". Whatever the truth may be. And this perception is important for us to know: it gives us insight into the why of the situation: why the killing of cats is funny, why the working force do or do not rebel, etc.
It seems then Jenny that you'd be more inclined towards Herodotus? From this reading I suppose we can address the question of whether or not Herodotus was an historian or an artist who wrote a history. I would then agree that Contat is not an historian as well as stick with Jenny on this one. Like Herodotus, Contat provided an account of his time (or in Herodotus's case, an earlier time), which gave the reader a deducible understanding of the culture, people and inner workings of a society during that time. He may not apply causality to his history as Thucydides did, but his work is still a historical account. And just as Herodotus used the oracle and oral tradition to weave his tale, the lack of truth in his work never detracted from an understanding of the time.
So then does accuracy provide that divide between an "historian" and "a history". Although asking that question could solidify my definition of history, I'd rather not run with the idea that a historian applies causality to historical accounts and that is thus history knowing that this will probably change within the next hour (and so on and so on and so on)
Wow I really wish I had read some of these posts before I read the reading because I think I would have read the reading differently. Although I agree with Keaton, I think Jen’s question is incredibly important. What is the role art (of all mediums) in history? Those artists are not historians themselves, although they are…making history. They shine light on what the time period valued, and so while Langston Hughes was not an historian, his writing highlighted what people where thinking about in that time period. Although Contat’s writing can be used by historians to interpret the time period, just as I do not think Hughes was an historian, neither was Contat.
Contat's account is not history, even in the sense that Herodotus is history, but not because Contat may not be accurate or reliable. Contat's story can be used by a good historian, who can question the story for accuracy by comparing it with other stories and accounts from that period, and other stories of the treatment of cats by the French, or of masters by journeymen and apprentices.
Contat is not a historian because he is not trying to be a historian. He is not interested in why people would massacre cats, or in why masters, journeymen, and apprentices were in conflict. He only wants to tell the story of the massacre as a means for apprentices to get back at their masters. Unlike Herodotus, he is not using his story to get at any larger historical truth.
But Contat tells a wonderful story, and a very useful one for the historian. And Darnton shows the difference between story telling and history by explaining the many different things going on in this story, and how they all relate to the history of early modern France.
[/list]
I'm inclined to think that it's not accuracy that determines who is a historian and who isn't, but I think that intent is something that separates historians from artists that provide historical accounts. Herodotus said that he wrote Histories, "To preserve the memory of the past by putting on record the astonishing achievements both of our own and of other peoples; AND MORE PARTICULARLY to show how they came into conflict. "(15)
His intent was to show causes, and causality, why things happen is a huge part of history, it's the understanding all historians are looking for in the past, the true why. Multiple perspectives are often presented so that we, the historians, can determine which one(s) actually caused events.
Long story short, intent determines historian vs. artist that creates history. Contat is the latter.
I think I’m going to agree with Keaton and other people that Contant was not a historian, but Darnton clearly was. Contants story did not include any interpretation or analysis of what happened. He gave his own perspective on an event; “he selected details ordered events, and framed the story is such a way as to bring out what was meaningful for him” (p.100). His story, like paintings, theater, etc, is something that historians use to interpret and reflect culture, not the interpretation itself (which sort of addresses your question Ziz, which I thought was really interesting). Darnton is the one who takes this story from the approach of a historian by dissecting it in terms of what was happening at the time and drawing conclusions about the symbolic significance of the event. By looking at the event in the big picture we can make predictions about the future. By just reading the story we see a very narrow view, and can’t see the significance. If I said I got up and ate a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, that doesn’t make me a historian. But If I say I got up and ate this particular sandwich and explained where the food comes from, why I eat it, if I eat it everyday, if it is typical to do this, etc, then I am a historian. That’s kind of a weird example but maybe you get my drift.
I also think that although Contant was not a historian, the piece was history. As Darnton showed, it had huge significance related to the culture of the time and allows us to see patterns and draw conclusions.
Like other people I saw the connection to Herodotus, but I can’t really articulate it. I was wondering what connections people saw to him in the reading itself and thinking about this question.
I seem to be in agreement, Contat's account is useful to Historians and is history, but his intent in writing it was not to discuss History, but to tell the story of his life. This objective removes him from History into a primary source position.
Taking this concept of intent and applying it to the question of art and artists, why can't Art be another discipline in addition to Science and History?
We have defined these two lenses for approaching the world, but that does not mean there are not more. Math, Art, Philosophy, Law, and so on; there are many ways of viewing everything.
We would be doing a disservice to ourselves if we tried to oversimplify these modes of thought.
I agree with Ziz, I wish I read these posts before I did the reading.
To talk about Jenn's question about artists being historians, I don't think they are. Artists however do document the past and make contributions to history, but they in no sense historians. Its impossible to write a history as events are happening, because that is the present and you can only draw conclusions after the event has came to a close. I'm going to go back to Hegel. "History in the sense of Hegel's is not merely a record of the past. It is a progress, an evolution." Pg 65. I don't think it is possible to make conclusions and draw patterns about your own evolution as you are currently making that particular evolution. We can only find patterns about evolution after the event has past.
Contat recorded the present in a humorous and witty way, which would be useful to historians of the future who could then use what he wrote as a tool to analyze that specific event. In my opinion, Contat did not write a history, and Contat is not an historian.
I also don't think accuracy matters. For all we know, nothing we read could have been true. What is true, is what ever we think is true. There no way for us to travel back in time and see what really happened in the 1700s (well at least for now), we only have these documentations to help us assume what was going on back then. These primary sources are the only thing that lets us see what the past was like, whether or not it is 'accurate' or not, there is no way for us to tell. We rely on the discipline of History to tell us what was true in the past, and Science to tell us what will always be true. The things that Contat, and other artists write are vital to history. They are to only things we have to connect us to the past, and help us on the conquest to understand the past and the future.
Wow. It was excellent to read all these but similarly annoying because everything I thought has been explored and articulated beyond my initial imaginings anyways.
Such is the forum. ANYWAYS:
I feel as if we can't call Contat is a Historian. I capitalize this word because in the same way we've gone through such pains to separate "history" (that which has happened and "History," the discipline of,) so too must we apply the capital/lower case designations to historians. By dint of taking up space and existing in time (regardless of who's time and who's space we're perceiving it by) anything any person creates can be utilized for the purpose of History. This is something I believe many people have touched upon in the questioning of where we place artists in this History/non-History sphere.
To me, its less about intent and more about available context. Any art of any medium that is produced is a reference to the current time and culmination of the path time has taken to this point. While I agree with Jenny inasmuch that Contat paints a picture that allows us access to understanding Jerome's life, without the context of Darnton's explanatory piece the references, symbolism and expression of Conat's work would have been entirely lost on us. Subsequently, his literary piece makes for an excellent primary source of his time so that Historians such as Darnton may make, as Keaton pointed out, the necessary analysis and connection-making we clearly associate with the work of History.
This being said, I forget who mentioned it previously in this forum but the valuation/devaluation of fiction vs. non-fiction, and the assumed need for accuracy I think is highly important. I believe everything, REGARDLESS OF INTENT must have some fictitious element(s) in the same way everything---despite our best efforts--will have some subjectivity to it.
Consequently, I think think that so called "fictional" stories still offer the same references to times past and present; as the imaginings of people MUST reveal preexisting facets and aspects of pervading cultural context within them because, as Hegel insists, you can't imagine what you don't know. Furthermore, if by thinking something you create it, why again does intent matter so much if in someone else's mind "you" can be a historian. More devil's advocacy here: By dint of ME thinking Contat is a historian doesn't that make him one even just the smallest bit?
This has been a tangent, which I apologize for, but everyone's just said so many amazing things, it has inspired a lot of thoughts.
While I know it's 110% besides the point, HOW MESSED UP IS IT WHAT PEOPLE USED TO DO? True or not, HOW MESSED UP IS IT THAT PEOPLE CAME UP WITH THIS???
Seriously. People get angry about the idea of being related to apes but not about the idea of descending from cultures that tortured and abused animals? It was actually hard for me while reading to focus on the question of Contat because I was so disturbed by the content. maybe i'm alone on that one. hjksfgjasdkfg.
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
. Through trying to understand the somehow "apparent" humor in the killing of cats, we discover a rich set of customs that the printing shop set up, in mockery of the devout and superstitious lot of bourgeois masters and mistresses. According to Darnton (We can't really know, because we didn't read the account in the original French), Contat's use of humor in his memoirs is so perfect and witty, how could it not be intentional? He is an historian without calling himself one.
