My first inclination is to say that this is not history, but it is a part of history. I think history implies perspective that is not evident here, looking at something as part of a greater context. Like Rachel said, it's an excellent primary resource. It could be pulled into a greater narrative.
But if anything this class has blurred my mental line between memory and history. Maybe history implies the intent to analyze.
Rachel, completely agree with your distinction that without Darnton, we wouldn't get Contat's point. Also, without the extensive base of knowledge that Darnton drew from (aka medieval folklore, etc.), I at least would feel that Darnton was totally b-s-ing us. A lot of people have been using this to show how Darnton may be an historian, while Contat is not. A very valid point, and something I agree with. But I'm still stuck on the importance of validity/accuracy in Contat's narrative. The accuracy we (including myself) feel the need to have in an historical account I think implicity relates to our understanding of truth in history.
Yes, I dropped the T truth.
What do you think? Can we only reach truth through complete accuracy? Because if this is a correct assesment, then we must assume that this accuracy is something in-itself. Which, at this point, may be legitimate. I don't know, I'm interested in what you all think.
Sarah I’m so fascinated by your comment about the line between history and memory. I think historical accounts in a sense our memories, and then it’s the job of the historian to interpret them.
Jenn, I think that historical narratives can never be completely accurate, and I think historians gain the most accuracy by looking at many different perspectives and then drawing a conclusion. This conclusion is as close to truth as we can get. But accuracy is really all relative, since everything is inevitably biased. What is accurate to one party may not be to the other. I’m curious what other people think about that too though.
I wanted to agree with Rachel that anything can be analyzed in an historical context, but that doesn't make everything history. However, I think you definitely don't have to study history in order to be an historian. In his analysis of Contat's story, Darnton showed that he is an historian who studies literature. Not only can everything be applied to history, but history can be applied to everything because everything (not just people) has a history. For example, natural history, the history of science, the history of French literature, the history of French animal abuse...the list goes on an on. History and Science, I'm starting to see, are like reciprocals to their subjects. Since they can be applied to anything and anything can be applied to them, they are kind of omnipresent. This said, intent seems to be more important than context. (Can history only exist with the intent of a bona fide historian? Also, can a historian only exist is he/she has created-notice how "create" is an art word-a history?) Obviously this is a "fast and loose" blanket statement, and I'm not sure that it's true. If anyone wants to debate this, I'd love to hear what you think.[/i]
One more question: Because art and history both interpret things (the past, the present, the personal, the inner/external) is history an art? As we've discussed, historians are using their thinking and by extension their existence to create their own truths. These truths are subjective, so history is subjective, and art is the epitome of subjective. Hopefully this thinking makes sense.
In response to Jenn and Emily, I think that every perspective is biased. Inherently. So the job of the historian is to make a fuller, more complete synthesis of the perspectives by pulling them together and analyzing them. It's imperfect but it strives for perfection. But it has to keep changing as sources/perspectives change.
Also: what makes the second piece history and the first not? I think it's that Darnton is attempting to make a connection between modern perspective and then, to put this one event into a framework of perspectives. In this case, it's to translate a centuries old joke for the modern reader.
Looks like we have another Herotodus on our hands here folks! I do believe while there are elements of Conat's letter that are indeed history, I believe Hannah's description of it being historical fiction is i thinkj the most accurate way to describe the letter. As many have mentioned tonight, the fact that Conat includes his own personal life in the letter further discredits it, in my mind, as a legitimate piece of historical document, especially since we have discussed copiously that history ideally should be a voracious search for the truth or the clearest version of it. Also the fanciful, lyrical wording of Conat's account puts him in again in the same category as Herotodus for me in terms of historian. Brilliant storyteller, mediocre historian.
I know this is too late to be counted but I'm posting anyway. In Art and Idea (and every other art class at CSW for that matter) we are constantly discussing whether or not things are art. The conclusion we usually come to in most classes is that most everything is art, but weather its good or bad art is the real question.
Contat writing down this story makes him a historian, and this account is definitely history. The goal of recording history is as you guys were saying, to have the account have as little bias as possible. This account, was pretty exaggerated and I'm assuming changed for the sake of the story. Therefore, he's simply a bad historian, and this is a bad account of history. However, he is a good story teller, and this is a good story. His story was good, history wasn't. (did you get that pun there? HIStory, his story history)
As was being said earlier, that hes not a historian because he wasn't analyzing and making connections in the story, I think thats the job of the scientist, not the historian.
Though many of you have deeply analyzed why Contat is not a historian, but I'm going to have to disagree. While his work definitely blends a very personal (more like Herodotus) and bias perspective, this is extremely valuable when analyzing history. Furthermore, we don't need a huge amount of context to value what we learn about the time period, culture, etc.
Also people have a very black and white way of view bias. Just because something is dry or methodical or attempts to incorporate many opinions and perspectives doesn't automatically make it more true or unbiased than something like Contat's work.
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2
Page 2 of 2
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
