Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2009 1:04 am Post subject: The Cat Massacre
1. Is Contat a historian? Why or why not?
Before reading Darnton’s analysis, I was convinced that Contat is a storyteller and not a historian. His account seemed exaggerated and completely biased. The analysis of this piece made this question harder for me to answer. Though Contat’s motivation for writing this piece was most definitely not from a historical purpose, it is an important depiction of pre-industrial European workers and their anger towards their superiors, the bourgeois. If I had to answer the question, I would say Contat is not a historian, but his writing was a contribution to history.
2. Is the account history? Why or why not?
This is not a historical account, however it most definitely has some basis in history. The events of Contat’s writing did occur, so they are not fictional. However, they completely subjective and opinionated and more story-like than any sort of historical text. (For example, Contat makes remarks like the “constant ringing of an infernal bell” (p. 84)- the bell is not actually ringing constantly, he is describing it that way to make a point that it seemed to go on forever. He describes the bell as “infernal” because he is annoyed by it, the bell isn’t actually cursed or demonic). I don’t think that Contat could be called a historian, but his writing is history because it is a truthful account, a real interpretation of the past.
I think whether someone names a piece of writing history or not depends a great deal on the original intent of the author, but also on the content itself. Contat gave his recollection of his apprenticeship as dreary, tiring, and completely unfair. He described the cat massacre as shining point of fun among the drudgery of every day life. I can imagine the master of the house writing up his autobiography saying something like: I was having a wonderful sleep when all of a sudden I came outside to see those mangy workers hanging cats. Thus Contat's recollection of the events is opinionated (as many historical documents are), but his intent was most likely to write down a story and not the exact truth. It is pretty obvious from Darnton's analysis that artisan wokers were not happy with their masters so Contat's facts are probably all biased and in some cases just plain false. I think that because Contat is trying to put his story in such a joking light implies that the story itself is not very reliable, so the content is not exactly historical.
2. Is the account history? Why or why not?
I can see clearly where the account can be linked to history (Darnton gives many examples, such as cats being a common symbol for witchcraft), however I don't think that this account actually is history. Their aren't just veiled opinions on top of analysis which is usually what one sees in history. Contat actually comes out and says his opinions on certain people and things (like "Leveille has an extraordinary talent for imitating the voices and the smallest gestures of everyone around him). Yet through his distinct storytelling voice Contat includes important historical facts about his culture and his social life. From these one could certainly determine that this text is mainly historical. (I hope I haven't said to much of what Sasha said)
No. Between the little background about the frustration btwn workers and bourgeois and the actual event, there is little analysis as to WHY it happened. This is merely an account of the event, and it's up to the readers (us) to be the historians and analyze the causes of the massacre using the information given.
Is this account history?
Yes, because Contat makes reference to the tension between the workers and masters, some of the cultural superstitions surrounding the cats, and the type of "weapons" that were used in the massacre. This provides insight onto the time period and setting, which is incredibly important to a historical account.
Contat is not a historian, because while there is a lot of information about what happened, there is no analysis. He seems to just be looking at it's significance to his life, and not to the greater picture. I also do not believe that it was Contat's objective in writing this for it to be history, it seems like he just wanted to write down events relating to his life.
Is the account history? Why/Why not?
I think the account could be used as a source to study history, but i do not believe that it is history in itself. It is far too biased and it does not have enough facts or evidence to be History. It definitely has basis in fact and history, but since it was not intended to be history, i do not think it would be fair to call it that. Although it does give insight into how the conditions of being a worker in the 18th century, it does not give the other point of view, which is why i think it to be a source and not actually history. (is there a difference?)
Is Contat a historian? Why or why not?
• Is the account history? Why or why not?
Contat is NOT an historian, but the account is history. The account is history because it was an event that happened in the past, but Contat is more of a story teller than an historian. Contat did not give dates or correct names, and there is no evidence to prove that what he said actually hapopened.
The account while told as a story is history because it happened in the past, and the events being recalled, and the event it's self affected the course of history. We don't know exactly how, but everything in the past effects the future.
first of all, can we just talk about how WEIRD this reading was?!?!
I thought there were a couple really great points in Darnton's analysis but there was so much bizzaro filler... it drove me a little bit crazy. but, I digress.
ANYWAY, like many of the above people, I think that Contat is NOT historian, but that the account is history. Its both a primary/secondary source. What Contat wrote is basically just a diary entry, and I'm not about to say that everyone who keeps a journal is a historian. PLUS, Contat was involved in the event he was describing, and I think it would be a little bizarre to consider yourself a historian of something you created. thats where you become a secondary source, and NOT a historian.
Is Contat a historian? Why or why not?
Is the account history? Why or why not?
I dont think Contat is a historian, but this piece of writing is important to history, and his account is history. Because, to me, history is a recording of events, his story fits into that category. But as other people have said, there was no evidence, names dates or analysis. It also was written stylistically like a story and not a historical text. For example. "The men produce terror on the rooftops. Seized by panic the cats throw themselves into the sacks." This is a passage that would not fit into a historical text; It has good imagery and vocabulary making it and something you would expect to see in a novel. The lack of unbiased directness to the truth/specificity makes it too story-like.
While reading this piece, I did not even consider it as history, because I read it as more of an account of events, a story. This reading can be considered a part of history, but standing by itself it is not a historical text. That is not to say that it is not important to history, because in history no story is unimportant. I guess it could be considered as little h history, but not if it is the only material. I found it, like many other people, to be a little too much like a storytelling, using so much descriptive language that it could either be thought of as inaccurate or biased.
It was, however, an account that could easily be used for historical analysis, sa it provided information on the background of the story. It outlined the historical period, as well as the social and economic standards of the time.
Reading Contat's version of this story, i felt sick to my stomach, mainly at the idea of murdering defenseless cats. but Contat also didnt provide quite enough background information on the times and such. Celina made the great point about providing insight into the context of the 1730s. i thought i was reading a fictional essay that was a random idea someone had, not a concrete telling and ANALYSIS of a historical event. Contat did not take the next step to being a historian, which is connecting the piece of history he experienced to other historical events, and analyzing the importance of his event. it was really more of an outcry of emotion from a man who was living a shit life. all the spelling mistakes made it seem much more real to me. the analysis of it, which was AGES longer, seemed much more like the work of a historian.
2. Is the account history? Why or why not?
Aha, heres where everyone has tried to distance Contat and the story he told. and as much as i would love to punch holes in everyone's arguments, i agree with them. the actual story is little h history, without a shadow of doubt. I distinctly remember defining history during the herodotus-thucydides debate as "a subjective account of an objective order of events." my own definition is something along the lines of "the discipline of documenting the factitious, objective truth of past events." under both of those definitions, this account IS history. Contat obviously wanted to express his rage and contempt at his masters and show people how shitty his working life was. to be served cat food and all that? sounds horrible. however, the account, as olivia said, is both a primary and secondary source. and i think its important to take into account the fact that Contat was not just writing this account based on speculation and other people's opinions and whatnot, he was actually a PART of this whole thing. therefore, as subjective as it was, i have no doubt that he write the truth. and that is the ultimate goal of a historical account, to tell the truth.
I have mixed feelings about this account and about Contat as a "historian." Personally, I don't consider Contat an historian because in retrospect, it seems as if he's telling us a story rather than an historical account. This seems to be a work of fiction and potentially something along the lines of "historical fiction." Now I'm not sure which is which in my opinion, but I have another theory.
The first sentence on page 87, which was where the story began, Darnton writes "the funniest thing that ever happened in the printing shop of Jacques Vincent, according to a worker who witnessed it, was a riotous massacre of cats. The word "funny" took my attention and drew me closer to the story. This hook sentence says it all; Contat was laughing about this heinous act of violence. A rough estimation of the time period (i.e. 1730) didn't place any specific dates or time to when this happened. To my understanding, this is a work of satire. Somewhere along the lines of "A Modest Proposal," this piece may have not been a true story rather an exaggeration of something that continues to happen in the past.
Therefore, this piece, in its own quirky way, was history. Not directly historic as you'd put the works of Herodotus, Thucydides, Turner, or Marx, yet historic in the sense it brings out a decade, a century, and a culture in a context which makes the people who read it sick to their stomach. Maybe, that is the true case of Contat.
If anyone said this, my apologies. But this came up once i started reading this and continued to be the same as i read on. Have a great evening everyone. See you tomorrow.
I wanna reiterate my Cronan quote I posted on the Herodotus/Thyucidides thing: “historical wisdom usually comes in the form of parables, not policy recommendations or certainties”
This account IS definitely history. It’s a first-hand version of what happened in the past. People brought up how it would be more “historical” if it had precise dates, and less blaring bias, but any firsthand account, no matter how precise it tries to be, if it’s a firsthand account, and therefore little h-history, it has to be biased. its just a matter of acknowledging the bias more openly. It’s HIS STORY, the “his” being Contat. Since Darnton, a man who dissects and analyzes firsthand accounts of history is a Historian, and his subject is Contat’s account, Contat’s account is history. Contat is not an (capital H) Historian, however; he’s part of the little h and therefore can’t be. He doesn’t provide an analysis to past events, he records, without objective analysis the events that will in the future be analyzed. Even if he had provided analysis, it wouldn’t be Historical, it would simply be self-reflection. If he was an outside party who was alive during the time trying to analyze why the cat thing was funny, he’d be a sociologist. (Or a columnist.) you can’t be a historian of something you’re a part of. To be an Historian, you have to have a perspective separated by time because if exist during the same time period, you’re going to see an event’s significance as it relates to you, no matter how objective you try to be.
Herodotus represent…
i'm a little disapointed that my response is so similar to things i said at the beginning of this mod, because it probably indicates that my definition of history has not been completely revolutionized but whatevskies
but he is a little h historian to be nit-pickity. answers.com doesn't acknowledge an answer, but i think if there's such a stunning difference between History, and history, there should be a distinguishable difference between Historian and historian. seeing as he recorded little-h history, objects to be little studied by Historians, he is a historian, but not a Historian.
Yikes. This is late. And admittedly, I skimmed the reading in spots- I hope this post “counts”.
I’m pretty much with Olivia and most folks who’ve written something along those lines. Contat may not be a historian- just a dude who recounted an event- but his account is valid at least as a primary or secondary source. My nonconformist instinct wants to agree with Sophie and AJ, but I can’t quite convince myself either way. If Contat is not a historian, though, what is he? Are journalists historians?
I guess the reason I’m having trouble is because I still don’t have my own definition of history (or science, for that matter) that I can trust enough to fall back on. I feel a little weird just throwing definitions out there, because it seems like many definitions are just as valid/good as others that totally contradict them. Is anyone else having this problem, or do I just need to think harder when I’m not exhausted?
And for those of you who’ve had Frederic as a French teacher here… I wonder what he would have had to say about Contat’s account…. Although maybe I shouldn’t ask
it may very well be true that no man can achieve pure objectivity, but the integrity of a historian lies in his ability to recognize his subjectivity and either present it as such, or check it with contrast. this being said, presenting first hand narratives is vital to the intent of history. coupled with factual evidence, a subjective first hand account can depict the cultural implications of any given event, but its the very contrast between facts and perceptions that shows these cultural implications.
you know how fruit loops always claim to be part of a complete breakfast... well for the same reason, no he was not a historian, but the account that he gives can be used by a historian as part of a more comprehensive historical narrative.
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
