![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fiction in the Archives: Pardon Tales and their Tellers in Sixteenth Century France by Natalie Zemon Davis was a book I had to read for my historical research methods class. It was actually quite interesting. I've read several books about 16th century England but nothing about France during that time period. Therefore it was very helpful that the first chapter was outlining what she meant by "Pardon Tales" how they were used, who wrote them and why.
Davis refers to these documents as "Tales" as she sees them more as a narrative literature rather than a strict factual telling of events. These letters were intended to be seen as fact. They were written by criminals who had been condemned to death to the King to describe the exceptional circumstances of their crimes, often murder, so as to explain why they should be pardoned. The letters were written in a strict form at the beginning and ending with the body of the letter being from the individual's account, with some polite adjustments made for language. Davis looks at the literary traditions associated with these letters. How they seemed to have been made as interesting as possible and followed patterns that were popular in tale telling of the time.
Davis divides the work up into Men's and Women's tales. The men applying to be pardoned take up about 80 percent of the letters. This is interesting not because there were more male criminals but that the crimes the women were accused of were not considered pardonable, eg witchcraft and infanticide. Davis also raises the interesting argument that women, unlike the men, were never considered to be "in the heat of rage". In tales fights among women were often portrayed for comic effect and a woman being truly angry was not seen therefore in the letters a woman rarely used the defense of anger, and all the accounts of actual fights come off as dry and dull when compared to the accounts of the men.
The tales make for rather interesting reading, it can be easy to forget that these are actual people whose lives lie in the balance from what is being written. Davis admits to frequently finding the tales amusing or entertaining, which may well have been intended in some cases. The idea seems to be the better the story, the more it follows the established conventions, the more likely a person is to be set free. (Though little data on how effective letters were exists.)
Another interesting point Davis makes about these letters is that they do not represent either an "official culture" which is influencing a "popular culture" rather the letters illustrate a cultural exchange between the two. In Davis' phraseology "a common discourse about violence and its pacification" something the original writers might have questioned.
The book was quite short, but did include the original French texts at the back, I'm afraid I didn't even try to read them. While supposed to be reading the book for analyzing the theory behind the work rather than the content I did find the content enjoyable particularly the reference to "A Franche-Comte werewolf murderer that ate the flesh of one of his victims "Even though it was Friday". (p64)
Davis refers to these documents as "Tales" as she sees them more as a narrative literature rather than a strict factual telling of events. These letters were intended to be seen as fact. They were written by criminals who had been condemned to death to the King to describe the exceptional circumstances of their crimes, often murder, so as to explain why they should be pardoned. The letters were written in a strict form at the beginning and ending with the body of the letter being from the individual's account, with some polite adjustments made for language. Davis looks at the literary traditions associated with these letters. How they seemed to have been made as interesting as possible and followed patterns that were popular in tale telling of the time.
Davis divides the work up into Men's and Women's tales. The men applying to be pardoned take up about 80 percent of the letters. This is interesting not because there were more male criminals but that the crimes the women were accused of were not considered pardonable, eg witchcraft and infanticide. Davis also raises the interesting argument that women, unlike the men, were never considered to be "in the heat of rage". In tales fights among women were often portrayed for comic effect and a woman being truly angry was not seen therefore in the letters a woman rarely used the defense of anger, and all the accounts of actual fights come off as dry and dull when compared to the accounts of the men.
The tales make for rather interesting reading, it can be easy to forget that these are actual people whose lives lie in the balance from what is being written. Davis admits to frequently finding the tales amusing or entertaining, which may well have been intended in some cases. The idea seems to be the better the story, the more it follows the established conventions, the more likely a person is to be set free. (Though little data on how effective letters were exists.)
Another interesting point Davis makes about these letters is that they do not represent either an "official culture" which is influencing a "popular culture" rather the letters illustrate a cultural exchange between the two. In Davis' phraseology "a common discourse about violence and its pacification" something the original writers might have questioned.
The book was quite short, but did include the original French texts at the back, I'm afraid I didn't even try to read them. While supposed to be reading the book for analyzing the theory behind the work rather than the content I did find the content enjoyable particularly the reference to "A Franche-Comte werewolf murderer that ate the flesh of one of his victims "Even though it was Friday". (p64)