7 ms·
Passé présomptif: on Vercingetorix
- mmanfrin 8y agoA good read outlining the different kinds of historical writing, including 'passé présomptif' where an author makes statements that their subjuct may have done something or would have been familiar with something else. It ends, essentially, as a review of Jean-Louis Brunaux's Vercingétorix .
- agumonkey 8y agoI, like the article writer, enjoy much more a clear listing of what is known and how it's been remembered later on, rather than a plausible view of his life.
- bloak 8y agoI agree. It's a great article. Incidentally, the "passé présomptif" is also much used for writing about Shakespeare: a similar phenomenon. Now I know what to call it.
- djur 8y agoWhen I was younger I read a really good book about Homer that was kind of framed as a 'biography' of Odysseus that was written in that way, but it was open from the start that it was an artifice used to elucidate what we know about the Greek Dark Ages.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago>> Just try to think of a famous saying by Boudicca. Well, there is that thing she used to say as she went into Warp Spasm just before ploughing into the Romans; "grrraaaaAAARRRGGGGHHH!!". Historical fact.
- mannykannot 8y agoI see that you have garnered a few down-votes for this - for not putting it in the passé présomptif, I would guess.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y agoI know. My apologies to the readers who find jokes are not acceptable on HN. My feeling is that sometimes it's worth burning a little karma to lighten the mood just a bit.
- sudosteph 8y agoOne of the most interesting materials I was exposed to in a college french course was actually an 8th-grade level French history book. It was beautifully illustrated, not all that difficult to read, and it spanned an impressive amount of time and material (at least compared to the US history books I had been exposed to before) I was really surprised to see a whole chapter dedicated to Ancient Gaul, a place I had never even heard of until then. Brits may begin their history with Rome, but us Americans seem to start our tale in England (with perhaps a very small nod to the native cultures that predated English colonization). Anyhow, it's fascinating from the American perspective how relatively "young" we really are as a national identity.
- UweSchmidt 8y agoWait, you start in Rome or England?? History lessons in western society better start in Ancient Greece, don't you think?
- nickthemagicman 8y agoI think he means American History vs French history. World History is going to world history no matter where you take it.
- bingoboingo33 8y ago>World History is going to world history no matter where you take it I'm afraid you are very much mistaken here. Having had the chance to look at primary school history book in four different countries (FR, DE, JP, US), written in four different languages, they each tell a vastly different tale. Which doesn't mean they were necessarily contradicting each other, but rather spoke of entirely different things, or shone a completely different light on a particular event. To give two simplistic examples, try to compare what is taught about Napoleon in French history book (he's a national hero) vs. German ones (he's depicted as the Hitler of his time). And try to go read about the history of WWII in a Japanese history book, you'll be amazed.
- 8y ago
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoIt's a lively and interesting piece IMO. >"In schools, Our Island Story starts with Roman Britain, [...]" // I'd have thought that was because Britain wasn't a thing until the Roman conquest. AFAICT prior to Roman occupation there wasn't a Britain, there were different tribes, but they weren't united in to a nation, they weren't even a loose affiliation. When it notes that some Iceni tried to revolt, that tells you exactly why British history is started there. Otherwise it would be "some Britons tried to revolt". What's he doing in the imagined prose when he gives French words in parentheticals, I don't get it. And shouldn't it be "knows [savait]" rather than connaisait?
- jcranmer 8y agoThe same was true for the Gauls, pre-Roman conquest. > And shouldn't it be "knows [savait]" rather than connaisait? No, connaître is the right word. If you took French class, you probably learned that you "savoir" a thing or skill and you "connaître" a person, but that's not the correct dichotomy. Instead, "savoir" is more for knowing concrete, particular facts, while "connaître" is a weaker, vaguer familiarity, almost more like "to know about" or "to know of" rather than "to know". In this usage, Vercingetorix isn't implied to have had these skills themselves but rather to know of them.
- jgtrosh 8y agoIt's also true that you can't « savoir » a person or object.
- petecox 8y agoBoth senses of 'to know' from Latin's cognoscere and sapere similarly flow through to other Romance languages including Portuguese (conhecer/saber) Italian (conoscere/sapere) and Spanish (conocer/saber).
- pbhjpbhj 8y agoNot just in schooling, but in Duolingo, and in Collins dictionary they say savoir faire for knowing how to do qch. ... on re-reading the OP I see I misunderstood the English, when the writer says "come to know the skill", I thought he meant Vercingetorix had become skilled -- and that this was hyperbole intended to highlight the ludicrous stretches of imagination possible with passé présomptif. Rather the writer means Vercingetorix came to know of the skills others possessed. Ah! Maintenant, je le comprends.
- marojejian 8y agoGreat color on Vercingetorix in Dan Carlin's podcast: https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-60-the-celtic-holocaust/ https://www.dancarlin.com/product/hardcore-history-60-the-ce...
- srrge 8y agoI agree. This episode is called The Celtic Holocaust. Great alternate read of the Gallic Wars by Caesar.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y agoIn Germany it's basically https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminius https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arminius and it isn't used in Asterix either for obvious reasons.
- Bakary 8y agoI wonder what the translation for Astérix and the Goths is like in German.
- B1FF_PSUVM 8y agoThat was a well informed piece, worth reading, but the final complaint is weak - so the book was just about its subject life and times and not piled on with later centuries' consequential factoids ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety_of_influence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anxiety_of_influence strikes again.
- BrandoElFollito 8y ago> In France, things are different. Ever since the Revolution, the idea of a deep and mystical connection with “our ancestors the Gauls” has been central to French national identity. This is not true anymore. I was in primary school in the 80' (when you usually learn these things, usually twice) and indeed, the Gaulois mentality was strong. My children now go to school (the same one btw) and they are repeatibly taught about how good the relationship between the Gaulois and the Romans was. The Gallo-Romains is all the rage now and they supposedly mixed extremely well, each taking from the other three good parts of their culture. The trade aspect of the Gaulois' work is also highlighted a lot (so they are not shown anymore as warring tribes). I think my children had a passing info about Vercingétorix but it was very minor.