'00 ',WvaOl:J8

\'I,\CF:\T CR,\P,,\;>.iZA'\O
Its ultimate significallce is not llIoral bill methodo
RENATO ROSALDO
logical. Catlin makes a plea for lhe salvation of the I\LlJldan; Goethe
for the full appreciation of Heeting lllOl1lClltS ofjoy: Geertz fin her
melleutics. III all three instances the cn:nls described ;ll'e suhverted by
the transcending stories in which the\, are casi. Thev are sacrificed to
From the Door of His Tent:
their rhetorical function in a Iiterarv discoursc that is fa]' removed
from tIlt' indigenous discourse of their occurrence. The sacrifice. the
The Fieldworker
subversion of the event descrihcd. is in the final <Inalysis masked nei
and the Inquisitor
ther by rhetoric. hvpolyposis, theatricality, awl interpreti\(: virtuosity
lIor by their llletaphorization-salv<Jtion, life, society-but by the au
thority of the author, who, at least ill much ethnography, stands above
and behind those \""hose experience he purpo]'fs to describe. All
too often, the forgets that the nati\c, like Eduard in
Goethe's Efectiz!1' Allin!ties, cannot abide someone reading over his
This paper attel1lpts to develop an anatomy of
shoulder. If he does not dose his book, he will cast his shadow (H'er it.
rhetoric by exploring modes of authority and representation in two
Of course, the ethnographer will also cast his shadow oyer it. It is per
deservedly classic books: E. E. E\ans-Pritchard's The NUl'r and Em
haps for this rcason, if r may conclude with the conceit of my own tale
Illalluel Le Roy Ladurie's i\101ltailfolJ. The former. published in ]940,
of entry into this paper, that Zeus ulHlerstood whcn Hermes prom
has long beell recognized. along with two other hooks and various ar
ised to tell no lies but did not Drolllise to tell the whole truth.
ticles on the same people, as an exemphu-y ethnographic work. The
latter, published ill by a noted French social historian, has re
,
ceived wide acclaim for its innovative use of an inquisition register to
;1
cOllstruct an "ethnographic" analysis of a fourteenth-century French
t
village. Le Roy Ladurie's intervention, among other experimental
works of history and anthropology, has been hailed as opening the
possibility of ,I more ethnographic history and a more historical
ethnography. I
Yet in certain I"espeets Le Roy Ladurie's experiment redeploys an
artifact already old-fashioned in its homeland-as so often happens
with borrowings both intercultural and interdisciplinary. An anthro
pological work that aimed at SllCh a total ethllographic analysis as is
fOllnd in lHontairrou could be called classic ill 51 yle, but more out
moded than innovative. From this perspective Le Roy Ladurie's work
has a distinctive vallie. It provides a mirror for critical reflection Oil
modes of authority and descriptive rhetorics in ethnography, particu
larly in the influential writing of Evans-Pritchard. The latter's work
should be understood in this colltext as a n:presentative example of
the discipline's rhetorical conventions. A close reading of these two
books, rather than a more superficial review of a wider range of cases,
j
(1()UOllng of history and anthropologv has a
Evans-Pritchard himself wrote on history and anthro
a course at the College de called Eth
of inullin has recently been reviewed in cs
(](jH I),
7
H RENA 1'0 ROSALDO
enables the developl!1ellt of a general argument that can be appraised
by studying extended narrative passages ill circumstalltial detail.
"Vhat the argulllent loses in scope, it gains in
By looking at Th(' Nun from the distinctive angle of vision otTered
Alontaiflou, we discover that the figure of the etbnographie field
wOl'ker in tnmbling ways resembles the fourteenth-century inquisitor
who created the docllment lIsed by I.e Roy Ladurie. The historian's
work appropriates ways of establishing authority and construetlllg ob
jective descriptions already developed ill the ethnographic literature.
lndeed, the historian at times llearly caricatures his ethnographic
models. Yet in the manner of an illuminating objectificatiolJ, preciselv
this element of exaggeration at once makes strange and reveals an ar
rav of discursive practices that in their anthropological homeland
have been taken for granted. They have appeared, not peculiar, but
normative for writing in the discipline. In making a detour through
Le Roy Ladurie's work, I hope to develop a critical perspective Oil eth
nography, both as fieldwork and as descriptive rhetoric.
reading of Evans-Pritchard's ethnographic writing is guided
both by Santayana's dictum that those who J()rget their past are con
denllled to repeat it and bv the notion that critical reappraisals, the
active reappropriation of past works, should plav a signific;mt role in
shaping future analyses. Such historical critiques, as tales both in
spirational and cautionary, can direct future changes in ethnographic
discourse.
The Use and Abuse of Ethnographic Authority
Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie's work borrows ethnography's dis
ciplinary authority to transfoml fourteenth-century peasants' "direct
testimony" (as recorded in the inquisition register of Janjues Four
nier) into a documentary account of village life in southem France at
the time. The book is divided into two parts, an ecology and an arche
ology. The former delineates structures that remain unchanged over
the long times pan (longue duree) and the latter discusses cultural forms
(hat often show comparable longevitv.
The ecology begins with the physical environment and structures
of domination (chapter I), moves on to the household as the founda
tion of village life (chapters :I and 3), and concludes with an extended
portrait of transhumant pastoralism (chapters 4, 5, 6, and 7). l.e Roy
Ladurie opposes village life in households, exemplified by the Clergues,
2. The problem of ethnographic authority has been delineated in a fine essay by
James Clifford (l983a),
Frolll the Door of His Tent
79
to shepherd lite in the hills, epitomized in the person of Pierre Maury.
in an anomalous manner discussed below, receives both
more extensive and more idealized treatment than the formeL) 'The
more loosely organized archeology begins with body langllage and
ends with myth. In between Le Roy Ladurie discllsses, often in titillat
ing tones, sex, libido, the lite cycle (marriage, childhood, death), time
and space, magic, religion, morality, and the other world. Through
out, the narrator punctuates his text with italicized citations, the pur
portedly free direct speech of the peasants, verbally presented as if
olle were eavesdropping in the village itself.
Le Roy Ladurie begins by describing his documentary source III
these terms:
Though there are extellSive historical studies conccming peasant commu
nities there is very little material available that call be considered the direct
testimony of the peasants themselves. It is tOt' this I'e,ISOfl that the llltjuisition
Register of Jacques Fournier, Bishop of ['amiers in Ariege in the Com!!; de
Foix (now southenl France) fnlm 13 t 8 to 1325, is of such exceptional inter
est. (vii)
This beginning makes it clear that the reader wi\llearn, ill a remark
ably evocative way, about the texture of fourteenth-century peasant
life. The rich, vivid descriptions, quite unlike those in other historical
works concerned with medieval villagers, do indeed make compelling
"ethnographic" reading. The peasants have beell textualized in ways
that characterize the speakers as articulate and insight rul about the
conditions of their own existence. Yet the historian's trope of making
late medieval peasant voices directly audible to readers in the present
arouses more skepticism than appreciation among ethnographers ac
customed to pondering difficulties in the translation of cultures.
From the outset the historian's innocent tone gives reason to pause.
How can his data ("the direct testimony of the peasants themselves")
have remained untainted by the context of domination ("the Inquisi
tion Register")? After all, the inquisitor extracted the testimonies as
confessions; he did not overhear them as cOllversatiolls in everyday
life. What could motivate the historian to separate the data from the
instrument through which they were collected?
Le Roy Ladurie goes on to buttress the authority of his document
through the strategy of novelistic realism carried to extremes.' He
names names, provides titles, cites specific places, and refers to exact
dates, He even goes on to give an impressive sketch of Jacques Four
3. For characterizat.ion of realism, see Culler : 131 -60. For an re
view of Monlail/()u that, a m o n ~ other c011Venlions of see
Clifford 1979.
l.
aI