Great Cat Massacre

The Great Cat Massacre, was a mass killing carried out in the late 1730s in a printing workshop along Rue Saint-Séverin in Paris, in which apprentices targeted cats. The daily routine of workshop life was sharply divided between the master and the household on one side, and the apprentices and journeymen on the other. Apprentices endured heavy labor burdens; the inequality in food and sleep arrangements intensified workshop tensions, as even the master’s cats lived in better conditions than the apprentices. This tension merged with the nocturnal noise of stray cats roaming the rooftops, making rest difficult for the apprentices and ultimately crystallizing their hostility toward the cats.

Map of Paris During the Time of the Event (Gallica)

During the event, the apprentices (Jérôme and Léveillé) gathered the cats in the courtyard at night; then a mock trial was organized within the workshop community. Guards were assigned; roles of accuser/priest and executioner were distributed; the cats were declared guilty. The improvised gallows were erected and the cats hanged; the entire process unfolded amid observation and laughter from the workshop members. The master Jacques Vincent’s wife, who particularly favored a cat named “la grise” (the gray one), provoked anger among the household when it was suspected that this favorite cat had been killed; the conflict within the workshop became more visible at this point.^【1】

Historical Context

Hierarchy and Daily Order in the Printing Workshop

The daily operations of Jacques Vincent’s printing workshop on Rue Saint-Séverin were structured around a clear hierarchy. The workshop’s routine was not managed by the master alongside his assistants, but primarily by journeymen and apprentices; the master often remained outside the production process, delegating oversight to a foreman. Apprentices rose before dawn, performed exhausting physical tasks throughout the day, and endured insults from journeymen and the master’s harsh, sometimes violent treatment. This system transformed the workshop from merely a place of production into a domain where daily life itself was disciplined and regulated.

The apprentices’ daily rhythm was determined not only by their workload but also by the workshop’s entry and exit schedule. It was their responsibility to open the door early in the morning—often at four or five o’clock—to allow the earliest journeymen to enter. In contrast, the master represented the “late riser” class; an asymmetry in sleep patterns mirrored the inequality in meal arrangements. Thus, the workshop became a universe where different time regimes and social statuses coexisted under the same roof.

Shelter, Sustenance, and the Place of Cats in Daily Life

The apprentices’ living conditions painted a grim picture. Disruptions to sleep were not limited to the poor, cold dormitory; the nocturnal noise of stray cats on the roof further hindered rest. Yet apprentices were still expected to rise extremely early; chronic sleep deprivation rendered them perpetually exhausted. Under these conditions, workshop tension was not only about labor but also about the body’s basic needs.

The food system reinforced the same inequality. Apprentices were forbidden from eating at the master’s table; they were expected to survive on leftovers from the master’s plate. These leftovers often did not reach the apprentices regularly, and due to kitchen practices, they sometimes received food so poor it could be described as “cat food.”^【2】 These conditions transformed the cats from mere animals wandering around the workshop into everyday symbols of its internal inequality.

The cats’ position in workshop life became even more pronounced through the household’s attitude toward them. It was noted that the master’s wife particularly favored a cat named “la grise”; the widespread fascination among masters with keeping cats—even one master who kept twenty-five cats, had their portraits painted, and fed them roasted poultry—illustrated the extent of this privilege. This picture revealed that status differences in the workshop extended not only to human relationships but also to the care and attention directed toward animals.

Space and Parties Involved

Rue Saint-Séverin and the Workshop

The event unfolded within the daily routine of a printing workshop on Rue Saint-Séverin in Paris. The workshop was not confined to a mere production space; areas such as the kitchen, dormitory, courtyard, and roof became integral parts of working life. Apprentices slept in an upper room described as “filthy” and “freezing”; the constant noise of stray cats on the roof prevented uninterrupted sleep.^【3】 Opening the workshop door at the very early hours—four or five in the morning—was the apprentices’ responsibility; the earliest journeymen were admitted, and the daily work cycle began at this hour.

Visual Depicting the Daily Organization of a Printing Workshop (MET Museum)

The kitchen became one of the most concrete expressions of hierarchy. Apprentices were barred from sitting at the master’s table and fed only on leftovers from his plate. The irregularity and poor quality of these leftovers made the apprentices feel humiliated, deepening daily discontent. The courtyard, meanwhile, assumed a central role on the night of the event: wounded cats chased from the roofs and stuffed into sacks were dumped into the courtyard, where the community gathered. Thus, the workshop courtyard rapidly transformed from a place of labor into a public stage.

Apprentices, Journeymen, Master, and Household

There were two apprentices in the workshop: Jérôme and Léveillé. They spent the day performing exhausting manual labor under the insults of journeymen and the master’s harsh treatment. Léveillé stood out for his talent for imitation and performance; after the event night, he repeatedly reenacted the events, sustaining the workshop’s internal amusement. The journeymen were not merely passive participants in production; they actively joined the event, helping to chase cats from the roofs and gather them in the courtyard. The daily tension between journeymen and apprentices briefly turned into solidarity; the same community later established a collective entertainment ritual marked by laughter and noise.

Master Jacques Vincent represented workshop authority but rarely participated directly in production, leaving oversight to a foreman and appearing mostly to vent his anger. The household, especially the master’s wife, exerted indirect but clear influence over workshop order. The wife’s special affection for certain cats—particularly “la grise”—turned this favoritism into a daily symbol of inequality in the apprentices’ world. The cook, who worked in the kitchen, also became another focal point of conflict; the fate of leftovers and what the apprentices were fed sharpened the daily hierarchy. Together, these individuals and roles transformed the printing workshop from a workplace into a continuous environment where discipline, status differences, and conflicts were constantly reproduced.

Prelude to the Event

Accumulated Discontent Through Shelter, Sleep, and Sustenance

The apprentices’ daily life at the workshop on Rue Saint-Séverin was shaped not only by their work rhythm but also by their conditions of shelter and sustenance. Jérôme and Léveillé were forced to rise before dawn, open the workshop door in the early hours, and carry a heavy burden of tasks ranging from manual labor to more demanding duties. At night, their chance for rest was limited by the “filthy” and “freezing” dormitory conditions, and the noise from cats on the roof disrupted their sleep. This cycle stacked sleep deprivation atop an intense workload; discontent was thus rooted not only in the weight of labor but in the denial of the body’s basic needs.

The food system deepened this discontent. Apprentices were excluded from the master’s table and forced to rely on leftovers. The irregularity and poor quality of these scraps made the apprentices feel demeaned, daily reinforcing the contrast between the master’s household comfort and their own hardship. The master’s wife’s authority within the household and her particular affection for certain cats reinforced this sense of inequality not only among people but also through the treatment of animals. Thus, the cats ceased to be mere animals around the workshop and became the focal point of accumulated workshop tensions.

The Transformation of Cats into Targets and the Preparation Process

As discontent grew, the target became clear: the stray cats disturbing sleep and the household’s favored cats. In the apprentices’ world, cats carried two meanings: on one hand, they disrupted sleep with their nocturnal noise; on the other, the special care shown by the household to its favorite cat stood in stark contrast to the apprentices’ deprivation. This contrast intensified when the wife’s sensitivity toward the cats became widely known. The apprentices sought a way to disturb the household through the cats; this search produced a preparatory phase before direct violence, in which the workshop’s internal humor and imitation repertoire came into play.

Representative Scene of the Workshop Order of the Period (Met Museum)

During this preparatory phase, Léveillé’s talent for imitation became decisive; sounds mimicking the cats’ nocturnal noise were used deliberately to disturb the household’s peace. This nighttime harassment amplified the household’s reaction; the master and his family increasingly viewed the problem as one to be solved “through the cats.” At this point, the apprentices’ aim was not to launch a “cleaning” campaign against stray cats but to escalate the tension directed at the household’s own daily order. Preparation culminated in identifying where the cats gathered, selecting the courtyard as a collection point, and establishing a framework in which the workshop community would observe the action as spectators. On this foundation, the subsequent phases—gathering the cats and staging the mock trial—became possible.

Course of the Event

Gathering the Cats and Filling the Courtyard

The event began at night. Apprentices Jérôme and Léveillé set out to capture cats roaming the workshop’s surroundings and rooftops. The cats were chased across the roofs, stuffed into sacks, and some were injured in the process. The captured cats were brought to the workshop courtyard, which quickly became a space crowded with cat bodies, noise, and movement. The journeymen also joined the action; thus, the event was no longer confined to just two apprentices but became a collective act shared by the entire workshop community.

At this stage, the target extended beyond stray cats. The master’s wife’s favored cat, “la grise,” held a special place in the household’s affections; the possibility that this favorite cat had been killed heightened the event’s tension. The selection, capture, and transport of the cats to the courtyard involved a deliberate intensification, preparing the ground for the next phase; the courtyard was transformed into a space for a “collective spectacle.”

Mock Trial, Execution Scene, and Collective Laughter

After the cats were gathered in the courtyard, a mock trial was organized within the workshop community. Roles were assigned: guards were appointed; the figures of accuser/priest and executioner were enacted. The cats were declared guilty; an improvised gallows was constructed, and most were hanged.^【4】 The execution unfolded as a spectacle within the workshop; laughter, noise, and collective participation revealed that the perpetrators viewed the act as a “joke.” The narrative suggests that this scene was not a one-time event but was embraced by the workshop community as a shared memory of amusement.

Visual Depicting the Great Cat Massacre (Generated with AI Assistance)

The household’s reaction intensified at this point. The master’s wife, suspecting that “la grise” had been killed, became enraged; Master Jacques Vincent’s own unease also grew. The workshop’s tension thus became visible not only through the cats but also through the power dynamics between the household and the workshop community. The spectacle-like nature of the event brought together, within the same scene, both the violence directed at the cats and the deliberate violation of the household’s cherished values and authority.

Immediate Aftermath

Reactions of the Master and the Household

After the cats were hanged, unrest within the household escalated rapidly. The master’s wife, convinced that “la grise” had been killed, was consumed by rage; it became clear that the courtyard scene was a direct challenge to the household. Master Jacques Vincent’s response hardened; he sought to redraw the boundary between the workshop and the household. The possibility that “la grise” had not been killed, or that the event appeared as a “joke,” did not mitigate the household’s anger; instead, it reinforced the belief that the target had been deliberately chosen and that a point of deep value to the household had been violated. Thus, the long-simmering discontent within the workshop erupted into an event that directly struck at the household’s daily order.

Reenactment and Continuity of the Event

The event did not end with a single night for the workshop community; the events were repeatedly recalled and became part of the workshop’s internal narrative. Léveillé’s talent for imitation and performance came to the fore; the mock trial, its roles, and its theatrical language were reenacted within the workshop. Laughter, noise, and collective participation revealed that the event was not merely perceived as an act of violence but as a “memory” that strengthened class solidarity and shared identity within the workshop. This demonstrated that the distance between master authority and the workshop community had not closed; rather, the conflict continued in new forms, rooted in the small details of daily life.

Critiques and Debates

The first axis of debate surrounding this narrative centered on the question of how far the scenes presented could be read as “direct historical reality.” The narrative was constructed in the idiom of an “anecdote,” offering an insider’s view of a professional environment; it employed a narrator’s style that heightened curiosity, sharpened scenes, and emphasized certain details. Therefore, not only the event itself but also its narrative form—the selection of details, the constructed oppositions, the role of exaggeration or humor—became subjects of evaluation.

Some critiques emphasized that such a text should not be treated as a “transparent window” onto the event but as a product shaped by its own intentions and artifice. In this view, the narrative not only depicted the workshop world but also reflected how a professional community constructed its own story.

Key Work Written on the Great Cat Massacre (Robert Damton)

The second axis of debate focused on how modern readings interpret the narrative through a symbolic repertoire. Here, critiques became prominent in two areas. First, the question arose whether the signs and figures in the narrative (e.g., the cats, the “mock trial,” the priest/executioner roles, laughter, and spectatorship) could be assigned a single, fixed meaning. This approach argued that the same signs could produce different meanings in different contexts; thus, reducing the narrative’s polysemy to a single key (e.g., class struggle) weakened its complexity.

Second, the issue was the selective use of the narrative in modern interpretations: the centralization of certain parts of the text while relegating others to the background directly affected how the event was explained. This critique argued that reducing the narrative solely to the “cat massacre” scene risked overloading that single moment with meaning, obscuring the broader tensions and orientations within the text—the language of workshop solidarity, collective attitude toward masters, professional identity, and competition.^【5】

When these two axes are combined, the debate has reached this conclusion: the same narrative simultaneously presented a powerful sequence of scenes that made workshop tensions visible, and yet, due to its construction and subsequent modes of reading, it has continuously raised the question: “How much of this is the event, and how much is narrative technique?” For this reason, the text, especially alongside Robert Darnton’s The Great Cat Massacre and Ideas and Beliefs in Enlightenment France book, has become both a frequently cited example in historical writing and a frequently contested object of interpretation.