Final exam

The final exam is on Monday, May 11, from 10:30 AM until 1:15 PM. It will take place in our regular classroom. Please remember to bring a blue book for the exam (preferably the 8.5" x 11" kind).

The final exam is not cumulative. It will cover the lectures from March 25 through May 4 (the immediate aftermath of 10 August 1792 through the overthrow of the Directory). The structure will be the same as the midterm. You will choose five terms to identify from a list of ten, as well as answer one essay question.

You have a considerable amount of time to take a fairly limited test, so make good use of that time: think carefully about your responses before you begin writing. Use the back of the exam paper to outline your essay or jot notes to yourself about key points that you don't want to forget. You might consider using the first several minutes of the exam period to think about the documents you read in Mason & Rizzo and writing some notes to remind yourself of which documents you could include in your essay. I would say that the most common problem with the midterms was the lack of any evidence that you had done the reading. (Just writing something like, "According to Popkin, the French Revolution started in 1789..." doesn't cut it.)

I will ask essay questions about the following topics:

1. The sans-culottes as a political force
2. The Terror (origins through aftermath)
3. The transfer of political power from one faction to another (think coups and the like)

Good luck with your studying!

Reading questions, ch. 15

• In document #84, how does Bonaparte defend his actions during the coup of 18 Brumaire?
• According to document #85, what were the key features of the Concordat of 1801? Why do you think Bonaparte reached this agreement with the papacy?
• From the excerpts in document #86, why was the French Civil Code considered detrimental to the rights of women?
• What can you tell about Napoleon's views regarding race and slavery from the excerpts that make up document #87?
  

Reading questions, ch. 14

Remember, if you have already met your participation quota, you don't need to bother with these questions. For those of you who missed a few weeks, this is a chance to improve your participation grade.

• In document #80, where do you see the sort of evidence that would make historians believe that the religious revival of the late 1790s was anti-revolutionary? Where do you see evidence to support the claim that one could be both religious and committed to the Revolution?
• What does document #81 tell us about the debate surrounding the use of the republican calendar?
• In document #83, where do you see evidence of both the editors' social conservatism and moderate republicanism?

Monday's lecture

With only three class sessions left in the semester, I want to forge ahead so that we can get to the fall of the Directory on Monday, May 4. So on Monday, April 27, I will be jumping ahead to the Thermidorian Reaction. This means that I won't be lecturing on Danton's execution or the fall of Robespierre. Please make sure that you have reviewed Popkin's material on the coup of 9 thermidor II so that you're prepared for Monday's lecture.

In addition, I will be sending everyone some notes on the final months of the Terror to round out what Popkin has to say. I will be sending these as an attachment to your GMU e-mail addresses. If you have any questions about these notes, please feel free to contact me via e-mail or talk to me before or after class this week.

Deadline for Terror comments has passed

Comments are due no later than one week after I posted the questions. Therefore the deadline has passed for comments on chapters 8 - 10. If you submitted comments for those chapters after Wed., April 22, then you will need to submit make-up comments (the questions for which will be posted next week).

Please focus your attention on the questions for chapters 11 - 13.

Reading questions, ch. 13

• Gracchus Babeuf has been called a "proto-Communist" by some historians. What arguments does Babeuf put forward in The Plebeians' Manifesto (document #75) that might make one arrive at that conclusion?
• Jullien's pamphlet, Some Advice to Cisalpine Patriots (document #76), is an example of neo-Jacobin propaganda? What in this pamphlet reminds you of the Jacobin Club before the end of Terror? In what ways had the Jacobins' ideology or agenda changed?
• According to the anonymous pamphleteer of "On the True Cause of the Revolution" (document #78), what were the worst abuses of the Revolution? Had these abuses abated by 1797?

Reading questions, ch. 12

• In document #71, how does the Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Citizens differ from the versions of 1789 and 1793? What developments in the history of the Revolution account for these differences?
• How does the law described in document #72 reveal the Directory's concern to curb the excesses of both the left and right in French politics?
• According to document #73, why did the Council of Five Hundred close down all political clubs? How did the deputies justify this bold measure?
• In document #74, how does the Directory justify the coup of 18 fructidor V? What is the remaining Directors' vision of the Republic?

Reading questions, ch. 11

• In document #66, how does Tallien describe the mechanisms of the Terror? How does it work as a system of exercising power?
• In document #66, how does Tallien compare the Terror to the monarchy of the old regime?
• According to document #68, why did the people of Paris rise up in germinal III? What were the people's demands?
• According to document #68, how did the National Convention respond to both the germinal and prairial uprisings in the spring of 1795?
• Mason and Rizzo point out that the Declaration of Verona (document #69), issued by Comte de Provence (the future Louis XVIII), "stifle[d] royalist attempts at Restoration." Why would this be the case?

Your comments

I will be rejecting any comments that a) don't answer the question in its entirety or b) are composed mainly of direct quotations from the document. The purpose of the exercise is for you to read and analyze the document. You have not proven your analytical ability if you just start copying directly from the text.

Reading schedule for the rest of the semester

For the purposes of participation and potential quizzes, you should have chapter 9 in Mason & Rizzo (as well as documents 64 & 65 in ch.10) completed for Monday, April 20. (Though you still have one week from the date on which questions were posted to comment on the blog.)

Chapters 11, 12 & 13 should be read by Monday, April 27 in order to be ready for a potential quiz, with blog comments due no later than one week after I have posted the reading questions.

You will not be quizzed on chapters 14 & 15. The only document from those chapters that might be relevant to an essay on the final exam would be document #84. I will, however, post reading questions for those chapters so that those of you who have not been diligent about commenting on the blog will have a chance to earn some credit towards your participation grade.

You can finish Popkin at your own pace. You won't be quizzed on that material, though you do need to have the book finished by the final exam. We'll be discussing the Terror this week, the Thermidorian Reaction and the Directory next week, and the fall of the Directory on the last day of classes.

Reading questions, ch. 10

You only need to read documents 64 & 65 from chapter 10. Please answer both of these questions.

• R.R. Palmer wrote that this was Robespierre's most important speech. Why? How does it define the purpose of the Terror? What is Robespierre's vision of the ideal republic?
• What does Saint-Just's speech tell us about his political attitudes? Who were the enemies of the Republic in his eyes? How radical are Saint-Just's ideas?
  

Reading questions, ch. 9

Please answer two of the following questions.

• How does the Declaration of Rights which preceded the Constitution of Year I differ from that which was written in 1789? What inspired these changes? (The 1789 version is on page 101.)
• According to the minutes of the National Convention meeting on Sept. 5, 1793, how did the Convention meet the needs of the sans-culottes? How does Danton's speech presage the Terror?
• According to the Law of Suspects, what made one a suspect? What were the penalties for being a political suspect?
• Why did the Convention outlaw women's clubs and popular societies? Did the Convention imagine any political role for women during the Terror?
• What is Danton's argument for relaxing the Terror in January 1794? How does he propose to retreat from the Terror?
• How did Barère justify the Maximum in 1794? What amendments did he propose for stabilizing the economy?
• Why does the Law of 22 prairial II represent the high point of the Terror? How did this law provoke a sharp increase in the number of executions?
  

Reading questions, ch. 8

Please answer two of the following questions.

• In the two excerpts which make up document #43, Mason and Rizzo point out that the definitions of sans-culottes and their enemies tend "to conflate political opinions with social status"? Where do you see examples of such conflation?
• In document 44, what does the address of the sans-culottes to the National Convention say about their views of private property? What circumstances in France influenced their proposals?
• According to Marat (in document 45), what were the main problems facing France in the early months of the Republic? What measures did he believe should be taken to protect national security?
• In document 46, Hébert's course language reflects his commitment to speak the language of the people. Language aside, do his views coincide with those of the sans-culottes? Why or why not?
• In document 47, Mason and Rizzo suggest the goals of the Society for Revolutionary Republican Women were similar to those of the sans-culottes. Where do you see evidence of this in the document?
• In Toussaint Louverture's letter to General Laveaux (document 48c), how does he defend his decision to accept arms from the Spanish?
• In document 50, how does Parham justify his claim that "the philosophes in general and the abolitionists in particular" were to blame for the violence of the revolution in Saint-Domingue?
• What does document 51 tell us about the justifications for the federalist revolt? Was it counter-revolutionary? How was it different from the Vendée?
• Compare the two viewpoints of the Vendean civil war in document 52. How does each side defend his/her position?
  

Speeches on the king's trial

1. How does Morrison defend the right of kingship?

2. What is the Girondin position on the trial of the king, as expressed by Condorcet?

Revised reading schedule

If you've kept up with the reading on the syllabus, that's fine (it certainly doesn't hurt to be ahead of the game). But since we're not yet through the Terror, you can go ahead and push the readings back one week. I'll let you know which lectures I'll be dropping.

No class on Monday, April 6

Due to an emergency, I have to cancel class for Monday, April 6. To make up for the lecture I would have given about the civil war in the Vendée, I will ask you to read about it in ch. 9 of Arno Mayer's book, The Furies: Violence and Terror in the French and Russian Revolutions. This is available on-line through NetLibrary. (The directions for accessing the chapter are below.)

Please take notes, as I will give a quiz devoted solely to that chapter on Monday, April 13. The information in the chapter will be part of the material for which you are responsible on the final exam. (This is especially important if you were to choose to write about violence.)

Don't worry about what Mayer has to say about historiography on the topic (though I would still give that a read) and don't get too bogged down when he starts drawing parallels to things that happened outside of France. You should walk away from the chapter with a sense of why the Vendean rebels rose up against the Revolution, the distinct phases of the Vendée militaire, and the scope of Jacobin response (in particular, why was it so brutal?). Heads on pikes will seem like child's play when you read about the hurt that Carrier brought down on Nantes.

Please check the blog on Monday for discussion questions from this week's and last's reading.

See you on Wednesday.

To access the chapter:

1. Go to www.netlibrary.com and sign in. You should have an account from when you had to read the chapter from Gary Kates. If you don't, you can create an account from the homepage.
2. Search for the book using either the title or the author's name.
3. Click on "view this e-book."
4. From the menu on the left side of the screen, look for Part III: Metropolitan Condescension and Rural Mistrust. Click on the + sign next to the section title for a drop-down menu of chapters.
5. Click on Chapter 9: Peasant War in France.
6. When the chapter comes up, you can move the line separating the text and the menu on the left in order to expand the text to full-screen. The navigation buttons for turning the pages are on the top right of the text.

The essay portion of the midterm

The essay portion of the midterm is worth 50 points. You will choose one question to answer from a list of five. The topics of these questions will be:

1. Origins of the French Revolution
2. The influence of "the crowd" (this includes violence or the threat of violence, as well as demonstrations, the burgeoning popular movement, etc.)
3. The political spectrum in the National Assembly (conservative, moderate, liberal/radical)
4. Constitutionalism and the nature of rights
5. Royal power
   

Remember that these are just the topics from which I will draw my questions. When you're taking the midterm, make sure you answer my specific question. For instance, don't just write everything you remember about the origins of the French Revolution without really addressing the question I asked.

Your best bet for studying is to choose one of these topics as soon as possible. Then make sure you know the lecture notes and associated reading for those topics as best you can by next Monday. I will expect to see evidence that you have done the reading, both from Popkin and the Mason & Rizzo reader. Just stringing the lecture notes together in prose form will not earn you an 'A.' You need to bring in some details from the Popkin textbook to provide context for your essay. You also need to demonstrate that you've kept up with reading the documents. Of course I will not expect you to be able to quote the primary sources from memory. But I will expect that you get the gist of the primary sources you've read. You don't have to try to cite all the documents in your midterm essay, but you do need to make at least passing references to the relevant documents. For instance, if you chose to write about constitutionalism and the nature of rights, I would expect you to include some discussion of What is the Third Estate? This is why taking some cursory notes on the primary sources pays off -- it makes your studying that much easier.

A good essay requires an introduction with a clear thesis statement (what will you be arguing?), several paragraphs of supporting evidence, and an adequate conclusion. An essay must contain no fewer than five full paragraphs. An introduction or conclusion which simply restates the question does not count as a full paragraph. Likewise, two sentences do not a paragraph make. When in doubt, err on the side of writing too much.

You might find it helpful to take a couple of moments during the exam to sketch out a rough outline before writing your exam. You can use the paper on which the test is printed to jot down some points you want to be sure to include in the essay.

Be sure to choose a question for which you can offer specific facts in support of your argument. Make sure that your essay answers the question I have posed and that you are explaining why something developed as it did.

I won't grade your midterm essays with the same sort of rigor I would use to grade your papers. However, I will expect clear and thoughtful responses that are on point. Essays that are too vague or fail to explain "why" will be penalized. This last point is critical. Try to avoid writing "this happened, then this, then this..." There are reasons these things happened and you should be able to explain them. Make sure you have adequate transitions from one point to the next.

Studying for the identification section of the midterm

• You will choose five terms to identify from a list of ten. Each ID will be worth 10 points, for a possible total of 50 points.
• In a paragraph, you should include several details and explain the significance of the term.
• When considering significance, think about the changes brought about by the person/event/concept or what the term represents in terms of historical development. When you think of the narrative of the Revolution, what does the term tell us about a specific moment in time? If you look back through your notes, you should notice that I often say things like "This was significant because..." However, I also expect that you can recognize some of these developments and patterns yourself.
• All of terms in the ID section will come from your lecture notes. That's not to say that what you've read can't help you answer the question, only that I won't include terms from the reading that we had not also discussed in class.
• Certain people, documents, events, and manageable concepts are all fair game for the ID section. To give you some idea of range: Louis XVI is too big for an ID, but Calonne isn't. Popular sovereignty is too broad a concept for the IDs, but the suspensive veto isn't.
• Points will be deducted for failing to identify the significance of the term, missing details and factual errors. I will only write "significance," "details," or "errors" to explain why you lost points. If you want a more in-depth explanation, please make an appointment to see me during office hours. In the past, I have tended to essentially re-write people's answers and that makes the grading take too long.
• In terms of "missing details" -- I don't expect you to include every last detail about a term, but there are some details that should stand out to you. These are details which, if left unsaid, would detract from your explanation. For example, you don't have to remember that Necker was Swiss, but I'd have a problem if you forgot he was Comptroller-General.
• When you're studying, you have to learn to separate the wheat from the chaff. There are several times that I have mentioned things as asides -- fun facts, bits of trivia, etc. -- and these shouldn't be given as much importance as more serious details. You only have a paragraph, so you need to get to the heart of the matter quickly. The best example I can give actually comes from my Western Civ classes. I would routinely include Macchiavelli's The Prince as an ID term. Far too often, students would write about how he had been imprisoned, how this work was his attempt to get back in the good graces of the Medici family, etc. They would include all those details, see that they had about a paragraph, and then maybe include one line about what Machiavelli's work was about and why it was significant. This is what I mean by the wheat and the chaff. Make sure you focus on the term and why it's important; save the tangential details and background info for the essay question (or the contestant search for Jeopardy!.)

Citation style

For those of you unfamiliar with the use of footnotes, please refer to the "quick guide" to The Chicago Manual of Style. Remember to use the humanities format (notes and bibliography); though for your essays, you do not need to include a bibliography as long as you cite properly in the footnotes.

Use footnotes, not endnotes. Do not use parenthetical notation. The number of the footnote comes at the end of a sentence, after all punctuation.

Remember that you must use citations even when you are paraphrasing a document. The penalty for plagiarism is severe, so if you are unclear about what requires citation, consult a style manual, the Writing Center, or me.

More writing advice

Spelling and grammar

• Know the difference between there, their, and they're, as well as to, too, and two. Spell-check won't catch these mistakes.
• Similarly, know the difference between it's and its. As a rule of thumb, one shouldn't use contractions in academic papers, so you should never have cause to write "it's."
• Know the difference between "accept" and "except," as well as between "affect" and "effect." You must proofread carefully to catch these mistakes.
  
• "Led" is the past tense of "lead."
• Don't end sentences with prepositions.
• Proofread to make sure you have subject-verb agreement.
• History is a study of past events, so make sure you use the proper verb tense.

Syntax

• Start a new paragraph when you're introducing a new idea.
• Proofread to make sure you're not writing run-on sentences. Reading your paper aloud is a good way to catch that sort of mistake; you should recognize immediately that the sentence just doesn't sound right.
• Reading aloud is also helpful for catching awkward syntax. This was one of my most common critiques. I cannot possibly list all the examples, but I think if you heard them, you would realize that there are some convoluted distortions of English grammar going on out there. Strangely, it seems like a lot of the problems with awkward syntax occur when you think "It will sound more sophisticated if I write it like this..." Sometimes simple is better.
  
• Italicize or underline titles of sources. The occasions on which you put a title in quotation marks include when you're citing an article in a journal, an essay in a book, or a source that was not intended to be published in its own right (such as a letter).
• Use Roman numerals when designating rulers' names. It's Louis XVI, not Louis the sixteenth.
• Do not use the first-person case in academic writing. This means no "I think..." or "We shall see..." You are supposed to be making an argument, so assume an authorial voice.
• Watch overuse of the passive voice. "The Estates General was convoked by Louis XVI." sounds weaker than "Louis XVI convoked the Estates General." When you proofread your papers, check how often you use the words "was" and "were." Sometimes those are absolutely the right words to use, but they are often found in sentences that could be converted easily into the active voice, as in the example above.

Citations

• You must use footnotes, not endnotes and certainly not parenthetical notation. There will be a penalty for improper citations.
• Every word processing program has an "insert footnotes" function. You should not be writing the number of the notes in parentheses after the sentence. The footnote number will appear as superscript.
• Footnote numbers are consecutive starting from 1. Even if you are using the same source in the third note as you did in the first, you do not use the number 1 again.
• Citations should be in the humanities style of The Chicago Manual of Style. If you find this too formidable, you may use the Turabian style guide. No other styles will be accepted without penalty.
• Use the Latin abbreviation Ibid. for consecutive citations from the same source. The word must be capitalized, italicized, and end with a period. For instance, say you have three citations in a row from your textbook. We'll call it Tackett, and a span of pages from 100 to 105. For the first footnote, you would write out the complete citation, including page numbers. If your second footnote was from the same source, say page 101, you would write Ibid., 101 -- that's it. Same for the third note, Ibid. and the page number. (If you are citing from an on-line source, you don't have to worry about a page number.) As soon as you cite from a new source, though, you don't use the abbreviation again. If you had three Tackett citations, a citation from another source, then another Tackett citation, you would have to use the short title form for the fifth footnote (Tackett, When the King Took Flight, 103.) This is all laid out in the CMS and Turabian, but ask me if you're still not clear.
• You do not have to cite my lectures, but you must cite your textbooks.
• When you cite a primary source from Mason & Rizzo, you must start the citation with the author and title of the original source. Again, this is covered in both style guides.
• When citing from on-line sources, start the citation with the author and title of the original source. Remember to cite the website (as explained in the style guides); do not just cite the source from which the website manager got the document. You didn't go look up those texts, so you can't cite it as if you did. You must make it clear that you got the information from a website.

General comments

• Make sure you answer the questions! Many students write about the topic mentioned in the question without actually answering it. Be sure to read the questions carefully. If you don't understand the questions, ask me.
  
• When you're citing facts, whether to prove a point or to establish context, learn to separate the wheat from the chaff. These are relatively short papers and a lot of space gets burned up by facts which aren't particularly germane to the argument. Irrelevant information detracts from your argument.
• Beware of using faulty logic in making your arguments. I've seen a lot of tautologies and straw men used in student papers, which seriously diminish the credibility of your argument.

Re-scheduling the Tackett discussion

As I mentioned in class on Wednesday, I don't think we'll be able to discuss Tackett during a normal class time; we really need to move along (and hopefully get the king overthrown before the midterm). However, I may be able to schedule another time for us to talk about the book. Some of you might find this useful before writing your papers.

This is by no means a requirement, though, and I will only offer the extra discussion session if there is sufficient interest in doing so. If you're interested, let me know by commenting here. In your comment, also give me some idea of when you would be available (or better yet, just include the days and times that are out of the question for you).

Enjoy your spring break!

Guidelines about writing style

• Do not write in the first-person.
• Do not use slang or colloquialisms.
• Do not use clever or "cutesy" language. Being creative with one's prose is fine, but don't waste space trying to be funny or sardonic. That's not the appropriate tone for academic writing.
• Avoid using the word "very." It actually weakens your sentences, because it sounds like special pleading. I find this word crops up far too often in student papers. The worst offense? Saying something is "very unique." This is what I mean by weakening a sentence. Something is either unique or it is not. Avoid using such filler words.
• Similarly, mind how often you use the words "always" and "never." "Often" and "rarely" are usually more precise. I think people use words like "always" and "never" to try to make their point more strongly, but if the usage is not actually correct, then it just looks like you don't really understand what you're discussing.
• There seems to be a common problem of broad generalizations and vague language. Be specific when you're making a point. Make sure you're explaining why something happened. Give examples to prove your points. Make explicit connections. Remember, these are argumentative papers, so proofread them and ask yourself, "How clearly have I made my point? How much evidence and explanation have I used to support my argument?"

Basic paper guidelines

• Your papers should be five to seven pages long. (One sentence on page 5 does not equal five pages, though. On the other hand, I don't want your papers to exceed seven pages.)
• Papers should be double-spaced, in a standard 12-point font, with one-inch margins.
• Papers must be stapled; please do not use paper clips or report covers. (There's a stapler on the front desk @ Fenwick if you need one.)
• Citations must be in the form of footnotes or endnotes. Do not use parenthetical notation. Beyond that, the specifics of your citation form don't concern me, as long as you remain consistent.
• Papers are due at the beginning of class on Monday, March 30. Coming in with your paper at the end of the class period will result in a penalty for lateness. The penalty for late papers is one-third of a letter grade per day (e.g., an A- becomes a B+). Since there are no gradations in the 'D' range, however, a 'D' paper would become an 'F.'
• Remember that plagiarism is grounds for failure in the course. If you have some concerns about what constitutes plagiarism, consult your student handbook or contact me.
  

Class canceled, 3/2

Since the university isn't opening until 12:30 today, I'm canceling class. I don't see the point in everyone trudging through the snow for a half-class.

I will be lecturing about the Jacobins and Feuillants on Wednesday. The fate of the Tackett discussion is undecided. (Though you should still have the book finished by the time you get back from spring break.)

Questions for the Tackett paper

Choose three of the sets of questions below and answer them in your paper. (Note: this does not mean three questions total; for each of the numbered sets below, you'll answer all the questions in that set.)

1. How had the people of Varennes and the surrounding areas been affected by the Revolution prior to the King's arrival? Were they more agitated than other French people at the time of the King's appearance? Why or why not? Once the royal family's disguise was unmasked, what factors made it difficult for the townspeople to decide quickly what to do? (That is, what considerations informed the arguments for and against letting the king proceed?)
2. Considering the master plan for the flight to Varennes, was the royal family's escape doomed from the beginning? According to Tackett, what factors contributed to the plan's failure?
3. What factors contributed to the increasing radicalization in Paris between the summer of 1789 and the summer of 1791? What was the atmosphere in Paris on the eve of the king's flight? What was the Parisian reaction to the news that the royal family was gone?
4. Discuss the spread of the news that the King had fled Paris. Compare and contrast the way people in Paris and the provinces responded to news of the king's flight.
5. Though the Jacobins are typically blamed for originating and perpetuating the Terror, are there any indications during the Legislative Assembly that such extreme measures might be inevitable? Is there a sense of terror before "The Terror?" How does Tackett connect the king's flight to the onset of the Terror?
6. Assess Tackett's argument that the liberal regime of 1789 was not doomed to failure. (Explain his argument and discuss whether or not you think it's convincing, with evidence to support your answer.) Why did the king's flight endanger the success of the Revolution? Could Louis have remained king if he had acted differently?
   

Posting comments on the blog

I know a few of you have been having problems posting comments on the blog, especially with the word verification. I have removed the word verification requirement from the blog, so this should no longer be an issue.

Participation for this week

Since we will be discussing Tackett in class on Wednesday, you do not have to make any blog comments this week. I'm hoping to hear from most of you during the discussion on Wednesday. Please make sure to have the book read and at least some rudimentary notes jotted down. Because, really, don't you hate when you're called on and have to admit out loud that you didn't complete the reading?

However, since we only have one day to talk about Tackett, after Wednesday's class I will submit a catch-all post about the book, where you can make any comments that you didn't get a chance to express in class. (This is a particularly good idea for those of you who have not been keeping up with regular blog comments.) Also, you can pose any questions that you didn't get a chance to ask. I will answer these in the comments section, so everyone might want to take a look at that post before starting the paper.

Tackett paper due date

This is just to remind everyone that the Tackett paper is due on Monday, March 30.

Cast of characters for Monday's lecture

On Monday, I will be lecturing about the early years of the Jacobin Club, as well as the formation of the Feuillant Club -- a group of moderates who split from the Jacobins in the summer of 1791. There will be several new names introduced in that lecture. I'm including the major figures here so that you can refer to the relevant portions of the Popkin book and get a thumbnail sketch of who these people were.

Mirabeau
Barnave
Duport
A. de Lameth
Robespierre

Reading questions for 2/25

The following questions refer to the documents in chapter 5 of the Mason & Rizzo reader.

1. What do documents 29A and 29B ("The Continuing Contest over Seigneurial Rights") tell us about the concerns of rural inhabitants in 1789? What did they hope the National Assembly could provide them?


2. According to document 30, what were the problems with the grain trade in late 1789/early 1790?


3. In document 31, cite examples illustrating that the questionnaire's respondents were learned men and not your average peasant.


4. Continuing with document 31, what do the respondent's answers tell you about the reception of the Revolution in the countryside?
   

Reading questions for 2/23

The following questions refer to the documents in chapter 4 of the Mason & Rizzo reader.

1. In "Declaration of the Rights of Woman," does Olympe de Gouges significantly revise the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen?" What is her argument for granting women full/active citizenship?

2. What do the National Assembly's debate on religious freedom and the petition of the Jews settled in France to the National Assembly tell us about the state of religious toleration at the beginning of the French Revolution?

3. What do the National Assembly's decree enfranchising free men of color and the newspaper account of the slave uprising in Saint-Domingue tell us about the Revolutionaries' attitudes towards race and slavery in the early 1790s?

Reading schedule for the next two weeks

M 2/23: Mason & Rizzo, ch. 4 & pp. 138 - 152
W 2/25: Popkin, ch. 4; Mason & Rizzo, ch. 5
M 3/2: Mason & Rizzo, pp. 152 - 157
W 3/4: Tackett, all

Our class session on 4 March will be devoted to a discussion of the Tackett book, so make sure that you have it read and have taken good notes.

Reading questions for 2/16

Mason & Rizzo, ch. 3

1. What do the two letters which make up document #16 tell us about the nature of rural unrest in 1789? What were the major causes of such unrest? Cite examples from both letters.
2. According to the letters in document #16, what was the local response to rural unrest? How effective was that response?
   
3. What does the Duc d'Aiguillon's speech tell us about the National Assembly's reaction to violence in the countryside during the summer of 1789? Do his proposals seem like the appropriate response to rural uprisings? Why or why not?
4. In the debate over the king's veto, who made a better argument? Don't just think about who actually "won" the debate -- cite examples to support your claim for who made a more reasonable argument?
5. In the introduction to the debate over the king's veto, the editors mention that Mounier's speech "suggest[s] the limits of reform for some of the early revolutionaries." What about his speech might prompt that observation?
6. Mason and Rizzo include two documents about the Women's March to Versailles, noting that "the sequence of events suggests the degree to which established officials found themselves trying to catch up with popular initiative." How is that demonstrated during the October Days? Use both documents when forming your answer.
   

How to read primary sources

So that you will be better prepared for the exams and better able to make insightful comments about the reading, I am posting a guide to the levels of analysis with which you should treat primary documents. A lot of this information might seem elementary, but I don't know how much experience you all have had with primary sources. I think it's best to put the information out there and hope that it will help you take better reading notes.

The following is taken from Mark Kishlansky (ed.), Sources of the West: Readings in Western Civilization. Volume I: From the beginning to 1715, 6th edition. New York: Pearson Longman, 2006. Pp. xiii-xxii.

Level One: The first questions you ask about a document are those for which you can find concrete answers. These answers will provide you with the basic information you need to pursue a deeper analysis of the work. While reading, you should write down the answers to these questions as they become apparent in the document.

1. Who wrote this document? You cannot know why a document was written or what meaning its author intended unless you know something about the person who wrote it. This means more than just knowing the person's name. What was the author's social class? His/her position? Did he/she belong to a certain group? Knowing details such as the author's nationality and his/her political leanings is also helpful in this regard. You should also note whether the document was written by a single individual or if it was produced by a group. In the former case, was this document meant to be published (was the author writing in his official capacity) or was it presumed to be private correspondence? In the latter case, be aware that any document produced by a group would have been subjected to rigorous debate, discussion and revision. These documents, then, tend to reflect wider support and consensus. But because these documents are essentially subject to committee approval, you should consider which statements might be compromises between a stronger line and a weaker (or more conciliatory) line.
2. Who is the intended audience? "The relationship between author and audience is one of the most basic elements of communication and one that will tell you much about the purpose of the document." Knowing the intended audience for a document guides your expectations as you read, allowing you to consider language choices, the knowledge an author presumes his audience has, and what the best form of communication might be. When you come across something that doesn't jive with your expectations, that can be a telling clue about the significance of the document. (For instance, you should notice if a petition to a king contained language which was disrespectful or inappropriate given the king's status.) Knowing the intended audience also makes you aware of material the author omitted, embellished, or twisted.
   
3. What is the "story line?" This means paying attentions to what the document actually says. As Kishlansky puts it, the more often you ask, "What's going on here?", the better you will be able to discern the narrative of the document. There will be signposts in the document that should indicate what precipitated its writing and what actions and responses are hoped to follow.

Level two: These are the questions that enable you to get beyond the simple facts and probe for deeper meaning. "Since your goal is to learn what this document means... you now want to study it from a more detached point of view, to be less accepting of 'facts' and more critical in the questions you pose."

1. Why was this document written? "Understanding the purpose of a historical document is critical to analyzing the strategies that the author employs within it. A document intended to convince will employ logic; a document intended to entertain will employ fancy; a document attempting to motivate will employ emotional appeals. In order to find these strategies, you must know that purpose the document was intended to serve."
2. What type of document is this? "The form of a document is vital to its purpose. The form or genre in which a document appears is always carefully chosen. Genre contains its own conventions, which fulfill the expectations of author and audience." So note whether the document is a petition, a letter, a sermon, a biography, etc. The form tells you what the author hopes the piece will accomplish and what the readers are expecting to get from it.
3. What are the basic assumptions made in this document? "All documents make assumptions that are bound up with their intended audience, with the form in which they are written, and with their purpose. Some of these assumptions are so integral to the document that they are left unsaid, others are so important to establish that they form a part of the central argumentation." These assumptions are often framed as references to the past -- a petition of grievances to a king might mention past laws of the realm, for instance.

Level three: The questions in levels one and two essentially have direct answers. You can answer most of the questions just by looking at the document; that is, you don't need to do any outside reading or heavy mental lifting. In level three, however, you must start thinking historically. This means you will "pose your own questions about the past and to use the material the document presents to seek for answers." These answers aren't always direct or definite. These sorts of questions are the stuff of academic debate. It is at this level that you must use your powers of critical thinking and imagination to assess the value and significance of a document. Answering these sorts of questions is how you craft a historical argument.

1. Can I believe this document? "To be successful, a document designed to persuade, to recount events, or to motivate people to action must be believable to its audience. For the critical historical reader, it is that very believability that must be examined. Every author has a point of view, and exposing the assumptions of a document is an essential task for the reader. You must treat all claims skeptically. One question you will certainly want to ask is, 'Is this a likely story?'"
2. What can I learn about the society that produced this document? "All documents unintentionally reveal things about their authors and about their era. It is the things that are embedded in the very language, structure, and assumptions of the document that can tell you the most about the historical period or event that you are studying." (Kishlansky gives the example of the Petition of Right submitted by the English Parliament to King Charles I in 1628. Kishlansky notes that the very fact that they are petitioning the king, but not explicitly blaming the king, shows that the Parliament still believes in monarchy.) To answer this sort of question, you have to "read into the document rather than simply read it."
3. What does this document mean to me? While for most history assignments you are trying to discern what a primary source meant to the people who wrote it and read it, it's also worth considering what this document might mean for your own society. Documents about Greek democracy and Roman republicanism certainly have meaning in our time. An even better example might be the documents which you will read about early modern Britain. You will see the language of freedom, liberty, protection of property, and due process of law being crafted in documents from seventeenth-century England and this has an unmistakable influence on the founding of the American republic.

Resources to help you with your writing

Check out this website for an amusingly presented, but still accurate and relevant, set of tips about academic writing: http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/10commnd.htm

The website for the history department at the University of Colorado has a set of paper guidelines which is an excellent resource for advice about academic writing. I urge you all to look into this before starting papers.

The GMU writing center can help you with the mechanics of your writing. For more information on the services they provide, see the center's website: http://writingcenter.gmu.edu/

Reading substitutions

For those of you who still do not have the Mason & Rizzo reader, you can read a copy of What is the Third Estate? here. You can then answer the two questions I posted about this pamphlet and thus satisfy your participation requirement for the week. You will need to be familiar with this pamphlet for the midterm.

Reading questions for 2/11

1. In What is the Third Estate?, why do you think Siéyès was so critical of the nobility? What does this criticism reveal about his political principles?
2. How effective do you think What is the Third Estate? is as a piece of political propaganda, and why?
3. In the two excerpts from the cahiers, is there a common theme to the types of grievances submitted? Do these grievances seem far-fetched or radical? Why or why not?
4. What concessions are offered by Louis XVI in his "royal session" on 23 June 1789? How significant are these concessions in light of the king's closing remarks?
   

Change in reading schedule

For this week, you are responsible only for Popkin, ch.2 and Mason & Rizzo, ch. 2. While it never hurts to be ahead in the reading, you can save Popkin, ch. 3 and Mason & Rizzo, ch. 3 for Monday, 2/16.

Reading questions for Feb. 4

From the Van Kley article:

1. How would you explain the differences between "magisterial" and "ministerial" pamphleteers in the 18th century?
2. How were both magisterial and ministerial pamphleteers able to use Rousseau to defend their positions?
3. What role does historical precedent play in the pamphlet debates of the pre-revolutionary period?
   

Reading questions for Feb. 2

Documents from Mason & Rizzo:

1. Describe one of Montesquieu's justifications for slavery and explain why he has or has not made a rational argument.
2. Rousseau's The Social Contract has been described as a blueprint for both democracy and totalitarianism. What passages from the excerpt you read might reveal the dark underbelly of The Social Contract? Why?
3. Is the recounting of "The Noailles Affair" an effective condemnation of aristocratic privilege? Why or why not?
4. Why did Mercier think it improbable that the French would have a violent revolution?

Lucas article:

1. Why does Lucas assert that there was more social tension within the bourgeoisie than between the bourgeoisie and the nobility?
2. In the period before the French Revolution, how had the meaning of "elite" evolved in French society?
3. If the Third Estate was not revolting against the nobility, what was the source of their frustration in 1789?
   

Participation reminder

I don't see many comments for last week's reading. I just wanted to remind everyone that you must make TWO comments per week in order to qualify for an 'A' in participation. You have until 2/2 to get your comments in for last week's reading.

Make-up for last Wednesday's lecture

The reading that would be the perfect substitute for last Wednesday's lecture is, unfortunately, still not on reserve. I'm not sure why this is the case, but I'll call the library and try to get to the bottom of it. Obviously it won't be ready for Monday, but I will want you to at least skim the material before the midterm.

In the meantime, we need to move forward with the syllabus and plunge into the origins lectures, so to make up for our canceled class, please read the following lectures:

1. "The Origins of the French Revolution" at The History Guide.
2. "The Ancien Regime and the Intellectual Challenges of the 17th and 18th Centuries"

These are both cursory lectures about the estate system and the monarchy in pre-Revolutionary France, but I hope they'll at least give you some bullet points to remember alongside the information in Popkin. If any of the topics remain unclear, the first chapter of any of the general textbooks I put on reserve will discuss the social and political structures of old regime France. If you didn't have any problems with the first chapter of Popkin, then you can just quickly skim these two lectures.

In addition, I would like you to read the first chapter of Gary Kates (ed.), The French Revolution: recent debates and new controversies. This is available on-line via NetLibrary. Because you need to sign in with your GMU ID to use NetLibrary, I cannot post a link to take you there directly. You can find this book by following these steps:

1. Go to the GMU Libraries website (accessible via the university's homepage).
2. Search the catalog using either the author's name or the title.
3. In either case, you'll see that the library has three copies of this title. Click on the entry that says "Electronic Resource (available through Internet/WWW).
4. At the bottom of the record, click on the hyperlink that says "Electronic book available to GMU students, faculty and staff."
5. Enter your GMU ID to continue to NetLibrary (if you're connecting remotely).
6. When the Kates book appears, click on "View this E-book."
7. The table of contents will be on the left-hand side of the screen. Click on chapter one (you may have to click on part one first to get a drop-down menu of individual chapters) and read from there.
   
8. NOTE: if several people are logged on to read this at the same time, you might get a message saying that all the library's e-copies are in use. You can either check back later or you can click on the link that allows you to be notified via e-mail when the book is ready.

I think it's important to read the Kates chapter before you read the Lucas and Van Kley articles, if possible. Again, you don't necessarily need to remember all the authors Kates mentioned, but it is important for you to recognize some of the historiographical trends in the study of the French Revolution. This is especially important before we start talking about the origins of the Revolution; as Kates and Lucas will make clear, there are many different interpretations of the origins question. You need to understand that going into your subsequent reading.

Readings for next week

Monday, 2/2:

1. Mason & Rizzo, pp. 32 - 48
2. Colin Lucas, "Nobles, Bourgeois and the Origins of the French Revolution," Past and Present, No. 60 (August 1973), pp. 84 - 126.
   

Wednesday, 2/4:

1. Mason & Rizzo, pp. 29 - 32
2. Dale Van Kley, "New Wine in Old Wineskins: Continuity and Rupture in the Pamphlet Debate of the French Prerevolution, 1787 - 1789," French Historical Studies, volume 17, number 2 (Autumn 1991), pp. 447 - 465.

Both of the articles can be found on JSTOR. You usually need to sign in with your GMU ID to read articles on JSTOR, so I'm not sure if the links above will work. If they don't take you directly to the article, then you'll need to navigate JSTOR on your own; it should be fairly straightforward, since you have all the bibliographic information above. Let me know if you're having problems with the database.

If you take careful notes, then you don't need to print these articles out. I will expect you to be able to answer questions about them in class, however (hint, hint). Make sure you understand each author's argument and note what sorts of evidence he uses to bolster his claims.

Specifically regarding the Lucas article: don't get too bogged down trying to remember all the different historians' names. Do pay attention, however, as Lucas maps out the various schools of thought concerning the social origins of the Revolution.

Class canceled, 1/28

Even though the university is opening at noon today, I have decided to cancel class, in order to spare the commuters and avoid the predictably high absence rate on a day like today.

However, according to department policy, I cannot cancel class without substituting some other exercise for the missing lecture. Please check the blog later today for that substitute exercise. (It will be a reading assignment of some sort.)

Be careful out on the roads (and sidewalks) today!

A request from your professor

Last week, I placed William Doyle's Oxford History of the French Revolution and Origins of the French Revolution on reserve. Unfortunately, it seems that someone checked them out before the reserves desk processed my request. I'm frankly a little surprised that the library does not issue an immediate recall when a professor has asked for a book to be put on reserve, but there you have it.

If you have checked out these books, I am asking you to be a good citizen and return them so that the class can share them. I would really appreciate it, as would your classmates.

Change to reading schedule

Please postpone reading the Necker document (Mason & Rizzo, pp. 29-32) until Wednesday, Feb. 4. In addition, the reading assignment for Wednesday (Mason & Rizzo, pp. 32-48) has been pushed back to Monday, Feb. 2.

Reading questions for Jan. 26

Charles Loyseau, A Treatise on Orders (1610)

1. What does Loyseau think about the privileges of nobility?
2. Loyseau discusses different professions in his sections on the nobility and the rankings within the Third Estate. What do these discussions suggest about the relationship between work and social standing in seventeenth-century France?
3. Why does Loyseau insist that the Third Estate is not synonymous with the bourgeoisie?

Lit de Justice to Register the Edict of November 1770

1. How does the Parlement de Paris describe its role in protecting monarchical power?
2. What does the language of this document suggest about the strength of the absolute monarchy in 1770?

Parlementary Remonstrance Against the Edict Suppressing Guilds and Communities of Arts and Trades (March 2-4, 1776)

1. What class assumptions are evident in this document?
2. How does the Parlement defend the existence and function of guilds?

Posting comments for participation

This is just a reminder that you need to post two comments per week to qualify for an 'A' in participation. (This can be two comments for the same day's reading; you don't need to respond to every post.)

Your comments should be roughly a paragraph in length. You may comment about your fellow students' comments only if you are bringing something new to the table -- don't simply agree/disagree and re-word a previous comment. You can be critical of someone's comment, but you must be respectful and civil in tone.

Please include at least your first name and last initial at the end of your comment to avoid confusion and ensure that you are receiving proper credit for your participation.

Finally, I moderate all comments, so don't freak out if your don't see your comment posted immediately. Do let me know, however, if your comment does not appear within 24 hours.

French Revolution website

The website "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution," which I mentioned on the syllabus can be found at http://chnm.gmu.edu/revolution/

If you click on "explore," you'll find topical essays written by Lynn Hunt and Jack Censer. You may find these essays useful supplements to the Popkin textbook.