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.