- 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?
- How effective do you think What is the Third Estate? is as a piece of political propaganda, and why?
- 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?
- 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?
Monday, February 9, 2009
Reading questions for 2/11
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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?
ReplyDeleteHe is trying to show that the Third Estate is in the majority and that by giving them more seats that they are better representing the country. The nobility, he says, basically are the ones who are running the entire country and that’s why they are in a fiscal crisis and their country is divided. The nobility only looks out for themselves. However, by allowing the Third Estate to have more seats that are equal to those of the clergy and nobility, the country would be better represented. Siéyès is obviously trying to make everyone blame the nobility for the country’s problems instead of the King and to get equal seats for the Third Estate in the State General so the country will be better represented.
2. How effective do you think What is the Third Estate? is as a piece of political propaganda, and why?
I think it was very effective as a piece of political propaganda. Siéyès is able to make the reader blame the country’s entire problems on the nobility, stating how the country has never been a monarchy but instead an aristocracy who runs the Church, the State, and makes the laws. He helps the reader to believe that by giving equal seats to the Third Estate that all classes will be equally represented instead of unfairly so. Where 1000 votes from the Third Estate could be cancelled out by 10 votes from the nobility.
Steph Talarek
In What is the Third Estate? why do you think Sieyes was so critical of the nobility? What does this criticism reveal about his political principles?
ReplyDeleteI believe Sieyes was critical of the nobility because of the injustice, unequal representation, and insignificant contributions they brought to society. The nobility represented a division in society that brought forth tension among classes. More so, Sieyes viewed the nobility as a threat to society. "Nobles prefer each other over nation, they are foreigners with civil and political prerogatives that are not in the interest of nation." He knew that the citizens in France would prosper with equal representation hence his paper asks for genuine representation in the Estates General for The Third Estate. The criticism reveals that his political principles are quite liberal but nationalistic. He believes that equal representation with single and indivisible rights will unite society and that feudalism is the end of France. As a result he publishes his papers to spread the theories.
-Johanna Gotay
What concessions are offered by Louis XVI in his “royal session” on June 23 1789? How significant are these concessions in light of the kings closing remarks?
ReplyDeleteThey are an overt threat to the Estates General, Parlement, and the Third Estate. Among the many concessions offered by Louis XVI, he offers to not impose a new tax and to not extend beyond present tax terms; that new taxes imposed before this meeting are to last the period of time imposed or until the Estate General adjourns; that loans not be taken without consent of Estates General; that transparencies be made annually; sanctions on clergy and nobility; taille abolished and replaced with vingtinene; that property is to be respected; abolish letters de cachet, offers liberty to the press that must be approved in means of religion and crown; Estate General occupy itself in removing trade barriers; to ease the salt tax; and finally to examine all projects presented to him, and that the use of corveé be abolished. These concessions are significant because they eliminate any possibility from the Third Estate receiving any grievances. Not only that but they dissolve any possibilities of equal representation. They give more power to the monarchy and less to its people.
-Johanna Gotay
In the Cahiers, I think there are a few common themes. One would be a reduction and streamlining of taxes so that it would be easier for the people and save the govt money. A second would be the desire for uniform weight and measurements. A third would be infrastructure projects. The grievances are not very far fetched or radical. I think they are practical projects meant to help the commoners. Even things such as electing representatives to the Third Estate would help the commoners by giving them a real voice in the French political system.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Straub
Elliot Grimm
ReplyDelete1.)
Sieyes was so critical of the nobility because he realized that the nobility was making the main decisions in the country. The decisions they were making were of "particular interest" and did not represent the general will. While the heavy majority of the nation was represented in the Third Estate, they still had no significant say in the decisions of the country. Sieyes asserts that this problem is key for why the country is turning down the wrong road. He argues that if The Third Estate was more fairly represented in the nation, the whole of the country would be served rather than the particular.
Elliot Grimm
Elliot Grimm
ReplyDelete2.)
In adding to what Steph said, I also find the pamphlet a very effective piece of political propaganda. Sieyes is using common interests to reach his goals (whether for better or worse). He states that you, the reader of the pamphlet, are amongst the representation in The Third Estate, yet you recieve little recognition from the Nobility of State-General. It main effectiveness comes in the fact that many people were suffering and poor during this time and France, and Sieyes released this pamphlet offering an explanation for their situation and also a solution to it. Sieyes uses his statements logically and emotionally, an effective way to the persuade citizens of France.
Elliot Grimm
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. The third estates is the merchants, the brokers, administrators, the Bourgeoisie. A large portion of the population, people who had the abiltiy and capacity to earn money and better themselves yet were not permitted to attain higher social status. Siéyès was critical of the nobility because it was safer to critize the small man on the totem pole than it was to directly critize the king. Siéyès political principals would lie with the third estate and where their interests lie. 2. How effective do you think What is the Third Estate? is as a piece of political propaganda, and why
ReplyDeleteHow effective this piece of writing is lies with each reader. To the members of the third estate, it was a sort of decrelation of independence declaring their rights. This helped in establishing thier worth both to the kingdom and to themsleves. To the nobility this way most likely viewed as trash, a feeble attempt by the lower classes to gain power. Overall I believe it was a very effective piece because it aroused emition on both the nobility and the Bourgeoisie
In What is the Third Estate?, why do you think was so critical of the nobility? What does this criticism reveal about his political principles?
ReplyDeleteThe third estate was a group which consisted of your common people of the land (basically anyone who was not nobility). Siéyès is critical of the nobility because he believes that all the problems which the state is in were caused by them. They were men who only thought of themselves and did not have your "regular" folks in mind. He believed that with giving the Third Estate more seats, the country will prosper. I think that his political principles were "equal representaiton will bring state represenation" and from their only good can come.
Irania E.
How effective do you think What is the Third Estate? is as a piece of political propaganda, and why?
ReplyDeleteI believe that this piece of political propaganda is extrememly effective. Siéyès gives great argument to why the state is in the condition in which it is. From there he throws in how to change this hole in which the state is sinking deeper and deeper. Also at this time people are somewhat desperate and want to get out of this mess but at the same time do not want to end up in the mess again. Obviously he offers them a solution which involves your "regular" folks having more representation. As a farmer who would like to see things turned around, this seems like the best idea in the world.
Irania E.
In the two excepts 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?
ReplyDeleteIn the two excerpts from the cahiers, there were common themes in the two lists that we saw in the text. One of the common themes was a want for better finances in France. They wanted taxation to be regular and that everyone should pay taxes with a single currency to make it easier to travel around the country. Another thing that they listed was an end to arbitrary arrests and in sentencing to focus on the crime and not the person who committed the crime. They also wanted better infrastructure projects, such as the fixing of roads. The demands were not radical, they were ones that if implemented would lead to a more equal standing of the individuals in the country and would make receiving taxes easier for the crown.
Kate Sinrud
What concessions are offered by Louis XVI in his “royal session” on the 23 June 1789? How significant are those concessions in light of the king’s closing remarks?
ReplyDeleteThe concession that Louis XVI offered in his “royal session” on June 23, 1789 were: there was not going to be a new tax created without the Estates General being called, the country’s finances would be made public, property will be respected. The Estates General will be called and they will work on the majority of the other grievances that came out in the cahiers, he will use money to aid in the infrastructure around the country. His list of concessions was good because he mentioned the majority of the things that people were complaining about in the cahiers. His speech seemed good until at the end he said that if they did not follow him, he alone would make the decisions and he would make sure that “none of your projects, none of your arrangements can have the force of law without my special approbation.” By saying this at the end of his speech he showed that he was not actually ready for change in the country and he was going to act on his will and not the will of the nation.
Kate Sinrud
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?
ReplyDeleteSiéyès was critical of the nobility because in the past the nobility were the ones who were making the decisions for the entire country when they only represented a small amount of the population. He claims that the nobility does not help society, they "weaken and injure it; we must prove further that the nobility is not part of our society at all: it may be a burden for the nation, but it cannot be part of it" (51). The nobility think of only the few, not the many so that is why Siéyès thinks poorly of the nobility. His political principles clearly state that the class that is the majority should be the ones that rule and make the laws of the country. Letting the minority rule weakens one society.
Travis Jeffries
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?
ReplyDeleteSome common themes in both cahiers are taxes can only be consented by the Estates General, that all taxes have the same rate no matter how much one person makes, byways to be repaired and maintained, and one fixed property tax. These ideas do not seem radical to me because these grievances seem reasonable. It seems reasonable for everybody to pay the same taxes no matter how much money they make. It seems reasonable that they want the byways and shortcuts to be maintained and repaired because it would make trade between towns a whole lot easier. It is not like they are asking for anything radical like overthrowing the government and killing the king, well at least not yet.
Travis Jeffries
1. In "What is the Third Estate" Abbe Sieyes seems to be critical of the Nobility because he seems to feel as if they only a burden to French society, and contribute nothing to it. This combined with what he goes to say about the nobility reigning instead of the king, shows that he clearly holds pro-magisterial ideals and is opposed to power of the royal ministers and feels that France would be better off if the king had full power.
ReplyDelete-Jonathan Mcclintock
3. In the Cahiers de Doleances there seems to be a pattern of the Third Estate desireing more equality with first and second estates in terms of both the Estates-General, and in taxation which they wanted to be in the form of a single tax for everyone. Overall there seems to be nothing really radical within the Cahiers. This means that while there requests for the Estate-General to meet reguarly, this was more so they could work with the king.
ReplyDelete-Jonathan Mcclintock
1. Why do you think Sieyes was so critical of the nobility? What does his criticism reveal about his political principles?
ReplyDeleteAbbe Sieyes is very critical of the Nobility. He believes if the nobility or as he calls the "privileged order" were eliminated the nation would be something more. The Third Estate is the majority and deserves to be represented at an equal level. He believes the Third Estate would flourish if it no longer was oppressed. Sieyes, states in his manifesto that the Nobility only weakens the nation and that is why France is facing economic problems. He wants the Third Estate to stand up and prove that the Nobility is not apart of a productive society. He points out that the Nobility enjoys all of the wonderful things of Frances but does not contribute anything to Society.
Written by: Kathryne Hardy
2. In the two excerpts from the cashiers, is there a common theme to the types of
grievances submitted? Do these grievances seem far-fetched or radical? Why or why not?
There is a common theme in all cashiers. Cashiers were implemented during the anticipation of the Estate General. They were a list of grievances written by local constituents within French provinces. Their demands were not radical or far-fetched; they were very reasonable and fair. The interesting part was that neither of the cashiers submitted indicated the constituents were against eliminating taxes altogether. The constituents were more interested in implementing a reasonable flat tax acceptable for all provinces. They wanted a better plan for securing financial stability and more security for their property. They wanted to bring an end to unwarranted arrests. Those behind the cashiers did not want to bring the Monarchy to their feet they were more interested in finding a way to balance the Kings power.
Written by: Kathryne Hardy
The "What is the Third Estate" is very effective as a piece of political propaganda because it states that everyone else besides the noble and clergy have the ability and education to make an impact in public affairs. He states that similar to civil rights, political rights come from a person's willingness to be and active citizen. Sieyes talks about how the nobility only has its own interest in mind. He finishes by saying that the good of the nation depends on everyone coming together under one common class to prevent any political problems, but he says that country at the time he wrote this isn't ready for that yet. He's giving the readers the inspiration to get up and do something so that political equality becomes reality.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy McCain
There is a common theme to the types of grievances submitted in the two cahiers, which is equality among the three classes, especially when it comes to taxes. Some of the grievances are radical like counting all the people gindividually in the assembly of the Estates-General where everyone gets one vote instead of each Estate counting for one vote for all the members in it. Also with the Estates-General being assembled at regular and determined times and only the Estates-General should have the power to issue taxes was radical because it was taking the King's power away from him ang was giving the commoners a say of what taxes should be issued, which was the job of the magistrates hand picked by the king.
ReplyDelete1.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?
ReplyDeleteSieyes pretty much from the beginning comes out and says, “What is the Third Estate? Everything” (51). He goes on to claim that the nobility or privileged will only weaken the nation and that, “we must prove further that the nobility is not part of our society at all…:” (51). His criticisms reveal about his political principles that the Third Estate needs genuine representatives in the States-General. He doesn’t trust the nobility in this situation because they don’t understand what the needs are of the third estate. They only are thinking about what is best for them.
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?
Louis XVI presents his Declaration of the king’s intentions, which consist of a number of articles expressing his intentions on how to solve France’s issues. To name a few, in article one, he claims, “No new taxes shall be created and no current tax will be extended…”(63). In article five, he claims to share the table of revenues to the public each year, which is a nice change since they had been private for so long. In article nine, the king states that, “…there will be no more privileges or distinctions in the payment of financial contributions” (64). These concessions are significant to the king because it is placing more power with the monarchy. He still feels that he has always had his people’s happiness in mind and that to turn against him would be an act of defiance and unjust.
Kate Starnes
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?
ReplyDeleteSieyes is so critical of the nobility because he believes that they are not pulling their weight in the nation. The nobility is a burden to the nation and the nationa would function considerably better without them. To him, the Third Estate is the most important collection of people without whom the country would not function. At the beginning of the document he states; "What is the Third Estate? Everything." Sieyes also believes that the nobles have taken the Kings power and are running the country as they see fit, he argues that the history of France is not one of a monarchy but of the nobles. Sieyes calls for the Third Estate to stand up to the nobility and claim their proper place in society.
How effective do you think "What is the Third Estate?" is as a piece of political propaganda, and why?
I believe that "What is the Third Estate?" is meant to incite action and change. Sieyes is making an attempt to show the Third Estate that they occupy a much more important place in society than they have been allowed. This is an effective piece of political propaganda because it is aimed at a specific group bettering their position in society. The Third Estate wants more votes in the Estates General because they represent a majority of the population of France. This document helps incite the Third Estate to work for change and is a document that aided the revolution.
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?
ReplyDeleteSieyes thinks that that the nobility are running the country, not the King. He says "If it is not the King who reigns, it is the Court." The court has the power to appoint ministers and fill and create posts in the government. He is critical of them because they are choosing each other for positions and seem to have more power than the King, let alone the Third Estate, who he thinks have never had real political rights.
2. How effective do you think What is the Third Estate? is as a piece of political propaganda, and why?
I thought the article was very persuasive as propaganda. Sieyes says the current state of France is basically remnants of feudalism. He warns the reader to "beware of the multifarious agents of feudalism". He asks questions of the reader and makes good points about the rights of people being equal for all. He clearly defines political rights and the three questions at the beginning of the passage read to me like a political speech to rally support.
Lindsay Berreth
#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?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Siéyès was so critical of the nobility because he did not see them as a body that looked out for the better interests of the nation as a whole. Instead, he believed that they were too focused on their own social sphere. Siéyès saw them as taking from everyone else without making any effort to contribute to society in a useful way. This reveals that Siéyès is one who thinks that the amount of wealth and land one owns should not increase nor decrease their political and social standing and that privilege should not hold any sway when it came to every mans right to represent his own opinion.
#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?
The common themes within the types of grievances seem to regard infrastructure and taxes. Both taxes and infrastructure come up often and seem foremost on the list of things that they would like to see resolved. These grievances do not seem far-fetched or radical because they were not attempts to overthrow or undermine the government, instead they were attempts to reform it and better it for everyone. It is not far-fetched for a citizen to wish to see improvements in infrastructure and taxes for the good of both the people and the country.
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?
ReplyDeleteIn the two excerpts from the cahiers, there was a common theme around those issues which impacted the people's daily lives. These included taxes (salt and property specifically), removal of tollgates fees, and improvements for roads. Other interesting grievances include the ability for citizens to hunt on grounds surrounding the King's chateaux as a means for protecting their harvests from animals. I found nothing that appeared, at least in current times, to be radical.
Question 2:
ReplyDeleteAs a piece of political propaganda, "What is the Third Estate," is extremely effective. Like other examples of propaganda, the document appeals to the majority population/the common people. The blame for Frances problems are focused squarely on the nobility through their usurping of the monarchy. Moreover, the purpose of the document is ensure the right of the Third Estate to their fair representation in the Estates General. Consequently, it greatly contributed to the rise in tensions directly leading to the revolution.
~James Scutari
What concessions are offered by Louis XVI in his "royal session" on 23 June 1789? How significant are these concessions in light of
ReplyDeletethe king's closing remarks?
Among his declaration of intentions, Louis XVI included those concerning the approval of new taxes, the preparation of annual financial information, the willingness to consider abolishing the lettres de cachet, the willingness to consider freeing up the liberty of the press, and the abolishment of the corvee. While these may appear, at first glance, to be positive in nature (although the King's willingness to consider an issue does not leave any promise for a acceptable outcome), I think his final statements negated any positive and/or appreciative sentiments from the representatives. He used certain words, both the beginning and end of his speech, which were condescending and belittling.
In the two excerpts of 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?
ReplyDeleteIn the two excerpts of the cahiers, I thought the commoners seemed like they wanted to be treated more fairly by the upper class and for them to acknowledge some of their basic needs. A few of the things listed in the excerpts was that people wanted a better and more even collection of taxes, protection against disturbances to their crops and property, and better roads. I don’t think this is far fetched at all, it is reasonable for farmers to want their property to be safe, traders to want to have decent routes to travel and everyone wants to feel like they are being taxed fairly.
Tori Barnes
I think one of the most effective parts of “What is the Third Estate?” as political propaganda is the three questions at the beginning. Right from the start its really simple and gets a point across- people don’t even have to read the thing and already they probably have some idea where its going and can be enthusiastic either because they like it or they don’t. As Sieyes goes on to explain, the Third Estate is actually worth something more than the ‘privileged ordered’ and argues for more representation which is what the Third Estate wants to hear. He points out that all citizens deserve to be represented and this can’t be what is currently going on if “ten individual wills can cancel out a thousand individual wills.”
ReplyDeleteTori Barnes
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?
ReplyDeleteThe Third Estate is the marjority of the French population. Siéyès was so critical of the nobility because they only cared from themselves and not for the the Third Estate. He states about the nobles that "...far from being useful to the nation, can only weaken and injure it; we must prove father that the nobilitiy is not part of our society at all: it may be a burden for the nation, but cannot be apart of it." He saying that the nobles are in their own world caring only from themselves and they want to run the country for themselves. They are not useful to french society because the majority of society is the Third Estate which nobles care nothing about, but yet the nobles control society. Siéyès wants the Third Estate to become something and help improve French society. He wants them to stand up against the nobles and declare their own rights.
-Natalie Pardo
2.How effective do you think What is the Third Estate? is as a piece of political propaganda, and why?
ReplyDelete"What is the Third Estate?" was a very inspirational piece of propaganda to the people of France. It showed the citizens that the nobles were the ones to blame for the down fall of French Society. Siéyès persuades them with his passion against nobility that the Third Estate should be represented equally because it is the greater part of French population. He wants them to want to make a change in the French government. Siéyès wants them to realize that their vote is the only one that matters to French civilization.
-Natalie Pardo