- How would you explain the differences between "magisterial" and "ministerial" pamphleteers in the 18th century?
- How were both magisterial and ministerial pamphleteers able to use Rousseau to defend their positions?
- What role does historical precedent play in the pamphlet debates of the pre-revolutionary period?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Reading questions for Feb. 4
From the Van Kley article:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If you compared both pre-revolution, both would be similar in that neither wanted a drastic change and both were conservative in that they both used history to justify their positions. The magisterial pamphleteers argued for a return to the Estates General and admired kings such as Louis XII and Henry IV. On the other hand, the ministerials were against an aristocracy and were in favor of royal absolutism instead of aristocratic despotism. Van Kley argues that when the historical battles between the two become unclear and the differences historically not distinct the french revolution occurs when revolutionaries attempt to begin again instead of going with a system that has failed.
ReplyDeleteMatthew Straub
I agree with Matthew. Van Kley made the point that the idea of the French Revolution was to leave France's history in the past. Both groups of pamphleteers, however, used French history in very different ways to explain their points. Ministerial pamphleteers were pro-monarchy. They used France's past feudal wars to demonstrate how necessary a monarchy was. Magisterial pamphlets also talked a lot of France's history. Their history was presented in a very different way, however. There were "constant assaults on divine right monarchy".
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I found interesting while I was reading the Van Kley article was the kind of ideals that the Ministerial pamphleteers stood for. More exactly the fact that while the they seemed to stress the importance of the Third Estate as the "most useful portion of the people" (pg.452), they also felt that a strong monarch was crucial to the rise of those people. It was interesting to see how at this time a powerful monarch was seen by some as crucial to the freedom of the 3rd Estate considering how later on in the revolution it would be seen as out of touch with the people
ReplyDelete-Jonathan Mcclintock
Nanneral Keohene points out that both Ministerial and magisterial pamphleteers were able to use Rousseau because he was got his ideas of sovereignty from absolutism but his idea of the "general will". Those who supported parliamentary constitutionalism could say that an absolute monarch could not possibly rule according to a general will. The people needed to be represented. However, those who thought the king was divinely appointed would say that the king embodied the general will.
ReplyDeleteI liked that the magisterial pamphleteering used historical arguments to support their cause. They looked at the past and argued that in the good old days the king sought wisdom from "the nation". They even analyzed the royal greeting in its original Latin and concluded that it meant it was from "the assembled people" instead of the royal "our".
Jessica Arnold
- How would you explain the differences between "magisterial" and "ministerial" pamphleteers in the 18th century?
ReplyDelete-
- The magisterial pamphleteers were pro parliamentary, were inexpensively printed, remonstrations of the various parlements themselves, and they had a radical vibe to them. The anonymously printed ones were ideologically oriented and had "radical implications of the legacy of parliamentary constitutionalism. They decided that their history was one of a “series of usurpation of nation constitutional rights by the forces of ministerial despotism.” They believed at the Estates General it was time for their nation to take back their birthright there and that they would. They had a corporate view of the nation. Their heroes were Louis XII and Henry IV while their villains were the ministers Richelieu and Mazarin, and Louis XI.
- The ministerial pamphleteers believed the nation was an association of individuals with equal civil rights and that the most useful people were those of the Third Estate. They raised questions of the Estates traditional forms and forewarned Parliament of the people’s upset because of it. They stressed absolute monarchial power. Their heroes and villains were the exact opposite of the magisterial pamphleteers. Their heroes being Louis XIV, Louis XI, and Cardinal Richelieu.
- Steph Talarek
Travis DeMay
ReplyDeleteMagestrial pamphleteers were on the side of the absolute monarchy and the traditional french government. The pro government side of the argument if you will.
Ministerial pamphleteers were on the side of the estates general in which they believed in a newer less absolute form of govenment, and I do believe they could have been persuaded either way as long as they, the peoples, payed less taxes and began to have more rights and liberties.
The Ministerial pamphleteers were all about absolute monarch power and would mention that their nation was an " association of individuals with equal civil rights". They would go on to mention that the assocaition already "consisted of the Third Estates". In their pamphlets they always would show their side by celebrating this monarch power and saying that with the rise of this power. the Third Estates were fianly free of this "aristocratic domination" and "feudal anarchy". Basically that the only way that the Third Estats would be bale to progress was with the monarchy.
ReplyDeleteThe Magestrial pampleteers was not expensive but they would get their point across. They believed in a aristocratic nation or pro paliament. Although they printed many with their ideas and thoughts, the strongest ones were the annonymous. Having these annonymous pamphlets allowed them to express themselves to any degree which they pleased and that is exactly what they did. They had a more go hard attitude than the ministerial pamphleteers.
Irania E.
Question 1:
ReplyDeleteVan Kley describes the "magisterial" pamphlets as also being pro-parliamentary. These pamphlets concentrated on the concept of parliamentary constitutionalism. These pamphlets also depicted certain historical figures, King Louis XI, and Cardinals Richelieu and Mazarin as the usurpers of national constitutional rights. The "ministerial" pamphlets heroes were the villains of the "magisterial" pamphlets because these pamphlets focused on monarchical sovereignty. As well as advocating that the Third Estate is the most important and appealed to the ideals of Rousseau and Voltaire.
Question 3:
ReplyDeleteIn 1771 Chancellor Maupeou instituted reforms aimed at purging "mixed judicial and constitutional institutions." This provoked a pro parliamentary opposition, much like the magisterial pamphleteers. They also claimed to be defending a historical constitution and giving the Parliament more privileges as well as the Estate General. The pro-Maupeou pamphlets defended royal absolutism, as well as an attack against aristocracy, much like the later "ministerial" pamphleteers.
The Magestrial and Ministerial during the pre-revoltionary period both used historical information in order to support their views. The ministerial went as far as France past wars in order to try to support their ideas for a monarchy. But the magisterials spoke about how it used to be the king who would kind of seek advice from "his people". Although they both supported their views with history, the history which they presented was sometimes extremely different.
ReplyDeleteIrania E.
The Magisterial pamphleteers were pro-parliamentary and looked to Louis XII and Henry IV as heroes. They viewed King Louis XI and Cardinal ministers Richelieu and Mazarin as villains. They also believed in national rights and electing representatives to the Estates General. They wanted to limit the power of the monarchy and have parliamentary constitutionalism. They also attacked the idea of divine right of kings.
ReplyDeleteThe Ministerial pamphleteers were pro-monarchical power and viewed the magisterial villains as heroes. They believed in a commitment to absolute royal power and its empirical necessity. They wanted to prevent the monarchy from falling into an aristocracy nation and they wanted their monarchy to be pure and absolute.
Natalie M.
Both the Magisterial and Ministerial pamphleteers validated their ideas and concepts with historical references. The Magisterial showed that throughout French history there has been a series of infringements on the constitutional rights of the people by the monarchy. They used historical records to testify to such rights as electing representatives to the Estates General and of consenting to all forms of taxation.
ReplyDeleteThe Ministerial used history to show how very necessary absolute royal power was and without it history shows one bad event happening after another. They also referenced the historical rise of the power of the monarchy and showed how it affected the civil liberation of the Third Estate from "aristocratic domination" and "feudal anarchy."
Natalie M.
Magisterial pamphlets were pro-parliamentary. They believed in the "aristocratic" nation; a nation which consisted of venal officers, nobility, municipalities, and towns which enjoyed privileges. The strongest of these magisterial pamphlets were anonymously written mostly by avocates. These pamphlets expressed the most radical implications of the parliamentary constitutionalism. They were typically historical and expressed French history as series of takeovers by ministerial despotism. Those they were against included King Louis XI, and cardinal-ministers Richelieu and Mazarin.
ReplyDeleteMinisterial pamphlets believed in the monarchy. They incorporated past wars to support the need for a monarchy. Ministerial pamphlets demonstrated a necessity for a strong Royal power. Their historical heroes were those the Magisterial pamphlets were against; Louis XI, and even Cardinal-minister Richelieu. Ministerial pamphlets supported a nation which allowed individuals equal civil rights and praised the Third Estate, which according to them, contained the most valuable people.
Written by: Kathryne Hardy
Magisterial pamphleteers embraced the rise of the power of the monarchy, which had a major effect on the third estates civil freedom. Ministerial pamphleteers had the notion of a nation as an association of individual rights with equal civil rights. Magisterial pamphleteers embraced ministerial depotism because they viewed the king as the absolute, natural power and authority where as ministerial pamphleteers wanted the power in the people's hands.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy McCain
How would you explain the differences between "magisterial" and "ministerial" pamphleteers in the 18th century?
ReplyDeleteMagisterial pamphlets were pro-parliamentary and were set on portraying the King and Cardinal ministers as the villains. They maintained the viewpoint form those of greater means and rights rather than the common people. Ministerial pamphlets were opposite in that they saw each person as equal with an emphasis on lower class members rather than the aristocratic focus of the magisterial pamphlets. Where the magisterial pamphlets painted the King and Cardinal ministers as the villains, the ministerial pamphlets touted them as the heroes instead.
How were both magisterial and ministerial pamphleteers able to use Rousseau to defend their positions?
ReplyDeleteBoth pamphleteers wanted to turn to French History in order to cement their position and turned to Rousseau's ideas in order to defend their position and prove its validity. Each group pick and chose which aspects of his work that greater defended their position in order to strengthen their own arguments. This picking and choosing gave each side a greater feeling of right and furthered their confidence in their own argument since they felt they were now able to 'prove' their position as superior with Rousseau's help.
Elliot Grimm
ReplyDeleteExplain the difference between Magisterial pamphleteers and Ministerial ones:
Magisterial pamphleteers viewed a pro-parliamentary form of governing. One of their agendas was to portray King Louis XI and the Cardinals as villains, as they were on the other end of their spectrum of beliefs for governing a society. Of the two pamphleteers, the Magisterial one's seemed to view society with a more radical ideology.
Ministerial pamphleteers were mostly on the other side of the spectrum of beliefs. For instance, they viewed the Magisterial's villains King Louis XI and Cardinal Richilieu as heros, and King Louis the XII as villains. They were very much in favor of an absolute monarchial power and also firmly believed in the overall good of the Third Estate.
Elliot Grimm
Elliot Grimm
ReplyDeleteWhat role does historical precedent play in the pamphlet debates of the pre-revolutionary period?
The idea's and associations of France's past were to be forgotten as one of the goals during the French Revolution. But during the pamphlet debates of pre-revolutionary France, both Magisterial and Ministerial pamphleteers used French history in order to celebrate or criticize. Where the typical magisterial pamhlet denounced the flourish of "ministerial despotism," while the typical ministerial pamphlet would celebrate the rise of monarchial power which had effected the civil liberation of the Third Estate (which the ministerial pamphleteers praised)
Elliot Grimm
Magisterial pamphleteers were for the monarchy and were more radical than ministerial pamphleteers. They thought that French history was “a series of usurpations by forces of ‘ministerial despotism’”.
ReplyDeleteMinisterial pamphleteers viewed “the nation as an association of individuals with equal civil rights.” They also thought that the Third Estate included the most useful portion of French people.
Tori Barnes
Tori,
ReplyDeleteYou need to be more clear about what you mean when you say that the magisterial pamphleteers were "for the monarchy." These pamphleteers wanted a constitutional monarchy, which distinguishes them from the ministerial writers, who were big defenders of absolute monarchy.
Dr. Link