- 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?
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
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?
ReplyDeleteIn the letter written by the commune of Loudun, there are complaints made about the refractory priests who were now allowed to work again under the Directory, in the letter it mentions that there were "...ills that refractory priests were committing here: since the department freed them...they provoke the people to regard the Republic and those who love it with horror." This clearly shows that there was a definite anti-revolutionary sentiment resulting from the revival and as the letter demonstrates it was blamed more on the refractory priests who still resented the republic, and wished a return to monarchy. On the other hand the Commissioner in Krignac makes it clear that the people merely wanted to practice their faith and not to incite violence, the letter even mentions at the end at now having freedom of worship the people were actually less willing to accept enemies of the revolution, proving that by this point it was possible to be religious and at that might actually make them more supportive of the revolution. The letter from Maguy also expands on this by saying that worship could be tolerated as long as it did not disturb morals since it if allowed did not breed conspiracies.
-Jonathan Mcclintock
What does document #81 tell us about the debate surrounding the use of the republican calendar?
ReplyDeleteThe dialogue presented here, seems to suggest that the debate over the revolutionary calendar was almost an extension of the religious revival in 1797. This is made clear near the start when Sunday denounces Decadi as "...a fool..., a philosophe, a scamp, an atheist...I was created to reign over the impious...I do not speak to the enemies of God." This tells us that to some people in France the Revolutionary calender was associated with the Dechristianization of people like Fouche or the Herbetists, while the old calender was associated with the old religious order. It also seems as if the old calander was also associated with the Old Regime as Decadi mentions: "...Your saints, your books, your legends, your evangelists, don't they preach the most perfect and monotonous obedience? Are not kings sacred, deriving everything from God and their swords?" This is proof that the old calender was associated by some to be a vestige of the Old Regime, since its supposed christian connections meant it favored royalist intentions, and this also gives us the idea that in the religious debate of 1797 the reason some people still opposed religion was because they believed it supported monarchy.
-Jonathan Mcclintock
# 80. If the letters in Mason and Rizzo are an indication of the sort of evidence available to prove the priests were revolutionary, the only evidence against them seems to be one mans word against another. And the writer from the Commune of Loudun who speaks against priests seems to be overreacting to very little condemning evidence. He can really know little of what is going on between prieset and parisoner. His only real compaint is that the priests urge their people to vote royalist.
ReplyDeleteThe other letters talk about priests who encourage their parisioners to be good citizens who obey the law. The priest that he has interviewed wish that their work with the people was not so private so the rest of the nation could see that they are doing good and not inciting rebellion against the governement.
Both these authors see the benefits of organized religion in maintaining loyal citizens of the Revolution. Some of the benefits are that religios meeting are a good way to keep the people informed about new laws and duties. And the freedom of practicing religion does not produce conspirators but instead produces contentment among the people.
#81 It shows that people have not all adapted easily to the new calendar. After using the same calendar for 1600 years it has been difficult to change. It's harder to know remember the time of the cycles of the moon and religious people are thrown off because their holy day is supposed to be every seven days.
While supporters of the new calendar like it because they want to break completely from the ways of the last 1600 years. It also makes a clean break from living under christianity. They argue that other cultures who are not christianized get along with out it and so can they.
Jessica Arnold
The evidence that would make a historian believe that the religious revival was anit-revolutionary, is in the first letter from Commune of Loudun, because the priests wanted to have the security and protection they once had from the government. Some priets tried to convince their followers to elect royalists and deputies who would not mind overturning the Republic, which is counter-revolutionary.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence that the people and priests could be for religious beliefs and revolutionary is in the letter from the commissioner in Krignac explaining that the priests that behave well and are allowed to have some practices, the citizens have no reason to be anger, and therefore do not welcome enemies of the revolution.
-Gina D'Angelo
What does document #81 tell us about the debate surrounding the use of the republican calendar?
ReplyDeleteDocument #81 utilizes a satirical conversation between Sunday and Decadi in which both argue their right to exist. The major issue surrounding the republican calendar is whether or not the traditional Christian calendar could coexist. Sunday, along with Christianity, is attacked for its age and lack of reason, as Decadi makes a mockery out of the lord's day. Furthermore, the debate also serves to show that the revolutionaries believed, or at least wanted it to appear as though it was the Christian calendar which was unwilling to coexist, not the other way around.
~James Scutari
• 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?
ReplyDeleteDocument #80 contains letters concerning refractory priests, local religious practices, and religious processions. The law of February 21, 1795 put restrictions on religious worship. Everything to do with religious activity was prohibited. Letters B and C show more of an anti-revolutionary attitude to the religious revival. It explains first in Letter B, from the Commissioner in Krignac, that priests are “peaceful men.” They are the ones calming the crowds down and telling the citizens to follow the laws passed by the government. Yes the priest influence the people, but they are doing it in a passive manner to follow the government. In letter C, from the commissioner in Maguy, he speaks of a commander and how he forces the crowd to put away their trinkets, crosses, and banner without a shot, or single drop of struggle. Later when he was asked why he did not “take action to disperse” the religious procession he replied he did not know. The commissioner in Maguy believes that religious practices should be kept indoors. That “it does not produce conspirators.” While these two letters try to explain the peacefulness of religion, letter A, from the Commune of Loudun, does just the opposite. He states that priests are the persuaders of the people, influencing them to elect royalist administrators, electors, and deputies to overturn the Republic. He says that they want to reestablish the throne with their “fanatical talk.” It also talks about a priest, who baptizes, marry, preach, and pardon all who swear to the Republic and hate royalty.
-Natalie Pardo
• What does document #81 tell us about the debate surrounding the use of the republican calendar?
ReplyDeleteDocument # 81 is an anonymous pamphlet of a conversation between Sunday and Decadi. Sunday is for the old calendar and Decadi is for the new calendar which the French adapted on October 5, 1793, but abolished January 1, 1806. Sunday symbolizes the more catholic side with the old calendar. Sunday is the day of the sabboth and throughout the whole pamphlet he talks about his calendar and the “saints of my calendar”. He says he will defeat Decadi with them and eat all of his. Decadi tries to explain to Sunday why hasn’t his calendar went global and why is “Europe alone, subject to Christianity, blindly obey the sublime institutions of your thaumaturges?” If Sunday had such a powerful calendar he would be known all over the world and not have days or months named after the Greek gods, when he only has one God. This pamphlet not only talks about the calendars but I feel is also another form of freedom of speech to speak of the revolution. It is like sunady is the old regime with its catholic ways and calendar, while Decadi is the “devil,” the rebel who is trying to change things just like the revolutionary people.
-Natalie Pardo
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?
ReplyDeleteIn document A the writer declares a clear bias toward priests using the pulpit as a way to share counter revolutionary rhetoric. It is easy to see why historians would take note about the counter revolutionary possibilities of such priests since many in politics were truly scared of such things. But in document B, the author makes the claim that most priests, the ones that he has watched use the pulpit to spread revolutionary ideologies, getting people to obey the laws, and goes further to say that these priests are the a good way to get the rhetoric of politics to these people since they listen to the priests. Also in document C the author closes the letter by stating that worship is a good thing because it keeps conspiracies to a minimum and also keeps people on the 'straight and narrow' as it where, keeping their morals. However, he does believe that these actions, should be kept within church walls and not out in public.
In document #83, where do you see evidence of both the editors' social conservatism and moderate republicanism?
The author shows much of his conservatism and republicanism throughout the article; how he believes in the social structure of things. For example, he seems to state that the theater is going down hill, allowing commoners such as laundresses to attend. He even pokes at them saying that they are only there to show themselves off, pretending to be of a higher social status. Right after this he continues, saying that artisans need to be taught to read and write, to be educated in their craft to be better, to in turn get a better product, and a better income which will help the country. the ending paragraph also shows his republicanism, nearly socialism, by stating that every man should have a piece of property to call his own, everyone should have the basic necessities and should have the ability to enrich their minds to better themselves, because if everyone does so the country will be better off.
Cathryn Salisbury-Valerien
Document #80-
ReplyDeleteThe first letter of the document claims priests are attempting to exert political influence. The author of this particular letter claims the priests are advocating their parishoners to vote for officials who are part of the royalist faction. Furthermore, the author of letter A praises the goodness of the people, but calls the actions of the priest attempts to make them bad by supportting royalists. The second letter refers to the investigation of refractory priests. He asserts the priests are good men, who have the "public good" in their interests. He further makes the claim they are peaceful and wish to be under the authority of the government. The author infers the authority of the priests can be used to instruct them in morals, the laws of the Republic, and the fact they are now free to worship will prevent them from harboring anti-repiblucan sentiments and actions. The last letter recounts a religious procession in St. Vigor. While most fo this letter recounts the specific action of holding an outdoor, public religious act in violation of the law, the importance of this letter is the fact that the author believes worship doesn't incite citizens to act against the government and the morals and integrity of the citizen is not subjugated. It is worth noting, the author still believes religious worship is strictly for indoors.
~~~ Albert Bailey
Document #81-
ReplyDeleteThis is an intersting document for the mere fact of the way in which the author wishes to debate the republican calendar. The debate between Sunday and Decadi is a debate over whether the religious calendar is more important or significant than the republican calendar. Decadi argues throughout the religious calendar is based on superstition and a lack of reason. This argument emphasizes the importance of reason as it relates to the important tenets of the Revolution. The author if this piece, as Mason and Rizzo infer, is largely a caricature of a semi-bufoonish priest. I do think the author makes and attempt to argue both sides, but the author makes the priest shriekish and comical when compared to the calm demeanor of Decadi, which seems to imply the Revolution as measured change versis the hystris in the repsonse of the Churh, and albeit the nobility. Overall, the argument seems to center around the holiness that is to be enshrined in Sunday and the argument of Decadi that this can be achieved on this day by giving the citizen to reflect on the events of the previous nine days. Sunday makes the attempt to give a reason as to the importance of Sunday, but the author obscures this by using myth and miracles as a factor in why this should be avoided, and once again implies a citizen should reflect over events from the perspective of reason versus myth and miracle.
~~~ Albert Bailey
Document #83-
ReplyDeleteThe editor maintains a balance of social conservatism and moderate republicanism is his views on education; there is not enough and there needs to be more education for adults. He also does this in the "principles of morality and politics" in his views on the importance of the family. On politics, he calls for the election of men of integrity who will justly represent republican ideals of governance. He makes a comparison and contrast with Frenchmen and the Romans and Greeks, which this, in and of itself speaks to the authors balance of conservatism and republicanism. He also speaks at length about "domestic peace." On this, he speaks of prosperity and success in business and agriculture. He also speaks on the ability of each person to have the opportunity to ensure their own have some sort of income in old age. He also speaks on the importance of reading and the ability to have a few books to further their personal learning.
~~~ Albert Bailey
What does document #81 tell us about the debate surrounding the use of the republican calendar?
ReplyDeleteIt shows a couple of different factors about the debate. The author of the pamphlet portrays the opponents of the Republican calendar as being irrational religious zealots through making the personified day of sunday an irrational person. It also shows that the supporters of the Republican calendar believe that the Republican calendar is able to coexist with the gregorian calendar while they believe the proponents of the gregorian calendar have no interest in allowing the existance of a competeing calendar. The author implies the supporters of the Republican Calendar are Deists with their disregard for the catechisms and statments about the creator of the universe.. The old calendar is portrayed as being aristocratic and royalist. Sunday even goes so far as to say that when the Queen's sister was killed that a miracle occured.
In document #83, where do you see evidence of both the editors' social conservatism and moderate republicanism?
The author shows his social conservatism when he puts forward the idea that good morals should be taught by a person's family and not through public education. He also puts forward that the intelligent people that come into contact with the ignorant masses should form the political consciousness of the masses. Although this opinion seems unegalitarian it still shows a desire for universal male suffrage. At the same time he wanted economic welfare while maintaining a social hierarchy thus demonstrating moderate ideas on the role of a republican government. He desires comfortable lives for all of France's citizens by British standards and basic education.
James Murray