Study Questions for Weekly Readings

Week 2: Power and Authority in Renaissance Italy

The assignment for this week is to read and discuss Niccolò Machiavelli's masterpiece, The Prince (1513). Machiavelli's little book of advice to princes raised the indignation of contemporaries and of kings and rulers ever since—even Frederick the Great, King of Prussia (1740-1786), wrote a tract condemning Machiavelli's ideas. Most people think that The Prince was meant to justify tyrants in the amoral pursuit of power; but as you'll see, his ideas are rather more complicated than that. As you read, keep the following questions in mind.

Week 3: Columbian Encounters

The first generation of Europeans to visit the Americas — whether as explorers, conquerors, or missionaries -- left behind thousands of letters and memoirs telling of their experiences. Among them the  narrative by Alvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca — Castaways — is surely one of the most remarkable. As you will learn, in 1528 Cabeza de Vaca joined an expedition to establish Spanish rule in Florida and the northern coast of the Gulf of Mexico, but through a combination of bad judgment, lousy weather, and miscommunication, some 40 "conquerors" found themselves stranded on what is today the coast of Texas. Eventually, Cabeza de Vaca and three others made their way across northern Mexico to the Pacific coast, where in 1536 they made contact with Spanish outposts. Cabeza de Vaca's memoir of this journey records the first encounter between Europeans and the native peoples of these areas.

1. Many historians have commented on Cabeza de Vaca's exceptionally sympathetic view of the many native peoples he encountered. How would you characterize his assessment of them?  What did he consider their greatest virtues? What did he consider their greatest vices?

2. Another question along similar lines: what was it about his experience, do you suppose, that made Cabeza de Vaca become an advocate of peaceful relations with native peoples? We can assume that in the beginning, Cabeza de Vaca was "seduced by the fabulous promises offered by legends about priceless treasures." How did his motivations change?

3. It was commonplace for conquistadors to think of the new lands and peoples as "marvelous possessions," as one scholar puts it. But for much of his trek, Cabeza de Vaca and the others were themselves enslaved. How did they cope with their captivity? What meaning did they attach to it?

4. Beginning with chapter XXI, Cabeza de Vaca describes how he and the others acquired miraculous healing powers, which — if the narrative can be believed — transformed them into god-like objects of admiration and fear among the peoples of northern Mexico. How do you interpret Cabeza de Vaca's stories of miraculous healing? How do you interpret his account of the group's reception as moved from village to village toward the Pacific?

5. Would you say that Cabeza de Vaca's narrative is a reliable account of society and culture among the native peoples of Texas and northern Mexico? What are the limitations of such a memoir as a source of ethnographic information? What do you suppose was Cabeza de Vaca's purpose in writing this narrative and in presenting his experiences in the way he did?

Week 4: Salvation in the Sixteenth Century

The text under discussion this week—Luther's tract, “The Freedom of a Christian”—was one of a series published in 1520, a year when the direction his rapidly expanding movement would take was still very much in doubt. Indeed, despite its often belligerent tone, this essay suggested some of the ways in which the unity of western Christianity might still have been restored. In an open letter published with this pamphlet, Luther dedicated his text to Pope Leo X and insisted that its contents were not directed at the pontiff, but at abuses and false doctrines that had arisen within the church. Nevertheless, this tract and the others laid the theological foundation for the Protestant separation from Catholicism. Within a year of its publication, the rift was irreparable as far as Luther himself was concerned.

1) How did a person become saved, in Luther's understanding, and how did he conceive of each person's relationship to the process of her/his own salvation? What role was there, in his view, for human will in the transformation? Is it appropriate in your view to think of Luther as an “individualist”?

2) Luther draws a sharp distinction between the “inner man” and the “outer man.” What does he mean by this distinction, and what significance did it have for his understanding of sin and salvation? What role do “good works” play in the process of salvation, as Luther and his followers understood it?

3) What role does the established church have in Luther's doctrines about faith, salvation and freedom? Why would these doctrines have been threatening to established religious authorities in the sixteenth century?

4) In what sense is a saved person “free”? In what sense is a saved person “exempt” from the law? What role does Luther envision for the state in spiritual matters? Would you say that this document is meant to endorse the “separation of church and state”?

5) Toward the end of the tract, Luther raises the question of obedience to authority in matters of religion. Would you say that his thoughts amount to an endorsement for freedom of conscience? Do you think that Luther would condone resistance against a ruler who commanded subjects to act contrary to true faith?

Week 6: The War over Women

This week we will be discussing the following four tracts:

1. Joseph Swetnam, “The Arraignment of Lewd, Idle, Froward, and Unconstant Women” (c. 1615)
2. Rachel Speght, “A Mouzell for Melastomus” (1617)
3. Ester Sowernam, “Ester Hath Hang'd Haman” (1617)

The texts we will be discussing this week are the products of a long-running debate in fifteenth-, sixteenth-, and seventeenth-century Europe about the inherent nature of women and their proper role in society. These contributions all come from sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century England, where of course the debate was influenced powerfully by the fact that the monarch, Elizabeth I (r. 1558-1603), was a woman. She was by no means the only one, though. Women who reigned in their own right included Elizabeth's immediate predecessor, Mary I (r. 1553-1558), Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland (r. 1542-1567)and Queen Christina of Sweden (r. 1632-1654). An even larger number ruled on behalf of someone else, most often her son until he reached maturity; these included Anne of Beaujeu, Regent of France (1483-1492), Margaret of Austria, Governor of the Netherlands (1506-1530), Anna, Countess-Regent of East Frisia (r. 1542-1561), Margaret of Parma, Governor of the Netherlands (1559-1567), Catherine de Medici, Regent of France (1560-1563), Marie de' Medici, Regent of France (1610-1614) and Anne of Austria, Regent of France (1643-1651).

For many men, the very idea of a female monarch was repugnant. In his tract, The Arraignment of Lewd, Idle, Froward, and Unconstant Women (1615 ), Joseph Swetnam presents what may be regarded as a typical list of stereotypes about women and why, in the view of many men, they were an inferior sex. But his view was by no means the only interpretation. The two other texts—A Mouzell for Melastomus (1617) by Rachel Speght and Ester Hath Hang'd Haman (1617) by Ester Sowernam—tear Swetnam's misogynist tract to pieces. As you read these pamphlets, try to formulate answers to the following questions:

1. What are some common stereotypes of women today? Based on your reading of Joseph Swetnam, how would you say that sixteenth- and seventeenth stereotypes about the nature of the female sex differ from today's stereotypes? What adjectives would Swetnam use to characterize women and the female “essence”?

2. What, in Joseph Swetnam's view, is so objectionable about the possibility that women might exercise authority over men? What consequences, in his view, would flow from such an inversion of “proper” gender roles?

3.Similarly, what is it that has Joseph Swetnam so agitated? Swetnam identifies several general “types” of women—what are they, and what distinguishes one from another? Does he have anything good to say about women?

4. What is Rachel Speght trying to accomplish with her attack on Joseph Swetnam's Arraignment? How does she use argument and logic to support her thesis? On what authority does she base her arguments? Is it accurate, in your view, to say that her argument is influenced by the ideals and values of the Renaissance? If so, how?

5. What is Ester Sowernam's objective in responding to Swetnam's Arraignment? What is the basic message she wants you to hear? On what authority does she base her argument, and how does it differ from Speght's?

6. Is it accurate to say that Rachel Speght and Ester Sowernam are advocates of equality between the sexes? Do they accept or reject hierarchy on the basis of sex? Do they accept or reject the idea of a female “essence,” a male “essence.” In your view, do Rachel Speght and Ester Sowernam consider women superior to men?

Week 7: Property and Rights in the English Revolution

This week we will be discussing two texts:

1. “An Agreement of the People ” (1647)
2. “The Putney Debates ” (1647)

Week 8: A Portrait of the Sun King

The readings for this week are excerpts from the Memoirs of the Duke of Saint-Simon (1675-1755), along with a few supplemental excerpts from two foreign observers, Giovanni Battista Primi Visconti and Ezechiel von Spanheim. Saint-Simon's first-hand narrative is the classic account of social life at the royal court at Versailles during Louis XIV's waning years. Bear in mind, though, that the Duc of Saint-Simon wrote from a particular point of view—the descendant of an ancient noble family, who was in disfavor with the king for much of his time at court. As you read these texts, try to formulate some ideas in response to the following questions:

1. In his account of social life at the court of Versailles, Saint-Simon focuses on the constraints ritual imposed on courtiers. Is it fair to say that Louis' elaborate court ceremonial effectively “enslaved” members of the French nobility who participated in its rituals, as Saint-Simon himself believed?

2. Many historians have placed enormous importance on the court ceremonial that Saint-Simon describes, and argue that its constraints played a crucial role in “taming” the French nobility. According to this view, court ceremonial accomplished several things at once: (a) it kept nobles at the royal palace of Versailles—and away from their own palaces in the French countryside—which enabled the king to keep an eye on them; (b) it forced nobles to organize their everyday life around personal service to the king; (c) it put the king in a position to manage social relations among members of the French nobility by showing favor and disfavor. What evidence do you find in these text in support of this interpretation? What evidence would argue against it?

3. There is an argument often made about court life in eighteenth century France, that it was distinct from other courts in that the king had no private life to speak of, which both made him more accessible and promoted a lively social life at court. Obviously, you have no way to compare Versailles with other royal courts, such as those in London, Vienna, Madrid, or Stockholm. Basing your view solely on Saint-Simon's memoir, would you say that there was any boundary the king's public and private life? If so, where did the boundary lie? Now a trickier question: why, would you say, was almost every private act public, and most every public act private? What purpose could this have served?

4. Some historians have argued that Saint-Simon's memoir should be taken with a grain of salt, so to speak, because his views about the court were not exactly impartial. How would you characterize Saint-Simon's feelings about Versailles and what went on there? What is Saint-Simon's point of view, would you say, and what are the strengths and limitations of a memoir such as his for understanding court society in Europe prior to the Revolution? Do the excerpts from Giovanni Battista Primi Visconti and Ezechiel von Spanheim cast Saint-Simon's memoir in a different light? Now another, trickier question: How do you decide what makes one source more credible than another?

Week 9: Enlightenment This week's reading introduces us all to the spirit of the Enlightenment: Candide, by François-Marie Arouet, better known by his nom de plume, Voltaire (1694-1778). Voltaire was born in Paris, November 21, 1694, the son of a well-to-do notary, and educated under the Jesuits in the College Louis-le-Grand. He began writing verse early, and was noted for his freedom of speech, a tendency which led to his being twice exiled from Paris and twice imprisoned in the Bastile. In 1726 he took refuge in England, and the two years spent there had great influence upon his later development. Some years after his return he became historiographer of France, and gentleman of the king's bedchamber; from 1750 to 1753 he lived at the court of Frederick the Great, with whom he ultimately quarreled; and he spent the last period of his life, from 1758 to 1778, on his estate of Ferney, near Geneva, where he produced much of his best work. He died at Paris on May 30, 1778. In this satirical, picaresque novel, Voltaire takes us on a wild ride through eighteenth-century Europe, its peoples and places. Along the way, Voltaire uses the protagonist and his little band of fellow travellers to poke fun at various aspects of his life and times. As you read, try to formulate questions to the following study questions: 1. One of Voltaire's principal targets is philosophy, represented by the ludicrously optimistic Professor Pangloss. How, in your interpretation of this novel, does Voltaire use humor and irony to satirize optimist philosophy? What does Voltaire have to offer in place of Panglossian optimism? Be sure to give three or four examples. 2. Organized religion was one of Voltaire's favorite targets of criticism, throughout his long life as an enlightened critic of eighteenth-century society, culture, and politics. How does he use the characters in Candide to satirize the institutions of the church in his day? 3. Similarly, how does Voltaire use non-European societies and cultures—such as the South American utopia of “El Dorado” or the Empire of the Turks—to expose what he sees as the hypocrisies of Christian morality? What is the significance of the social customs that Candide finds in El Dorado? 4. Voltaire seems to regard women with great sympathy; and yet his female characters are not especially well developed, and are often treated very poorly as his narrative unfolds. How would you characterize Voltaire's attitude toward women? What, if anything, do Voltaire's attitudes toward women tell us about the culture of the Enlightenment? 5. At one point, Martin claims that people “live either in convulsions of misery or in the lethargy of boredom.” Do the events of the novel support that statement? Is one of the two options worse than the other? If what Martin says is true, what does it imply about the value of social change and political activism? 6. Imagine that you are Voltaire and you have been reincarnated as Jon Stewart. How would you rewrite Candide as a script for The Daily Show? Image at right: L'homme unique à tout âge, Jean-Baptiste Le Vachez (1778).

Week 10: Rights and Revolution

As you well know, under the social and political system that existed in France before the revolution (and in all of continental Europe, for that matter), rights and privileges did not attach to individuals by virtue of their membership in the human race. Rather, rights and privileges attached to categories of status or residence. A nobleman or noblewoman typically enjoyed exemption from certain taxes by inherited birthright; the denizens of a privileged town enjoyed certain rights and privileges by virtue of local citizenship; clergymen and women were subject to ecclesiastical jurisdiction, not secular courts of law; similarly, indentured peasants might inherit certain legal disabilities by virtue of their parents' unfree status; and so on. The decrees of August 4, 1789 and, even more so, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen altered radically the basis on which the rights and obligations of membership in society would be distributed, introducing a new system in which “all men are born free and remain free and equal in rights.” Henceforth, rights would flow from citizenship; distinctions between one citizen and another would likewise be made on the basis measures that could, in theory, be applied to anyone, without regard for noble or non-noble birth.

That, at least, was the theory. In practice, however, reality seldom measured up to the language of universal rights. In various ways, each of the readings for week 10 describe the “universality” of claims to political and civil rights in France during the revolutionary era. Each text asserts the perspective of a group that was excluded from the full enjoyment of political rights. The first of these texts dates from before the revolution, and articulates the position of French abolitionists, who opposed slavery on the grounds that it violated their inalienable rights as human beings. The second, by Zalkind Hourwitz, suggests ways in which the Jews of France might be drawn into the nation; and the third text argues for the inclusion of women in the Third Estate. Not only do these texts expose the limits of “universal” rights; they also describe limits in the thinking of people who advocated their expansion. As you read these texts, try to formulate responses to the following questions:

1. Abbé Raynal was author of the Philosophical and Political History of the Settlements and Trade of the Europeans in the East and West Indies (1770), one of the first and most stinging indictments of slavery and the slave trade in pre-revolutionary France. But how, precisely, does Raynal define liberty? What is the basis of that liberty? How does enslavement, in his view, affect the mind and character of the slave?

2. Abbé Raynal readily admits that slavery has existed throughout human history. But he resists the proposition that this historical fact can or should have any bearing on the present. How does Raynal escape the mandate of the past?. How, in light of the effect that slavery has on its victims, does Raynal propose to end the abomination? How does he rationalize a gradual approach to the removal of a fundamental crime against humanity?

3.. How does Zalkind Hourwitz diagnose the condition of Jews in France? To what extent are Jews, in Hourwitz's view, responsible for their own marginalization? How does he propose to end the Jews' isolation? What, ultimately, is the purpose of integrating them with the rest of French society?

4. Does he think that Jews are (or can become members) of the French nation? What do his answers suggest to you about the relationship between human rights, nationality, and citizenship in the early phases of the French Revolution?

5. In January 1789, the self-described “Women of the Third Estate” petitioned Louis XVI to improve the condition of women in his kingdom. How did they diagnose the condition of women in France? What factors were responsible for women's disadvantage? Are the authors of this text claiming a share in universal civil and political rights?

6. How do the “Women of the Third Estate” propose to improve the condition of women? What does their proposal suggest to you about the relationship between human rights, gender, and labor on the eve of the French Revolution?