العودة   منتديات طلاب الجامعة العربية المفتوحة > منتديات المشرفين والمنتديات المساعدة > أرشيف المواد والمواضيع القديمة > A123b

موضوع مغلق
 
أدوات الموضوع انواع عرض الموضوع

قديم 16-05-2011, 04:20 PM   #1
بَنفسج بَنفسج غير متصل
طــالب
 
الصورة الرمزية بَنفسج
نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011


:
ليست الدعوة ليقوم أحدهم بشرح كل ما بالكتاب أو ما شابه ذلك ..
الاختبار لم يتبقَّ عليه شيء في 6-6- 2011 من الشهر القادم ..
فرع الكويت لديكم Block 4 كاملاً .. من بعد الاختبار الشهري

فرع المملكة ... تبقت المسرحية ووحدة 24-25

كل واحد منكم يدرس, يدخل ويضع لنا أفكاره وما وجد وتساؤلاته
هذه الصفحة للجميع, ليشرح ويساعد ..

ويد الله مع الجماعة ..


:






التوقيع


أنا لستُ لِي
:

أمّـا أنَـا !
وقد امتلأتُ بكٌلِّ أسبابِ الغياب.. فـَ لستُ لي ..
أنا لَستُ لي ..


بَنفسج غير متصل  
قديم 17-05-2011, 09:15 AM   #2
غايتي جنتي غايتي جنتي غير متصل
طالب فعال
افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011





ـإي والله مـآبقى شـي : (

يـآحظكم دـآآآرسين يونيت 22&23 ’’ انا صحيح بدأت فيـه .. لكني قرأت عن المسرحيه وجذي لأنه الدكتور بيشرحه معـآنا وـآنآ ـآبي ـأروح ـآلمح ــآضرهـ وـآنـآ شوي دآرسه عشـآن يثبت بـرـآآآآسسي ..

إممـ .. بقرـأ الإكسرسايزات اللي بالكتـآب .. وأحفظ التعاريف اللي بالجلوسري ..

وبستفيد من هالمشاركه بحول الله



http://www.aoua.com/vb/showpost.php?...8&postcount=81


وعقـب بررجع ليونيت 22&23 ..

أمـآ يونيت 24&25 مـآـآراح أتعب نفسي وأقرأ -->> كالعاده لازم اطوف اشياء ههههههههههههههههه

بحفظ سؤال وـآحد واللي هو الـ Irony ..!

يعني ودي أسبوعين وأخلص بلوك 4 : ( عشـآن يمديني احفظ يونيت 20 لأني مادرسته بالميدتيرم :|

دعـوـآآتكمم جميعاً .. وأي سـؤـآل بنحـآول نتـوآجد إذا الظروف سمحت لنـآ حتى نتنـآقش ويّـآكم ..

يلـآ برب بروح أسوي الغدا ههههههههههههههه


التعديل الأخير تم بواسطة غايتي جنتي ; 17-05-2011 الساعة 09:17 AM



التوقيع



يـا الله رِضـَـــآاكـ وَ آلْـ جَ ــنًّـه ..!
+
تخرّجت ولله الحمد ^_^| كل من عرف "غايتي جنتي" واستفآد منهـآ يدعو لي بالتوفيق , حللوني وأنتم بحل , جمعنا الله في الجنة .. أستودعكم الله الذي لا تضيع ودائعه (F)
غايتي جنتي غير متصل  
قديم 17-05-2011, 10:06 AM   #3
الحب الحيران الحب الحيران غير متصل
طالب نشيط
 
الصورة الرمزية الحب الحيران
افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011



بديت بمسرحية بيجماليون لأنه مستحيل أختبار فاينل يخلى من سؤال يخص المسرحيه

وبحــس انو الوقت ضاع وأنا لسى فيهاا مو راضيه تدخل معلوماتهاا كثيره



التوقيع

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

﴿ هَلْ أُنَبِّئُكُمْ عَلَى مَنْ تَنَزَّلُ الشَّيَاطِينُ (221) تَنَزَّلُ عَلَى كُلِّ أَفَّاكٍ أَثِيمٍ (222) يُلْقُونَ السَّمْعَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمْ كَاذِبُونَ (223) وَالشُّعَرَاءُ يَتَّبِعُهُمُ الْغَاوُونَ (224) أَلَمْ تَرَ أَنَّهُمْ فِي كُلِّ وَادٍ يَهِيمُونَ (225) وَأَنَّهُمْ يَقُولُونَ مَا لَا يَفْعَلُونَ (226) إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَذَكَرُوا اللَّهَ كَثِيراً وَانْتَصَرُوا مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا ظُلِمُوا وَسَيَعْلَمُ الَّذِينَ ظَلَمُوا أَيَّ مُنْقَلَبٍ يَنْقَلِبُونَ(227)﴾
( سورة الشعراء )
الحب الحيران غير متصل  
قديم 17-05-2011, 02:41 PM   #4
بَنفسج بَنفسج غير متصل
طــالب
 
الصورة الرمزية بَنفسج
افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011


:

بالتوفيق.. يا رب لكما

غوغي.. بتطوفين يونتين ؟ : p
انا الحين بديت فيهم , مدري اخاف وشفتي درجة الميد .. : (

الحب الحيران. المسرحية صحيح مهمة ولازم نضمن سؤالها على الاقل
ونتناقش فيها

بَنفسج غير متصل  
قديم 17-05-2011, 02:43 PM   #5
بَنفسج بَنفسج غير متصل
طــالب
 
الصورة الرمزية بَنفسج
افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011


:::::::::::

:



التعديل الأخير تم بواسطة بَنفسج ; 17-05-2011 الساعة 02:46 PM
بَنفسج غير متصل  
قديم 18-05-2011, 12:28 PM   #6
Hebatalla Hebatalla غير متصل
طالب فعال
 
الصورة الرمزية Hebatalla

 











افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011


الى الاخت غايتي جنتي بالنسبة للوحات هل اللوحة فقط المطلوبة برتس وابنائة بما انو الامتحان راح يكون موحد وغالبا راح يكون من فرع الكويت او الاردن لان استاذنا قال انو معنا 7 لوحات من الوقت الميت تيرم وما جاء منها شئ غبر برتس ؟
Hebatalla غير متصل  
قديم 18-05-2011, 01:50 PM   #7
غايتي جنتي غايتي جنتي غير متصل
طالب فعال
افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011


بنفسج لو فيه وقت بدرسهم بس انا بطييييييئه بالحفظ وأحس إنه ماراح يمديني احفظ المسرحيه ويونيت 22&23 و اراجع على بلوك 3 و أدرس يونيت 20 اللي كنت مطوفته ..!

انتي اوريدي دارسه يونيت 22&23 يعني ان شاءالله يمديج تخلصينهم و فالج الفل مـآرك بالفاينال وتعوضين الميدتيرم ياقلبي.. لأنج تستاهلين الـ a


اقتباس:
الى الاخت غايتي جنتي بالنسبة للوحات هل اللوحة فقط المطلوبة برتس وابنائة بما انو الامتحان راح يكون موحد وغالبا راح يكون من فرع الكويت او الاردن لان استاذنا قال انو معنا 7 لوحات من الوقت الميت تيرم وما جاء منها شئ غبر برتس ؟
هلا والله أختي هبـه ,

لـآآآ من قال انها سبع لوحات . يؤيؤ ..!

بس أربع لـوحـآت , دزلنا إياهم دكتـور أمير من الميدتيرم وقال بس هذولي المهمين برفقهم لج بالمرفقات

لكن اللي دـآآآآآيم تتكرر في الإختبـآرات هي كـلر بليت 39 ومرّهـ جـآت مقـآرنه بين لوحـة بروتس وبين مـآرات ..!


The theme of death appears in Jacques-Louis David's two paintings: The Lictors Returning to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons and The Death of Marat. How is this theme dealt with in the paintings? How does the treatment of this theme, along with the setting and choice of figures, help reflect the artist's political stance?

Suggested Answer and Marking Emphasis:

The theme of death appears in Jacques-Louis David's two paintings of Brutus and Marat. In both paintings, this theme is geared towards achieving a clear expression of the artist's political sentiments. However, the two paintings fulfill this in different ways through the choice of characters and setting.

Both paintings seem to exhibit pro-republican sentiments and the artist's sympathies for the French Revolution. This is done through the choice of Brutus as the main figure of the first painting. Brutus is the stoic self-sacrificing figure in Roman history who ordered the execution of his two sons because they had conspired with the monarchy against the Roman republic. The selection of this incident betrays the artist's own personal views which are probably anti-monarchy.

The point of focus in this painting is Brutus with his pensive and isolated mood. Death only appears as a minor theme in the background in order to emphasize the fact that this killing was carried out under the command of Brutus, the father of the now two dead sons. Therefore, the major theme here is that of sacrificing one's duty towards family in order to give priority to one's duty towards the state. Unlike the Marat painting, details of the dead bodies are not shown in this picture. The viewer can barely distinguish the legs of the two sons as they are carried on litters.

The choice of the setting also helps contribute to the feeling that the event is related to the general interest of the public. The scene of ancient Rome transports the onlooker to a courtroom scene where rights are defended and justice is carried out regardless of the relationships that govern people. This is enhanced by the fact that Brutus was the magistrate who issued the death orders of his two sons.

In contrst, The Death of Marat is centered around the titular figure of the painting; it has Marat as the only figure of focus. Jean Paul Marat, an activist during the French Revolution, was one of the people who advocated taking violent measures against anyone who was suspected of having royalist loyalties. David seems to be making a clear political statement by commemorating Marat's death in this painting. In fact, David was one of Marat's close friends, and he is reported to have been at the latter's house the night before he was killed.

Unlike the presentation of death in the Brutus painting, here, death appears in the foreground of the picture, making it the major theme in this painting. This presentation seems to leave the viewer with a sense that a crime has been committed since the dying figure is shown to be helpless in a bathtub. In order to intensify the impact of this scene on the observer, David presents the blood of the victim flowing as a result of what seems to have been a violent stab.

As for the setting of this painting, it shows Marat in the frugal background of his house where a person usually feels most safe. Therefore, the depiction of the death scene as it happened in the house of the victim helps in winning the sympathy of the viewer. Frugality and the lack of any signs of luxury were considered symbols of true French citizenship at the time of the revolution.

Although the two paintings present two very different temporal settings, they both convey the sense that the artist probably sympathized with the ideas and leading figures of the French Revolution. The Brutus painting depicts a scene from ancient Roman times whereas the Marat painting shows a scene from contemporary 18th century France.

In conclusion, the Brutus seems to idealize the "general will" whereas the Marat seems to idealize the figure of one of the leaders of the Revolution.

In the end, the choice of figures, the setting and the way the theme of death is portrayed in both paintings, all conspire to direct the onlookers' sympathies towards the ideals promoted by the French Revolution


واذا فيه رسمه خآمسه مآدري والله نسيت الصرآحه

دعـوـآتج ..

مـوفقـه يَـآارب
الملفات المرفقة
نوع الملف: docx Notes on 4 of Jacques-Louis David's Paintings.docx‏ (130.1 كيلوبايت, المشاهدات 237)

التعديل الأخير تم بواسطة غايتي جنتي ; 18-05-2011 الساعة 02:03 PM
غايتي جنتي غير متصل  
قديم 19-05-2011, 12:07 PM   #8
أذكر ربك أذكر ربك غير متصل
طالب جديد
 
الصورة الرمزية أذكر ربك
افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011



Pygmalion Summary
Pygmalion (1912) is a play by George Bernard Shaw based on Ovid's tale of Pygmalion. It tells the story of Henry Higgins, a professor of phonetics. In those days language was going to be revolutionized by the phonetician Henry Sweet or possibly Alexander Melville Bell. They worked more for the study of phonetics in those days. Higgins makes a bet with his friend Colonel Pickering that he can successfully pass off a Cockney (a dialect) flower girl, Eliza Doolittle, as a refined society lady by teaching her how to speak with an upper class accent and training her in etiquette. She is a very bad speaker with incorrect pronunciation. It would have been a miracle to train her to such an extant that she would be able to pass off as a duchess rather a princess at an ambassador’s Garden Party.
Here I would like to quote some examples from the text of the play that show the worst way she speaks:

THE FLOWER GIRL. Ow, eez.ye- ooa san is e? Wal, fewd dan y’ de-ooty bawmz a mather should, eed now bettern to spawl a pore gel’s flahrzn than ran awy athaht pyin. Will ye-oo py me f’them?

LIZA. Bucknam Pellis [Buckingham Palace]

And Higgins comments to Pickering about the girl in the following manner …
Higgins. You see this creature with her kerbstone English: the English that will keep her in the gutter to the ends of her days.

In the process of her education of phonetics, Higgins and Doolittle grow close, but she ultimately rejects his domineering ways and declares she will marry Freddy Eynsford-Hill, a poor and young gentleman.

Act One:
Covent Garden - 11.15 p. m.
A group of people are sheltering from the rain. Amongst them are the silly, shallow, social climbing Eynsford-Hills, consisting of mother and daughter, Clara. Freddy Eynsford-Hill enters after being unable to find a cab to take them home. He is a weak and ineffectual character. His sister bullies him, and enjoys seeing him look ridiculous. As he goes off once again to find a cab, he bumps into a flower girl, Eliza. Her flowers drop into the mud of Covent Garden, the flowers she needs to survive in her poverty-stricken world. Shortly they are joined by a gentleman, Colonel Pickering. While Eliza tries to sell flowers to the Colonel, a bystander informs her that a man is writing down everything she says. The man is Professor Henry Higgins. A row occurs when Higgins tells people where they were born, which creates both amazement and irritation. It is strange thing for the common people to solve this mystery. But it is the miracle of Dialectology that a man can be identified through the way he speaks that from where he had come It becomes apparent that he and Colonel Pickering have a shared interest in phonetics. Indeed, Pickering has come from India to meet Higgins and Higgins was planning to go to India to meet Pickering. Higgins tells Pickering that he could turn the flower girl into a duchess. These words of bravado spark an interest in Eliza, who would love to make changes in her life and become more mannerly, even though, to her, it only means working in a flower shop. At the end of the act, Freddy returns after finding a taxi, only to find that his mother and sister have gone and left him with the cab. Eliza takes the cab from him, using the money that Higgins tossed to her out of pity, leaving him on his own.



Act Two:
Higgins' Laboratory - Next Day
As Higgins demonstrates his equipment (Phonograph, Laryngoscope, Organ Pipes, Singing Flames, Tuning Forks etc.) to Pickering, the housekeeper, Mrs. Pearce, tells him that a young girl wants to see him. She is shown up, and to his disappointment it is Eliza. He has no interest in her, but she says she wants to pay him to have lessons, so that she can talk like a lady in a flower shop. Higgins claims that he could turn her into a duchess. Pickering makes a bet with him on his claim, and says that he will pay for her lessons. She is sent off to have a bath. Mrs. Pearce tells Higgins that he must behave himself in the young girl's presence. He must stop swearing, and improve his table manners. He is at a loss to understand why she should find fault with him. Then Alfred Doolittle, Eliza's father, appears with the sole purpose of getting money out of Higgins. He has no interest in his daughter in a paternal way. He sees himself as member of the undeserving poor, and means to go on being undeserving. He has an eccentric view of life, brought about by a lack of education and an intelligent brain. He is also aggressive, and when Eliza, on her return, sticks her tongue out at him, he goes to hit her, but is prevented by Pickering. The scene ends with Higgins telling Pickering that they really have got a difficult job on their hands.

Act Three:
Mrs. Higgins' drawing room
Henry tells his mother he has a young 'common' whom he has been teaching. Mrs. Higgins is not very impressed with her son's attempts to win her approval because it is her 'at home' day, in which she is entertaining visitors. The visitors are the Eynsford-Hills. Henry is rude to them on their arrival. Eliza enters and soon falls into talking about the weather and her family. The humour stems from the knowledge the audience have of Eliza, of which the Eynsford-Hills are curiously ignorant. When she is leaving, Freddy Eynsford-Hill asks her if she is going to walk across the park, to which she replies;

" Walk! Not bloody likely..."
(This is the most famous line from the play, and, for many years after, to use the word 'bloody' was known as a Pygmalion.)

After she and the Eynsford-Hills leave, Henry asks for his mother's opinion. She says the girl is not presentable, and she is very concerned about what will happen to the girl, but neither Higgins nor Pickering understand her, and leave feeling confident and excited about how Eliza will get on. This leaves Mrs. Higgins feeling exasperated, and she says "Men! Men!! Men!!!"

Act Four:
Higgins' laboratory
The time is midnight, and Higgins, Pickering, and Eliza have returned from the garden party. Pickering congratulates Higgins on winning the bet. As they retire to bed, Higgins asks where his slippers are, and on returning to his room Eliza throws them at him. The remainder of the scene is about Eliza not knowing what she is going to do with her life, and Higgins not understanding her difficulty. Higgins says she could get married, but Eliza interprets this as selling herself like a prostitute. Finally she returns her jewellery to Higgins, including the ring he had given her, as though she is cutting her ties with him, but retrieves it from the hearth.

Act Five:
Mrs. Higgins' drawing room
Higgins and Pickering are perturbed at discovering that Eliza has walked out on them. Doolittle returns now dressed in wedding attire and transformed into the middle class in which he feels ‘intimidated’. The scene ends with another confrontation between Higgins and Eliza, which is basically a repeat of the previous act. The play ends with everyone leaving to see Doolittle married, and Higgins leaves on his own.


Ending:
Despite the intense central relationship between Eliza and Henry, the original play ends with her leaving to marry the eager young Freddy Eynsford-Hill.
أذكر ربك غير متصل  
قديم 19-05-2011, 12:10 PM   #9
أذكر ربك أذكر ربك غير متصل
طالب جديد
 
الصورة الرمزية أذكر ربك
افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011



هذي بعض الأسئله ممكن تساعدنا في فهم المنهج
بالتوفيق أحبائي

Discuss the theme of equality in George Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalion. How is this theme dealt with in terms of gender?
Guidance :
In order to adequately answer this question, read carefully Unit 26 "Studying Pygmalion." Make sure you understand the difference between plot and theme. You are not to merely summarize the plot of the play. A careful reading of Lise Pedersen's article "Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew vs. Shaw's Pygmalion: male chauvinism vs. women's lib?" in Resource Book 2 will help you think through the theme of gender equality. You should try to make specific reference to dramatic incidents and parts of the dialogue, in addition to using direct quotation or paraphrased information from the above mentioned scholarly article. Remember to document any words or ideas that are not your own.
Suggested Answer:
The student can argue either that George Bernard Shaw is indeed a feminist or a male chauvinist. Allow for arguments on both sides of the spectrum for [truth] is in the eye of the beholder.
Shaw makes Eliza defy men with her daunting "I am a good girl, I am" echoed repeatedly throughout the play. Here Eliza is defying societal expectations of young women in her position. Shaw's feminism is not only shown in the character of the defiant and feisty flower girl but also in the character of Higgins' mother, who does not approve of her son's behaviour. Mrs. Higgins rejects the way men view women. She tells Higgins and Pickering that they are babies playing with a "live doll." (Compare this de******ion of women with the one presented by Henrik Ibsen in A Doll's House). To Higgins and Pickering, Eliza is nothing but a doll for them to play with. Mrs. Higgins' outburst "Oh, men! men!! men!!!" at the end of Act Three (p.168) also emphasizes Shaw's dissatisfaction with the doll like image of women. Mrs. Higgins' anger is cleverly shown increasing in intensity, by the gradual addition of exclamation marks. Mrs. Higgins' anger parallels Eliza's feminist rage, which is clearly shown in the scene where Eliza throws Higgins' slippers in his face. This represents quite a remarkable reversal in Eliza's poor girl servant attitude, but somehow the reader is not really surprised because Eliza possesses a defiant spirit at the outset of the play. Shaw is also true to his feminism when he refuses to end the play with the traditional marriage of the hero and heroine. Allowing for a marriage between Higgins and Eliza would mean that Shaw has succumbed to the conventions of society which he has set out to question, as pointed out in Lise Pedersen's article "Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew vs. Shaw's Pygmalion: Male Chauvinism vs. Women's Lib?" (Resource Book 2, p. 199). Higgins is a domineering character and would definitely dominate in a marriage with Eliza. In this case, Eliza would have been put back into her "proper" place so to speak. This, of course, would have meant that Shaw was denying any form of equality between men and women, in addition to maintaining that a woman's place was in the home. By allowing Eliza to marry Freddy in the "epilogue," however, Shaw is indeed reversing the situation between men and women and turning things upside down in his usual style. Freddy would be fetching Eliza's slippers, not vice versa. Surprisingly, it is Higgins who sounds the ultimate feminist call in the play when he tells Eliza in Act Five, "I think a woman fetching a man's slippers is a disgusting sight: did I ever fetch your slippers? I think a good deal more of you for throwing them in my face. No use slaving for me and then saying you want to be cared for: who cares for a slave?" (p. 100). While Higgins vocalizes these thoughts in the play, it is hard to imagine him actually putting them into practice in a marriage with Eliza, for example. She would forever be fetching his slippers.
Cicely Parker Havely argues in "Unit 26: Studying Pygmalion" that Shaw is actually not very fair in his presentation of the characters of Higgins and Eliza, giving Higgins all the strong lines: "I have my own soul: my own spark of divine fire," and giving Eliza the short end of the stick with "Every girl has a right to be loved" (Block 4, p. 116). It is interesting to note that one cannot really exclude the historical dimension from our discussion of equality and feminism. For example, Lise Pedersen's seemingly feminist article, published in 1977, seems dated in the twenty first century. Pedersen seems to prefer a more docile Eliza than Palser Havely could accept. Pedersen writes disapprovingly of Eliza's bad temper and lack of self-control: "…she was completely lacking in self-control, very quick to take offense and very bad-tempered in her reaction to offenses" (Resource Book 2, p. 202). What Pedersen does not seem to realize, however, is that it is not simply a matter of manners and bad temper, but survival tactics on the part of Eliza. Could Eliza be refined and even-tempered, and not quick to take offence as a flower girl living on the street and fighting to stay alive under extremely difficult circumstances? It seems that Pedersen would have Eliza be a lady regardless in order to satisfy the expectations of patriarchal society. A woman should be able to work and provide for herself and her family, but she is not allowed to sweat! Such argumentation presupposes a woman under the male gaze. Thus, judging by Pedersen's article, the women's lib movement of the 1970s seems tame when compared with the feminism of the twenty first century.
Another interesting point to consider is that Eliza's supposed reformation comes at the hands of men. It does not come from within. Higgins claims in Act Five: "By George, Eliza, I said that I'd make a woman of you; and I have" (p. 104). Is there a counter argument provided in the play? Can anybody dispute Higgins' claim? Arguing that it is not Higgins who changes Eliza, but Pickering, who treats her like a lady and teaches her self respect, does not put an end to the debate. Pickering is as much of a man as Higgins; the creator is still male, whether the artist shaping the doll/sculpture is the gentle Pickering or the opinionated Higgins. Shaw's chauvinism is clear—only man can mould woman. We are back to where we started; man is the creator of woman. So, is Shaw really calling for the equality of women in Pygmalion?
Students can argue either way as long as they are able to provide evidence from the text of the play, "Unit 26: Studying Pygmalion


Question 2 :
Discuss how Shaw draws on myth in order to help elucidate the theme of his play Pygmalion. How and why does Shaw break with the original myth? Discuss with relevance to the theme of the play.
Guidance :
In order to adequately answer this question, you should begin by first defining myth. Your discussion should include an explanation of the Pygmalion legend. You should proceed to discuss how Shaw utilizes this myth to help elucidate the theme; he is faithful to the Pygmalion myth in certain ways, but breaks with it in other ways. You should try to show how he makes the myth serve his purpose in the play. You are not to merely summarize the plot of the play. Make specific reference to dramatic incidents and parts of the dialogue in order to support your argument. Remember to document any words or ideas that are not your own.
Suggested Answer:
Myth is a "traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the natural world or delineating the psychology, ******s, or ideals of society" (American Heritage Dictionary). Mythical stories are often used by modern writers as the basic framework for their poems, novels or plays with the aim of highlighting a certain theme. However, modern writers are more often interested in rewriting the myth rather than producing a faithful retelling of it. The writer often aims at focusing on how and why his version of the myth departs from the original. If looked at in this manner, it can be argued that the message that the writer would like to convey is in the change he/she has introduced into the myth.
George Bernard Shaw's play Pygmalion is one such work. Shaw recreates the original myth in a modern setting but with one important difference. Higgins is the Pygmalion of Ovid's myth. Eliza is Galatea. In the original myth, however, Pygmalion falls in love with Galatea and marries her. Shaw does not allow for the marriage of Higgins and Eliza. Shaw, then, breaks with the myth intentionally in order to highlight Eliza's independent existence. If Shaw had been faithful to the myth, this would have defeated the purpose of his play, which is centered upon "liberating" Eliza from the moulding hands of her creator/artist Higgins. The reader cannot possibly imagine Eliza's true liberation in a marriage with the domineering Higgins who believes that he has made Eliza: "By George, Eliza, I said I'd make a woman of you; and I have. I like you like this" (Pygmalion 104). Of course, this statement comes in response to Eliza's assertion that she will use the knowledge that Higgins has given her. In other words, this knowledge, which Higgins "cant take away" (Pygmalion 104) will facilitate Eliza's liberation. Shaw actually makes Higgins utter some of the most feminist views in the play:
I think a woman fetching a man's slippers is a disgusting sight: did I ever fetch your slippers? I think a good deal more of you for throwing them in my face. No use slaving for me and then saying you want to be cared for: who cares for a slave? (Pygmalion 100)
One almost feels that Shaw alludes to Ovid's myth in the title of his play in order to nullify the creation myth—man cannot create and dominate woman. Higgins is intentionally presented as pompous and arrogant, and Eliza is rebellious from the very beginning. Thus, the traditional happy ending with the marriage of Higgins and Eliza is a far fetched conclusion. But does Shaw really grant Eliza true independence?
Although Shaw breaks with Ovid's myth for the purpose of liberating Eliza from her "creator's" grip, the final stroke of Shaw the artist, ironically, highlights Eliza's absolute dependence on men for her "liberation." Eliza's "real education" (Pygmalion 94) comes at the hands of another man, Pickering. Thus, Eliza's reformation is not realized from within the woman's sphere; it is rather something granted to her by a man. This mysteriously brings us back to the basic outlines of the Pygmalion legend.

أذكر ربك غير متصل  
قديم 19-05-2011, 12:19 PM   #10
أذكر ربك أذكر ربك غير متصل
طالب جديد
 
الصورة الرمزية أذكر ربك
افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011


Unit 16 & 17
Introduction to History:
The French Revolution
1. Basic questions to be asked of a primary source
• The 1st point to be established about a primary source is its authenticity. Was a letter written by David surely written by him or is it forged? Authenticity is often established through the place of origin of the sources (its provenance).
• As a student of history, not a professional historian, it is recommended that you apply this list of questions to all the primary sources you study:
1. Date: what date is the source? How close it is to event? Relation to other important dates.
2. Kind: what kind of source is it? (a private letter, official report, etc). Different types have strengths & weaknesses depending on purpose.
3. How & why & by whom did the source come into existence? Purpose, prejudices of creators. For whom is the document intended, addressed? To flatter a king to seek a position.
4. Is the originator a reliable source of information? Persons who took part in actions provide more interesting accounts to historians.
5. What did the source mean to people of its time (contemporaries)? Sometimes this is difficult because of the language of the source, or technical terms, in******ions, allusions. Sums of money should be understood – something costs 1,000 livres means nothing if you do not relate it to average earning of a worker. Statistics must be set in context a- a town of 10,000 inhabitants – is it small or large? Allusions to the Bible or to Classics are common in 18th cent. All allusions must be understood to understand full meaning of documents as contemporaries would have understood them.
6. How the source relates to other primary & secondary sources - and information obtained from them. This is called contextual knowledge.
• The French Revolution is taken here as a case study. Read Resource book 2, A1.
• The following lines provide some info about France in late 18th Century & social groups & political institutes involved in the Revolution.
i. Throughout 18th Cent. Europe, it was accepted in large countries that monarchy was the most legitimate & effective from of government (for achieving tranquility at home & glory abroad). Rousseau believed in none of this and that is why he is an important figure. There was reverence (admiration) for ancient law which guaranteed certain freedom& privileges to certain sections of the population – which sets limits on power of king. In France there was no parliament of the British type. The king chose his ministers, who would be, if unsuccessful, disgraced & exiled and replaced by others. Kings needed cash especially in case of wars, it was mainly raised through taxes. The French system of taxation in the 18th Century was complex and constantly reviewed.
ii. The French society was a large one made up of various social groups. Nobles & bourgeoisie might be arguing over certain principles of taxation in a formal assembly. While elsewhere, harvest failure might result in peasants rampaging in countryside and bread riots in towns. For most of the 18th century, France was free of serious popular disturbances. A central feature of the period of the revaluation was that – disturbances began to pressurize and interact with assemblies where mainly bourgeois figures made their demands against the old regime. These demands marked the beginning of a revolution – it stimulated further popular action – this involved social groups which had little political consciousness before that time.
iii. The revolutionary period spread over many years & there was an interaction between different developments and events. The Revolution took on a momentum (force, energy) of its own not always related to the causes of the original outbreak. So it is impossible to put a simple model: CAUSES => REVOLUTION => CONSEQUENCES. The Revolution (or Revolutions) was NOT proceeding in a single direction, at times there were tendencies towards greater radicalism, extremes, but sometimes there could be reactions, or revulsion against bloodshed, or a desire for order & stability. Historians think of the period as that of several revolutions going on at different levels of society in addition to the original revolution which resulted in something similar to the British limited monarchy.
iv. It is important while studying a historical event to look at the significance of events themselves – isolating them from long-term forces – e.g. The storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789. We also cannot ignore contingency (or accidents) e.g. disastrous harvest.
v. Medieval France had been divided into 3 orders (or estates): The clergy-the nobility, and the rest (about 95 % of population).
In the 18th century it was very different.
• Old nobility (nobility of the Sword) powerful, but sometimes poor, of only local importance.
• New rich & powerful nobility (nobility of the Robe) – held important positions in the service of the Crown, sometimes they bought these positions.
• The bourgeois = sometimes very rich & powerful - neither noble nor worked with their hands, but generally wanted to join the nobility.
• Below the bourgeois in towns => craftsmen, artisans, & other workers
• in the countryside (peasants) = small farmers or mainly landless workers who often had to do other kinds of work apart from agriculture.
• The clergy at the top (bishops, abbots, etc) were noble; the parish (town) clergy were little removed from peasants.
vi. The three orders of society, historically represented in a body analogous to the English Parliament called Estates General. No Estates General had met since 1614. Some French regions had Estates of their own, usually unimportant, but could become centers of opposition to royal policies.
-The Parlements= there was a major one in Paris & 12 others in provinces= judicial bodies, but they also registered royal legislation therefore confirming its legitimacy.
• The following is an example of a primary source. Let's apply the 6 questions previously mentioned about primary sources on this case. Read pp14-15.
A person called Count de Germiny sent an account of complaint to the National Assembly – on the 20th of August 1789. He complained that on the 29th July 1789, a group of brigands – and some of his own vassals (servants) and others from the next parish – all 200 people –came to his chateau at Sassy – broke the locks containing the title deeds, seized the important registers and burned them. They also had the tocsin (danger bells) rung in nearby parishes to collect people. He says that he never let his vassals "feel the odious weight of ancient feudalism". He is asking the National Assembly for reimbursing him for his loss, damage of property, and the use of common land, useful to his parishioners as it is to his own estate – whose title deeds they had burned. The brigands had also killed his pigeon.
• Date: the 1st summer of the Revolution, the summer of the Great Fear in the countryside.
• Type of source: a document of record- it is an official complaint to an official body. How accurate: by nature it is assumed to be broadly accurate.
• Who created source? For what purpose> Biases expected? The author is a noble man – his purpose is to persuade the National Assembly to pass a law to allow him to be reimbursed for the damage he claims. It is expected that the count would express his case as strong as possible to be compensated. When he says that the trouble makers were not really his own vassals, but nearby ones and other brigands, he might be trying to protect his own interest. So this has to be well-re******ed.
• Is the author reliable? It is his property, so he ought to give an accurate account. But he mentions that he is not resident in the area where the trouble took place. He must be relying on other sources of info – probably from his warden. The guard who was not able to defend the place is expected to exaggerate about the numbers of ppl, brigands, etc.
• What did the document mean to contemporaries? Problems of interpretation? Word "brigands" suggests professional criminals. Vassals are peasants who are not completely free but owe feudal duties to their lord. There are also names of places in France – basic rule is to find the exact geographical locations. Château is not always a fortified castle, could be sometimes a manor house. Title deeds & registers are written documents to prove the count's legal rights to lands and certain feudal duties (taxes, etc). Tocsin is a peal of church bells to arouse alarm; it had become a symbol of the revolutionary mobs. The "odious weight of ancient feudalism" is an important phrase, Germiny is claiming that he is generous with his Vassals and shows his inclination of abolishing ancient dues. Common land: this is the land which everyone in the parish, not only the lord, had equal rights for (grazing, gathering wood, etc.) Pigeons were kept by nobility for pigeon shooting, but pigeons were hated by peasants since pigeons fed on their crops.
• How does the source fit into contextual knowledge we already have? Date fits into time of Great Fear. Brigands at that time scared peasants & lords.
2. Witting Testimony & Unwitting Testimony
These phrases show a distinction in what is contained in Primary sources.
• Witting: means direct, deliberate or intentional message of a document or source – the information that the person who originally created the document or source intended to convey.
• Unwitting: means indirect, unaware or unintentional evidence a source contains.
• Testimony: means evidence.
Example: the document by the Count de Germiny.

Witting testimony, e.g.:
1. He has suffered at the hands of brigands & peasants; he hopes to be compensated by the National Assembly (refers to breaking locks, burning of registers & title deeds. Refers to vassals from another parish, amplifying this with reference to tocsin rung in other parishes to collect people. Title deeds expressing his ownership of land have been burned, pigeons killed.)
2. He wants to clearly show that he is not a wicked practitioner of ancient feudalism, but a believer in abolishing feudalism. Wants to emphasize his goodness by referring to common land, relevant to vassals as to himself. He is not taking direct actions against his peasants even though they acted with brigands.
Unwitting testimony: e.g.
For the historian, de Germiny reveals other things:
1. of which he is not conscious
2. of which he is partially conscious, but he is unaware of its historical significance.
3. Which are so obvious to him that he mentions them in passing: e.g. title deeds & registers.
We, as historians realize how important these documents are to him to back up his feudal claims (cannot do that by power & prestige alone); the vassals know this. We have a clear (unwitting) testimony to the importance of legal document in this society. We also learn how important to him is pigeon shooting (& how it's hated by peasants).
• Unwittingly, he reveals that he is a non-resident landlord, or he has at least 2 residences. Seems something usual for nobles to be living in a (lavish) extravagant way.
• Unwittingly too, in his opening sentence (e.g. Of 2) the Count does not intend to make a historical point about whom the brigands were collaborating with: but would see, unwittingly, to be giving evidence against the common view among peasants that brigands work on behalf of nobility against peasants. It is also clear (this is maybe one of most important historical points in the document) that the Count has absolute confidence that National Assembly will sympathize with him, no clash of interest (personal or class) between himself as a nobility & National Assembly (represented by Bourgeois). They will value property rights as he does.
• As historians we might ask ourselves questions about this document and the results of it.
• He asked for a law to reimburse him, but this does not mean this law was actually passed.
• What really happened is: pressure from the peasant activism of the "Great Fear" forced the National Assembly in August to abolish all Feudal privileges.
• This is not contained in document, but creates a context for the historian. So the nobleman, despite his confidence in the Assembly, fails in his appeal.
3. Understanding the past from the "inside"
Historians=must understand the mental outlook or belief system of the people of the past (mentalities is the word historians use). This point applies to all historical periods, even as recent as the 1960s.
• 3 aspects of mentalities of Western Europeans that astonish the modern mind, and are relevant to the study of 18th Cent. France:
1. The continuing influence of the classical tradition (read Resource book 2, A17 by Michael Bartholomew & Anthony Lentin & A18 by Colin Cunningham).
2. The centrality of Christen belief & practice.
3. A belief in the supernatural (superstition is the accurate word, but avoided today as it suggests criticism of past attitudes & failure of understanding people on their own terms).
4. Handling primary sources
 Exercise: imagine re******ing certain aspects of the French Revolution. We have a specific source to analyze.
 We should concentrate on actual words & phrases of the source.
 It is necessary to have basic contextual information.
 Imagine that you want to write a study of "The attitudes of the French people towards monarchy & constitutional government during the French revolution".
 Your source=Passage p. 20- an extract from a petition, addressed to the National Constitution Assembly, drawn up by members of 2 radical republican clubs: the social circle & the Cordeliers Club.
 The authors were mainly bourgeois figures, including the lawyer Danton who became later a notorious enthusiast for the Terrors. It was published in the Social Circle newspaper on 16 July 1791.
 contextual information= p.20- background information:
 King Louis XVI (16) attempted to flee the country in June, leaving behind a denunciation of the Revolution.
 After this, the king had been suspended from his royal powers by the National Constitution Assembly.
 The decree of 15 July confirmed: the Assembly's acceptance of the inviolability (holiness) of the king's person & the theory that he had been abducted against his will.
 The decree also stated that the king would not be reinstated until he had accepted the new constitution currently being drafted.
 This petition of 16 July was in protest against the decree; the drafters were hoping to collect mass signatures at a demonstration on the Champs de Mars on 17 July. About 6,000 signatures had been collected before the demonstration was suppressed in the "Massacre of Champs de Mars".
 Questions to ask about the source:
i. What kind of primary source is this? Strength & weaknesses?
ii. Which words & phrases require comment before they can be used?
iii. What can you learn from it in relation to your studies (witting & unwitting testimony)?
o Read pp. 15-16 of your book (in this summary pp.1-2) – the 6 points about a source.
o Listen to audio CD 4, tracks 1-4.
o Pp. 21-22-23.24 =read later
5. Facts in History
• The French Revolution is a historical fact. A complex historical fact like this – spread over so many years, must contain, a vast number of other historical facts, e.g. That the Bastille was stormed on 14 July (national day of France today) 1789 & Louis XVI was guillotined (executed) on 21 January 1793. Historical events cannot be reduced to single building bricks – historians study many other things in addition to events: states of mind, living conditions, evidence of links between circumstances – all of these things are more than just facts. The important question is NOT "is it a fact?" but "is there reliable evidence for it in the sources?"
6. Essential Contextual Knowledge of the French Revolution
Re****** on the French Revolution:
o In recent writings on the French Revolution, contingency is important.
o It is important to see that there is much which is not determined by "historical laws" - part of the general move away from Marxism.
• An ultra-traditional Marxist interpretation would see the French Revolution as:
1. inevitable: because the growing bourgeoisie could no longer be held down by the reactionary aristocracy
2. Necessary: to clear the way for bourgeois industrial /capitalist society.
o Nowadays – nobody believes that exactly anymore.
o Detailed archived work which provided a more complex & convincing picture of the Revolution was carried out by scholars who were themselves Marxists.
o How was the historical context produced? To answer this, we will pick out 4 British historians. 3 produced excellent textbooks. One produced a huge tome for the 200th anniversary of the Revolution – a bestseller.
o William Doyle: did scholar work in the provincial archives, especially, the Parlement at Bordeaux. Wrote 2 textbooks (1980-1989) in the non-Marxist tradition. He regards himself as one of those who changed the previous Marxist consensus (agreement).
o Gwynne Lewis: studied coal-mining in the provincial region of the Bas-Cevennes & the arrival there of capitalist methods in late 18th century. In his text book, 1993, p. 26. he identifies 2 different approaches: revisionist approach: included Doyle & marxisant approach (French word meaning inclining towards Marxism). Doing so he recognizes that the Marxist approach is no longer credible. Lewis is of strong left-wing political commitment. Be sure that disagreements between historians are about content, not simply tone. Content is what counts, tone can be affected by political or other reasons.
o Simon Schama: mostly statistical work on the Dutch Republic at the time of the French Revolution. Later he used paintings as sources, published an original study of the Dutch Republic at its height in the 17th Century. His book, Citizens: a chronicle of the French Revolution, 1989, is long & full of illustrations to celebrate 200th anniversary of 1789. He used paintings, drawings, designs, etc, as basic source materials. Also used memoirs, autobiographies, published letters from the time & things with personal detail & anecdote. Sense of immediacy: how was it like to live through the Revolution? Lives of important and ordinary people. Calls the book a "chronicle" partly to distance himself from those who tried to analyze deeper origins & nature of Revolution (these are mainly Marxist), and also to show his knowledge of fashionable postmodernist ideas about history being "narrative" like novels. He consulted work of recent professional historians, Differs from Doyle & Lewis in expressing anti-Marxist views in positive terms. He maintains that France was moving towards capitalism anyway, the Revolution was an interruption of that development. He finds the massacres & bloodshed inexcusable. He argues: 1 important outcome of the Revolution was a new phase of more intensive war based on national citizen armies. His book is aimed at wide readership. Schama's book differs from the previous ones in color & details.
o Colin Jones: study of hospitals in 18th century France using untouched archive materials from throughout France. Challenged and confirmed speculations on this subject of the French philosopher Michel Foucault.

Phases of French History: C. 1750-1815
• This information is not to be memorized. It provides a context for exercises on primary sources. Read & use it for reference.
French Society 1750-86
• historical outline of France in 18th Century: Resource Book 2, A19.
• Remember:
o The importance of classicism among the educated
o The importance of religion among all classes
o The strong belief in superstitions among the poor (and some of the educated).
o The brutality & cruelty of life=seeing the past from the inside is sometimes difficult and we can tend to judge people and their behavior. Historians will have to call a massacre a massacre.
o French judicial system was more brutal than the English (torture to extract confessions, cruel death sentences.
o Near starvation for many people
o Social hierarchy & belief in monarchy
o Most enlightment philosophers believed that the division of society into ranks was proper & monarchy provides the most secure and legitimate form of government.
o Rousseau was against the ideas of automatic legitimacy of monarchy – he proposed the notion of 'social contract' between rulers and ruled. Rousseau believed in the idea of the 'general will' of the people, not that of a mere monarch. (Rousseau units 18&19).
Exercise:
• Women: read A3 in Resource Book 2 'Petition of the women of the This Estate to the King, 1 January 1789'.
• This is a primary historical source that will explain what happened to women during the revolution.
• The women knew that France was on the move, which stirred them into action.
• One of the best-known French historians, Francis Furet, discussed the expansion in publishing, printing, and the reading public in 18th C. France. The minister responsible for censorship at the time (severe in France) was called Malesherbes. He was a true Enlightment figure and believed in letting people read what they wanted – so the Enlightment works of Rousseau, Voltaire, etc, were not only written, but widely read.

The Pre-revolutionary crisis, August 1789-December 1788
• On 20 August 1789 Calonne, comptroller-general of the royal finances, told Louis XVI that a complete collapse in the nation's finances was about to happen.
• France had achieved glory and revenge on an old enemy by supporting the Americans in their successful revolutionary war against Britain.
• But the cost had been enormous. From the sources left by 18th C. accountants, it is impossible to know exact figures, but all historians agree to the reality of the crisis.
• Schama, however, believes that the king could have found a way out, as king had done in the past, e.g. when they had gone bankrupt and refused to pay off existing debts. Neither Calonne and the king nor any one else at the time thought that an option – at that stage of economic development, not paying debts will make it difficult to raise future loans. Calonne was clear that there was no scope for increasing taxes, so no extra money could pump from there. He wrote his analysis (Resource Book 2, A2).
Exercise:
Read A2, an extract from Calonne's reform programme, and answer the following:
1. Louis XVI took months to be convinced that Calonne's analysis was correct, and that his suggestions were essential. Read, does Calonne convince you? Or was he just making it all up? Give reasons to support your claim. (This checks the standard questions of reliability & bias).
2. What needed to be done, according to Calonne? How would you characterize his conclusion (timid, sweeping, crazy, etc)?
Discussion:
1. There seems to be no reasons why Calonne should want to make it up – his royal master would not like such an analysis, so he is doing himself no favor. As comptroller-general, Calonne ought to know the situation better than anyone.
2. He says there is a need for an end to the lack of uniformity throughout the kingdom, and to the abuses which makes it impossible to govern the kingdom well. The conclusion is certainly sweeping or "revolutionary' because it would offend established interests (the implication that the rich should pay their fair share of taxation, for e.g.). On the other hand, both the analysis and conclusion were not new, they agree with what Rousseau and other Enlightment philosophers had been saying for decades.
........
• Sweeping changes in the organization of the monarchy and in the taxation could not be declared by the king, there had to be some means of securing consent for them (at least from the mighty and strong), of establishing their legitimacy.
• Calonne formed a special "Assembly of Notables"= powerful men carefully selected by the government who could represent all the major interest throughout the kingdom.
• The 144 notables included 7 princes, 14 bishops & 36 titled noblemen, 12 high officials of the king, 38 magistres & 12 representatives of regional estates or assemblies (62 bourgeois origins who became, because of the office they held, members of the lesser nobility) & 25 mayors and civic dignitaries, examples of the successful bourgeois not yet ennobled. (Not a very revolutionary body)!
• They assembled on 22 Feb. 1787 in Versailles.
• The notables agreed that in future, the nobles would have to bear a fairer share of the tax burden. But the bishops resisted applying the same principles to the Church. The magistrates argued that these new proposals require a more legitimate body to consent on them. They meant the Estates General, which had last met in 1614. The educated and politically informed and the others believed that if France was to be reformed and the crisis resolved, the solution lay in the operation of the summoning of an Estates General. See figure 16/17.1 – p. 31.
• The Assembly of Notables did not exactly achieve what Calonne had wanted. Calonne was therefore criticized by his rival for the king's favor, called Brienne.
• First Calonne was dismissed from his post, then on 30 April 1787 Brienne became first minister.
• The Brienne ministry had a program even before the revolution on a reform. (if it had been applied maybe the French revolution was to be unnecessary)
• Brienne's plan of a reform included several points:
o Legal reform
o Abolition of judicial torture
o Religious toleration
o Granting Protestants a full civil status
o Central control and audit of taxation
o The establishment of elective provincial assemblies.
• But Brienne was no more successful than Calonne in winning the support of the Assembly of Notables.
• The routine for legislation was for it to be registered by the parlement of Paris and 12 other provincial parlements.
• But the parlement declared that its voice is not enough-this far-reaching legislation needed the approval of a national body – they joined in asking for an Estates General.
• The unsuccessful trick of the Assembly of Notables made it clear that the monarchy had already accepted that its program needs the validation of a national body.
• The parlement of Paris was an unelected body of magistrates who enjoyed noble status and assumed a symbolic importance.
• International events affected France. A Prussian (Prussia: former region of North Germany) invasion of the Netherlands was likely. In normal conditions, France would interfere to help the Dutch patriots and to demonstrate its power in Europe. But bankrupt government could not risk being embroiled in a European war. France wanted to preserve its national prestige and that would be only possible through reforms (especially reforms to improve tax returns).
• Louis and Brienne alternated between threatening and cajoling (flattering) the Paris parlement.
• On 19 Sep. 1787, the king was present at a day-long sitting to have new loans approved.
• At the end of the session Louis refused to allow a vote to be taken, insisting that the loans simply be registered (because I wish it), he said.
• That opened the conflict with the opposition, led by the un-bourgeois Duke of Orleans.
• The government suspended the Parlement going ahead with the registration of reforms.
• From May 1788, there were different agitations at many levels of the society.
• The unauthorized assemblies of nobles which organized petitions in support of the parlment were so prominent that some historians have referred to this period as "the revolt of the nobility".
As important was the massive attack of political pamphlets calling for summoning of the Estates General and deploying or installing the language of Rousseau – the general will had been defied, and the social contract broken.
• Meanwhile the government was still suffering its financial crisis.
• By August, the final disaster which Calonne had warned of have arrived and the government went bankrupt.
• There have been dispute amongst historians as to whether this bankruptcy was real, but Brienne thought it was.
• Brienne thought that the only way to restore royal credit is by announcing that an Estates General would indeed be convened on 1 May 1789.
• He resigned quietly after that. Making sure that Necker, the former financial minister (who was in disgrace with the king but widely popular) replaced him.
• By this, the Royal government now seemed to go into suspension awaiting the convocation of the Estates General.
• There were intense maneuverings between the politically conscious groups-nobles and bourgeois together, nobles and bourgeois separately-over what form the Estates General would take and which group would control it.
• By the end of 1788 royal government had collapsed which caused the French Revolution.


From Estates General to National Assembly to Constituent Assembly, January-June 1789
• The parlement of Paris returned to the Palace of Justice as Necker cancelled all the reforms without its consent.
• Sharing the widespread view that salvation lay with the summoning of the Estates General, Necker advanced the date to 1st January 1789 (decision registered by the Paris parlement).
• Necker also legalized the Paris political clubs, first formed in the spring of 1787 but banned by Brienne.
• The parlement stepped up the level of agitation, while Necker sought an answer to the question: what form should the Estates General take by convening a second Assembly of Notables?
• The major question debated in clubs, assemblies in Paris and throughout the country concerned:
o how each of the 3 orders should elect its representatives?
o Whether the 3rd estate (representing 95% of population) should have double the representation of the other two
o Whether the estates should meet together as one assembly on a one-representative-one-vote basis, as against each estate meeting separately and arriving at its own decision.
• No clear answers were reached.
• Early in 1789, the complex processes of actually electing representatives went ahead as basic issues of principle continued to be debated.
• In theory- the Third Estate electorate was a wide one-extending to peasants and artisans; however they seemed happy to leave the actual choosing of individual representatives to local assemblies dominated by bourgeois figures.
• Look at figure 16/17.1 – the gentlemanly breeches worn by the person representing the Third Estate is nothing like what peasants or artisans wear.
• Sometimes nobles were chosen.
• Finally when the Estates General did convene on May 4 – the Third Estate consisted of
o 43%of officials of the lesser (non-noble) courts.
o 25% of lawyers
o possibly up to 19% of landowners (noble & non-noble)
• The Third Estate was bourgeois in the eighteenth –century French sense –it was not bursting with capitalists but certainly excluded peasants and workers.
• Another important procedure took place simultaneously with the choosing of representatives –each order, in every part of the country was invited to draw up lists of grievances (complaints) for debate when the when the Estates General finally convened.
• These lists of grievances (cahiers de doleances), which are in the archives and some of which were printed into documents have formed the central source for the study of the French Revaluation.
• In accordance with tradition, the Estates General convenes in its 3 separate components-despite he arguments raised against this within the Third Estate & the non-noble clergy and some nobles.
• On 10th June-the Third Estate passed a resolution calling on all 3 estates to meet as one body, and resolving to carry on as such a body even if the other 2 estates refused to join it.
• On 17th June the Third Estate did that. Joined by 19 clergy, it constituted itself as a National Assembly, and immediately asserted sovereign rights over taxation.
• The king decided that the next session of the Estates General on 23 June, would be a Royal Session at which he would propose a programme.
• The Third Estate was not informed that the hall where they had their meetings would be closed. Turning up as usual on 20 June, the members were outraged and full of suspicion.
• Instead, they went to meet at the tennis court (Unit 10 & plate 120 in the Illustration Book).
• In this tennis court, they took a famous oath never to disperse until they had given France a constitution.
• Necker wanted the king to escape the new situation, involving the Estates General instead in the reform and taxation program.
• When the king insisted on annulling the resolutions of 10 &17 June –Necker resigned.
• The Third Estate reaffirmed the Tennis Court Oath, and was joined by most of the remaining clergy and 47 of its supporters in the noble estate.
• The king insisted that Necker come back and instructed all nobles and clergy to join the Third Estate in forming a genuine National Assembly.
• France now was a limited or parliamentary monarchy and on the way to becoming a constitutional one, as the National Assembly stressed by renaming itself the "National Constituent Assembly" a body whose task was to draw up a constitution.
• The problem: it looked like the king was going to use the army to reverse all the concessions he had made.


Famine and popular involvement in the Revolution July-August 1789
• By the end of June 1789the "bourgeois revolution" had been attained.
• The king was still there-the nobles had given up their remaining tax exemptions, but many of their privileges and 'feudal rights' remained unchanged.
• There was a danger that the king will overthrow this 'bourgeois revolution'.
• The peasants and townsfolk especially in Paris were affected by the elections and meetings of the Estates General. It made them aware of the possibility of change and gave them hopes of ending their poverty.
• The harvest of the year 1788 was catastrophic. It produced
o Starvation
o Loss of income
o Unemployment (wine-making, silo-making-grain-milling & other jobs people could not pay for).
• So forces of nature joined the social and human acts and people's anger reached its climax.
• The people of Paris were very conscious of being at the center of national events, and rich businessmen united with poor artisans in demonstrating.
• They first demonstrated on behalf of the Paris parlement in its confrontations with the king, and then in support of the third estate.
• The cafes in the Palais Royal, private property of the Duke of Orleans, became a meeting place of the better off and more intellectual sort.
• The first bread riots in 1789 were separate from these activates. But hunger spread. The king's hopes for reversing the constitutional changes were identified with a policy to starve the people.
• Necker, whom the king finally dismissed, was seen as a champion of traditional regulation and subsidy (funding).
• News of Necker's dismissal broke on Sunday 12 July, a convenient day to start a demonstration.
• The demonstration of 5000 -6000 people involved both the Palais Royal revolutionaries and the bread rioters.
• The king had already been moving troops into Paris to curb both rioters and the Third Estate as he planned.
• There was an immediate clash, with 2 results: the troops withdrawn and the Parisians decided to arm themselves more effectively.
• William Doyle wrote an account of what happened next:
• On 14 July, the insurrection (revolution) leading to the taking of the Bastille Prison started. First it was a ****** for arms / throughout the 13th every place in the city where arms were known to be stored was ransacked.
• The Bastille was the last depot the rebels had reached.
• Later it became significant that a royal fortress and a sinister state prison where victims of tyranny had often languished should have fallen to popular assault.
• But the insurrection was also a food riot.
• During the night of 12 &13 July, 40 out of 54 gates in the new ******s wall were attacked and burned, the wall itself was demolished.
• The people who participated in the attacks were hard hit by high prices of food, wine and firewood – the result of the Octrois, duties on goods entering Paris. These people were shopkeepers, petty tradesmen and wage-earners.
• The Abbey of Saind-Lazare was also looted as rumors spread that grain was stored there.
• Now that rebels had armed themselves, they took direct action on the problem of hunger. (Doyle, 1988, pp.188-9).
• Rich citizens were also afraid of bread rioters but they wanted to use them for their own political purposes.
• On 13 July, the citizens who participated in choosing the deputies of the Third Estate set up a communal committee, the 'Paris Commune' a body of the same social composition as the third Estate, and it became very important in its own right. It setup its own citizen's militia.
• On 16 July Louis was advised that he could not rely on the loyalty of his troops, who sympathized with poor bread rioters though not necessarily with richer citizens.
• Louis abandoned his plans to scare the National Constituent Assembly by force. He recognized Lafayette as commander of the National Guard (militia of the newly formed Paris commune).
• Peasants had the opportunity in early 1789 to have their grievances included and seem to have believed that remedy therefore was at hand.
• Starvation and dashed expectations account for the revolution of the spring of 1789.
• Rumors of the delays at Versailles and of the king's plan led to a belief that aristocrats were about to reassert all their old powers.
• With news of the 12 July rising in Paris, began the peasant rampage known as the 'Great Fear': peasants feared that the aristocrats set brigands against them. While ******ing for grain hordes, the peasants were interested in destroying documents which gave their holder the rights to feudal dues, often whole castles were burned down as well.
• The National Constituent Assembly produced, on 4 August, their 'Declaration of the rights of man and the citizen' (Resource Book 2, A4). The Assembly felt that night it was important to respond to the anarchy and violence in the country side or everything gained would be jeopardized.
• Exercise: read the account by the Marquis de Ferrieres of the debates of the night of 4-5 August in his letter to a neighbor in the province (Resource Book 2, A5). Doyle calls Ferrieres 'a moderate skeptical nobleman'.
• The 'Rights of man' (the beginning of the constitution) had been asserted.
• Feudalism - abolished under pressure from the peasantry.
• The first phase of the Revolution was completed.
• On 24 August, the king formally broadcasted the Civil Constitution of the Clergy, which controlled the powers of the Church and provided for the clergy to be elected just like other public officials.
From Constitutional Monarchy to Republic, September 1789-January 1793
• It was very difficult for the Revolution to stop with constitutional monarchy on a model similar somehow to the British one.
• Two factors made this almost impossible:
o The reluctance of the king to accept new legislation and his new diminished role
o The determination of the activist groups in Paris to ensure that the revolution continued in the directions they approved of.
o The refusal of many clergy to accept the Civil Constitution.
• The king tried to strengthen his position by summoning the loyal and disciplined Flanders Regiment (part of army loyal to king) to Versailles.
• Against a background of banquets and the drinking of loyalist toasts, he announced his reservations about
1. The decrees abolishing feudalism
2. The very "declaration of the rights of man' itself.
• The politically sophisticated were outraged – rumors spread among ordinary people that the king was about to impose blockade on food supplies.
• On the morning of 4 October women assembled in the various markets, then led a procession to the Town Hall.
• Later, a large assemblage of people set of for Versailles with the weapons.
• The king had no alternative but to obey the wish of the crowd. Not only to assent to the legislation, but also to move to Paris and reside in the Tuileries Palace.
• Shortly the Constituent Assembly followed and stayed in the nearby premises of a riding school.
• Bread riots continued till November, when cheaper supplies became available.
• This brought to end the 'October Days' which brought the king away from the home of kings, Versailles, and under the direct surveillance of the people of Paris.
• The Constituent Assembly addressed itself to the basic task of elaborating the constitution: voting rights, new government map with legal recognition to establishment of municipal institutions during the summer of 1789, and replace the medley of regional government with a uniform system of 'departments'.
• About a month before the move to Paris of the Constituent Assembly, an extreme radical newspaper L'Ami du Peuple (The Friend of the People) was founded by the conspiratorial Jean Paul Marat.
• Shortly after the move, the radical leaders of the Assembly established a political club "Society of the Friends of the Constitution'.
• The club began meeting in a former monastery near the Assembly of the Jacobin order of monks, and the club members were labeled the "Jacobins". This is originally a mockery as they were irreligious radicals.
• Similar clubs were formed in great cities and remote towns and affiliated themselves to the Paris Jacobins.
• The provincial Jacobins were educated people who had formed discussion groups of the Enlightenment, now taking on the sharper purpose of safeguarding the Revolution and maintaining its momentum.
• One Leading Paris Jacobin was Maximilian Robespierre.
• The pre-Revolution crisis had been one of a bankrupt state and the problem remained.
• Necker proposed a limited issue of paper money.
• Against that, the radical noblemen Mirabeau proposed interest-bearing bonds (assignats) –secured on the nation's land.
• Reissued several times, assignats became a form of paper money, trust in which became a token of revolutionary loyalty.
• Necker resigned on 3 September 1790.
• At the same time, land taken from the Church and from émigrés began to be sold off, with peasants among the purchasers.
• About the same time, the new local authorities, supported by 'patriots' (extreme supporters of the Revolution) and Jacobins began to protest to the Assembly about the clergy who resisted the Civil Constitution.
• After 2 days of debate, the Assembly voted on 27 November to dismiss all clerics who did not accept the new dispensation and imposing on all clergy an oath of loyalty to nation, king, law and constitution.
• Over 40% of clergy refused to take the oath-supported by their parishioners.
• Thus, a geographical split can be perceived between those parts of the country still committed to the ongoing Revolution and those now beginning to have doubts.
• A number of insurrections were plotted –the most famous being in Lyon (city in France) in Dec. 1790, while protests against unemployment and rising prices merged into attacks on clergy who had refused to take the oath.
• The king had fulfilled his role as constitutional monarch in broadcasting the Civil Constitution – but he remained un-reconciled to it or to any revolutionary legislation.
• His flight and denunciation of the Revolution made people angry.
• On 20 &21 June 1791, took place his famous 'flight to Varennes' (the town where the royal party was stopped).
• The king was brought back to Paris and the proclamation denouncing the Revolution that he had left behind was made widely known.
• This strengthened the radical sentiment among the various popular movements.
• It also resulted in division of opinions. The majority of the Assembly busy with elaborating a constitution for a constitutional monarchy, wished to retain the monarchy and restrain radical, republican sentiments.
• They produced a lie that the king had been kidnapped against his will, simply announced that he had been suspended from his duty but that the monarchy would continue.
• A popular demonstration against the continuance of monarchy (about 50,000 people) gathered on the Champs de Mars in Paris, a couple of suspected loyalists were hanged up.
• Trying to restore order, Lafayette & the National Guard shot & killed possibly 50 people.
• This "Massacre of the Champs de Mars" crushed the republican movement.
• On 13 September, the king restored to full power as a constitutional monarch, approved the new constitution.
• On 30 September the Constitution Assembly was dissolved.
• In accordance with a resolution espoused by Robespierre, none of its members could stand for the Legislative Assembly which had to replace it.
• The Constituent Assembly was essentially the Estates General by another name.
• The legislative Assembly was (as Robespierre intended) a new body-no nobles, no clerics, almost composed of younger men who came to the fore during the revolutionary agitations and discussions since 1789. But they were prosperous men – the Constituent Assembly had seen that the popular forces whose external pressures had often been critical would not actually be represented within the Assembly.
• The vote was confined to men over 25 –paying the equivalent of 3 days labor in taxes – these voters defined as 'active citizens' numbered about 4.3 million in 1790.
• These 'active citizens' then chose 'electors' one for every hundred of their number.
• These electors had to be paying taxes to the value of 10 days' labor –only about 50,000 active citizens met these requirements.
• Then the electors met in departmental assemblies to choose the actual deputies who had to be landowners paying at least a 'silver mark' in taxes, the equivalent of 54 days' labor.
• The legislative Assembly had 2 major concerns: the upholders of traditional Catholicism (mainly priests refusing to take the oath of loyalty to the Civil Constitution, but also the papal enclave at Avignon which the Assembly decided to take over by force) and the émigrés (the opponents of the Revolution who had fled the country and were constantly plotting a royalist invasion –the Declaration of Pillnitz of August 1791, between the rulers of Austria and Prussia, guaranteed them the support of those two monarchs.
• Punitive decrees were promulgated against both. The king used his right under the new constitution to vote both decrees.
• The potential confrontation between king and the assembly became swallowed up in another set of important events that influenced the development of the Revolution – resulting from France changing relationships with foreign powers.
• For entirely different reasons, various groups in France looked forward to be involved in a foreign war: extremist deputies thought it would consolidate the Revolution and encourage risings throughout Europe.
• Lafayette saw opportunity for extending his own military powers.
• The king thought that war and foreign victories would sweep away the revolution.
• The basic excuse was that foreign powers and especially the Austrian Empire were aiding the émigrés.
• By mid April 1792 the Austrian army was mobilizing so on 20 April France-king and assembly apparently joined in delirious unity, declared war on Austria.
• Meanwhile, starting on 14 August, a slave rebellion stimulated by revolutionary doctrines, had broken out in the West Indian sugar plantation of Saint-Dominique. This produced a sugar shortage in France from January 1792 onwards.
• Women again led the mob which surged through Paris.
• Paris had enough grain –only because it had drawn in supplies from the surrounding countryside.
• There were grain riots in northern France, and protests and demonstrations everywhere as the fall in value of French money (the assignants and the traditional livres) produced sharp price rises.
• As the war began, peasant attacks on all the remaining vestiges of feudalism resumed.
• Early defeats for the French forces created fear and suspicion in Paris.
• In theory, France was run as a constitutional monarchy.
• Mid June, the king dismissed his anti-clerical, pro-war ministers (usually known as the Girondins).
• This was the occasion for the invasion on 20 June of the Tuileries Palace by 10,000 to 20,000 armed demonstrators calling themselves 'sansculottes. (figure 16/17.2).
• The king responded bravely and there was no immediate outcome, but the sansculottes had established themselves as an extra parlementary force.
• One of the self-fuelling features of the Revolution was the annual celebration of the major events like the Tennis Court Oath and most important Fall of the Bastille.
• In advance of 14 July 1792 battalions of provincial National Guards (federes) began to pour into Paris.
• Sansculottes, federes and Jacobins talked about storming the Tuileries and establishing a republic.
• Danton was emerging as a leader of this tendency-membership of the Paris sections was expanded beyond 'active citizens' and debate, discussion and coordination with the federes in a central committee became a permenant feature.
• On 28 July news reached Paris that the Austrians had invaded north –east France and the Duke of Burnswich had threatened Paris with 'exemplary and forever memorable violence' if they took any action against the king.
• War and revolution became interlinked and the Assembly authorized distribution of arms to all citizens.
• The French Revolution could be represented by series of concentric circles. (figure 16/17.3)
• On 10 August power moved decisively from the innermost ring to the second from the center. The forces of the central committee representing the Paris commune, mounted the second invasion of the Tuileries.
• The assembly declared the monarchy suspended, and announced a new Convention based on universal suffrage would be convened to assure the sovereignty of the people (this excluded servants, the unemployed and women).
• The monarchy was at an end. The king was imprisoned in the Temple, a medieval fortress, while over half of the members of the Assembly quietly disappeared.
• The reminders were under the domination of the Commune, who in the 'First Terror' took renege on all they saw as enemies.
• Meanwhile, elections for the Convention took place.
• On 21 august 1792, the new invention, the guillotine was first used on a political prisoner.
• People were paranoid and this increased by the news: Prussians had invaded French territory.
• Danton instituted a systematic ****** on 30-31 August for arms and suspects, resulting in 3000 arrests.
• In the 'September Massacre' between 2-7 Sep., over 1000 prisoners were done to death.
• The leading figure calling for the massacre was Marat, too unbalanced and bloodthirsty to command much support.
• The ordinary artisans and shopkeepers who carried them out were motivated by a fear of leaving the Paris prisons full of dangerous enemies, while they themselves marched to resist the Prussians.
• On 20 Sep. the defeat of the Prussians at Valmy indicated that the new citizen armies (patriotic & revolutionary) would outfight the static armies of the 18th Century absolute monarchs.
• The Prussians were prepared to offer peace.
• On the day of Valmy, the Convention met, the following day France was declared as a republic.
• The Prussians broke off negotiations.
• It was decided to put Louis on trial before the Convention itself, beginning on 11 December.
• The Girondind argued that any sentence must be subject to confirmation by the people as a whole in a referendum – their hope was that the provinces might reject the death sentence obviously wanted by the Parisians.
• On 14 January 1793 the Convention focused on the question" 'is Louis guilty of conspiracy against public liberty & of attacks upon the general security of the State?"
• On the first vote next day- 693 deputies voted ''guilty' none for his release.
• On the question of confirmation by referendum, the Girondins secured 283 votes to- 424 against.
• A further day and night passed as the Convention discussed and voted upon the actual penalty: 361 voted for immediate execution, 72 for death in principle but with varying delaying conditions, 288 for a variety of forms of imprisonment.
• Even after the sentence was communicated to Louis on 17 January many deputies called for a reprieve.
• The vote was close: 310 for a reprieve -380 for carrying out the sentence.
• Louis was guillotined on 21 January 1793
War, Counter-revolution and terror – February 1793-July 1794
• Reverence for monarchy was strong.
• Against many kinds of resentment in the provinces, the Paris groups (Jacobins, patriots and the new extreme enrage "angry brigade") were establishing control.
• International war influenced France – overconfident revolutionaries saw themselves bringing revolution to the whole of Europe.
• Britain organized a coalition of European powers against the threat of both revolution and potential French dominance of the continent.
• French victories in 1792 were followed by defeats in 1793.
• Continuous hunger provoked further agitation and violence among the general populace.
• Resistance to Paris-dominated revolution entailed open civil war in several parts of France.
• There was a period of terror in both Paris and the provinces - caused by struggles for power, the determination of the Jacobins and their associates to 'complete' the revolution and create a new society, the fear of foreign army, fear of counter-revolution at home, fear of starvation.
• The terror devoured members of ousted revolutionary factions, many kinds of moderates, the utterly innocent, and the out and out opponents of the revolutionary regime.
• People were forced into taking up extreme positions on one side or the other.
• Almost anyone could be ensnared by the law of Suspects -17 Sep. 1793-which among other provisions called for the arrest of anyone who either by their conduct –contacts, their words or writings showed themselves to be supporters of tyranny, of federalism or to be enemies of liberty and of former nobles who did not manifest attachment to the revolution.
• Anyone saying 'monsieur' instead of 'citizen' immediately fell under suspicion.
• Between Sep. 1793 and July 1794 there were about 16,000 executions (including Mary Antoinette on 17 Oct. 1793 and Robespierre).
• Almost 2,000 of those took place in Lyon between October and April during the brutal repression of counter-revolution there.
• Look @ chronology in Resource Book 2 (A1).
• Exercise: Read – Resource Book 2- The Decree establishing the levee en masse (mass con******ion)
1. This is a document of record: sets law regarding con******ions of persons and sources. Not a de******ion of the law but the law itself.
2. this document signals a critical development in European and French history – Schama the historian identifies a war based on national citizen armies – married men are exempted from fighting – there was an involvement of women, and an employment of old men in propaganda – there was a war economy (of setting up factories, nothing being wasted (extracting saltpeter from cellar floors)/ power is concentrated in the Committee of Public Safety – a response to threatening military situation.
...................
 October to December 1793=new revolutionary calendar:
 Replacing Christianity with Reason
 Adopting Revolutionary Government
 Centralizing power into committee of public safety and General Security (Robespierre & followers)
 Parisian extremist groups (enrages, sansculottes, etc) eliminated after creating disorder –Mar. 1794
 April & June= Rousseau given recognition
 Festival of the Supreme Being, withdrawal from extreme anti-Christian position.
 Classical model festivals regular, designed by David
The 'Thermidorean reaction' the Directory, the Consulate and the Empire, August 1794-1804
• Look @ outline –events –August 1794-1804 in the chronology (A1)
• Revolution came to end
• Attention attached to Napoleon's victories and important struggle with Britain.
• Exercise:
o Power in the hands of one man-Napoleon
o 3 fundamentals of Revolution 1789-94 overthrown by 1804:
 government by National Assembly or Convention
 integration of Church with civil authority & dechristianization
 abolition of hereditary rule
• Power returned to be in fewer hands, something not very different from the tyranny identified by Rousseau and anathema (abhorrence) to all revolutionaries.
• Exercise with primary sources: Read A15 & A16
1. Refer to chronology in Resource Book 2 (A1) and see what even each document records? A15-aftrer the coup led by Napoleon against Directory, a provisional government was established. A16 – new constitution proclaimed to French ppl.
2. Each document claims the Revolution and aftermath created problems that the new arrangement will resolve-what are these problems? A15-The problems include attacks of seditious men, succession of revolutions, instability, disorder, conspirators, malevolent ppl. A16-uncertainties, failure to guarantee rights of citizens and interest of State. Both arrangements promise stability.
3. Do these documents abandon revolutionary principles? Both claim to be preserving revolutionary principles but the power being in fewer hands, and a hereditary emperor make this questionable. they give promises of equality and property and liberty.

The Napoleonic Empire and nationalist reactions to it
• Political map of Europe end of 18th Cent. Was very different than it is today. (figure 16/17.4) a country with political boundaries containing national cultures and languages not yet formulated. Scattered territories across (now Germany) & Eastern Europe) belonged to Holy Roman Empire, ruled from Vienna by Austrian Hapsburg family –other German speaking territories belonged to Prussia. Major continental powers: France, Holy Roman Empire, Prussia & Russia.
• Ideas of democracy & liberty spread across Europe. French Revolution victory not only for monarch but nation. When the French under Napoleon had vast conquests, they were regarded as illegitimate invaders and conquerors. Esp. to the German speaking territories. West side of Rhone totally absorbed by French between 1801-4.in 1806 rest of western German lands =grouped as Confederation of the Rhine under French Control. Napoleon meantime=abolished Holy Roman Empire.
• Effects of the French Revolution & Napoleonic aftermath on people in other European countries came as:
o Earthquake: Revolution fostered ideas of liberty & democracy – manifestos issued by French armies marching across Europe – Revolution also fostered ideas of nationality.
o After-shock: Napoleon's conquests produced strong reactions –equipped with new ideas- people in the conquered territories used the ideas of the Revolution against Napoleon.
Nationalism
• Nationalism became a major historical force during the 19th C.
• Signs of nationalism included:
o Growth of vernacular languages (German, Polish, etc. rather than Latin
o Growth of education and literacy –discovering national literature, music, myth, and traditions
o Nationalism and Romanticism (reaction against classicism) were interrelated
o Emergence of bourgeois class not committed to older monarchical or imperial loyalties – saw nationhood as fulfillment promising power and chances for trade
o The successes of movements against imperial oppressors (Netherlands=Patriots against Austrian ruler).
o Revival of religious passion.
 German-speakers were scattered across many separate territories – fantasies began about a union of German peoples.
 The French Revolution had an effect but more effective was the Napoleonic conquest.
 People in small German states were anti-Napoleon so they thought of something they are pro.
 German nationalism began to form.
Conclusion:
• The consequences of the Revolution are a large issue with a big scope for disagreement.
• Napoleon was defeated in Waterloo 1815-the Bourbon monarchy restored.
• Further revolutions in 1830 – limited form of monarchy
• 1848 establishment of a republic-soon gave way to an empire
• 1870 second French empire defeated by Prussia –Third Republic established.
• Excerciese:
o Read A1 Resource Book2- there were types of underprivileged people who enjoyed some improvement with Revolution.
o They are women and black slaves. Black slaves as rebels and as beneficiaries of abolition of slavery. Women = leaders of riots –housewives seeking essentials for family –some women put forward political and social claims.
 Resource Book 2 –extract The Rights of Woman (A8) by Olympe de Gouges (1749-93)-famous writer –daughter of butcher.
 Her writing is an appeal to Marie-Antoinette, and widely circulated. It had claims to the right of women - no proof the claims were recognized. But new laws for marriage and divorce passed during the reform after the Revolution.
 Revolution – not bourgeois revolted against nobility and took over as the ruling class but rather – a period of turmoil where internal and external developments produced further developments and reactions.
أذكر ربك غير متصل  
قديم 19-05-2011, 12:21 PM   #11
أذكر ربك أذكر ربك غير متصل
طالب جديد
 
الصورة الرمزية أذكر ربك
افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011


أدري أنه يدور بالراس بس تحملو شوي
و لا تملو
UNITS 18 & 19 ROUSSEAU & DEMOCRACY
This unit is divided into three parts:

Part One: is trying to understand Rousseau argument not criticizing it.

Part Two: Look more closely at the argument.

Part Three: How Rousseau's argument can be applied to the kind of democratic politics today.

Part One:

What is philosophy?

The analysis of reasons and arguments is a particular province of philosophy. In fact, in as much as philosophy has a distinctive method it is this: the construction, criticism and analysis of arguments.


Rousseau and the French revolution:

In 1789 the National Constituent Assembly published the ' Declaration of the rights of man and the citizen'. The first paragraph of the declaration begins

"Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility."


What does this mean men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights?

If we read men as including both male and female than it means that people have equal rights from their birth until they die.

What does a right mean?

Rights tell us what we are allowed to do, or what others are allowed to do to us, both as people and as members of society. The claim of the declaration is only that, whatever rights we have, we have them equally.

To revolutionaries, it was a rejection (refuse) the claim that one particular person, the king, had more rights than anyone else. In particular it was a rejection of the claim that the king, just because he was the king, had the right to rule. If the claim about equal rights were true, the king had no right to be up there, he was just another person.
"Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility."

Distinctions are based on who deserve to be in that position, the best one to take that position. For example an excellent teacher would be the head of the department. It would not make sense for anyone to be put in charge because their father was. (King)

Rousseau's Social contract was published in 1762, which was some years before the French revolution began. The first chapter begins with

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

Rousseau did not mean that chains are a bad thing and freedom is a good thing, but what Rousseau means by being 'in chains' is living in a society, to have some laws and regulations. He does not want us to escape our chains by escaping living in society, but rather to consider how it can be right for us to live in the chains of society when our natural state to be free. The answer he will give is that, if the society is properly run, the chains it puts on us are not really chains at all.

What bothered Rousseau was how we could have it both ways: how can we think ourselves as free and also as obliged to obey the law?

Rousseau seems to be presenting us with a choice: either we should think of ourselves as free or we should think of ourselves as being obliged to obey the law. In other words, we can not both be free and subject to the law of the state. This is the argument for the rest of part one that Rousseau argues that as we are naturally free people, we are right to obey the state only if it does not take our freedom. There is a way in which we can obey the state which allows us to keep our freedom.

Proving the point:

Please read p.66 ,67,68,69.

Rousseau says all what we have to do is to find a way of structuring the state such that while it may appear to be commanding us we are in fact commanding ourselves.

Rousseau's simple formula, that we can be both free and ruled only if we rule ourselves.

The particular will, the will of all and the general will:

What Rousseau needs to show is this: in obeying the state, individuals obey only themselves.

What is the meaning of Will?

It means a goal or a desire.

What is particular will?

It is the particular desires of a person.


What is will of all?

Will of all what you get when you add together the particular will of each person. It is a collection of different goals and desires, some which we will agree with each other and others will not.

What is general will?

The general will of a group concerns that which is in the best interests of the group taken as a whole rather than as a collection of individuals.

An example :

We will be applying them to a question asked by the captain of a sports team, Who is to be captain?

Each player wants to be captain: that is each of them has a particular will to be captain. Particular Will.


The sum total of all of these; that is each and everyone of the players should be captain. Will of all.


The best interests of the team, is that there should be just one captain for example the best one who does the job effectively. General will


The general will of the state is that which is best for the state as a whole; we can express this by saying it is what the state wants. Hence, if individuals put aside their particular wills and think instead according to the general will, then what the individuals want and what the state wants will be the same.



From the state of nature to the civil state:

General will is contrasted with particular will.
Civil state is contrasted with state of nature.

Rousseau tells us why the individuals should think according to the general will and not according to their particular will. He said because in obeying the state, individuals are obeying only themselves (that is, they are obeying the general will which they have freely chosen). Rousseau thought that we should obey the general will because:

The particular will is a product of appetite.

The general will is a product of reason.

To act on appetite is slavish and bad.

To act on reason is noble and good.

We should be noble and good.

So, we should obey the general will.

Roussseau gives advantages that a person has in the civil state with disadvantages that they would have had in the state of nature.

In civil state the person's behavior and actions are given a moral quality. His ideas are broadened. He is transformed from stupid, limited animal ( state of nature ) into an intelligent being and a man.(state of civil state ). Here Rousseau is contrasting the various great qualities given to us by living in a civil state with various rather animal like, base qualities we would have if we live in the state of nature.

What man loses in the civil state is his unlimited right to everything that tempts him and that he can acquire.

What he gains is civil liberty and the proprietary owenership of all he possesses.

What is natural liberty?
Natural liberty is which is limited only by the force of the individual involved.

What is civil liberty?
It is which is limited by the general will

What is possession?
Which is merely the effect or force or right of the first occupant.

What is proprietary ownership?
Which is based solely on a positive title.Please read bottom of p.76 and p.77

Moral Liberty:

Rousseau gives the solution to the problem of why an individual should act on a general will rather than on particular will. A remarkable change happens when a person moves from the state of nature to a civil state. In state of nature a person acts on instinct and appetite while in civil state they act on according to justice and possess moral liberty.( An example of the one who loves chocolate,p.78).

Rousseau thinks that there is something wrong with people who are always driven by their own desires. They are not acting in a way that is fitting them as human beings.

The remarkable change is that in joining the civil state we escape the slavery of appetite and fulfill ourselves as human beings. (Please read the comparison between state of nature and civil state on p.79)
The social contract:

Being a member of a civil state gives us plenty of opportunities which we would not have outside it for example a chocolate man ( the example mentioned before).Please look at example p.82 and summary p.83.

Part Two: Investigating the argument:

The remarkable change in man:

If everyone adopts the general will, nobody would be subject to a will that is not their own.

Coming to live in a civil state produces quite a remarkable change in man.

The individual will be improved in a civil state.

The civil state if it is run properly will change and improve our nature.

The person is affected by the state he lives in.

People who think as slaves because of the way they are treated.

Rousseau thought people would act according to the general will and develop their true natures only if they lived in a properly run state.

The author went to South Africa, only white were allowed the vote. In 1994 the first truly democratic elections were held and he wanted to see if people's attitudes will change towards themselves or towards one another. Please read the examples of what he finds out bottom of p.87 and 88.

In ****** of general Will:

Rousseau believed that a state has one and only one general will, it is the single correct answer to the question of what is in the best interests of the state.
Look again at Rousseau reasons why we should obey the general will p 4 so to be a citizen of a civil state you should escape the slavery of appetite and think according to reason.

What is reason?
It is to think in a clear headed and rational manner about what would be the best of the state.

If we assume that there is only one right answer than, anyone who is consulting his reason (which is thinking in a clear headed and rational manner) will come up with the same answer.

There is a single correct answer to the question of what is in the best interests of the state, but what if someone was wrong.

Rousseau needs an error free method for discovering the general will. Rousseau has chosen to take a vote, so the best thing to do is to take a vote in order to determine the right answer.

A) People vote according to what they take to be the general will, rather than their particular wills.

The best way to discover the general will is to consult our reason.

B) p.91
If there is a small group they have to be as equal as possible in order to get less chance they have of corrupting the vote.

C) p.92

No one to be so rich so as to buy the poor. No one to be so poor.

Please read the summary on p.93


Forced to be free: Rousseau and Totalitarianism p94:

Please read from the book.

A simple mistake:

We will look at an example where everyone has a meeting to discover the general will. It was about where we can build a stadium. We have Jane who after the vote she discovered that she was wrong because everybody else wanted to build the stadium in somewhere else. What Jane should do?

Here if Jane is a follower of Rousseau she should abandon her private opinion and adopt the opinion which the result of the vote showed to be the general will. (Please look at the example of the train p.95)

The irresponsible citizen:

Citizen who is corrupt and wants to act to his particular will. Rousseau said that he should be forced to obey the general will. Liberty is found in prisons so it is fine and just because punishing people for not obeying the general will is giving them liberty.

Honourable disagreement:

In a case where sarah still insists that she is right. Rousseau offered three options for that,

1. She is right and everyone else is wrong.
2. She should be forced to obey the general will.
3.There might be a range of views on any question, and something to be said for all of them.

Let's now examine the options:

Option one Rousseau can not say this because he believes that the vote to discover the general will is better than any thoughts of a single voter. Without some procedure for discovering the general will, we would not know whose view to adopt.

Option two It would be difficult nowadays to accept that it was all right to force Sarah with which she did not agree. It was all right to force Charles. It was also all right to force Fred because he was irresponsible, but Sarah is honest and holds a view which does not agree with the rest.

Option three the other two options have proven unsatisfactory. If we abandon the method of finding the general will, we will never know what it is. However, if we stick to the method, we end up persecuting people who do not agree with the general will regardless of how reasonable they are in their beliefs. Please read bottom of p.99 till 103.
Part Three:
From Rousseau to Democracy:

If we reject Rousseau's idea we need to find another solution, so we are going to divide Rousseau's problem in two parts:

1. The issue of the people being sovereign. How can we run the state so that authority comes from the people themselves and is not imposed from outside?
2. Each member of the state must be accounted for with nobody left out. Rousseau solved this by insisting that each person should act according to the general will, whether voluntarily or being forced to.

Pluralism:

What is Pluralism?

It is doctrine that the political system should take different views on a single issue into account.

Which different views ought pluralism to take into account? Let us start by considering taking all views into account and call this 'broad Pluralism'
What is broad Pluralism?

That is the doctrine that the political system should take every different view on a single issue into account. Please look at example on top of p.106

What is narrow Pluralism?

That is the doctrine that the political system should take every reasonable view on a single issue into account.

Pluralism and democracy:

The broad idea of democracy is something like this. People who have similar ideas on how a state should be run form themselves into groups (political parties). These parties then each put forward their ideas. Each person in the state then votes according to which ideas they want to see put into practice. The party which gets the most votes wins, and its ideas are put into practice. In short democracy is like a marketplace for people to sell their ideas to the electorate. Please read p.108.


Please read from p.109 to p.118 , please study the Glossary p.118 to120
أذكر ربك غير متصل  
قديم 19-05-2011, 03:04 PM   #12
ranosh ranosh غير متصل
طالب جديد

 









افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011


السلام عليكم
شكرا لمجهودكم العالي و ربنا يوفقكم كلكم في الامتحان
بس انا عندي سؤال
what is the david's artistic style ?
ranosh غير متصل  
قديم 19-05-2011, 06:17 PM   #13
طاطا عمر طاطا عمر غير متصل
مشرف سابق
 
الصورة الرمزية طاطا عمر
افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011


الجواب ص 149
البروغراف الثاني



التوقيع

يا حبيب القلوب انت الحبيب انت ربي و انت مني قريــــب
فليتك تحلو و الحياة مريرة و ليتك ترضى و الانام غضاب
ليت الذي بيني و بينك عامر و بيني وبين العالمين خراب
إذاصح منك الود فالكل هين وكل الذي فوق التراب تراب

طاطا عمر غير متصل  
قديم 20-05-2011, 02:49 PM   #14
ranosh ranosh غير متصل
طالب جديد

 









افتراضي رد: نقاش الفاينال a123b -2011


thanks alot
ranosh غير متصل  
موضوع مغلق

مواقع النشر (المفضلة)

أدوات الموضوع
انواع عرض الموضوع

تعليمات المشاركة
لا تستطيع إضافة مواضيع جديدة
لا تستطيع الرد على المواضيع
لا تستطيع إرفاق ملفات
لا تستطيع تعديل مشاركاتك

BB code is متاحة
كود [IMG] متاحة
كود HTML معطلة

الانتقال السريع


الساعة الآن 08:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1, Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. TranZ By Almuhajir
جميع المواضيع والمشاركات تعبر عن وجهة نظر أصحابها
ولا تعبر باي شكل من الاشكال عن وجهة نظر منتديات AOUA
تصميم وتطوير : التكنولوجيا الماسية