images: Florentine or Tuscan peasant and young noblewoman of Augsburg; drawings by Cesare Vecellio, 1590 [scanned by Broderbund Click Art]

Early Modern Europe, 1400-1800

Elizabeth Green Musselman (“Dr. GM”)
Fall Semester 2003
Department of History / course # 16-203-01
Southwestern University
meets: MW 2–3:15 pm / Olin 323

contact information

assignments

majordomo list info

policies

texts

schedule

resources

description

This course will introduce you to key issues in European history from about 1400 to 1800. Historians commonly refer to this period and place as “early modern Europe.” Most of us have a richer sense of medieval Europe (which comes just before) and modern Europe (just after), but what, we might ask, makes early modern Europe worth thinking about as a subject for historical study?
       Many historians have deemed early modern Europe worth studying because it served as a kind of crucible for modern life. They have detected saplings of modern institutions like the nation-state, free trade economies, empire, and science and industry. But we might also argue that early modern European life should be studied on its own terms—that its populations could not have intended to give birth to modern life, and that it had a number of fascinating elements that were uniquely its own.
       The course will introduce you to the traditional (and still important) topics such as the Renaissance, Reformation, age of exploration, Thirty Years’ War, absolutism and constitutionalism, the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment, and the French Revolution. But we will also study recent groundbreaking research in the histories of women, sexuality, popular culture, peasant life, and magic. We will focus on Western Europe (especially England, France, the Low Countries, and Germany) with some attention to the Mediterranean world and less emphasis on northern and eastern Europe and Russia.
       Successful completion of this course fulfills the American and Western Cultural Heritage POK. History majors should consider taking this course in sequence with “Modern Europe,” and this course could fulfill the pre-modern requirement. Art history majors may take this course as a cognate. International Studies majors can count this course toward the European Area of Emphasis.

Note: I strongly encourage you to contact me by e-mail, rather than voice mail. Come see
me during my office hours for issues that are better discussed face-to-face.
 

office	Mood-Bridwell 216
e-mail	greenmue@southwestern.edu I do not generally check e-mail between 10 a.m. Friday and 1 p.m. on Sunday.
telephone	512.863.1595
office hours	Tues. 3-5 p.m., Wed. 4-5 p.m. or by appointment (please try to schedule an appointment rather than just drop in)

Return to top

In this course, you must complete the following assignments. To calculate your final grade, I will multiply each of your assignment grades by the percentage given for each assignment, and add all those weighted grades together. See the policies section for more information about grading.

1.  reading response notebook and critical essays (45% total: 15% for notebook + 10% for each essay):

       Throughout the semester, you will keep a reading response notebook in which you reflect on each set of assigned readings. Three times during the semester, you will hand in your notebook, along with a 3-page critical essay in which you expand on some of the ideas you raised in your reading response notebook.
        Important note: Bring your reading response notebook with you to class each day. You will find it useful to refer to your notebook during class discussion. Also, I may decide spontaneously to collect notebooks if students are not keeping up with the reading. If you do not have your notebook, or you have not kept it up-to-date, your final notebook grade will diminish accordingly. Your notebook will be up-to-date if you have printed notebook entries for every required class period up to and including the day I require you to turn in your notebooks. This means you must write your notebook entries right after completing each set of readings, rather than write them all in a mad dash just before a critical essay is due.
       Guidelines for reading response notebook: Before class, make a page-long entry in your reading response notebook for every class except for days when we have a debate and days when we have no assigned reading. At the end of each class, I will give you a question for you to reflect on as you read for the next class. Your reading response should respond to that question (about half a page) and raise another point that interests you (another half-page). The style of these reading responses may be less formal than the style you would use in a paper, but you must keep your remarks focused and make several specific references to material from the readings. This means quoting or paraphrasing the text (no long quotes) and citing your source using in-text annotation. You must make some use of each of the day’s readings in your reading response, though you may focus most of your energies on one text. Do not summarize the readings in your notebook entries.
       Guidelines for critical essays: At least three times during the semester (see schedule for due dates), I will collect your reading response notebook for grading. On each of those dates, you also will hand in a critical essay. In each critical essay, you will develop one of your thoughts from your reading response notebook into a longer, more polished paper. Your essay must have a thesis (main argument) that is clearly stated in the first paragraph. Dedicate the rest of your paper to demonstrating how the texts that we have read make your thesis plausible. As in the reading response notebook, make specific references to material from the readings by quoting or paraphrasing the texts (avoid long quotes) and citing your sources using in-text annotation.
        For guidance on how to write a good thesis statement, visit this handy site.
       Outstanding critical essays (“A” quality) will never stray from one focused thesis that is thoughtful, non-obvious, creative, but also plausible; make good use of more than one text to support that thesis; think between the lines of our sources; cite sources amply and appropriately; and read fluently. Good critical essays (“B” quality) will diverge from the above standard in one substantial way or a few minor ways. Competent critical essays (“C” quality) generally will not have a well-focused or non-obvious thesis, offer only a superficial reading of the texts, fail to cite specific material from the texts, adopt such a haphazard style that the professor cannot understand the essay readily or fail to meet the length requirement of three pages. Poor critical essays (“D” or “F” quality) will make more than one of the mistakes mentioned under the “competent” criteria above.
       Style issues for both the notebook and the essays: In both your reading response notebook and your critical essays, follow these simple style rules: First, cite your sources using in-text annotation at the end of the sentence, like this: (Merriman 265). [The last name of the author and the page number(s).] Do this whenever you borrow information or ideas from a text, even when you are not quoting the text directly. Second, print your notebook and essay pages in 12-point Times New Roman, double-spaced, with one-inch margins on all sides.

In this class we will have six debates, each focused on a contentious historical question. These debates have several purposes: they give you a structured environment in which to discuss course material; they teach you the importance of interpretation and disagreement in understanding history; they give you an opportunity to read primary sources (texts written by people who lived in the time period we are studying); they allow you to hone your speaking and debating skills; and they give you the informative experience of arguing a position that is not necessarily one in which you believe.
       Each debate will have about 8-12 main participants: 4-6 “antagonists” who act as the main discussants of the debate’s major issue (2-3 antagonists on one side of the debate, 2-3 on the other); 2-3 “conciliators” who attempt to mediate between, and offer alternatives to, the antagonists’ positions; and 2-3 “questioners” who keep the debate moving by asking the other debaters questions. The remaining students in the class will each post a “debating point” on the class majordomo list the morning of the debate. The antagonists may use these debating points to help make their cases in class.
       The antagonists do not necessarily have to work as teams (i.e., the antagonists on one side do not have to come up with a common position, nor do they have to consult with each other at all ahead of time—you are certainly welcome to do so). However, I will expect students to assist each other in the debate whenever possible. There will be no “winners” in these debates, at least not in the conventional sense. The students who earn the highest grades on this assignment will be those who make careful, considered arguments and who work to keep the other debaters talking as well. I will not reward grandstanding, yelling, interrupting, intimidation of other students, and blustering arguments that have no real meat (evidence) to them. The main point of these debates is to understand history better, not to skewer or silence your opponents.
       The major evidence to be used in the debate will be the on-line readings listed under that date in the schedule. However, you cannot do well in a debate without also having seriously engaged the other required readings and lectures in the course. Referring to these other readings during the debate will help your performance.
       You should print out paper copies of the on-line readings for yourself so that you can refer to them during the debate.
       Each debate will have the following structure:

• Just before class begins: Antagonists distribute their position papers.
• I will say a few words to introduce the debate.
• Each antagonist on one side, then each antagonist on the other, will read or verbally summarize his or her position paper (no more than 3 mins. each).
• One of the questioners asks a question that both sets of antagonists can address.
  
• Antagonists begin debating with each other. Questioners step in whenever appropriate to re-direct discussion, ask for clarification, etc. At this point, the rest of the class is encouraged to contribute comments (including your own debating point) and questions.
• After about 45 minutes: I will stop the debate to ask the conciliators to suggest some compromises and/or alternative solutions. (Conciliators can contribute to the debate well before this, but the debate will stop formally at this point to hear their perspective.)
• Debate continues to the end of class with the conciliators continuing to argue for compromises and/or alternatives. Again, the whole class is encouraged to participate.

       You must come see me in office hours before you participate in your first debate as an antagonist, questioner, or conciliator.
       Important note: Only if you have a documented medical excuse or emergency will I allow you to re-schedule your participation in one of the debates or to submit a late debating point for credit. Without such a documented excuse, you will not receive credit for missed participation (as an antagonist, conciliator or questioner) or for debating points submitted after 9 a.m. the day of the debate.

(a.) 2 debates in which you act as an antagonist (10% for 1st debate; 15% for 2nd):

Antagonists shoulder most of the burden in these debates. You are responsible for arguing and defending the particular position for which you signed up early in the semester.
       Come to class with a position paper (no longer than 1 page!). In this position paper, you should clearly state one main point, and to support your case, describe and cite particular evidence from the readings (mainly the on-line primary sources for that day, but bolster your argument with material from the other required readings when appropriate). If you have the time, you may incorporate debating points that other students will post to the majordomo list, but you must cite their work as if it were any other source used in writing a paper.
       Bring enough copies of the position paper for everyone in the class including me. Distribute these copies before class begins.
       In class, you will read or summarize your position paper. Take no more than three minutes to do this. You will then be responsible for debating other antagonists whose arguments vary from your own. While your position paper should focus on one main point, during the debate itself, marshal as wide a variety of evidence as possible to make your case. It is very important that you continue to use particular passages from the readings (especially the primary sources) to make your case. Use other students’ debating points whenever possible. You must also be able to respond to the questioners and conciliators. Stick to your guns during the debate. It is the conciliators’ job to find compromise positions between the different antagonists. It is your job to try as hard as possible to maintain your original position (without being ridiculous about it—you should concede another debater’s point if you cannot make a good argument against it).
       You do not have to agree personally with any of the particular positions you argue. For example, you might deplore European conquest in the Americas, but still argue in our debate that the unfortunate outcomes of early European-American contact were the product of reasonable misunderstandings.
       To prepare for the debate, read the primary sources carefully, marking them and/or making notes as you read. Then note down on a separate sheet of paper which passages make the strongest argument for your case (note down page numbers). Do this for both the primary sources and any secondary sources (in Merriman, the course reader) that are relevant. Once you have found those passages that clearly support your case, look for passages that seem at first to support the other side or have ambiguous meaning, but actually support yours when read carefully. Write your position paper. Then talk through several arguments you would make in class. Think about arguments the other side will probably make, and talk through how you would respond to them.
       Criteria for grading this assignment (in order of importance): focus and clarity of your oral arguments in class; use of particular passages and points from the primary and secondary sources to bolster your arguments; depth of your understanding of the material (do you come up with arguments that are not obvious from a quick, surface readings of these texts? do you incorporate material from lectures and other required readings?); ability to think on your feet (can you respond intelligently to an unexpected question or comment?); focus and clarity of your writing in the position paper; engaging with other students’ questions and comments.

(b.) 2 debates in which you act as questioner or conciliator (5% for 1st debate; 10% for 2nd):

In the roles of questioner and conciliator, you will participate a little less in the debate than the antagonists do, but your roles are still very important. You will need to read the primary sources for that debate just as carefully as the antagonists do. You will need to prepare questions (if you are a questioner) or arguments (if you are a conciliator) ahead of time. You will also need to develop some questions or arguments during the debate itself, in response to what the antagonists say.
       Questioners are responsible for keeping discussion moving by asking questions of the antagonists and conciliators. You can ask a general question that will spark some interesting debate between the two sides; you can ask a debater to clarify his or her position; you can ask debaters to explain the meaning of a particular passage; you can ask two antagonists (on the same side or opposite sides) to argue with each other on a point where they seem to disagree—in short, there are few limits on the kinds of questions you can ask. You should, however, make sure to ask questions that you believe will provoke real discussion, not just a brief response that dies on the floor.
        To prepare for the debate, read the primary sources carefully, marking them and/or making notes as you read. Think about the kinds of arguments the antagonists are likely to make. Find a few passages that you think are particularly interesting because, for example, they point to the very heart of the debate or their meaning is ambiguous. Write down some questions based on these passages (make a note of where those passages are, and quote them in your questions if appropriate). Also write some questions that are more general (but still thoughtful) and that both sides could answer. Write at least one question that will really challenge the antagonists to see the texts differently. Remember that on the spot during the debate you will need to develop some new questions or adapt some that you have written.
        Criteria for grading this assignment (in order of importance): focus and clarity of your questions (do your questions really get the debaters talking? if a question does not provoke good discussion, do you try to re-phrase or re-direct it so that it does?); use of particular passages and points from the primary sources to focus your questions; depth of your understanding of the material (do you come up with some questions that are not obvious from a quick, surface readings of these texts? do you incorporate material from other required readings?); ability to think on your feet (can you come up with questions that respond directly to what is happening in the debate?); engaging with other students’ questions and comments.
        Conciliators are responsible for offering a compromise position and/or alternative solution to the major conflict in the debate. You should prepare most of your response in advance, but you should also tailor your response to what is said during the debate itself. You might argue that both antagonist positions are too extreme given the evidence, and then suggest a compromise interpretation that better fits the facts. Or, you might suggest that the antagonists do not really disagree on certain key points, and that these points are key to understanding the issue. Or, you might argue that one or more of the antagonists are misreading the texts or exaggerating their position beyond what the evidence can support. Or, you might argue that there is another position or possibility that the antagonists have not explored. Or, you might argue that the evidence is inconclusive for either of the antagonists’ positions. Like the questioners, you have a wide range of possibilities open to you.
        To prepare for the debate, read the primary sources carefully, marking them and/or making notes as you read. Think about the kinds of arguments the antagonists are likely to make. Find a few passages that you think are particularly interesting because, for example, they point to the very heart of the debate or their meaning is ambiguous. Develop and write down a conciliatory argument based on some of those passages (make a note of where those passages are, and quote them in your questions if appropriate). In your argument, challenge the antagonists to see the texts differently. Remember that you will need to adapt your argument to what the antagonists actually say during the debate.
        Criteria for grading this assignment (in order of importance): ability to see real compromises and alternatives that get the antagonists thinking deeply about how to defend their position (do you say more than “on the one hand, this side has a good point; on the other hand, this side also has a good point”?); focus and clarity of your oral arguments in class; use of particular passages and points from the primary sources to bolster your arguments; depth of your understanding of the material (do you come up with arguments that are not obvious from a quick, surface readings of these texts? do you incorporate material from other required readings?); ability to think on your feet (can you respond intelligently to what an antagonist argued during the debate?); engaging with other students’ questions and comments.

(c.) debating points (5% total)

For those debates in which you do not participate as an antagonist, conciliator or questioner, you must send a debating point to the class majordomo list. A debating point is a one- to two-paragraph argument that supports whichever position you signed up to defend. Provide specific evidence to support your argument, mainly from the primary sources assigned for that debate (provide short quotes or at least page numbers). Your debating point should not be obvious. Rather, you should think deeply about the material and develop a point the antagonists might not have thought of easily. Particularly good debating points will make a focused, non-obvious argument, and use evidence from more than one primary source and from secondary material.
       You must send your debating point to the majordomo list by 9 a.m. the day of the debate. (See below for how to subscribe to this list and send messages to it.) Debating points sent later than this will not receive credit.
       During the debate itself, you are welcome to participate (just don’t jeopardize the antagonists’, questioners’ and conciliators’ chance to earn their full grade by talking too much). Chime in particularly when your debating point might help the antagonists on your side.
       Criteria for grading this assignment (in order of importance): depth of analysis (is your point one that the antagonists might not have thought of immediately?); citation of a range of relevant passages from the primary sources (and secondary sources whenever appropriate); clear understanding of primary sources being used in that debate; focus and clarity of writing.

       During many of our class meetings, I will make some introductory remarks, but I will rarely if ever lecture for the entire class period. Because so much of class time will be devoted to discussion (even on non-debate days), part of your grade will depend on your prepared participation. Not only that, but the entire success of the course depends on your prepared participation as well. You do not need to say fantastically clever and insightful things every time you open your mouth; all I ask is that you do the required reading diligently, be willing to take some risks, and try out some ideas with the rest of the class.
       Please see an important note about attendance in the policies section below.
       Criteria for calculating your participation grade (in order of importance): the quality of your comments, and particularly their rootedness in the assigned texts; the frequency of your participation; your ability to get other students talking by raising questions or debating other students directly; if I am lecturing, your attentiveness and inquisitiveness; quizzes, if necessary.

to subscribe to the course majordomo list: All students in this course must subscribe to the majordomo list. To do this, log on to the e-mail account that you use most often and send the following message to majordomo@southwestern.edu before 8 Sep.:

subscribe su-hist-203
end

       To post your debating point to the majordomo list, send it as an e-mail message to su-hist-203@southwestern.edu by 9 a.m. the day of the debate.

to unsubscribe from the list: At the end of the semester, if you drop the course, or if you want to change the e-mail address to which the majordomo list sends messages, send the following message to majordomo@southwestern.edu:

unsubscribe su-hist-203

unsubscribe su-hist-203 youroldaddress

1. attendance: I expect you to attend every class except for those days on which you have a documented medical or other legitimate emergency or religious observance. I do not plan to keep careful track of your absences. However, every absence will seriously harm your final grade, since you will not have participated fully in class discussions. If you are absent more than four times without documented excuse, I will try to contact you and, if necessary, call Academic Services. If the problem continues for no documented reason, you may automatically fail the course. If you have a legitimate, documented excuse but for a prolonged absence, you may need to withdraw from the course.

2. lateness: Do not arrive late to class. If you are regularly late, I will ask you to leave. I have this strict policy because lateness is disrespectful not only to me, but also to your fellow students.

3. grading: The maximum percentages awarded for course assignments add up to 100. I use a standard grading scale:

If your grades consistently improve over the course of the semester, your class presence is consistent and attentive, and your final grade is on the cusp between two grades, I will consider shifting your final course grade up to the next level. For example, if your final course grade worked out to an 86, but your grades had consistently improved during the semester and you were a consistent and attentive class participant, I would consider shifting your final grade up to a B+.

4. late assignments: I will not accept late assignments in this course. If you have a documented medical excuse or other genuine emergency, you may discuss special arrangements with me as long as you do so in a timely fashion. If you know in advance that you will be away for a legitimate reason (e.g., a university-sponsored trip), you must notify me well ahead of time of your pending absence and turn in your assignment in advance of the due date. All other late assignments will receive a 0.

5. honor code issues: You must hand-write and sign the full honor code on each assignment in this class. That means writing out and signing your name after the following:

I have neither given nor received aid on this examination [paper, etc.], nor have I seen anyone else do so.

6. internet sources: You may not cite internet sources in any of the written assignments in this course. The following are exceptions to this rule and may be used, since they are clearly of a scholarly nature: articles from full-text databases like JSTOR and Project Muse; online primary sources (texts written by historical actors that have been re-published on the web); internet pages that I have approved well in advance of your turning in the assignment.

7. disabilities: Southwestern University will make reasonable accommodations for persons with documented disabilities. Students should register with the Office of Academic Services, (3rd floor Cullen, 863-1286). Professors must be officially notified by the Academic Services Coordinator that documentation is on file at least two weeks before the accommodation is needed.

Return to top

You will find the following at the university bookstore. Merriman’s book will serve as our basic text and reference. Each week we will also read supplementary sources that will expand on and even challenge Merriman’s generally excellent narrative.

Each date listed below tells you what topic we will discuss in class, and what you need to have read in preparation for that day’s class. EMER = Early Modern Europe Reader.  indicates a date on which a critical essay and your reading response notebook is due.  indicates a date on which we will have an in-class debate. Underlined text indicates that the reading is on-line; from the on-line syllabus, click on that underlined text to be taken to the appropriate web page.

Unit 1: Introduction

M Aug 25: Introduction to the course

W Aug 27: Continuities from the medieval period
 

read:	1. Merriman, pp. xiv-xvi, 3-19 2. reading guide 3. Huizinga, “The Passionate Intensity of Life” [EMER]
reading response notebook question:	Why do you think Huizinga chooses to depict the medieval period as Europe’s childhood?
remember:	Bring your up-to-date reading response notebook to class with you each day.

M Sep 1: Labor day holiday – class does not meet

W Sep 3: Europe meets the wider world 

read:	1. Merriman, pp. 19-46 [study carefully table, p. 21; map, p. 29, 41] 2. reading guide 3. Wolf, “The World in 1400” and “Europe, Prelude to Expansion” [EMER] 4. Crosby, “Weeds” [EMER]
reading response notebook question:	Like Huizinga, Wolf and Crosby depict early modern Europe as a vulnerable place. What do these authors hope to achieve when emphasizing this vulnerability?
in class:	how to write a thesis statement
images to  use in class:	typical European map of the world [Albertin de Virga, ca. 1411-15] Gutenberg press (invented ca. 1450) medieval illuminated manuscript depicting Adam naming the animals 17th-century London newspaper Columbian exchange

M Sep 8: Life in the city-states
 

read:	1. Merriman, pp. 47-60 [study carefully map, p. 54] 2. Abu-Lughod, “The Merchant Mariners of Genoa and Venice” [EMER] 3. Huppert, “The Freedom of the City” [EMER]
reading response notebook question:	Merriman says that the expansion of commerce and cities helped enable the Renaissance (49). What signs do Abu-Lughod, Huppert, and/or Merriman give us that before about 1400 the success of this commercial economy was not guaranteed?
images to  use in class:	map of Italian city-states in the Renaissance (ca. 1494) Genoese trade routes in the time of the Renaissance Venetian trade routes in the time of the Renaissance
notice:	last day to sign up for debates (on my door, MB 216) and to subscribe to the class majordomo list

W Sep 10: Renaissance culture

read:	1. Merriman, pp. 60-86 [study carefully paintings between pp. 60-61] 2. brief biography of Vasari and any 3 selections from his Lives of the Artists [Remember to print out and mark up on-line readings.] 3. Rocke, “Gender and Sexual Culture in Renaissance Italy” [EMER]
reading response notebook question:	What values did Renaissance culture emphasize? Do they bear any relationship to the values embraced in the city-states and their trade networks?
in class:	how to read primary sources

 M Sep 15: Debate 1 – The Renaissance: cynical or idealistic about human potential?

read:	1. Pico, Oration on the Dignity of Man (1486) 2. Machiavelli, chs. 14-19 of The Prince (1513) 3. De Medici, “Paternal Advice to a Cardinal” (c. 1491) 4. De Pizan, excerpt from The Book of the City of Ladies (1405)
antagonists:	cynical: Jamie Baccus, Allen Jenkins, Trevor O’Brien / idealistic: Christina Griffin, Christina Lim, Audrey Tinsley
questioners:	David Carroll, Sarah Garcia, Rambo Schutz
conciliators:	John Campbell, Cody Freas, Ryan Walker
debating points:	cynical: Kris Armstrong, Fred Kaiser, Shannon Levit, Bill McKnight, Alan Valdez / idealistic: Deann Armstrong, Robyn Bridges, Jillie Gordon, Courtney Juden, Kathleen Matthews

W Sep 17: Reading day – class does not meet
 

read:	1. through at least page 90 of Wunderli, Peasant Fires
reading response notebook question:	We have explored how European cities began to find success in the global trade network. We have also seen that this commercial success helped enable Renaissance scholars’ belief in human dignity and much optimism among elites about humanity’s future. Peasant Fires presents a very different picture of Europe in the 15th century. From what we have read so far, what do you think is the most important insight in this book about how 15th-century peasants’ perspective on life differed from the perspective of the scholars whom we read for the first debate?
note:	You must write an entry for your reading response notebook today that is separate from your entry for 22 Sep. Begin thinking about what you want to argue in your 1st critical essay.

M Sep 22: The Northern Renaissance and Central European Reformation

read:	1. Merriman, pp. 87-125 [study carefully map, p. 111] 2. continue reading Wunderli, Peasant Fires
reading response notebook question:	How does the seemingly small story of Hans Behem help us to understand the bigger picture of what caused the Protestant Reformation?

W Sep 24: The spread of Reformation 

read:	1. Merriman, pp. 125-177 [study carefully map, p. 175] 2. finish Wunderli, Peasant Fires
due:	1st critical essay & reading response notebook (must include entries for 27 Aug., and 3, 8, 10, 17, 22 Sep.)

 M Sep 29: Debate 2 – The Reformation: liberatory or oppressive?

read:	1. Krämer and Sprenger, excerpt from Malleus Maleficarum (1486; but used throughout Reformation) – click on “continued” at bottom of page 2. Luther, “Against Catholicism” (1535) 3. St. Ignatius of Loyola, excerpt from Spiritual Exercises (1541) 4. Luther, “Jews and Their Lies” (1543) 5. Luther, “Of Free Will” in Table-Talk (1566) 6. Calvin, “On Predestination” (1559) 7. St. Francis of Sales, part II, chs. 14-15 of Introduction to the Devout Life (1607-8)  [Note that Ignatius and Francis were Catholic.]
antagonists:	liberatory: Sarah Garcia, Jillie Gordon, Courtney Juden, Christina Lim / oppressive: Cody Freas, Fred Kaiser, Shannon Levit, Ryan Walker
questioners:	Deann Armstrong, Bill McKnight, Alan Valdez
conciliators:	Kris Armstrong, Christina Griffin, Kathleen Matthews, Trevor O’Brien
debating points:	liberatory: Robyn Bridges, Allen Jenkins, Rambo Schutz, Audrey Tinsley / oppressive: Jamie Baccus, John Campbell, David Carroll

W Oct 1: Spain and the new global economy
 

read:	1. Merriman, pp. 181-197, 219-231 [study carefully map, p. 193] 2. Greenblatt, “Marvelous Possessions” [EMER]
images to  use in class:	map of Spanish and Portuguese claims in Americas, ca. 1550
reading response notebook question:	Anyone growing up in this culture has heard the story of Spanish conquest of the Americas dozens of times. The story can thus come to seem hackneyed and rote. What does Greenblatt want us to see about this conquest that is unusual and new?

M Oct 6: England begins to rule the waves

read:	1. Merriman, pp. 197-219 2. Kupperman, “Mirror Images” [EMER]
reading response notebook question:	How did the particular culture of the early modern English lead them to a different view of native Americans’ significance and character than an early modern Spaniard like Columbus formed?

 W Oct 8: Debate 3 – Europeans’ early treatment of the Americas: civilized or uncivilized?

read:	1. Columbus’ letter to the King and Queen of Spain (1494) 2. Cortés, excerpt from his second letter to King Charles V (1520) 3. an Aztec account of the conquest of Mexico (1962; written about events in 1519) 4. Las Casas, preface to A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies (1542) 5. The New Laws of the Indies (1542) 6. Montaigne, excerpt from On Cannibals (1580)
antagonists:	civilized: Sarah Garcia, Shannon Levit, Rambo Schutz / uncivilized: Kris Armstrong, David Carroll, Kathleen Matthews
questioners:	Robyn Bridges, Jillie Gordon, Audrey Tinsley
conciliators:	Fred Kaiser, Bill McKnight, Trevor O’Brien
debating points:	civilized: Jamie Baccus, John Campbell, Cody Freas, Christina Lim, Alan Valdez / uncivilized: Deann Armstrong, Christina Griffin, Allen Jenkins, Courtney Juden, Ryan Walker

M Oct 13: Fall break – class does not meet

W Oct 15: Civil wars in England and the Dutch Republic’s golden age
 

read:

1. Merriman, pp. 232-273 [study carefully map, p. 244] 2. Schama, “Stygian Fires and Aqua Fortis” [EMER]

reading response notebook question:

Absolutist states justified their strict rule according to the divine right of the monarchy. (We will read more about absolutism soon; for now, just realize that absolutism literally meant the absolute rule of the monarchy, without legitimate challenge from other political bodies.) By contrast, on what moral authority did mixed oligarchies (like England’s and the Dutch Republic’s) establish social order, according to Merriman and Schama?

Th Oct 16: Recommended lecture
 

lecture:

History Department Annual Colloquium Dorinda Outram, Gladys I. and Franklin W. Clark Chair in History at University of Rochester Title TBA 4 p.m., Prothro Room (2nd floor of library)

M Oct 20: Absolutism in Western and Central Europe
 

read:	1. Merriman, pp. 274-303 [study carefully table, p. 281; map, p. 302] Then read either... 2. Mooers, “Germany: Prussian Absolutism to Bismarck” [EMER] ... or... 3. Hohenberg and Lees, “Beyond Baroque Urbanism” [EMER]
reading response notebook question:	Who gained and who lost when power was centralized under absolutist states?
for use in class:	Mooers theses Louis LeVau/Jules Hardouin-Mansart (French) Versailles, 1660-85 Simon Vouet (French), The Toilet of Venus, ca. 1616 Jan Lys (German/Dutch), Judith and Holophernes, 1628 Georges de la Tour (French), Quarrelling Musicians, 1625-30 Georg Petel (German), The Three Graces, ca. 1624 idealized baroque city plan

W Oct 22: The Ottoman Empire

read:	1. Merriman, pp. 316-323 [study carefully map, p. 322] 2. Washington State University overview of the Ottoman Empire [Click on “Contents”; read from “The Ottomans” through “The 17th and 18th Centuries.”] 3. reading guide 4. Goffman, “The Englishman and the Ottoman Other” [EMER]
reading response notebook question:	To what was extent was the Ottoman Empire a part of Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries?
for use in class:	map of the Ottoman empire in the 16th and 17th centuries

M Oct 27: Changing views of the cosmos
 

read:	1. Merriman, pp. 327-353 2. Shapin, “The Natural Machine” [EMER] 3. Eamon, “From the Secrets of Nature to Public Knowledge” [EMER]
for use in class:	unknown Persian artist, Muslim scribe (sometime before 1546) George Bickham, Sr., Apotheosis of Sir Isaac Newton (1732) H. Testelin, funding of “Académie des Sciences” by Louis XIV & Colbert; establishment of Paris Observatory (1667) Desaguliers, excerpt from The Newtonianism System of the World (1728)
due:	2nd critical essay & reading response notebook (must include entries for 1, 6, 15, 20, 22 Oct.)

W Oct 29: Debate 4 – The “new” science: revolutionary or rooted in tradition?

read:	1. Osiander, dedication to Copernicus’ Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies (1543) Note: Osiander was a Lutheran theologian and German politician. Earlier, he had urged Copernicus to present his ideas on the heavens as strictly hypothetical. Without Copernicus’ permission, Osiander wrote this preface to The Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, and, because the book appeared after Copernicus’ death,  it seemed as if he had indeed written it. 2. Copernicus, excerpt from The Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies (1543) 3. Galileo, Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany (1615) 4. Descartes, excerpt from Discourse on Method (1637) 5. Sprat, excerpts from The History of the Royal Society (1667)
antagonists:	revolutionary: Jamie Baccus, Robyn Bridges, David Carroll, Alan Valdez / rooted in tradition: Kris Armstrong, John Campbell, Audrey Tinsley, Ryan Walker
questioners:	Jillie Gordon, Christina Griffin, Allen Jenkins, Courtney Juden
conciliators:	Deann Armstrong, Fred Kaiser, Shannon Levit, Christina Lim, Rambo Schutz
debating points:	revolutionary: Cody Freas, Kathleen Matthews, Bill McKnight / rooted in tradition: Sarah Garcia Trevor O’