Questions on The Sorrows of Young Werther

Some background: Sorrows was written fifty years after Persian Letters, just before the American Revolution, and it's set in the world of small German states, each centering on a principal city. These states shared language, culture, and many social ties, but Germany would only become a unified nation in the nineteenth century. Werther and his friends are well-off and well-educated but not noble; most of them work for these small governments, moving among the courtiers and advisers who surround the princes. Except for the unhappy ending, the story loosely corresponds to Goethe's own; unlike Werther, he would go on to become one of the most famous intellectuals of late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Europe. Sorrows itself was an enormous hit when it first appeared; the hero's experiences apparently resonated for many young Europeans.

In thinking about the novel, start with its format. Like Persian Letters, Sorrows is an epistolary novel, so think about the similarities and differences in their organization and impact. Persian Letters gives us multiple voices and divergent truths; how many voices do we hear in Sorrows, and what are they like? Then think about the plot. What does Werther do, and what gets done to him? The story ends with Werther in complete despair: why? What's his problem?

Those questions point to the problem of emotions in the novel's development-- how important are they? What kinds of emotions, and how intense? Do we hear of anything comparable in Persian Letters? Both novels talk about love—but do they describe it in the same terms? We also hear a lot about friendship in Sorrows; how is it described, and how important is it? More broadly, what assumptions does the author seem to make about human psychology? How does Goethe see emotions, drives, reason, and will fitting together?

We also hear a lot in Sorrows about nature. How important is it in the letters, and what effects does it have on the characters? What ideas about nature come up in the novel? What makes it such a big deal? How does talk about nature fit with what the novel shows us of social and political interactions in Werther's social circles? What's the relationship between social organization and nature, as the novel presents it?

In class we've discussed the radical implications of Persian Letters and other Enlightenment texts. Are there radical implications in Sorrows? Namely? Is it a more or less radical book than Persian Letters? Think about "radicalism" in broad terms: that is, think both about what the novel has to say about politics and what it says about personal relations. To what extent does Werther seem like a modern man, with an emotional make-up that we might recognize?

Reading The Persian Letters

The Persian Letters goes in multiple directions; it's a book that combines philosophy, comedy, social observation, and straight narrative. As with our other readings, the first step in making sense of all this is to get a handle on the story: who are the main characters, and what are they like? What do they do, and what gets done to them? Note the wide range of characters we encounter— why does Montesquieu include so many of them? The names don't matter very much, but get a sense of what social types Montesquieu has included.

The next step is to think about connections between themes we've encountered earlier in the course and what's going on in the novel. First, we've talked about the rise of the big city and big city pleasures: do we see signs of those social processes in The Persian Letters? Note that the characters visit a café, typical of the urban amenities that emerged in the later seventeenth century—what's it like? In class we discussed the role that Montesquieu sees money playing in French society; what else do we hear about money and the marketplace? What kinds of problems do they seem to pose?

In the same way, Montesquieu has a lot to say about politics, especially about monarchy; what's his take? In class we discussed his portrait of Louis XIV; do we get other accounts of how power works and what problems it creates? Note that Usbek's authority over his slaves and wives parallels that of some kings; what position does Montesquieu take on that authority?

And Montesquieu takes up a third big them we've discussed, that of race, slavery, and empire. What position does he seem to hold on these questions? Was he a racist, insofar as we can judge from his book? In one of the letters (#64, pp. 130-134), an African slave tells his story; how is it presented? More generally, how much does Montesquieu seem to value freedom? Does freedom make a society stronger or weaker, in his opinion?

A fourth connected theme: that of science. At a few points, Montesquieu makes reference to the idea of an infinite universe; what implications does he draw from that idea? He also talks (#97, pages 180-182; #105-106, pages 192-196) about the benefits the west has drawn from science; what are they, and how enthusiastic is Montesquieu about them?

Think about the place of sex and other physical pleasures in this book—an awfully big place, considering that it's a work of philosophy. Why is it there? Do women enjoy these sides of life as much as men? How important are they to a good life, according to Montesquieu? What would be an alternative view? That is, what other moral assessments does the book consider and reject?

Finally, how radical a book is this-- both for its own times and for ours? Is there anything here that would seem shocking if published in 2010? Consider three episodes in particular: the tale of Apheridon and Astarte (letter 67, pages 136ff); the tale of Anaïs and Ibrahim (letter 141, pages 248ff); and the book's conclusion. I've said in class that the Enlightenment included a view of human nature; what views are implied by those stories?

Reading Margaret jacob, The Scientific Revolution, 1-119

What follows is meant to orient your reading of Margaret Jacob's book The Scientific Revolution. Start by considering the question that we discussed Friday in class: what makes this series of changes a revolution? Consider especially Jacob's own answers to this question. As we discussed, it's a question about which historians differ, and Jacob is taking a strong position in an ongoing intellectual debate; she believes strongly that this was a genuine revolution—partly because of the time frame, partly because of the range of ideas that were transformed. Get a command of the details of her argument: what time frame is she talking about, and what intellectual changes does she mention? Jacob's introduction also discusses the social spin-offs of changing ideas about science. What were some of these? How direct were linkages among science, technology, and business during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? What hopes for such spin-offs were expressed by seventeenth-century writers? Consider in this regard the selections from Bacon and Descartes.

Then consider relationships between science and religion during this period. As we know from our own society, that relationship can be complex, in some instances conflictual. In what ways did Christian beliefs encourage scientific development in the early modern period? Consider the examples of Copernicus and Bacon in this regard. What were the sore points between Christianity and science? Examine the selection from Christian Huygens with this question in mind. What challenges to Christian belief had emerged by the time Huygens wrote, at the end of the seventeenth century? What steps did Christian churches take toward scientific innovation, and how reasonable were these?

Any dramatic intellectual change like the scientific revolution raises questions of explanation: why did ideas change, and why did the changes occur when and where they did? What answers does Jacob offer in her introduction? Think as well about some of the particular examples included in the documents she presents. What sense do we get about how Copernicus, Descartes, Galileo, and Boyle came to their revolutionary ideas? To what extent were these new ideas the result of new instruments and discoveries? To what extent were they instead the result of new theorizing?

Jacob speaks of "the mechanical philosophy" that came to prominence during the seventeenth century. What does she mean, and what ideas were included in that philosophy? Why was this such an important mode of thought?

Some questions on Peabody and Grinberg, Slavery, Freedom, and the Law in the Atlantic World (pages 1-80, 102-121, 134-146)

This assignment touches on several issues that we've been considering: the functioning of the global commercial networks that (as we've seen) had emerged by around 1700; the economic significance of European empires; the human costs of Europe's eighteenth-century prosperity; and the attitudes of European political leaders toward economic life. As in our other readings, the assignment presents lots of details about how these broad patterns played out—but keep in mind that our main purpose is to understand the broad patterns themselves.

Some specific questions to help you do so—

1) The editors speak of the "Atlantic World" that had developed by 1700. What made the Atlantic region a single "world," and what was that world like? Why didn't it count as a world in earlier centuries? How many people did it involve, and what sorts of people were they? The editors supply an especially vivid picture of the French colony of Saint Domingue, today Haiti; what was it like in the eighteenth century?

2) The editors also underline the complexities of slaves' experiences during the eighteenth century. What were some of those complexities? How widely did slaves' lives vary, and why? Consider such determinants as work conditions, time, and geography.

3) How many free persons of color were there in the eighteenth-century Atlantic world, and what roles did they play? How had they acquired their freedom? How did they live as free people, and what social roles did they play?

4) Slavery and racism overlapped during long stretches of European and American history, but the overlap was more complicated than we might expect. Think about how these two institutions affected each other. Notice that in some situation racism became more important when slavery declined; why?

5) The first document in the assignment is a law code issued by Louis XIV dealing with slavery and race in French-controlled territories. How does it fit with other aspects we've seen of Louis XIV's government?

6) The assignment also includes French and British legal decisions from the later eighteenth century concerning slavery and race. What decisions did the courts come to, and what values seem to underlie them? How did eighteenth-century European lawyers view race and slavery? What terminology did they use, and what problems did they come up against in thinking about these issues?

Representing power, part 2

No European leader had a clearer awareness of the political impact of cultural choices than Louis XIV. Louis self-consciously used art, architecture, music, and literature to advance his political programs. This sponsorship of the arts can be described as a propaganda effort, but it was propaganda of a sophisticated, multi-layered kind. Artists and others emphasized the king's power, conveying the message that the king was in control of the country and ready to deal with disorder. But the message was also about the monarchy's creative powers, its concern for improving society and its capacity to do so. Louis's artists sought to show that the monarchy rested on more than mere force; rather, they wanted to show that the king was the real center of French society as a whole.

Here are three images of Louis. The first shows him as a young man, at the center of the picture, surrounded by members of the Royal Academy of Sciences, at the opening of a new royal observatory. The painting shows a king committed to advancing learning and scientific progress, one who plays a personal role in these efforts, meeting with scientists and even evaluating their efforts.


The second is a well-known portrait of Louis as an old man, standing before the throne, dressed in his royal robes, holding the royal scepter, with his crown next to him. The portrait suggests the magnificence of monarchy, but it also suggests the king's virile forcefulness even in old age—note the grace with which he wears his high-healed shoes, the shapely legs that he's showing off, and the enormous sword that he wears.


Third, an equestrian statue of Louis set in the middle of a plaza in Paris, the circular Place des Victoires. Again, it's an artistic creation with several messages: it makes the king a presence in the midst of a city that he rarely visited; it shows his force and valor, as a man mastering a spirited horse; it connects him to the great men of ancient Rome, where equestrian statues were much favored; and the architecture of the plaza itself (built during his lifetime and with his authorization) suggests order, inventiveness, and beauty. The viewer is left to contemplate the king's capacity to reconcile apparent opposites: warrior vigor with order, ancient Rome with modernity.


Finally, some photos of Versailles, the palace that Louis moved to in 1682. The architecture is meant to convey the greatness of the monarch, of course—the immense resources that he commands, the excellence of his taste, the great artists and workers that he can command. But (like the Place des Victoires) the architecture also conveys a mix of order and creativity. Versailles shows the king as a source not just of order, but also of beauty.





(Source: Wikimedia.)

Study questions on Parker, 82-145, and de Vries, 113-146

Between 1500 and 1800, Europeans acquired significant power over numerous other parts of the world: the Americas, large parts of India, and smaller areas of east Asia came under their direct control, and they established trading stations in Africa and other parts of Asia. The key question is, how did this happen? What forces underlay European imperial successes? This week's assignments in Parker and de Vries are meant to supply some answers.

The large question of European success can be subdivided into some smaller ones. First, what impelled the Europeans to undertake such difficult, expensive ventures? Why were they willing to undertake the enormous risks that long-distance exploration and commerce posed? And why were the successful when they got to these far-off places? Why were they able to defeat long-established and powerful empires?

Parker of course is especially concerned with this last question: he asks what Europe's military revolution meant for its struggles with other societies, in the Americas and in Asia. What answers does he come up with? He's particularly interested in the capacity of other societies to adapt to European military techniques; consider the examples that he gives of both successes and failures in resisting European intrusions.

Finally, consider what de Vries has to say about the profitability of international trade during the seventeenth century. How did Dutch trade with the East Indies compare in this respect with its trade in the Baltic region of Europe?

Keep in mind what's in the background of these discussions. It's the question of imperialism's contribution to Europe's eventual industrial revolution and economic take-off: did Europe become rich through its exploitation of other continents and their peoples? Or did European wealth come mainly from internal developments, in social relations and technological innovations? Put somewhat differently: is imperialism an essential or an incidental part of the European story?

Representations of power in seventeenth-century Europe (part 1)

In the seventeenth century, art and power enjoyed a symbiotic relationship. Political leaders understood the emotional impact that painting and architecture might have on their subjects, and they generously sponsored leading artists of the day. Meanwhile, artists had few alternatives but to seek the patronage of the great. Except in the Low Countries (in the arts as in so much else Europe's most modern society), the public market for art was limited; their best hope for financial success was to paint for kings, aristocrats, and the church. As we saw in the case of Spain, that situation did not mean artistic conservatism. All across Europe, ruling groups had a taste for sophisticated, innovative art.

These are some pictures of leading political figures in seventeenth-century England and France, whose doings we've been following over the last couple of weeks. From England, the two great antagonists of the English Revolution, king Charles I and the parliamentary leader Oliver Cromwell. (Though an ineffectual king, Charles was a brilliant patron of the arts; the portrait is by the Flemish artist Anthony van Dyck, from whom Charles purchased a number of paintings.)




Finally, some leading characters from France. First, our friend Cardinal Richelieu, here presented in full the grandeur of his ecclesiastical robes by the French painter Philippe de Champaigne:




Then the king whom he served, Louis XIII, here presented by the same artist in armor-- appropriately, since Louis was the last French king who regularly led his troops in battle.




(Source for all reproductions: Wikimedia, under a Creative Commons License.)