Just a Couple of -ISMs

Hey Upper Class Siders, it's that time of year again. When the mere act of writing a manifesto means you're a communist. That's right: Marx season. And from what we hear, there's been some changes to the lineup.

Me after Mr. Yarnall gave me the evil eye in class today because I wasn't prepared. 
Update: still crying on the inside.

Between 1789 and 1848, the fusion of the technological advancements from the Industrial Revolution with the ideological ideas from the French Revolution occurred, creating what has been labeled as the dual revolution.

So the dual revolution was pretty much like Ellen was cloned so there was TWO Ellens!

The popular isms of the dual revolution: conservatism, liberalism, nationalism, and socialism. 

Please enjoy the infographic I spent 90 hours on, and yes, you better compliment it.

So, then which -ism did the middle class identify with the most? | While liberalism embodied the ideas many middle class citizens had, it was, as the textbook names it, a "duller tool." And as this is the time expanding throughout the Industrial Revolution, people were about greater technological advancements and this "do-more, be-better" attitude also shaped people's political ideas. While liberalism was able to affect society, it was not enough. When other political ideologies were created, they were soon adopted in place of the basic principles of liberalism, although equality and liberty were still of equal importance. However, the one political idea that was most applicable to the situation involving the middle class was socialism, an idea revolutionized by the Karl Marx.

Life mantra: WWBD?

Why? | It was his emphasis on the common man and the superiority of the working classes in society that appealed greatly to the masses of middle class laborers. Liberalism, while different from conservatism, tended to lean towards the wealthy in the middle class and thus, the "lower middle class of shopkeepers, clerks, and artisans, did not own the necessary property and thus could not vote" (an example that shows the divide within the middle class: those wealthy enough to own land vs. those wealthy enough to not be deemed impoverished). Socialism appealed to the masses because it called for political, social, AND economic change.

Karl Marx after writing The Communist Manifesto.

What were the take-aways from today's ROBESPIERRE & METTERNICH DISCUSSION?

Robespierre                            Metternich

How were the men inverses of each other? | Robespierre worked tirelessly and quite viciously to suppress the voice of the elites and any others who spoke against nationalism through terror. He was a major proponent of nationalism and the sense of cultural unity that provided Robespierre the initial platform (pun) for total political control. On the other hand, Metternich used force to maintain jurisdiction over his people by preventing nationalism from erupting. One is for nationalism (positive feelings towards the Committee of Public Safety and France), while the other is against nationalism/liberalism as he felt it detrimental to the Austrian government.

How were the men similar? | The "suppression of dissent" is a major similarity between both men. Each developed police forces to destroy cancerous feelings against the state. Robespierre and Metternich were bombarded with hatred from the conservatives and revolutionaries, respectively, as Robespierre was the opposite, a revolutionary, and Metternich, a conservative.

Listen to me...or else.

Robespierre:Metternich::Hitler:Stalin -- This analogy relates the extremity of the four leaders listed. Hitler and Stalin paralleled each other, although they contained different ideals, they were both the most extreme on either side. This is similar to the relationship between Robespierre and Metternich. Robespierre was the ideal revolutionary and liberal, while Metternich was an ultra conservative. So pretty much Sanders vs. Trump.

Ew Grandpa dancing...

Would they have got along if they met? | Probably not. They both despised the others political ideas (conservatism and liberalism). My guess is that they would have killed each other if it wasn't for the good ol' guillotine.

"Would you like to meet Metternich, Robespierre?"

Why didn't nationalism work for Metternich? Why was he so against it? | As the textbook implies, Metternich had to work against liberalism and nationalism, especially the latter. Nationalism threatened Austria immensely, as it was a nation that encompassed a diaspora of nationalities. Thus, if these groups decided to unite under a similar "umbrella," Metternich would be faced with absolute destruction in his country. Metternich strongly believed that "liberalism...had been responsible for a generation of war with untold bloodshed and suffering." In many ways, he is right...I MEAN LOOK AT ROBESPIERRE!

Metternich's feelings towards nationalism... 

In matters of love and war, all weapons cause injury, especially the guillotine. The question is, who will live to fight another revolution? You know you love me. XOXO, Gossip Girl

Finishing this post like:

Two Snow Peas in the French Revolution

Hello ladies!  Let's switch things up and talk about powerful white men in history for a change.

Robespierre and Napoleon were leaders who may have seemed like two peas in a pod, but as Nicole said, they may have been more like two snow peas since there were some differences between them.

• similarities
• both ruled as dictators
• both rose to power by being politically manipulative
• Napoleon rose to power because of Robespierre and the Reign of Terror's weakness
• differences
• Napoleon was a stronger leader and more well-liked than Robespierre
• Napoleon was focused on strengthening France as an international empire/power while Robespierre was focused on solidifying the home front during wartime with the Reign of Terror

After the execution of King Louis VXI, chaos ensued as the fear of treason overwhelmed everyone.  Louis was killed because people thought he was a traitor, and after his death citizens even attacked prisons filled with accused traitors.

when you want to complain about the government but you know you'll get your head chopped off if you do 

Robespierre justified his use of the Reign of Terror to maintain the loyalty of the French citizens and to stifle dissent from anyone who disagreed with the government.  He took the desire for nationalism too far, however, and executed, beheaded, and imprisoned thousands.  Robespierre argued that society only owes protection to its "peaceable citizens".  People who were not republicans weren't considered true citizens.  Although he restricted people's freedom, it was to keep them safe and protect the state of France.  He disregarded the people of France for the sake of the state.

The reaction to the despotism of the Reign of Terror was known as the Thermidorian reaction.

Immediately after the death of Robespierre and before Napoleon came into power, the new National Convention abolished many economic controls, let prices rise sharply, and restricted the local political organizations where the sans-culottes (lower-class Parisian republicans) had their strength.  They chose a 5-man executive known as the Directory, which continued to support French military expansion to solve economic problems.  This led to a general dissatisfaction with the Directory, which caused them to govern more dictatorially to control their opponents.  Two years later, Napoleon ended the Directory in a coup d'état and substituted a strong dictatorship for another weak one.

when you see bae (aka Napoleon)

Robespierre brought instability, weak leadership, and terror with him and his rule.  As a result, people wanted stability, and Napoleon seemed to be a great replacement.  He was a brilliant military man who was able to rise in the army, and when he learned that some members of the legislature were plotting against the Directory (which replaced the Committee of Public Safety as a 5-person dictatorship), so they organized a takeover to oust the Directors and disband the legislature, putting Napoleon in charge.  Republican appearances were maintained, but Napoleon was the real ruler.  "Confidence from below, authority from above" epitomized this new era.  He ruled effectively despite his ambition and quest for personal glory through territorial expansion because people simply wanted a strong leader and safety, not necessarily freedom at this time.

clearly things were going well for Napoleon

Even though the French Revolution came full circle (from one absolutist ruler to another), Napoleon marked the height of French power with the international power he gained, internal improvements he made within France, and his military achievements.

Bonjour Bloggers!

What is the deal with the women?

• In Paris, great numbers of women worked for wages within the putting out system. Yet, after the fall of the Bastille, which prompted many nobles to leave Versailles for foreign lands, France experienced a decrease in the demand for luxuries, and increase in unemployment and hunger among the peasants ...yet again.

• so....In October 1789, once the feudal privileges had been abolished and Louis 16 refused to the sign the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the hangry Parisian crowds, consisting mainly of women, marched on Versailles to confront their king and demand bread (they thought Marie Antoinette had a secret grain stash somewhere at Versailles)

• The king promised the crowd grain and approved the revolutionary legislation of the National Assembly. The crowd then removed the king from Versailles and took him to Paris, shifting France’s political capital from aristocratic Versailles to revolutionary Paris (foreshadowing the breakdown of the aristocracy and rise of a new revolutionary republic).
• In Paris, the king remained the head of the state, while the national assembly maintained all lawmaking power. New laws broadened women’s independence in their new abilities to: seek divorce, inherit property, and obtain financial support from the fathers of their illegitimate children.

• Of course, during the time most believed women were to remain in the domestic sphere as (1) their charms could pollute political life and (2) their presence in the home and absence from politics would help create civic virtue

• Mary Wollstonecraft set high standards for women’s behavior and achievement, she advocated coeducation, and believed women’s entrance into politics would be mutually beneficial for the two sexes which “mutually corrupt and improve each other”.
• Once the Republic, sans culottes, and Robespierre had gained power and attempted to secularize French life, the rural women of France worked to defend culture and religion, they brought back the catholic church.

Short Summary of the Saddening Second Revolution (a Perversion of the Ideals that originally Catalyzed the French revolution):

• First came the fall of the monarchy with the rapid radicalization of the revolution (note the assonance going on there) with Louis’ imprisonment and the September massacres.
• Next, France was proclaimed a republic in September 1729, with a new revolutionary calendar and democratic festivals (reflects shift in allegiance from the religious to the secular).
• The convention consisted mostly of republican members of the Jacobin club (political club of 3rd estate deputies influenced by Rousseau), but was split between the more conservative Girondists and more radical Mountain led by our good friend Robespierre.

• They convict Louis 16 of treason, and he meets the guillotine.
• France then declares war on other European countries, including Britain and Holland, leading to an unending saga of “coalitions” of enemies.
• The sans culottes, the laboring poor, emerge as a major force. Their interests were mainly economic and they were demanding radical political action to guarantee their bread—> the Mountain joins with this group to engineer a popular uprising handing all power over to the Mountain and catalyzing Robespierre’s creation of the Committee of Public Safety.
• This dictatorial, 1984-esque government also known as “the terror” (think planned economy, draft, unfair trials for enemies of the state) provoked the peasants yet again.

International Involvement:

Why were other leaders foes to the republic of France? 

France is stressing them out

• These leaders, including Leopoldo II of the HRE and King William Frederick of Prussia worried about the French republic becoming too strong and spreading its revolutionary ideas throughout Europe.

Who wanted war and why:

• the republic wanted war to spread its ideals; in fact, the war was often viewed as “a crusade for secular theology”. Also, the republic wanted war for its beneficial side effect of unifying the people.
• the people, with common language and tradition reinforced by popular sovereignty and democracy were pro-war, stirred by common loyalty.
• Louis wanted war because if France lost, the European rulers would likely restore him to his throne as promised in the Declaration of Pillnitz, issued by Austria and Prussia.

us trying to figure out why Louis supported the war

So… is Louis’ execution when they jump the shark?
Or…the split of the national convention and subsequent creation of the Committee of Public Safety?

• “But as the essence of the republic or of democracy is equality, it follows that the love of country necessarily includes the love of equality.”~ Robespierre, as he makes Republic the religion of the state-couldn’t this sound religious, if you replaced republic, country and equality with church, god, and faith?
• “Let the despot govern by terror his brutalized subjects; he is right, as a despot. Subdue by terror the enemies of liberty, and you will be right, as founders of the Republic. The government of the revolution is liberty's despotism against tyranny.” ~ Robespierre, confused, in  need of Caroline for definitions of the above terms and Franny for an exact summary of the initial intent of the French Revolution

• “Above all, one hideous figure grew as familiar as if it had been before the general gaze from the foundations of the world - the figure of the sharp female called La Guillotine. It was the popular theme for jests; it was the best cure for headache, it infallibly prevented hair from turning gray, it imparted a peculiar delicacy to the complexion, it was the National Razor which shaved close: who kissed La Guillotine looked through the little window and sneezed into the sack.”
• ― Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities

February 1, 2016: Chapter 21 – Proactive vs. Reactive & New Calendars & Edmund Burke

August 1789: The National Assembly’s abolishment of feudal privileges and the consequent Declaration of the Rights of Man

Was the abolishment of the feudal privileges and the Declaration of the Rights of Man reactive or proactive? – When the National Assembly abolished the feudal privileges on August 4, 1789, they soon followed with the issuing of the Declaration of the Rights of Man. The revolutionaries in the Assembly who wanted to transform France from a republic to a constitutional monarchy created the Declaration of the Rights of Man, which laid out basic liberties. The Declaration was created for the establishment of freedom of speech and religion and a liberalized government in which people voted on certain things such as priests. This voting was only one example of the secularization of France.

                  Proactive- The Declaration could be considered proactive in that it was trying to make progress, not as much a solution to a common problem.

                  Reactive- The Declaration could also be considered reactive in that it was reacting to the Great Fear and the ravaging of the countryside. The Assembly wanted to do something to placate the crazy peasants before everything went up in flames. Following the same reasoning, one can say that the poor was the elemental force that drove the revolution forward, making things happen.

Why abolish feudal privileges first? – At this time peasants did not have a say and the middle class was not suffering from a lack of food, only caring about social progress, so one must ask why would the Assembly abolish feudal privileges. The Declaration opened the gateway for the people to take power. Without the structurally hierarchy and unfair privileges of the feudal system, the lower classes were more mobile and social mobility increased.

Effects of the Revolution Culture and Trends

There was a clear secularization of culture as seen in the replacement of religious holidays with democratic festivals, the remaking of the calendar and the voting for priests.

                  Democratic festivals replaced religious holidays as to shift power away from religious influences. Such democratic festivals can be likened to the Fourth of July, a patriotic celebration in which feelings of national unity were abundant.

                  The French changed their existing calendar, to a completely new calendar in an attempt to move away from the pre-existing, engrained religious influences. As everything was changing, so was the calendar, in renaming the months to those pertaining to the seasons, and reworking the week. Saints days were taken out of the calendar and the length of the week changed from 7 days (revolving around Sunday, a holy day) to 10 days.

                  The reworking of the geographic districts of France, making 83 equal districts was yet another effect of the revolution. In redistricting the state, the original districts were abolished and the land was divided into 83 even districts. In doing this, the power was taken away from the nobility, as they no longer had power over what was going on (previous districts under feudal structure).

                  The change of people voting for the priests as well as making them state employees, made the church lose even more of its previous power. A democratic method of appointing the bishops and priests were established in addition to set incomes, making the clergy increasingly dependent on the state. In addition to this, the loyalty of the clergy to the state through taking the oath of the civil constitution of the clergy caused a significant loss of clergy.

                                    Nonjuring clergy vs. juring clergy- If a priest or bishop did not take the oath, swearing their loyalty to the state, they became a nonjuring clergy, but if they did take the oath, then they could remain clergy under the new restrictions of the state. The nonjuring clergy no longer had power and had an inability to preach. The church was extremely influential as it always has a way of guiding people and leading people through hard times.

Another heavy influence of the time other than the church was education, or indoctrination centers.

Priests fighting the state by not taking the oath of loyalty to the state. 

Edmund Burke:

Edmund Burke was a conservative leader of the French Revolution.  Burke did not believe that an absolutist ruler is okay, but he believed that the people ruling against the monarchy would lead to chaos. He also believed that the French were throwing the baby out with the bath water, or were trying to get rid of the bad but in doing so, they were getting rid of the good. The vast majority of people in Europe shared this conservative reaction to the French revolution. Particularly the rulers of the other European countries were against the French revolutionary mindset as they saw this uprising as a threat to the security and unity of their own countries, worried that what was happening in France would inspire their own citizens to revolt. 

Domino effect's ability to take down the monarchies of other European nations.

Thank you! 
Love y'all - Franny <3

Tomorrow may be Monday, but at least its not the French Revolution

Hey Guys! Hope you had a good weekend. Here’s a bit of a review of what has been going on:

The class debate: At what point did Louis XVI lose control over France?

France helped the American colonies to win the Revolutionary War, but they were in a huge amount of debt. The French did not have an extremely stable economy from the beginning--they liked to spend a lot of money on Versailles, and their taxes were all placed on the Third Estate, most of whom were extremely poor from paying all those taxes.

To fix the money issue, Louis XVI decided to propose a tax on all property in order to increase revenue to the state-- the nobles and clergy who had never been expected to pay taxes weren’t too keen on this idea. The group pulled out their wild card and said that these tax changes needed the approval of the Estates General, a group of representatives from all three estates that had not met since 1614. (Hint: that was a long time ago) The king took the harsh blow to his absolutist ego and handled it by dismissing the notables that were challenging him and still trying to put his new tax plan into action. 

Louis, vainly trying to pass those taxes

This did not go over well--> the Parlement if Paris declared his actions “null and void” and protests popped up around the country. In July 1788 the Estates General was finally called back to order by the king. A political deadlock ensued between the Third Estate, clergy, and nobility. The Third Estate wanted to meet with the clergy and the nobility all at the same time, and the Third Estate (joined by a few priests) created the National Assembly and sore the Oath of the Tennis Court that demanded they write a new constitution before they disbanded.

The king took some action--> he made a speech that urged reforms and a joint session of all three estates, but also marched his army over to Versailles to dissolve the Estate General through force.

This episode undermined the king’s authority when the absolutist king not only called for a gathering of representatives, but then gave into their demands to have a joint session

"You won't hang, you'll only have to go back home." A quote to exemplify exactly how seriously the people reacted to the troops coming to Versailles. Can't you hear the panic??

Who drove the Revolution forward?

The bourgeoisie fought the political battle for better representation against the clergy and the nobility, while the actual poor population of Third Estate fought the physical battle in the French Revolution. When rumors of the king’s troops attacking the city began to circulate, the peasants rose up and marched to Bastille, took over the prison, and then Paris. After the attack on Bastille, the Great Fear swept through the countryside-- people were undoing the enclosure system, bringing back common lands, seizing forests, neglecting taxes, and rebelling against the rules of the oppressive rules of the rich.

Everyone freaking out in the chaotic countryside

The women of France also proved they were not to be messed with-- a group of women marched to Versailles and demanded the royals be moved to Paris and soon became a major part of the French Rebellion.

Girl power-- gettin us some bread and Marie Antoinette's head

Documents you should know:

• Civil Constitution of the Clergy:
• context of the state becoming stronger
• Divides the church by region and sets strict rules over what positions should be recognized
• bishops, priests and other clergy officials will be elected
• they will take an oath to take care of their diocese
• Set salaries and dwelling contracts will be set up between priests/bishops and the communities they are serving in
• they are also unable to leave for extended periods of time--> this is to prevent the clergy from neglecting their parishes
• This document put the church under the control of the French government
• Declaration of the Rights of man
• compare Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Declaration of Independence 
• “the contempt of the rights of man are the sole cause of public calamities and of the corruption of governments, have determined to set forth in a solemn declaration the natural, unalienable, and sacred rights of man”
• Includes 17 articles outlining the rights of men--> includes innocent until proven guilty, right of speech, protection of property, and a limitation of the government on the peoples’ freedom

Hope this made sense/was helpful and I'll see you all tomorrow!

- Cory

me, realizing tomorrow is Monday

France Levels Up Somewhat

Liberty v. Equality

According to the French liberals of the Revolutionary War, Liberty is the ability "to do anything that does not harm another person," or more specifically is the ability to exert one's natural rights to a freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom from unjustified persecution, and freedom from unreasonable government.

Greek-style political equality of only male landowners, legal equality for all, inequality fine for the most part on economic, gender, and financial matters.
That being said, the people were held sovereign and had the authority to create the laws that limited freedom of action.
Economic inequality based on artificial legal distinctions were criticized by liberals, not economic inequality itself

The logical conclusion to liberal definitions of equality. 

Even though the Revolutionary concept of equality was somewhat primitive, it marked a step in the slow reintroduction of the significance of individual rights to social development.
Where equality was a legal affair limited to public perspectives and law, liberty was the inherent right of all humans to contribute to their social environments and to reap the benefits of living in a community that governments are established to protect.

The importance of contributing to one's Community.
...I have never even seen this show.  

Liberal ideas of liberty and equality were more revolutionary than radical as they were clearly based on classical political philosophies of the Enlightenment as taught by such authorities as Plato and Democratic Grecian leaders. The one radical component to liberal  philosophy was the advocation of science as a measurement of the success of various social systems and arguments.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man
Inspired by the Declaration of Independence
One of the founding documents of the human rights tradition.
Vague, syllogistic argument as to why individual rights are fundamental to successful civil order.
Notable as an attempt at unbiased social commentary that defined the relationship of the individual to their government in the most general terms possible as to be universally applicable.

Financial Mess

Origins in financial difficulties of France as caused by excessive borrowing to fund the American War, caused national debt to soar. So much of the state budget was spent on paying back debts that only a small amount was actually used for productive functions of the state. Completely obsolete financial system had no means of creating inflation and no central bank or means of developing credit. Forced to raise taxes which, given France's social structure's dependence on the financial system, caused the chaos that provoked revolutionary sentiment.

A look into the financial workings of pre-Revolution France.  

Social Divide of France

Three Estates: the first: clergy, the second: nobility, and the third: public.
The Bourgousie - middle class of the third estate - grew rapidly in the 18th century and gained some social power from improved education systems of the time.

Common view of French Revolution was that the Bourgeoisie were tired of feudal laws limiting their increasing power and led the entire third estate in a revolution that established a capitalist order based on individualism and a market economy.

Revisionist view - The Revolution was not caused by divides between the vaguely defined three classes, but rather on internal tensions riddled throughout society.  Reasons that the Bourgeoisie and upper class wouldn't need to fight:

• It was relatively simple for the Bourgeoisie to become a part of the nobility.
• Nobility was just a liberal as Third Estates in support of the Parlement of Paris 
• Nobility and Bourgeoisie did not compete in the same financial spheres 

The real cause of the Revolution was the Old Regime's inability to correspond with social reality. France moving towards a society dependent on wealth and education for it elites, frustrated by continued existence of absolutism and Medieval law.

Dear Readers,

Fortunately, I am not too traumatized from witnessing a woman allow her five-year old child to feed from her breast, so I am still able to do the blog. Someone ship that lady a HooterHider!

Do you think there's really a baby under there?

Children & Education-

What were the attitudes towards children at this time?- It seems that the young child was often of minor concern to its parents & to society int he 18th century. Doctors & clergymen urged parents not to become too emotionally involved with their children, who were so unlikely to survive. It was a vicious cycle: children were neglected because they were very likely to die & they were likely to die because they were neglected. Rousseau called for greater love & tenderness towards children, part of the general growth of humanitarianism.

What about schools & popular literature?- The religious struggles unleashed by the Protestant & Catholic Reformations served as the catalyst in promoting popular literacy. Both Protestant & Catholic reformers pushed reading as a means of instilling their teachings more effectively. Prussia led the way in the development of universal education. Prussia made attendance to elementary school compulsory. The Church of England & the dissenting congregations established “charity schools” to instruct the children of the poor. The major philosophical works of the Enlightenment had little impact on peasants & workers, who could neither afford nor understand those favorites of the book-hungry educated public. The staple of popular literature was short pamphlets known as chapbooks, many dealing wth religious subjects. Entertaining, often humorous stories formed a second element of popular literature. Is this where we get Cinderella, Goldilocks & the 3 Bears, etc.?- yes, escapism was common in the literature of the time. In general, however, the reading of the common people had few similarities with that of educated elites. Popular literature was simple & practical.

Pictured: poor people's wallets.

Food & Medical Practice-

"Food...let's talk about it."- diets & nutrition: Just price was a belief that prices should be “fair,” protecting both consumers & producers & imposed by government decrees. In the 18th century, this traditional, moral view of prices & the economy clashed repeatedly with the emerging free market philosophy of unregulated supply & demand. Bread was quite literally the staff of life. The diet of the rich was traditionally different from that of the poor. There were also regional dietary differences. The poor of England & the Netherlands probably ate best of all. the impact of diet on health: The basic bread & vegetables diet of the poor in normal times was adequate. People of moderate means were best off from a nutritional standpoint. More varied diets associated with new methods of farming were confirmed largely to the Low Countries & England, but a new food, like the potato, came to the aid of the poor everywhere. There was also a general growth of market gardening. Another sign of nutritional decline was the growing consumption of sugar.

Everyone eating in the 18th century.

What was up with medicine? Did they have DayQuil (my fave)?- medical practitioners: There was a great rise in research & experimentation at this time. Care of the sick in the 18th century was the domain of several competing groups: fait healers, apothecaries/pharmacists, physicians, surgeons, & midwives. A demonic view of disease was strongest in the countryside, so faith healing was particularly popular, effective in the treatment of mental disorders such as hysteria & depression. Regular purging of the bowels (aka pooping) was considered essential for good health & treatment of illness. Only bloodletting was more effective in speeding patients to their grave - bloodletting was still considered a medical cure-all. The simplest wound treated by a surgeon could fester & lead to death, however. Following the invention of the forceps, which helped in exceptionally difficult births, surgeon-physicians used their monopoly over this & other instruments to seek lucrative new business, attempting to undermine faith in midwives. Despite this, women remained dominant in the birthing trade. 

Surgeons to midwives.

hospitals & medical experiments: Hospitals were terrible places throughout most of the 18th century. Diderot’s article in the Encyclopedia on the Hôtel-Dieu in Paris, the “richest & most terrifying of all French hospitals,” vividly describes the conditions. Mental hospitals, too, were incredibly savage institutions. The customary treatment for mental illness was bleeding & cold water, administered more to maintain discipline than to effect a cure. William Tuke founded the first humane sanatorium in England. The 18th century’s greatest medical triumph was the conquest of smallpox with the introduction to inoculation. By the later years of the century, smallpox inoculation was playing some part in the decline of the death rate & the general increase in European population. Edward Jenner received monetary prizes from the British government for his great discovery regarding cowpox, a huge advance in the medical world.

Bye bye smallpox!

Religion & Popular Culture-

Are the priests being bad again?- the institutional church: As in the Middle Ages, the local parish church remained the basic religious unit all across Europe. The local church had important administrative tasks. Priests & parsons were truly the bookkeepers of agrarian Europe. As the Reformation gathered force, with peasant upheaval & doctrinal competition, German princes & monarchs in northern Europe put themselves at the head of official churched in their territories & then proceeded to regulate their “territorial churches” strictly. The Reformation, initially so radical in its rejection of Rome & its stress on individual religious experience, eventually resulted in a bureaucratization of the church & local religious life in Protestant Europe. Some Catholic monarchs began to impose striking reforms. These reforms had a very “Protestant” aspect, increasing state control over the Catholic Church, making it less subject to papal influence. A more striking indication of state power & papal weakness was the fate of the Society of Jesus, or Jesuits. The Jesuits eventually elicited a broad coalition of enemies & bitter controversy led Louis XV to order the Jesuits out of France & confiscate their property. France & Spain then pressured Rome to dissolve the Jesuits completely. In 1773, a reluctant pope caved in, although the order was revived after the French Revolution. Some Catholic rulers also believed that the clergy in monasteries & convents should make a more practical contribution to social & religious life. protestant revival: In their attempt to recapture the vital core of Christian religion, the Protestant reformers had rigorously suppressed medieval practices. Such revolutionary changes had often troubled ordinary churchgoers. The Protestant revival began in Germany, known as Pietism, calling for a warm, emotional religion that everyone could experience. Enthusiasm - in prayer, in worship, in preaching, in life itself - was they key concept. Pietism reasserted the earlier radical stress on the priesthood of all believers, thereby reducing the large gulf between the official clergy & the Lutheran laity. Pietists believed in the practical power of Christian rebirth in everyday affairs. Reborn Christians were expected to lead good, moral lives & come from all social classes. Pietism had a major impact on John Wesley, who served as the catalyst for the popular religious revival in England. Wesley organized a Holy Club for students at Oxford, soon known contemptuously as Methodists, extremely methodical in their devotion. Wesley preached in open fields, winning over many & forming a new denomination. catholic piety: The tremendous popular strength of religion in Catholic countries reflected religion’s integral role in community life & popular culture. Inspired initially by the fervor of the Catholic Counter-Reformation & then to some extent by the critical rationalism of the Enlightenment, parish priests & Catholic hierarchies sought increasingly to “purify” popular religious practice. Many Catholic priests & hierarchies preferred a compromise between theological purity & the people’s piety, perhaps realizing that the lien between divine truth & mere superstition is not easily drawn.

Let's discuss leisure & recreation, something us AP Euro girls know nothing about.- The combination of religious celebration & popular recreation seen in festivals & processions was most strikingly displayed at Carnival, a time of reveling & excess in Catholic & Mediterranean Europe. The 18th century saw a sharp increase win the commercialization of leisure-time activities - a trend that continues to this day. Blood sports, such as bullbaiting & cockfighting, remained popular with the masses. With superstition, sin, disorder, & vulgarity, there was an attack on popular culture, intensified as an educated public embraced the critical world-view of the Enlightenment. This shift in cultural attitudes drove a wedge between the common people & the educated public.

Me & Caroline when Yarn said "cockfighting."

xoxo,

Nicole Flo :)

Me when I finished this post.

PS. Mr. Yarnall we should do this at prom, just saying... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkoizWLNkrQ