Essay Questions

1.         "Luther's ideas seemed 'all a jumble' and sure to create chaos. The Peasants' Revolt proves this point."
            Agree and/or disagree with parts or all of the previous statement. Explain evidence that supports your position. Cite reasons that strengthen your views on Luther as cogent or chaotic.
2.          "The Peasants' Revolt was just that: a social-economic-political revolt of the lower classes that only used the turbulence in religion to justify and strengthen the essentially material and non-religious goals."
             Agree and/or disagree with parts or all of the previous statement. Cite evidence, use arguments, to support your position.
3.                How does Defoe's Crusoe address the questions, issues and critiques of colonialism?  Using specific examples from the book (many, dv), would you argue that Defoe is promoting "Olde School" English Colonialism in a clearly positive way? Or not? Or does the book present an ambiguous and/or uncertain answer to this question? Please luxuriate in your creative use of the book, specific and to-the-point evidence, and clearly state conclusions, even IF you support the ambiguous conclusion. Clear ambiguity, please!

4.           What connections, developments, influences, results do you see, in terms of Enlightenment ideals, between Candide and Crusoe? This is a very 'wide' question, so consider it thoughtfully. Further, what aspects appear unconnected to you? In other words, how do these two books differ in the Enlightenment context?
                Please be as specific as you can in all your responses. Cite dialogue or description, e.g., from Candide about El Dorado's perfect world-mindset versus a Crusoe (inner perhaps?) dialogue or description that shows similarities and/or differences as you see and explain these comparisons. )Probably every chapter of each book has its counterpart in the other....) Explain clearly the issues and relationship to the examples in detail, and thank you for that.

5. One explanation for the amazing success in the modern world of England (and of its derivatives, the Commonwealth and the U.S.) has to do with the yeoman concept. In what ways does the Crusoe book exhibit yeoman virtues/values? What characters in the book seem to represent the 'anti-yeoman' type and so stand as a critique to anything opposed to these yeoman characteristics? Is there any counter-arguments or counter-evidence to this thesis? Please present these and then balance the two sides, and conclude.

6. The motto of the Enlightenment, said Kant, was Sapere Aude. Explain as fully as you can, with examples of enlightenment figures and their writings, what Kant meant by that motto. Do you think the elements, ideals and participants of the Scientific Revolution fits well into a Kant-Context? Or not? Please explain.

7. What did Voltaire attack, precisely? Implying, what did he favor? Summing up these precise targets, what generality seems to be drawing most of his attacks? What ultimate answer did Voltaire give to solve the problems in society that he faced?

8. As a 'castaway-novel,' is Crusoe anti-society (like Rousseau's Emile (where the natural brings out the good and builds) or,  pro-civilization (like a Hobbesian Lord of the Flies where the natural brings out the bad and destroys)? In other words, to take the above further, is Crusoe an "Enlightenment" book? Cite dialogue and events in the book to support your views.

9. Which passage or Episode (One Scene or even a single Incident in a Series) is Central to Candide, to the point or meaning of the story? What single chapter represents the whole best? Explain that chapter in depth, and show its connections to the other chapters and ideas in Candide.
   

IDENTIFICATION   TERMS

         One student has asked: "What sort of response will effectively deal with the short-answer or Identification Terms?"

To do well on each term requires  A.) definition; B.) placement in a historical context; C.) an explanation of one historical significance. So for example, the following response to the term, Council of Trent, the following 'Aces' it:

A.) The Council of Trent was a general council of the 16th-century Catholic Church which responded to the Protestant Reformation.

B.) The council at first attempted to find an understanding with Luther's movement and ideas but moved from that to a reform of the church, particularly addressing the problems, e.g., sola scriptura, that Protestants had with Catholicism.

C.) When the nearly 20-year council ended, it had set the Catholic Church on a set path for the next 400 years. This path was one simplifying practices that had grown in the medieval era and re-affirming the twin principles of the early Catholic Church:  1.) biblical authority; 2.) the church's traditional authority (councils, papal decrees, past authorities like St Augustine, etc) which included an on-going and growing power of the papacy.

Observation: Of course we could raise various quibbles with this response, but as a short answer it would get a 10-out-of-10 from me because of its accurate definition, historical context and details, and it provided one very significant result of the council. One is enough.

Quibbles? One might cite the example of Palestrina's simplification of Church music in his Pope Marcellus Mass (which came up in class), or the example of the Jesuits as a support to growing papal power, or St Teresa's own very ordered yet mystical life.

But as it stands, these four sentences are enough for a 10 out of 10. Identification Terms (nouns=person, place, thing or idea) will be drawn from material that we have BOTH heard in class AND appears in your reading. As the answer above suggests, incorporating both secondary and primary sources is the best way to respond.

NOTE:

        So, the point is that no one answer is the only best answer.   On the other hand, all best answers respond with some precise ideas, details and explain a larger historical significance in the response.

       All these questions (ID and Essay) are open-ended (i.e., no 'answer book'), so construct your arguments with your own thought, back them up with much evidence, explain how that evidence supports your line of thinking, then conclude clearly even if you do present two or more sides to the inquiry. Your thinking, and your expression of it, matters more than any particular conclusion. So, please, gain depth through the use of the sources.