Deze samenvatting omvat alle readings van History of the Modern World since 1750 voor zowel het eerste als het tweede tentamen. Ik heb zelf een 7.4 gemiddeld gehaald met behulp van deze uitgebreide samenvatting.
This summary contains the readings of History of the Modern World since 1750' for both ...
The first few pages are good (because that's what is shown in the preview) but the other pages are poorly worded and at times incomplete.
By: florekukolj • 3 year ago
Translated by Google
There is a lot of information missing in chapters, and it says read on. ,
By: lottelensink • 3 year ago
By: salahsolo • 3 year ago
Show more reviews
Seller
Follow
bentelodeweges
Reviews received
Content preview
History of the Modern World since 1750.
Chapter 1. The rise of Europe.
Roughly between the centuries 1500 and 1900, Europe radically transformed itself
and also affected other societies and cultures in America, Africa and Asia. The
ascendancy of Europe reached its zenith with the colonial empires at the beginning
of the twentieth century, since then the position of Europe became less important.
Party because of conflicts and also because the other countries became more
dominant.
Chapter 8. The age of enlightenment.
The eighteenth century, or to be precise the least years of that century preceding
the French Revolution of 1789, is known as the Age of Enlightenment. The past
was generally regarded as barbarism in which people didn’t know anything. The
leading ideas of the Enlightenment - science, optimistic believe in reason, education,
social reform, tolerance and enlightened government - have been constant themes
in the modern world.
35. The Philosophers - and others
There had never been an age in which Europeans were so skeptical towards
tradition, so confident in the powers of human reason and of science. There was
faith in progress: a believe that the conditions of human life become better as
time goes on.
Understanding the human mind also became more popular; extreme skepticism, but
not a skeptical outlook, was rejected. Educated people were less likely to be
superstitious (bijgelovig) and terrified by the unknown. ‘Modern’ people not only
ceased to fear the devil, but also to fear God. They compared God to a
Watchmaker: a watch could not exist without a watchmaker, just as the world. Not
everyone agreed with these religious ideas. The first half of the eighteenth century
was also a time for continuing religious fervor.
- John Wesley and methodism: Wesley and others took to ‘itinerant’
(rondreizend) preaching, often to immense crowds in open fields. Such movements
had an democratizing effect and emphasized the individual worth and spiritual
consciousness.
1. F.A. Mesmer: kinda discovered hypnosis, with using small rooms or ‘animal
magnetism’.
2. Freemasonry: was more in the mainstream of the new intellectual culture. The
Masons were generally persons who held typical Enlightenment views. (progress,
tolerance, reason, etc.) but they secretly met, in an atmosphere of mystery.
Being ‘philosophical’ in the eighteenth century meant to approach any subject in a
critical and inquiring spirit. The word Philosphe is used for a group of writers who
were not philosophers in the sense of treating ultimate questions about for instance
existence, but they were social or literal critics and publicists. It was through the
Philosophes that the ideas of the Enlightenment spread. This stimulated and was
stimulated by the expanding of the reading public. The style of the eighteenth
,century became fluent, clear and exact; it became public literature. As a result that
people also began to talk of ‘public opinion’. Nevertheless the writings were
affected by the social conditions, they were almost all written under censorship.
Paris was the heart of the Enlightenment. Also because of the big reading
public, which contained a lot of women. Well-read women who hosted ‘salons’ that
became well-organized meeting places for well-read people.
The most famous of all philosophers were the French trio: Montesquieu (1689-
1755), Voltaire (1694-1778) and Rousseau (1712-1778). All thought that the
existing state of society could be improved.
• Montesquieu: In his great work ‘The Spirit of Laws’ (1748) he developed two
ideas:
• The first was that the forms of the government varied according to climate and
circumstances. For example that democracy would only work in small-city states.
• The other idea was aimed against the French absolutism (which he called
despotism). It was the separation and balance of powers. TRIAS POLITICA. A
separation of the functions of the executive (uitvoerende macht), legislature
(wetgevende macht) and judiciary (rechtsprekende macht). Well known in the
Constitution of the United States (1787).
2. Voltaire: the easiest of all writers to read. Made his readers laugh, but was also
critical. Voltaire was mainly interested in the freedom of thought. Like Montesquieu
he was an admirer of England. What Voltaire mainly admired in England was its
religious liberty (which he later really fought for), tolerance for diverse ideas,
freedom of speech, relative freedom of the press and respect for educated people.
Voltaire was in matters of politics and self-government neither a liberal nor a
democrat. He had no developed political theory, but his ideal for large civilized
countries was that of enlightened or rational despotism. Believing that only a few
could be enlightened, he thought leaders and the elite should have the power.
3. Rousseau: was very different. Original from a lower-class. In contrast to
Montesquieu and Voltaire he had no status nor money etc. Rousseau thought the
society was artificial (kunstmatig) and corrupt. In two ‘discourses’ he argued that
civilization was of much more evil than life in ‘a state of nature’ if that could be
possible. According to him all people would be far more equal in such conditions. To
Rousseau good habits were product of nature rather than the social progress
modern civilizations. He was religious by temperament. He became the ‘man of the
feeling’ the ‘child of nature’. He was the forerunner of the romanticism.
In the Social Contract (1762) Rousseau held that the state of nature was a brutish
condition without law or morality. He said that good people could only be produced
by an improved society. For instance John Locke thought of the contract as an
agreement between a ruler and people. Rousseau thought of it as an agreement
among the people themselves. The individual wills were fused into a General Will
and the rulings of this General Will were final. This General Will was the sovereign,
government was secondary. Rousseau stood for a mix of democracy and
nationalism.
Physiocrats: in France. These people were close to the government as
administrators or advisors. These men concerned themselves with the tax etc. in
France. The Physiocrats were the first to use the term ‘laissez-faire’ (let them do
,as they see fit) as a principle of economic activity. They favored strong government,
but they wanted this government to make sure new industries could be built.
In England, Adam Smith’s purpose, like that of the French physiocrats, was to
increase the national wealth by the reduction of barriers that hindered its growth.
Adam Smith preferred to limit the functions of the government. He didn’t have much
believe in the government, more in private persons.
Enlightened despotism is hard to define because it grew out of earlier forms of
absolutism. Enlightened despotism was secular (wereldlijk, scheiding van staat en
religie) it claimed no instruction from heaven and no special responsibility to
God/church. A typical enlightened despot favored toleration in religion, this didn’t
always work out because of the older absolutism. They also wanted to be rational
and a reformist. The typical enlightened monarch wanted to reconstruct the state by
the use of reason. This new way of leading had negative followings for the
‘feudalism’ (leenstelsel). Because the enlightened despot was less willing to
compromise. The new monarchs acted abruptly in desire of quick results. The will of
the people became more important due to enlightened despotism.
The trend to enlightened despotism owed a great deal to writers and philosophers,
but also to the great wars of the mid-eighteenth century.
Enlightened absolutism refers to the conduct and policies of European absolute
monarchs during the 18th and 19th centuries who were influenced by the ideas of
the Enlightenment, espousing them to enhance their power. The concept originated
during the Enlightenment period in the 18th and into the early 19th centuries.
An enlightened despot is a non-democratic or authoritarian leader who exercises its
political power for the benefit of the people, rather than exclusively for themselve or
elites.
- The enlightened despotism had the least success in France. Louis XV decided,
based on his own feelings and experiences. Yet the French government was not
unenlightened. The biggest problem for the French government was the lack of
money. They had a lot of taxes, but a lot of the wealthy people included the church
didn’t pay the taxes. As result the French government was systematically poor.
All the clashes in France at the end of the eighteenth century led to the French
Revolution.
- Austria existed of a loose bundle of territories without a common purpose or will.
But the war of the 1740s made Austria stronger. Their reign Maria Theresa led
Austria to internal consolidation of the empire. Hungary was at first left alone
and all of the different territories were combined into one Austria. SERFDOM??
Maria Theresa’s son Joseph II had little patient with her methods. Joseph II wanted
to improve the situation for the people, he was enlightened. Maria Theresa had
regulated serfdom, Joseph II abolished it. He also wanted absolute equality of
taxation. Joseph granted complete liberty of the press and tolerated several
religions. In order to enhance his power Joseph had to centralize his state. He was
more radical than his mother: he annexed Hungary. He chose one language:
German.
, - In Prussia, Frederick the Great led for 23 years. He also was an enlightened
despot. He protected religious freedom and he wanted education for all children of
all classes. But social classes still mattered a lot in Prussia, for instance each group
paid different taxes.
37. Enlightened despotism: Russia
Russia didn’t keep up for a long time with the previous countries. Reasons are that
Russia played no part in the intellectual revolution of the seventeenth century and
the early desire for development. Even though no Russian enlightened thinker was
known in Europe, European thinkers were known in Russia. Russia absorbed the
French culture.
THE REST OF THIS CHAPTER
Chapter 9. The French Revolution.
41. Social and Cultural Backgrounds
The essential fact about the Old Regime was that is was still legally democratic and
in some ways feudal. Everyone belongs to a certain ‘estate’ or ‘order’. There were
three estates:
• Clergy
• Nobility
• Everyone else
The church was deeply involved in the prevailing social system. But the church and
clergy have been much exaggerated as the cause of the Revolution.
The noble order relived after the death of Louis XIV in 1715.
The Bourgeoisie, the upper crust of the third estate, had never been this powerful.
The Agrarian System of the Old Regime contained less serfdom than for instance in
Eastern Europe. The manor (landhuis) still retained certain surviving privileges of
the feudal age. During the eighteenth century, because of the resurgence of the
aristocracies, a phenomenon occurred: called ‘the feudal reaction’. The rich people
wanted more money. But the peasant farmers became more powerful and
independent, so they didn’t want to pay. This made this relation no longer useful.
The Enlightenment thought had provided a language in which people could complain
about their dissatisfaction. It is said that the Revolution of 1789 was a direct cause
of the writings of the philosphes. This is not entirely true; the philosophe wanted
enlightened social reform, but they weren’t revolutionaries. They also rarely
promoted (except Rousseau) the political rights to the lower class.
42. The Revolution and the Reorganization of France
The Revolution was encouraged by a financial collapse of the government. Which
collapsed because of the high war costs, these costs could not be carried because
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bentelodeweges. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $6.95. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
