Culture Wars in the Age of Enlightenment - Bowdoin College

Culture Wars in the Age of Enlightenment
History 271/2061
Fall 2012 Prof. Meghan Roberts
Sills 109 Hubbard 13
M/W 8:00-9:25 Office hours: Thursday 9-11 am
and by appointment
The Enlightenment is sometimes called the “Age of Reason,” an ill-fitting title that not only
makes it seem like human beings first discovered the value of reason during the eighteenth
century but also gives the impression that Enlightenment thinkers conducted themselves in a
purely dispassionate fashion. This was not the case. Seventeenth- and eighteenth-century
intellectuals engaged in heated disputes with each other, their critics, and the public. This
course examines a series of these productive disagreements both within and without the socalled
Republic of Letters. Topics include: who had the right to engage in intellectual work;
the rise of atheistic thinking; the development of new scientific methods; and attempts to
define and redefine government, gender, and race.
Readings required for purchase:
**Draft**
The Enlightenment: A Brief History with Documents, ed. Margaret Jacob
The Portable Enlightenment Reader, ed. Isaac Kramnick
Ken Alder, The Measure of All Things: The Seven-Year Odyssey and Hidden Error that Transformed the
World
Course requirements:
Participation
Although this is a lecture course, nearly every class will involve some class discussion. This
will only be successful if all students are active and informed participants in discussion. Before
each class, reflect on the reading and think about what you would like to discuss. For primary
sources, consider: what was the historical actor arguing, and why? What does this document
tell you about the methods, values, and assumptions of the time? For secondary source, ask
yourself: what is the historian’s argument? Why does that argument matter? Is the argument
convincing? Why or why not? If you prefer, you can post your comments and questions on
the Lore site. If class participation is difficult for you, please come see me.
Participation rubric:
A= Frequent participation in class or on Lore in a manner that shows you have
a keen understanding of the reading and historical context, and that facilitates a
dialogue with your peers.
B= Regular participation in class or on Lore in a manner that shows you did the
reading.
C= Sporadic participation in class or on Lore, or participation that does not
demonstrate that you did the reading.
D = Little to no participation in class or on Lore.

**Draft**
Assignments
Summaries: I will often ask you to write a 150-word summary of the day’s reading. These
should be given to me in class, with the word count noted at the end of the text. These
summaries are not analytical but are instead a quick articulation of the main point or
argument of the reading. The point of this exercise is twofold: first, to teach you to process
large quantities of information and to identify the most important components of that body of
knowledge and, second, to help you learn to write in clear and concise prose without excess
language. These are graded with a √+, √, or √-
Papers: You will write two papers for this class. The first is a five page biographical sketch of a
historical actor. The goal of this assignment is to use the genre of biography to better
understand broad themes in history: how is this person a product of their time? You will also
present your findings to the class; see below. The paper will be due on the day you give your
oral presentation.
The second paper is a six to eight page paper. You will choose a controversial and/or
popular issue and will explore the historical context of that issue. Consider: Why did your
subject attract so much attention? Was it controversial? Why or why not? What does this tell
you about eighteenth-century history? How do these debates continue to resonate today? The
topic is of your choosing, although I urge caution about taking on more than you can handle
in a paper of this length. A narrow focus — e.g., wigs, cosmetics, coffee, lightning rods, female
skeletons — is generally most successful. I encourage you to meet with me to discuss your
paper topic well in advance. The Kramnick reader would be a good place to scavenge for
sources, as would the Internet History Sourcebook available at http://www.fordham.edu/
halsall/mod/modsbook.asp
Each student has three extension days to apply to these papers at their discretion. If
you want to use an extension day, please simply turn in a hard copy of the assignment as well
as an email attachment. Note the number of extension days you used on the cover page.
I focus on the following categories when grading written work: your argument, the
evidence you use to support it, the structure of your paper, and the quality of your prose. See
the rubric for more details.
All papers should be in 12-point font and double-spaced. Please include a cover letter
that answers the following questions in one or two sentences each: 1) What is the argument of
your paper? 2) What do you like best about the paper? 3) What worries you the most about
your paper?
Paper rubric:
A. As defined by the College, an A student “has mastered the material of the course
and has demonstrated exceptional critical skills and originality.” An A paper is thus an
outstanding piece of historical analysis. The paper has a persuasive argument that
demonstrates the author’s own take on a historical problem and is well-founded in primary
and secondary sources. The argument is introduced early in the paper and is developed in
successive paragraphs. The prose is sophisticated, clear, and fluid. The structure of the paper
showcases the student’s argument. The paper exceeds my expectations for what a student
might accomplish with a given assignment.

B. Bowdoin stipulates that a B student is one who “has demonstrated a thorough and
above average understanding of the material of the course.” A B paper is a good piece of
historical analysis. The paper has a solid argument, but it might be less original or have a
shakier evidentiary foundation than those in the A category. The prose is clear and free of
major grammatical problems. The paper is well-organized and proceeds in logical fashion. It
somewhat exceeds and/or meets my expectations for what a student could accomplish with a
given assignment.
C. The College considers a C student to be one who “has demonstrated a thorough and
satisfactory understanding of the material of the course.” A C paper is an average piece of
historical analysis that might have one or more of the following problems. The paper might
have an argument, but it is not grounded in primary and/or secondary sources. The prose
might also be clunky, grammatically incorrect, or hard to follow. The organization might
hinder the clarity of the argument. The paper meets or falls somewhat short of my
expectations.
D. Bowdoin defines a D student as one who “has demonstrated a marginally
satisfactory understanding of the basic material of the course.” A D paper is a completed
assignment that shows some understanding of the course material, but has significant
problems with argument, evidence, and prose.
Oral presentation: You will tell the class about the historical figure who comprised the subject of
your first paper. Your presentation should provide enough background on the individual so
that your classmates know who/what you’re talking about, but you don’t want to get lost in
the details. The most important part of your presentation is the significance of your figure:
what their life tells historians about the time in which they lived. Your presentation should
have an argument, and it should be the same argument featured in your paper. You will be
graded on the clarity of your presentation and how engagingly you present your material. The
presentation should be five to ten minutes long. Costumes, props, and slides are encouraged
but are not required.
Final exam: There will be an open-note, take-home final exam which will be due on December
14 at 12:00 (noon). I will only change the due date for the final if you have three exams within
a two day period or if I receive notification from your dean.
The exam will have three parts: identifications, quotations, and an essay. In the
identification section, I want you to only spend one or two sentences identifying the person,
term, or event. The bulk of your response should consider significance: how you can connect
that particular term to a host of historical issues and themes. The quotations will showcase
your skills at analyzing primary sources, and the essay will involve making a concise and clear
historical argument. Although the final is at the end of the class, I encourage you to think
about it throughout so that your notes will be useful to you.
Grading scale:
92-100: A
90-91: A-
88-89: B+
82-87: B
80-81: B-
**Draft**
78-79: C+
72-77: C
70-71: C-
60-70: D
59 and below: F

Grade distribution:
Participation: 20%
Summaries: 10%
Paper #1: 15%
Paper #2 : 25%
Oral presentation: 10%
Final exam: 20%
Athletics: Please let me know if and when you will miss class, as well as how you plan to make
up missed work.
Academic Integrity: All students must adhere to the Academic Honor and Social Code (http://
www.bowdoin.edu/studentaffairs/student-handbook/college-policies/index.shtml) Failure to
do so may result in referral to the Judicial Board.
NB: You must complete all assignments in order to receive credit for this course.
Class Meetings and Assignments
September 3: What is the Enlightenment, and why does it matter?
September 5: Community, civility, and conflict in the Republic of Letters
Reading: Steven Shapin, “The House of Experiment in Seventeenth-Century
England,” Isis 79, pp. 373-404, available via JSTOR; César Dumarsais,
“Definition of a Philosophe,” in Kramnick, pp. 21-23.
Questions: How would you describe the pursuit of science and philosophy in the
seventeenth century? How were they alike, and how were they different? How
did philosophes define their fellow citizens in the Republic of Letters?
Part I: Reforming Religion and Morality
September 10: Religion and the Enlightenment
Reading: Treatise of the Three Impostors in Jacob, pp. 94-114; John Locke, A Letter
Concerning Toleration in Kramnick, pp. 81-90; Isaac Newton, “The Argument for
a Deity,” in Kramnick, pp. 96-100; Baron d’Holbach, “No Need of
Theology...Only of Reason,” in Kramnick, pp. 140-150.
Questions: How would you characterize the various religious positions of these
authors? What sort of argument are they making? How do they define the
relationship between religion and reason? Who is their intended audience?
September 12: The limits of toleration? Jews and the Enlightenment
Reading: Moses Mendelssohn, Jerusalem: Or on Religious Power and Judaism, in Jacob,
pp. 208-219; Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Nathan the Wise, pp. 23-75, available
via e-reserve.
Questions: How do Mendelssohn and Lessing define the ideal relationship between
religion, reason, and the state? How do they build upon the readings from the
last class, and how do they differ from them?
September 17: Love, marriage, and celibacy
**Draft**

Reading: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Julie, or the New Héloïse, pp. 25-49, 118-146, 279-301,
available via e-reserve
Questions: What do you think of the characters, especially Julie and St. Preux? What
is the moral message of this novel? Why did this novel acquire a huge and
devoted readership?
September 19: Torture and capital punishment
Reading: Cesare Beccaria, An Essay on Crimes and Punishments, in Kramnick, pp.
525-532; Jeremy Bentham, “Cases unmeet for punishment….”, in Kramnick,
pp. 541-546; Lynn Hunt, Inventing Human Rights, pp. 70-112, available via
e-reserve. Summary of Hunt due.
Questions: Why did many learned individuals come to oppose torture and
punishment? What did they propose as new methods of social control?
Part II: Unlocking Nature’s Secrets
September 24: Natural history
Reading: Jay Smith, Monsters of the Gévaudan, pp. 1-6, 27-59, available via e-reserve;
Comte de Buffon, “The Rat,” in Kramnick, pp. 60-63.
Questions: What topics and questions seemed to fascinate eighteenth-century
naturalists and readers, and why? How would you describe Buffon’s methods
and his style of writing?
September 26: What is life?
Reading: Julien Offray de la Mettrie, Man a Machine, in Kramnick, pp. 202-209 ;
Jessica Riskin, “The Defecating Duck: Or, the Ambiguous Origins of Artificial
Life, Critical Inquiry (Summer 2003) Vol. 29, No. 4, pp. 599-633, available via
JSTOR.
Questions: Are Mettrie’s text and Riskin’s duck just strange outliers, or do they tell
you something profound about the Enlightenment? What are the moral and
philosophical implications of humans being machines, or machines seeming
alive?
October 1: Sex, race, and gender
Reading: Londa Schiebinger, The Mind Has No Sex?, pp. 160-213, available via
‘ e-reserve; Mary Wollstonecraft, Vindication of the Rights of Woman, in Kramnick,
pp. 618-628; Denis Diderot, Supplement to Bougaineville’s Voyage, in Jacob, pp.
160-176. Summary of Schiebinger due.
Questions: How did eighteenth-century savants rethink the nature of race and sex?
How did they make their arguments, and why is this significant?
October 3: midterm
October 8: Fall break
**Draft**
October 10: The Oxygen Combat and Mesmerism

Reading: Marquis de Condorcet, “Utility of Science,” in Kramnick, pp. 64-69; Joseph
Priestley, “Organization of Scientific Research,” in Kramnick, pp. 69-73;
Jessica Riskin, Science in the Age of Sensibility, pp. 189-225, available via
e-reserve.
Questions: How do natural philosophers distinguish real science from fake science at
the end of the eighteenth century? What does a real scientist look like? How
has this changed from the seventeenth century (i.e., the Shapin article we read
at the beginning of class)?
Part III: Rethinking Society
**Draft**
October 15: Happiness, optimism, and progress
Reading: Denis Diderot, Rameau’s Nephew, selected pages OR Voltaire, Candide,
selected pages. I will split the class in half, with one half reading Voltaire and
the other Diderot.
Questions: How would you describe Diderot and Voltaire’s take on optimism and
progress? Were these texts what you expected of Enlightenment philosophers?
Why or why not?
October 17: Education, or how to form the ideal citizen
Reading: Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Emile, in Kramnick, pp. 229-235 and pp. 568-579;
Julia Douthwaite, The Wild Girl, Natural Man, and the Monster, pp. 134-160,
available via e-reserve. Summary of Douthwaite due.
Questions: Why was education so important to eighteenth-century thinkers? What
does the Douthwaite text tell you about the social impact of pedagogical
theory?
October 22: Freemasons
Reading: Margaret Jacob, Living the Enlightenment, pp. 52-95, available via e-reserve;
images on pp. 23, 36 in Jacob.
Questions: Why did so many individuals choose to gather in lodges and participate in
these ceremonies? Why could this be upsetting to many secular and religious
leaders?
October 24: In-class viewing of Mozart’s The Magic Flute
Reading: None!
October 29: Inoculation
Reading: Harry Marks, “When the State Counts Lives,” pp. 51-64 in Body Counts:
Medical Quantification in Historical and Sociological Perspective, available as an
electronic book through the library; Voltaire, Letters concerning the English Nation,
in Jacob, pp. 114-137, Lady Wortley Montagu, Letters, in Jacob, pp. 137-138,
152-153.
Questions: Why did people hesitate to inoculate? What methods did writers use to
persuade the public? What is the broader significance of those methods?

October 31: Enlightening the economy
Reading: Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees, in Kramnick, pp. 242-254; François
Quesnay, Physiocratic Formula, in Kramnick, pp. 496-502; Adam Smith, On the
Wealth of Nations, in Kramnick, pp. 505-515; Ken Alder, Engineering the
Revolution, pp. 221-249, available via e-reserve.
Questions: What makes economies grow, and what should be done to foster that
growth? How did new ideas about interchangeability and division of labor
revolutionize industry?
November 5: Government
Reading: John Locke, Second Treatise, in Kramnick, pp. 395-404; Jean-Jacques
Rousseau, Social Contract, in Kramnick, pp. 430-441; Thomas Paine, Common
Sense, in Kramnick, pp. 442-448; Frederick the Great, “Benevolent Despotism,”
in Kramnick, pp. 452-459; Immanuel Kant, “What is Enlightenment?” in
Kramnick, pp. 202-208.
Questions: What separates a legitimate government from an illegitimate one? Using
Locke, Rousseau, and Paine, can you tell a story of change over time? How do
all of these authors define the ideal relationship between Enlightenment and
government?
November 7: Smuggling slander
Reading: Robert Darnton, “The High Enlightenment and the Low Life of Literature in
Pre-Revolutionary France,” Past and Present (1971) Vol. 51, No. 1, pp. 81-115,
available via JSTOR; Memoirs of Madame the Comtesse du Barry, pp. 337-389,
available via e-reserve.
Questions: What is the significance of Grub Street? How damaging would a
publication like the Memoirs be? How would you assess its impact?
November 12: Peer review workshop for paper #2
November 14: Paper #2 due. In-class viewing of Beaumarchais l’insolent
Reading: None
Part IV: Translating Ideas into Social Reality
November 19: The meter: a revolutionary measurement
Reading: Ken Alder, Measure of All Things, pp. 1-67.
Questions: Why the meter? Why during a Revolution?
November 21: Thanksgiving break
November 26: The meter and the Terror
Reading: Ken Alder, Measure of All Things, pp. 69-105, 125-159.
Questions: What obstacles did our intrepid astronomers face, and what does that tell
you about the practice of science at this time? Summary of Alder due.
November 28: The mistake that is the meter
**Draft**

Reading: Ken Alder, Measure of All Things, pp. 291-350.
Question: What is the significance of the “hidden error” mentioned in the book’s title?
December 3: Pacifism and total war
Reading: Benjamin Franklin, “There was never…” in Kramnick, pp. 550-551;
Immanuel Kant, “Perpetual Peace,” pp. 552-559; David Bell, The First Total
War, pp. 52-83, available via e-reserve. Summary of Bell due.
Question: What is the relationship between pacifism and total war?
December 5: Review session for final exam
**Draft**
Final exam will be due via email on December 14 at noon.