Question 1: According to your reading and the examples in the slides, what are some of the characteristic features of (a) Mannerism and (b) the Baroque?

Characteristics of Mannerism and Baroque usually include dramatic changes of the light, and climactic postures and expressions on the humans. Peoples bodies will often also be elongated, and their faces will be detailed and striking to show off the anguish or despair someone is experiencing.

Question 2: Describe Peter the Great’s program for Russia.

Peter the Great had been very inspired by western culture, and therefore tried to integrate more of it into Russia. He forced Russians to follow Western fashion, such as forcing men to cut their hair and beards short. He also created a large military, imitating and trying to intimidate the Western armies.

Question 3: What did Frederick William accomplish?

Frederick ruled over Prussia from 1713 to 1740. At the time France was repealing the Edict of Nantes, forcing many Protestants to flee. Frederick took advantage of this, encouraging the fleeing Protestants (as well as other religious minorities such as Jews) to come and settle in Prussia. Many did, and Frederick was able to expand his army as well as add a substantial growth to the economy.

Prompt:  “Price controls are people controls.”

 

Price controls are people controls, because they don’t give the people or the business any say in the pricing of a product. In a natural uncontrolled economy the business decides the price of a product by comparing it to other business’s with similar products, and adjusting their prices to compete for the customers attention. The business that can sell the most products for the cheapest amount is where the majority of consumers are looking to buy. Then that business needs to get popular enough to maintain these cheap deals and keep the cycle going, slowly maturing their trade empire through good decisions and competitive growth.

But price controls stifle this competition, instead relying on the government to know every aspect of economical commerce. Its a biased system that favors corporate industry and muddles the prospective futures of small shops and startup businesses. In our lessons this week I learnt of the GM bankruptcy in 2009. GM had acquired nearly 200 billion in dept, and ended up having to declare bankruptcy. The state stepped in, loaning GM around 50 billion dollars. 11 billion of this was taken from tax payers, and the stockholders of GM lost nearly all their holdings. The reason I bring this up is it shows the disruption of natural economical growth price controls and corporate bias bring into business. GM was at the top of its popularity around the late 60’s, customer satisfaction made it big. Then, either because of poor decision making or a downgrade in quality GM’s popularity began decreasing. In an uncontrolled system GM would naturally go out of business, but because its the state and not the customer deciding who stays in business GM was given a second chance. A second chance made possible by disapproving tax payers and stockholders anyway.

Business is supposed to be a consenting, cooperative exchange between seller and buyer. Its supposed to evolve and adapt to the changing market, and those who don’t adapt need to go out of business. This sets the stage for a better business to rise up and take the former’s place. When the state acts as a omnipotent hand of law and takes charge of who thrives and who crumbles in the economy, financial bias and manipulation is sure to take root. And when this happens you end up with the greediest, most manipulating money grubbers as the financially prosperous. The lying cheating fat cats of business are the ones who manage to snake to the top. They figure out the algorithm, and don’t care who they hurt or tear down in the process of climbing up the ladder. If corporate monsters are able to buy bias from the government, so much so that even when they’re broke the state is willing to lend a hand, we’ll find ourselves surrounded by a select number of unstoppable company’s. Young soulful businesses will find it harder and harder to grow, and the 10% will continue to build their hoard of wealth while smaller enterprises get left in the dust.

Prompt: “Was Lady Macbeth correct? ‘What’s done is done.'”

 

The story of Macbeth tells of a brave and honest nobleman who is given a prophecy by three witches. They tell Macbeth that he shall be king, and tell his companion Banquo that he will bring about the next line of kings. Macbeth sends a letter of this news to his wife, and both their minds quickly begin to drift towards treason. Macbeth arrives home, and Lady Macbeth encourages her husband to take action and do away with the current ruler. Macbeth is hesitant at first, but with his wife’s persuasion he gives in and kills the king. He frames the guards, who are executed, then takes his spot on the throne.

Now murder for political power was extremely common in Scotland at the time. Many kings would be murdered by their siblings or cousins, or anyone else who was in line for the throne. So rulers would live their life in a haze of paranoia, constantly checking over their shoulder to make sure their family wasn’t planning their assassination. Macbeth begins to experience this paranoia, and when the Thane of Fife Macduff doesn’t show up to his inauguration Macbeth gets suspicious. Because of this suspicion (and the lingering envy Macbeth feels towards Macduff’s ability to spawn offspring), Macbeth sends an assassin to murder Macduff’s wife and children. Macbeth is also worried about the second half of the prophecy coming true, which says Banquo’s children will inherent the throne. So he murders Banquo, and also tries but fails to kill Banquo’s son.

After all this murder Macbeth understandably is feeling pretty guilty, and this is where his wife’s mantra “Whats done is done” first appears in the play. Now on first glance this may seem like an obviously true statement. Actions that have been preformed cannot be undone, we cant go back in time and change things. But in context with the play this statement only acts as an excuse for sin. Its what Lady Macbeth uses to convince her husband: “‘Nah you shouldn’t feel guilty for murder. Stabbed and old man, an old friend and a few hardly associated kids? Psssh, why should you care? Your political power is flourishing! Keep it up! Take a chill pill conscience.” (Not an actual quote from the play).

But not surprisingly Macbeth’s conscience did not take a chill pill. In fact both Macbeth’s and Lady Macbeth’s consciences were about as far from chill as they could be. Lady Macbeth begins sleep walking, talking, and unconsciously going over the murders in her mind. She rubs her hands together in her sleep, as if she is washing them. Then she complains that no matter how hard she tries she cant seem to wash the blood from her hands. She sleep writes letters about the murders, and talks with herself about how terrible and yet necessary the murders were. Throughout these sleep walking scenes she continuously uses the phrase “What’s done cannot be undone.” Her lady in waiting calls the doctor to take a look at her, and the doctor says that she suffers not from disease but from sin. He says that the only medicine that can help her troubled mind is the redemption of God and his forgiveness of her transgressions. After this Macduff takes stage, carrying in his arms Macbeth’s disembodied head. Macduff is now seen as a hero who saved Scotland from a tyrant, and Macbeth dies a false king who murdered and manipulated his way to the top.

In conclusion, ambition, hunger for power, and sin are the backbone of this play. Lady Macbeth’s mantra of “What’s done is done” is the fog the main characters use to cover up their sins. But we can see that this fog is much thinner than the characters want to admit, and they spend their last days filled with anxiety and guilt. Macbeth was once a brave and honest nobleman, but the promise of kingship turned him into a greedy and ruthless barbarian. Macbeth’s last words before his untimely death were as stated: “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

Question 1: What were the key ideas of mercantilism?

Mercantilism was an economic theory and practice throughout the 16th and 17th century. It basically made it so trade was a sort of competition rather then a cooperation. Each country wanted a bigger profit than their neighbor, so to get this they would try to manipulate the trade system to steal from their neighbor. Governments would usually do this through tariffs that would encourage exports of goods and discourage imports. By doing this the idea was other countries would just keep buying and buying, and the selling country could just hoard all the gold. The issue with this is no country is going to endlessly spend their wealth if their trading partner isn’t trading that wealth back into their economy. They’re just going to call off trade with that country, then that country loses their steady income. Its not a good system, and its obvious why its no longer in practice. Trade is about cooperation and working together so both countries flourish, if one country is self centered and greedy no one will want to spend their gold on them.

Question 2: How was the revocation of the Edict of Nantes justified in the document you read?

The Edict of Nantes was a document signed by Henry IV in 1598. France at the time was Catholic dominant, and there had been disdain raging for many years between them and the Protestants. The Edict of Nantes was meant to create some form of civil unity or peace between the two religions, and so it gave many substantial rights to Protestants which had until then been repressed. But Henry died suddenly, and his son Louis XIII was too busy with the wars of the time to improve internal issues. His son Louis XIV, as the question states, decided to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes in 1685. His reasoning was peace had finally come to France, and it was time to forget old grudges. Louis XIV had managed to convert many Protestants to Catholics anyway, so the revocation of the Edict was a way for terminating any past bitterness between the two.

What were the causes and outcomes of the wars involving France in the latter half of the seventeenth century?

The most prevalent cause for the wars were France’s greed and land lust. France was the most powerful European country of the time, and insisted on continued expansion despite the exhaustion of the people. The War of Devolution (1667-1668) was France’s attempt to claim the Spanish Netherlands, then they tried to expand again in the Franco-Dutch War (1672-1678). During The Nine Years’ War (1688-1697), France attempted to take on the English, Dutch and the Holy Roman Empire all at once. Then, after Charles II of Spain died childless both France and the Holy Roman Empire wanted the Spanish throne. This led to the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714). The English and France were worried that if France won Spain their trade rights would be cut, so they exhausted themselves fighting for Spain. Dutch never recovered after this war, but England ended up growing into one of the biggest super power nations.

 

 

Prompt: “Who should have the authority to set prices, the free market or the state? Why?”

First of all lets break down the question into a more easily understood query. Who should set the prices of products, the person selling the product or an unassociated state representative? The obvious answer is the person selling the product, the free market.

First off, the business owner and the state representative have different information and very different motivations. The business man has the information of face to face communication with the customers. He can listen to the demands, compare them to other businesses in the area, and adjust products and prices accordingly to give the customer the most satisfying buying experience. The business owners motivation is to grow and expand the business, so in order to do this he wants the customers happy and returning to buy from him again.

Now the state representative has different information and motive. He has the information of charts and graphs. He has information collected by other representatives in and about the businesses in the area, about their products and prices. On first glace that may seem like more than enough information. He can look at the chart and see the prices of local business’s, then he may regulate the market and conform the prices. The idea behind this is it may create more competition, and let the strongest business’s succeed and advance in the economy. But the issue is the representative’s motivation. The representative wants to get paid. And who is going to pay the representative the most? The charming, quaint Mom and Pop shop down the lain? Or the enormous international corporation spreading and domineering every small town from here to Antarctica?

The answer is clear, the corporation is going to spread. And if that state representative can get a big handful of corporation cash, than the few bucks Mom and Pop can scrounge up starts looking a lot less appealing. Next thing you know Mom and Pop cant pay the state set taxes, and a week later their store is gone and replaced with a Walmart. The state representative isn’t interested in helping the locally produced, family run shops. They’re interested in the very biggest and strongest businesses, they want the businesses that can pay the most tax to prosper and grow. This leads to what we’ve been seeing in recent years: a Walmart, Target, or other large company appearing in every small town. You cant go twenty miles now without seeing Mickey D’s golden arches, or Toyotas overly bright advertising billboards. Some may see this as a convenience, but its killing all the tiny, soulful start up businesses. Or at the very least making it almost impossible to grow as large as they would otherwise.

In conclusion the state representatives setting the prices only leads to the rich gluttonous corporations cheating and manipulating the system for their own gain. It disrupts the natural order of economy. In an unaltered economy the business owner is in charge of their own destiny. They have the power to make wise or daft business decisions, and thus become popular or ignored by the customers. But if the state is in charge of the prices and decisions of the business, than only the biggest and richest businesses have any chance of growing.

 

 

Question 1: What were Cardinal Richelieu’s primary aims?

Cardinal Richelieu was a French political figure serving under Louis XIII. He had two leading goals: the first was to establish a stronger central government within France. Richelieu’s way of doing this was demanding that the nobles in France remove any fortification or reinforcement they may have on their fortress, so they would have no protection if they were to rebel. Richelieu’s second goal was to reduce the power of the Habsburg family. The Habsburgs had been a long time enemy of the French, and had power over Spain, the Netherlands, and the Holy Roman Empire; all the territory surrounding France.

Question 2: What factors contributed to the decline of Spain?

Spain’s decline first started when the precious metals of the new world started to dwindle. These metals were some of the only things holding up the Spanish economy. Spain was fighting with many other countries at the time, and it began to get very expensive. So the only thing the government could do after the metal shortage was overtax the citizens. On top of this Spain experienced dreadful plagues that ravished the lands and stole away the lives of over 4 million people within the short timespan of 110 years.

Question 3: What is constitutionalism? Discuss the views of Juan de Mariana, as laid out in the reading for lesson 33.

Constitutionalism simply states that the government shouldn’t have unlimited control. Under constitutionalism the government follows some set of rules, usually written down on a constitution or other such document. Juan de Mariana described in his book “De Rege” an early version of the state of nature. He detailed the way a government would initially form: through a group of people agreeing to live under a hierarchy in exchange for a happier, safer life. Mariana expressed that since the people originally created the government, they should be the ones to assign the rights and power of that government. They should also be allowed to stand up and kill their monarch if he becomes a tyrant or goes against the set of rules the people appointed upon him.

 

Prompt: “Is it possible to have state subsidies without state control?”

 

In theory its possible, but in actuality much of the money would be wasted. What subsidies actually are is the government taxing one group of people and redistributing the wealth to another. If a business continues to receive government funding, and doesn’t have any requirements of how those funds should be handled then corruption and greed can grow within the company.

We read a paper on this that compares the state to a father, and the subsidy recipient to a child asking for allowance. If the father gives him that money, but than doesn’t give any rules of how it is to be used more likely than not the money will go to waste. The child squanders their allowance if the parent doesn’t lay down the law. But on the flip side this metaphor is comparing the general public to a profligate child. And saying that the “father” is the only one who knows an economical way of spending money. Most people are much more competent and self-sustaining than we give them credit for, and many use their assets in creative and productive ways that earn them more money in the end. But there are also many easily influenced by greed, who can become corrupt if overfunded.

By asking the state for subsidies we are agreeing to their rules and letting them maintain power. Because of this state subsidies and state control go hand and hand. The government is never going to give out money without keeping a strict eye over where that money goes.

In conclusion if the people and businesses continue asking the state for subsidies the state is always going to maintain control over those subsidies. It will continue taxing and redistributing, it will continue to make the laws, and we will continue to follow them. If we want the state to have less control over our money than we need to become more self reliant, and build enough income for ourselves that we don’t need to ask for state subsidies.

Prompt: “If the state is strong enough to do something good for you, it can also do something bad to you.”

 

The government is originally set up by the people, and designed to help the people with a variety of things. It’s made to protect us (both from foreign invasion or domestic complications), and to serve us (by organizing businesses and nurturing the economy). But the cooperation between the civilians and the government is very complicated, and this can lead to dilemmas. For example, taxes. On one hand, taxes go to things we want or need in our everyday lives. On the other hand, taxes take money from one individual to give to another. And by doing that it removes that amount of money from the economy, it takes away the income that the individual would have used to buy or invest. Or how about something like the trust fund? People trust the state to pay for their retirement, but where does the state get the money to pay off these peoples retirements? Well it gets the money from people slightly younger than the retirees, and by doing this it denies those people their retirement. Or at best it makes them wait much longer to get it. The situation is delicate. Many feel like the state is stealing from them, but much of it goes to things those individuals use regularly. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is the system is broken, or if not broken than in need of a lot of improvement.

Question 1: What was the Glorious Revolution? Why is it significant in English history?

The Glorious Revolution refers to the overthrowing of King James II, done by his son in law William of Orange. James hadn’t been a popular king. He had been Catholic, and had showed absolutist behavior; ignoring and downright dissolving parliament. His son in law William, and Williams wife/James’s daughter Mary had been watching England and observing how little the people enjoyed James’s rulership. So when a few English noblemen came to William begging him to overthrow James, William happily took the opportunity. He gathered up his army and made his way down to dear old dads castle. James had initially planned to fight tooth and nail to preserve his title, but he decided to the contrary when many of his own men abandoned their posts and took up ranks within Williams army.  James decided to flee to France, so William and Mary took up their earned ranks within the castle. William and Mary also agreed to a Bill of Rights, signing over much of their power to parliament. This document also made precautions against Catholics coming into power.

But there were reasons these two weren’t popular with all of their subjects. For example the Irish and Scottish utterly refused to accept their new rulers, and therefor had to be forced through bloodshed. William coming to power also disrupted the slave trade, causing slavery to become more widespread across English territory.

 

Question 2: On what grounds does Locke believe people can establish a claim to property ownership over a previously unowned good?

Locke believed that everyone is born with a few basic natural rights. One of these rights is the right to ownership over ones self. We have the power to do as we will, and create and destroy what we will.

Locke explained that if land is previously unowned, if someone were to create something productive on that land they have the right to declare ownership. For example, if someone were to build a house or plant an orchard on a piece of land they have the right to claim that land. How Locke explained it is someone must “mix their labors” with the land. By mixing their labor, and accordingly making that land better, that person will gain the right to ownership over that now better land.

 

Question 3: Why does Locke believe absolute monarchy fails to resolve the “inconveniences” of the state of nature?

Locke lists three “inconveniences” that present themselves in the state of nature. The first is there is no defined system of laws for people to obey. So anyone would be able to harm you or steal from you without having a higher authority to deal out punishment. So this means vigilante justice will be the only method of reparation. This leads to the second inconvenience, the community has to maintain civility without help from any appointed authority. So say if someone did rob you, instead of calling the cops you would have to hunt them down yourself. This leads to many dilemmas. Say the robber is bigger or stronger than you, and you run the risk of getting hurt or killed hunting them down. This can lead to the biggest strongest bullies in a community maintaining the most control. The third of Locke’s inconveniences is that we are all impartially biased towards ourselves. If we have a dispute, we want our side winning the dispute. Without a nonbiased third party there to judge fairly, the issue can spiral out of control and end in more bloodshed.

So according to Locke, a government exists to deal with these three inconveniences in a far more fair and efficient way than we can do alone. But he says this system can not work in an absolutist monarchy. For example, if you have a dispute with the absolutist monarch themselves, than you have no unbiased third party to accurately judge. So according to Locke a government consisting of many smart unbiased people, who can look at issues from every angle and determine the best compromise for the people, is the best way to maintain peace and cooperation.

Prompt: “Now that I have finished the section Montaigne, would I read any more of his essays? Why or why not?”

 

Montaigne certainly had a way with aphorisms. There are many skillful and wise quotes from him, the only issue is you really have to dig to find them. Montaigne tended to be a bit longwinded, sometimes ruining his own aphorisms by over explaining them. This by no means made him a bad writer, but it did make his works hard to follow. Very hard to follow at times. Because of this, personally I wont be reading any more of his works. This is only because I don’t have enough free time to examine and interpret some of Montaigne’s more oblique essays. But, for example if I were a college student studying English I would be overjoyed to find a collection of essays as detailed as Montaigne’s.

Montaigne said that he had a bad memory, but this was by no means the case. He gave so many historical examples, quotes from ancient scholars, and arguments from times long forgotten that his memory must have been as sharp as a steak knife. But, having an enormous tower solely dedicated as his own personal library may have also helped. What tends to lose readers of Montaigne is that he wasn’t well organized. Some of his essays would be pages upon pages long, while others would only be a few paragraphs. He would go into immense detail of a topic, but then cut it short and not give a proper conclusion. Unless a reader is specifically interested in seeing Montaigne’s thought process, reading a three paragraph essay and then being confronted by a forty page essay can be a little intimidating.

Montaigne was a skeptic, so much so that he was skeptic of skepticism. He believed that things such as monsters and miracles should not be held at face value, but also should not be flat up denied as false. From Montaigne’s view being open minded, but also asking questions and using logic is the only way we can evolve ourselves.

One of Montaigne’s most popular essays is named “Of Cannibalism”. It was the original idea behind the noble savage myth. It tells of a tribe of natives, the “savages” in question. They preformed mass cannibalism, but not because of hunger. They ate one another in the name of victory and glory. Because they would consume every part of their societies defeated, instead of imprisoning or torturing them (the way Europeans of the time did), Montaigne described them as more civilized and less wasteful than Europeans. This posed an existential problem on the minds of the time. Subjects like this, the way Montaigne described them, and the questions he left readers to think about are the reasons his name is still somewhat known today.

In conclusion, Montaigne was the true father of essays. His only issue is holding the readers attention through all of his long drawn out ideas. But if you are looking for a detailed example of a mans passion, and the ideas he was able to record throughout his lifetime; than Montaigne’s essays may be a perfect fit.