Ok, so Christmas and new year were a little testing, and my OU work got a little forgotten about, along with this blog! I applied for, and got, an extension for TMA04 and then left it to the very last minute anyway and wrote it in just over an hour on the night it had to be in, a week late. I'm not proud! I know the whole idea behind this has now vanished in smoke! Work hard at it! My ass!
Anyway, my result, well, it wasn't too bad to be honest!
TUTOR'S COMMENTS AND ADVICE TO STUDENT: 66%
Dan,You are certainly heading in the right direction with your comments and you make some interesting observations about Roux's speech.
The source is indeed public (it was a speech given before the Convention), however, as it reveals opinions and views it is actually discursive and not a document of record. You are correct to suggest that the speech may contain bias, however, the main weakness which you neglect to mention is that it gives us the views and opinions of one radical faction in Paris in the summer of 1793. The accuracy of the events it describes is secondary.
Well done for mentioning the Constitutional Act and the Declaration as two things that would need elucidation. Capets and sovereign don't really need elaborating on as they are discussed in the notes at the bottom of the speech. The reference to Marseilles, which refers to the success of the Jacobin camp there, might also need explaining.
You provide an interesting, and overall relevant, synopsis of the contents of the speech, however, you never really differentiate between witting and unwitting testimony, therefore, it is difficult to conclude whether or not you fully understand each. Well done for mentioning Roux's accusation that the Convention is condoning hoarding. This wittingly reveals that Roux believes that those who do so are part of the counter revolution, the existence of which is revealed in the references to the Capets and emigres. Roux's suggestion that hostages be taken reveals the extreme measures that some believed were needed to deal with that counter revolution. Roux's emphasis on hoarding suggests that there is a subsistence crisis in Paris in the summer of 1793, which has a class dimension to it with the rich oppressing the poor. Reference to rights and sovereign people reveals the presence of a political culture in which men were demanding their rights, something that Roux unwittingly extends to the economic realm when he demands freedom from want and economic rights for all. The tone of the speech, which is critical and condescending, unwittingly reveals the distrust in which the enrages held the Convention. Roux also claims to speak on behalf of the people, which can be read as an attempt to bargain with the Convention. Discussion of some of the other points that are wittingly and unwittingly revealed, plus distinction between the two would have strengthened your essay, but in general you are heading in the right direction.
TMA04: History
Daniel Tarry
Imagine that you are writing a study of Paris during the Terror. In an essay of no more than 800 words consider the following three questions;
1. What kind of primary source is this and what strengths and weaknesses does it have as a source for your study?
2. Are there any particular words and phrases in the document that require elucidation or special comment before you can make use of it?
3. What can you learn from this source with respect to Paris during the Terror? You should distinguish, where appropriate, between witting and unwitting testimony.
The extract is taken from a speech given by Jacques Roux before the French Convention on 25th June 1793. As such, the type of primary source would be considered to be an unpublished document. It would, however, have been made in front of a large number of people and therefore it would not have been as difficult to find as letters home to the family or school report cards I can see the point you are trying to make here, but this isn’t really answering the question and reference to school report cards is anachronistic. . It is also a document of record, having been aired very publicly Yes, it is a public source, but it is not a document of record. As a speech that reveals opinions and views it is actually a discursive source. Block 3, p. 25.. This is a strength as we can trust the source.
One weakness is that we are not told if the speech was written down by one of these spectators or by Roux. If a spectator transcribed it then it is a discursive document. If Roux kept a written copy of the speech he gave then it is a document of record. A discursive document would not be the best source as there can be inaccuracies or bias. One of the weaknesses of this discursive source is that, yes, there may be bias and Roux could be open to claims of exaggeration in order to make his point. We can assume, as the speech was given to a crowd, that it did actually happen, however! A bit repetitive. You have already said this above.
As the speech was given in France in 1793 we can expect it to contain elements that would need clarifying today. The extract we are given has two notes attached for a start. Which means that you don’t really need to explain the terms that the notes provide definitions for. Whereas we, today, would see sovereign as a single supreme authority, Roux was referring to the people of France. This, in context, does still ring true as Roux saw the common population as the power or rulers of France, as one, enmasse.
Combine this paragraph with the one above; you are still discussing terms that require elucidation.
We are also told that Capet was the family name of the French Royal Family, something we would need to know for the speech to make complete sense to us. There are other 'French' phrases that we would need to look-up to ensure complete accuracy before we could use the document. These include 'sans-culottes and émigrés.
There are two separate acts which are referred to by Roux during the extract. 'The Constitutional Act' and the 'Declaration of the Rights of Man'. If we were to make proper use of this extract then we would need prior knowledge of these two acts,ü along with a clear background on the time Roux lived in, the world around him and the events he was referring to. Yes, but the latter is contextual information and isn’t really examples of words or phrases in the document that require elucidation.
From the extract you Try not to use ‘you’. Perhaps, ‘it can be determined…’ or ‘one can determine…’ can determine that Paris was confused, dangerous and in the midst of change. Although we know this much from other background reading, the clues are in this extract. Roux is speaking to the French Convention. He urges them to pass decrees, which shows us that they still had the power to govern Jacobins in control of Convention for the first time. and that Paris was not entirely anarchic. The Convention is urged to pass a decree outlawing speculation and hoarding, stopping the merchants oppressing the poor, bringing the people into the revolution and increasing its Vague reference. To what does ‘it’ refer? power.
Reference is made to the striking dead of those who 'dare propose a king' and the outlawing of counter revolutionaries, showing us that the people are beginning to be heard. Their power is beginning to come to the fore. Royalty, however, has not yet been chased out and this shows us that the Convention still has not bowed completely to the will of the revolution. They do not expel nobles, and in Roux’s opinion most importantly, they are allowing the merchants to continue their monopolistic stranglehold over commerce and food.ü which wittingly suggests that those who condone hoarding are part of the counter revolution.
We learn that the merchants still have control of Paris. They keep the 'sans-culottes' unfed, fuelling counter-revolution as the citizens starve and wonder whether this really is the way forward. The idea that France could revolutionise is hanging in the balance, regardless of the steps already taken, because the poor majority is not yet taking part, and Roux is pleading for the half measures to stop and the Law and the Constitution to be used to finally bring down all of the ruling classes. ü an interesting suggestion.
Arthur Marwick. (2005) Units 8 and 9, Introduction to History, Part 1 : Issues and Methods, Block 3 - History, Classicism and Revolution, Second Edition. pp. 1-88
http://www.edteck.com/dbq/more/types.htm#oral
No comments:
Post a Comment