History 211 - The Emergence of Europe, 400-1700

Spring 1993 Professor M.S. Mahoney

Final Examination 22 May 1993


Complete all THREE parts of the examination, allotting your time as indicated. Please use a separate booklet for each part, placing your name and your preceptor's name on each booklet. The honor pledge on the first booklet will suffice.

PART I (60 minutes)

Identify FIVE of the following passages taken from the sources read this term. In addition to the name of the work and its author, your identification should include a brief explanation of the historical context and significance of the ideas expressed in the passage.


And it is here to be noted, that the duty and alleageance, which the people sweareth to their prince, is not only bound to themselves, but likewise to their lawfull heires and posterity, the lineall succession of crowns being begun among the people of God, and happily continued in divers christian common-wealths: So as no objection either of heresie, or whatsoever private statute or law may free the people from their oath-giving to their king, and his succession, established by the old fundamentall lawes of the kingdome: For, as hee is there heritable over-lord, and so by birth, not by any right in the coronation, commeth to his crowne; it is a like unlawful (the crowne ever standing full) to displace him that succeedeth thereto, as to eject the former[.]


To preach Christ is to free the soul, to justify it, to set it free, and to save it, if it believes the preaching. For faith alone, and the efficacious use of the word of God bring salvation.


But on the other hand, they have established their nation in such a way that no one possesses anything individually, neither a house nor a field, which he can leave to his heirs in his will, for everything belongs to their masters whom, with improper nomenclature, they call kings, and by whose whims they live, more than by their own, ready to do the bidding and desire of these rulers and possessing no liberty.



For my part, I think it is no right at all. I think that no person hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom, and in determining or choosing those that shall determine what laws we shall be ruled by here --no person hath a right to this, that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom, and those persons together are properly the represented of this kingdom, and consequently are [also] to make up the representers of this kingdom, who taken together do comprehend whatsoever is of real or permanent interest in the kingdom.


Now, every natural governance is governance by one. In the multitude of bodily members there is one which moves them all, namely, the heart; and among the powers of the soul one power presides as chief, namely, the reason. Even among bees there is one queen (rex) and in the whole universe there is One God, Maker and Ruler of all things. And this is reasonable. For every multitude is derived from unity. Wherefore, artificial things imitate natural things and since a work of art is better according as it attains a closer likeness to what is in nature, it necessarily follows that it is best, in the case of a human multitude, that it be ruled by one person.


This being granted, I think that in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense experiences and necessary demonstrations; for the holy Bible and the phenomena of nature proceed alike from the divine Word, the former as the dictate of the Holy Ghost and the latter as the observant executrix of God's commands.


In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.


Who, in his last hour (what layman, not to speak of priests), has ever implored the aid of an earthly king for the salvation of his soul? And what king or emperor is able, by reason of the office he holds, to rescue a Christian from the power of the devil through holy baptism, to number him among the sons of God, and to fortify him with the divine unction? Who of them can by his own words make the body and blood of our Lord --the greatest act in the Christian religion? Or who of them possesses the power of binding and loosing in heaven and on earth? From all of these considerations it is clear how greatly the priestly office excels in power.


PART II (45 minutes)

Write an essay on ONE of the following questions. Your answer should have a clear, cogent argument backed up by pertinent evidence taken from the material of the course.


"No European can be a complete exile in any part of Europe." (Edmund Burke, 1796). Does your study of pre-modern European history suggest that there was or is such a thing as a common European identity? If so, of what did it consist, when did it take final form, and what were its geographical limits? If not, what have been the persistent sources of diversity?


"[Peter] returned, moreover, with the ineffaceable impression of what wealth, trade, manufactures, and knowledge meant to a country in terms of power and prosperity. ... He did not explore the springs and motive forces of this western achievement; he did not seek to understand the workings of financial, political, or administrative institutions; and he had little or no conception of the slow and varied stages by which England or Holland had grown to be what they were." (B.H. Sumner) What, precisely, did Peter fail to see on his trip west in 1697-8, and how did his failure undermine his efforts to modernize Russia? Should he have visited France instead?


PART III (45 minutes)

Write an essay on ONE of the following questions. Your answer should have a clear, cogent argument backed up by pertinent evidence taken from the material of the course.


"Since that [scientific] revolution overturned the authority in science not only of the middle ages but of the ancient world --since it ended not only in the eclipse of scholastic philosophy but in the destruction of Aristotelian physics-- it outshines everything since the rise of Christianity and reduces the Renaissance and Reformation to the rank of mere episodes, mere internal displacements, within the system of medieval Christendom." So wrote Herbert Butterfield, an eminent historian, in the preface of his now classic The Origins of Modern Science. Comment critically on his claim, addressing in particular the relation of the Renaissance and Reformation to the emergence of modern science.


In what ways was there a crisis of authority in 16th- and 17th-century Europe? Had medieval notions of authority entirely lost validity? What new notions resolved the crisis, and what old notions withstood it?


"I pledge my honor that I have not violated the Honor Code on this examination."