AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4The Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment

Chapters 16, 17,18

Date Class Topics Assignments Due11/16WedB-Day

Background and context of the Scientific Revolution

Revolution in astronomy

Read pp. 483-495 (Background to Scientific Revolution; Revolution in Astronomy). Scientific Revolution

Read primary source selections secondary analysis, Copernican Revolution, Galileo selections (below)

Worksheet on the Scientific Revolution OMIT PART B - DO ALL OTHER PARTS - DUE ON FRIDAY, 11/18.

11/18FridayD-Day

Turn in Worksheet on the Scientific Revolution

The revolution in medicine Women's experience of the Scientific

Revolution and Querelles des Femmes Begin discussing new views of humankind.

Read pp. 495-500 (Advances in Medicine and Chemistry, Women in the Origins of Modern Science, The New View of Humankind)

Read primary source excerpts on Descartes and querelles des femmes selections (below)

11/21MondayA-Day

Scientific societies Science and religion: a contentious

relationship Political theory

Read pp. 500-507 (Scientific Method and the Spread of Scientific Knowledge)

If you have not yet read selections from Hobbes and Locke from LAST unit, PLEASE DO SO.

11/22TuesdayB-Day

Scientific Revolution BINGO Enlightenment introduction and the

Philosophes

Review Scientific Revolution material Read pp. 509-512 (The Enlightenment, part 1) Read Kant selection, What is Enlightenment (below)

BREAK Watch documentary on Voltaire and work on Enlightenment Worksheet DUE TUESDAY- 1 per group.11/28MondayD-Day

New "Science of Man" Contributions of the philosophes Woman Question Social Environment of the Philosophes

Read pp. 512-522 (The Enlightenment, part 2) Enlightenment Worksheet DUE TUESDAY after we return

—1 per group.

11/29TuesdayA-Day

Enlightenment Worksheet DUE—1 per group.

Later Enlightenment Enlightenment Culture (music, religion) Finish all notes on Enlightenment

Enlightenment Worksheet DUE - 1 per group! Read pp. 522-537 (Enlightenment culture, Religion)

11/30WedB-Day

Overall political trends: 18th century states European States: France, GB, Dutch

Complete Review Crossword to turn in at start of class Wednesday, 11/30

Read pp. 538-543 (European States: France, GB, Dutch)12/1ThursC-Day

NO CLASS, BUT…Catherine the Great screens in Planetarium 2:45 pm!

12/2FridayD-Day

Enlightened Absolutism Absolutism in Central and Eastern Europe

(Prussia, Austria, Russia).

Read pp. 543-550 (Enlightened Absolutism) Read primary source documents on Fred II, Joseph II, and

Catherine the Great (below)12/5MondayA-Day

Finish Enlightened Despotism Wars and diplomacy

Read pp. 550-554 (Wars and Diplomacy) Watch Frederick the Great documentary (58 min)

12/6TuesdayB-Day

Economic and social change Social order of the 18th century Agricultural revolution

Read pp. 554-569 (Economic and Social Change)

12/8ThursA-Day

Finish all notes! Review for unit test

Read The Grand Tour excerpt (below) Review for test!

12/9FridayB-Day

Unit 4 Test Study for U4 Test!

PtomlemyGeocentric ModelCopernicusOn the Revolution of Heavenly SpheresHeliocentric Model

BraheKeplerThree Laws of Interplanetary MotionGalileo

Starry MessengerDialogue on the Two Chief World SystemsParacelsusVesalius

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4On the Fabric of the Human BodyWilliam HarveyOn the Motion of the Heart and BloodMargaret CavendishMaria Sibylla MerianMetamorphosis of the Insects of SurinamDescartesDiscourse on MethodCartesian Dualism“I think, therefore I am”Francis BaconInductive reasoningDeductive reasoningAcademic societies/academiesGottfried LeibnitzEnlightenmentPhilosophesImmanuel Kant “Dare to Know!”Bernard de FontanellePlurality of WorldsReligious SkepticismBaruch SpinozaDavid HumePierre BayleHistorical and Critical DictionaryLockeEssay Concerning Human UnderstandingNewtonWorld machine approachTabula rasaMontesquieuPersian LettersThe Spirit of the LawsVoltairePhilosophical LettersMarquise du ChateletCandideTreatise on TolerationDiderotEncyclopedieDavid HumeTreatise on Human NaturePhysiocratsAdam SmithWealth of NationsLaissez faireSupply and demandBaron D’HolbachDeismAtheismMaterialism

Marie-Jean de CondorcetJean-Jacques RousseauDiscourse on the Origins of Inequality of ManSocial ContractEmileWoman QuestionMary AstellA Serious Proposal to the LadiesMary WollstonecraftVindication of the Rights of WomenSalonsMadame GeoffrinRococoAntoine WatteauGiovanni Battista TiepoloJacques-Louis DavidBachHandelPianoClassical MusicHaydnMozartNovelSamuel RichardsonPamelaHenry FieldingHistory of Tom JonesGibbonRise and Fall of RomeCesare BeccariaGin-n-VodkaChapbooksFredrick II of AustriaEdict of Idle 1782Joseph IIAnti-semitism/pogromsRevivalismCount ZinzendorfMoravian BrethrenJohn WesleyMethodist ChurchEnlightened DespotismLouis XVCardinal FleuryMadame de PompadourLouis XVIAct of Union 1707Patronage SystemRotten Boroughs/Pocket BoroughsQueen AnneAct of Settlement 1701

Hanoverian Kings (“Large Germans”)George IGeorge IIGeorge IIIRobert WalpoleWar of Jenkins Ear (1739-42) William Pitt the ElderWilliam Pitt the YoungerDutch Oligarchs (Regents)William VFrederick William IThe “Soldier King”General DirectoryCompulsory Primary EducationFrederick IICharles VIMaria TheresaPragmatic SanctionJoseph IIEdict of IdlePeter IIICatherine the GreatThe Great InstructionPugachev’s RebellionBalance of PowerReason of StateWar of Austrian SuccessionSilesiaCharles VIIAix la ChapelleWenzel von KaunitzDiplomatic RevolutionWestminster ConventionSeven Years’ WarMarie AntoinettePrussian “Miracle”Empress ElizabethPeace of HubertusburgEmperor Francis IGreat War for EmpireFrench and Indian WarInfanticideOpen field systemJethro TullSeed Drill/HoePutting Out/Cottage SystemFlying ShuttleWater FrameLeeds Woolens Workers PetitionLudditesBank of England

Essential Questions1. What were some of the main causes of the Scientific Revolution?2. Was the Scientific Revolution a “revolution?”3. How did the Scientific Revolution lead to the Enlightenment?4. How did the scientific way of thinking impact the intellectual ideas and people of the time?5. How did the Enlightenment lead to new ideas regarding government, law, and economics?6. How did the ideas of the Enlightenment affect societies throughout the world?

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4Enduring Understandings

1. Important accomplishments of Bacon, Descartes, Harvey, Newton, Galileo, Copernicus, & Kepler forever changed mankind’s conception of the universe and the world.

2. The scientific revolution is a “revolution,” not only because of the many new discoveries, but also because of the development of the scientific method.

3. The inductive method changed traditional scientific inquiry.4. A wide variety of Enlightenment thinkers held a wide variety of views about politics, human nature, economics, and social

issues.5. Enlightened monarchs sometimes applied the ideas of the philosophes in their realms, but they often masqueraded as being

much more enlightened than they really were.

Images: (L) Johannes Kepler’s vision of the "House of Astronomy" from

his book Tabulae Rudolphinae, 1627. Each pillar bears the name of such important contributors to the new science as Ptolemy, Copernicus, and Tycho Brahe. Astronomical instruments of the time hang from the pillars. (Fotomas Index)

(Above) Copernican UniverseSecondary Analysis: The Scientific Revolution

The Scientific Revolution of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries replaced the medieval view of the universe with a new cosmology and produced a new way of investigating nature. It overthrew the medieval conception of nature as a hierarchical order ascending toward a realm of perfection. Rejecting reliance on authority, the thinkers of the Scientific Revolution affirmed the individual's ability to know the natural world through the method of mathematical reasoning, the direct observation of nature, and carefully con trolled experiments. The medieval view of the universe had blended the theories of Aristotle and Ptolemy, two ancient Greek thinkers, with Christian teachings. In that view, a stationary earth stood in the center of the universe just above hell. Revolving around the earth were seven planets: the moon, Mercury, Venus, the sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Because people believed that earth did not move, it was not considered a planet. Each planet was attached to a transparent sphere that turned around the earth. Encompassing the universe was a sphere of fixed stars; beyond the stars lay three heavenly spheres, the outermost of which was the abode of God. An earth-centered universe accorded with the Christian idea that God had created the universe for men and women and that salvation was the aim of life.

Also agreeable to the medieval Christian view was Aristotle's division of the universe into a lower, earthly realm and a higher realm be yond the moon. Two sets of laws operated in the universe, one on earth and the other in the celestial realm. Earthly objects were com posed of four elements: earth, water, fire, and air; celestial objects were composed of the divine ether-a substance too pure, too clear, too fine, too spiritual to be found on earth. Celestial objects naturally moved in perfectly circular orbits around the earth; earthly objects, composed mainly of the heavy elements of earth and water, naturally fell downward, whereas objects made of the lighter elements of air and fire naturally flew upward toward the sky.

The destruction of the medieval world picture began with the publication in 1543 of On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, by Nicolaus Copernicus, a Polish mathematician, astronomer, and clergyman. In Copernicus's system, the sun was in the center of the universe, and the earth was another planet that moved around the sun. Most thinkers of the time, committed to the Aristotelian-Ptolemaic system and to the biblical statements that seemed to support it, rejected Copernicus's conclusions.

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4The work of Galileo Galilei, an Italian mathematician, astronomer, and physicist, was decisive in the shattering of the medieval cosmos and the shaping of the modern scientific outlook. Galileo advanced the modern view that knowledge of nature derives from direct observation and from mathematics. For Galileo, the universe was a "grand book which . . . is written in the language of mathematics, and its characters are triangles, circles, and other geometric figures with out which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it." Galileo also pioneered experimental physics, advanced the modern idea that nature is uniform throughout the universe, and attacked reliance on scholastic authority rather than on experimentation in re solving scientific controversies.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), a contemporary of Galileo, discovered three laws of planetary motion that greatly advanced astronomical knowledge. Kepler showed that the path of a planet was an ellipse, not a circle as Ptolemy (and Copernicus) had believed, and that planets do not move at uniform speed but accelerate as they near the sun. He devised formulas to calculate accurately both a planet's speed at each point in its orbit around the sun and a planet's location at a particular time. Kepler's laws provided further evidence that Copernicus had been right, for they made sense only in a sun-centered universe, but Kepler could not explain why planets stayed in their orbits rather than flying off into space or crashing into the sun. The resolution of that question was left to Sir Isaac Newton.

Newton's great achievement was integrating the findings of Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler into a single theoretical system. In Principia Mathematica (1687) he formulated the mechanical laws of motion and attraction that govern celestial and terrestrial objects.The creation of a new model of the universe was one great achievement of the Scientific Revolution; another accomplishment was the formulation of the scientific method. The scientific method encompasses two approaches to knowledge, which usually complement each other: the empirical (inductive) and the rational (deductive). Although all sciences use both approaches, the inductive method is generally stressed more in such descriptive sciences as biology, anatomy, and geology, which rely on the accumulation of data. In the inductive approach, general principles are derived from analyzing external experiences-observations and the results of experiments. In the deductive approach, used in mathematics and theoretical physics, truths are derived in successive steps from indubitable axioms.

Whereas the inductive method builds its concepts from an analysis of sense experience, the deductive approach constructs its ideas from self-evident principles that are conceived by the mind itself without external experience. The deductive and inductive approaches to knowledge, and their interplay, have been a constantly recurring feature in Western intellectual history since the rationalism of Plato and the empiricism of Aristotle. The success of the scientific method in modern times arose from the skillful synchronization of induction and deduction by such giants as Leonardo, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, and Newton.

The Scientific Revolution was instrumental in shaping the modern outlook. It destroyed the medieval conception of the universe and established the scientific method as the means for investigating nature and acquiring knowledge, even in areas having little to do with the study of the physical world. By demonstrating the powers of the human mind, the Scientific Revolution gave thinkers great confidence in reason and led eventually to a rejection of traditional beliefs in magic, astrology, and witches. In the eighteenth century, this growing skepticism led thinkers to question miracles and other Christian beliefs that seemed contrary to reason.

COPERNICAN REVOLUTIONIn proclaiming that the earth was not stationary but revolved around the sun, Nicolaus Copernicus (1473-1543) revolutionized the

science of astronomy. Fearing controversy and scorn, Copernicus long refused to publish his great work, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. However, persuaded by friends, he finally relented and permitted publication; a copy of his book reached him on his deathbed. As Copernicus anticipated, his ideas aroused the ire of many thinkers.

Both Catholic and Protestant philosophers and theologians, including Mar tin Luther, attacked Copernicus for contradicting the Bible and Aristotle and Ptolemy, and they raised several specific objections. First, certain passages in the Bible imply a stationary earth and a sun that moves (for example, Psalm 93 says, "Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved"; and in attacking Copernicus, Luther pointed out that "sacred Scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth"). Second, a body as heavy as the earth cannot move through space at such speed as Copernicus suggested. Third, if the earth spins on its axis, why does a stone dropped from a height land directly below instead of at a point behind where it was dropped ? Fourth, if the earth moved, objects would fly off it. And finally, the moon cannot orbit both the earth and the sun at the same time.

From Nicholas Copernicus, “On the Revolution of the Heavenly Bodies (1543)

To His Holiness, Pope Paul III,Nicholas Copernicus' Prefaceto His Books on the Revolutions

I can readily imagine, Holy Father, that as soon as some people hear that in this volume, which I have written about the revolutions of the spheres of the universe, I ascribe certain motions to the terrestrial globe, they will shout that I must be immediately repudiated together with this belief. For I am not so enamored of my own opinions that I disregard what others may think of them. I am aware that a philosopher's ideas are not subject to the judgment of ordinary person's, because it is his endeavor to seek the truth in all things, to the extent permitted to human reason by God. Yet I hold that completely erroneous views should be shunned. Those who know that the

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4consensus of many centuries has sanctioned the conception that the earth remains at rest in the middle of the heaven as its center would, I reflected, regard it as an insane pronouncement if I made the opposite assertion that the earth moves. Therefore I debated with myself for a long time whether to publish the volume which I wrote to prove the earth's motion or rather to follow the example of the Pythagoreans and certain others, who used to transmit philosophy's secrets only to kinsmen and friends, not in writing but by word of mouth.... And they did so, it seems to me, not, as some suppose, because they were in some way jealous about their teachings, which would be spread around; on the contrary, they wanted the very beautiful thoughts attained by great men of deep devotion not to be ridiculed by those who are reluctant to assert themselves vigorously in any literary pursuit unless it is lucrative; or if they are stimulated to the nonacquisitive study of philosophy by the exhortation and example of others, yet because of their dullness of mind they play the same part among philosophers as drones among bees. When I weighed these considerations, the scorn which I had reason to fear on account of the novelty and unconventionality of my opinion almost induced me to abandon completely the work which I had undertaken.

But while I hesitated for a long time and even resisted, my friends [encouraged me]. . . . Foremost among them was the cardinal of Capua, Nicholas Schönberg, renowned in every field of learning. Next to him was a man who loves me dearly, Tiedemann Giese, bishop of Chelmno, a close student of sacred letters as well as of all good literature. For he repeatedly encouraged me and, sometimes adding reproaches, urgently requested me to publish this volume and finally permit it to appear after being buried among my papers and lying concealed not merely until the ninth year but by now the fourth period of nine years. The same conduct was recommended to me by not a few other very eminent scholars. They exhorted me to no longer refuse, on account of the fear which I felt, to make my work available for the general use of students of astronomy. The crazier my doctrine of the earth's motion now appeared to most people, the argument ran, so much the more admiration and thanks would it gain after they saw the publication of my writings dispel the fog of absurdity by most luminous proofs. Influenced therefore by these persuasive men and by this hope, in the end I allowed my friends to bring out an edition of the volume, as they had long besought me to do. . . .

But you are rather waiting to hear from me how it occurred to me to venture to conceive any motion of the earth, against the traditional opinion of astronomers and almost against common sense. . . .

For a long time, then, I reflected on this confusion in the astronomical traditions concerning the derivations of the motions of the universe's spheres. I began to be annoyed that the movements of the world machine, created for our sake by the best and most systematic Artisan of all, were not understood with greater certainty by the philosophers, who otherwise examined so precisely the most insignificant trifles of this world. For this reason I undertook the task of rereading the works of all the philosophers which I could obtain to learn whether anyone had ever proposed other motions of the universe's spheres than those expounded by the teachers of astronomy in the schools. And in fact first I found in Cicero that Hicetas supposed the earth to move. Later I also discovered in Plutarch that certain others were of this opinion. . . .

Therefore, having obtained the opportunity from these sources, I too began to consider the mobility of the earth. . . . I thought that I too would be readily permitted to ascertain whether explanations sounder than those of my predecessors could be found for the revolution of the celestial spheres on the assumption of some motion of the earth.

Having thus assumed the motions which I ascribe to the earth later on in the volume, by long and intense study I finally found that if the motions of the other planets are correlated with the orbiting of the earth, and are computed for the revolution of each planet, not only do their phenomena follow therefrom but also the order and size of all the planets and spheres, and heaven itself is so linked together that in no portion of it can anything be shifted without disrupting the remaining parts and the universe as a whole. Accordingly in the arrangement of the volume too I have adopted the following order. In the first book I set forth the entire distribution of the spheres together with the motions which I attribute to the earth, so that this book contains, as it were, the general structure of the universe. Then in the remaining books I correlate the motions of the other planets and of all the spheres with the movement of the earth so that I may thereby determine to what extent the motions and appearances of the other planets and spheres can be saved if they are correlated with the earth's motions. I have no doubt that acute and learned astronomers will agree with me if, as this discipline especially requires, they are willing to examine and consider, not superficially but thoroughly, what I adduce in this volume in proof of these matters. However, in order that the educated and uneducated alike may see that I do not run away from the judgment of anybody at all, I have preferred dedicating my studies to Your Holiness rather than to anyone else. For even in this very remote corner of the earth where I live you are considered the highest authority by virtue of the loftiness of your office and your love for all literature and astronomy too. Hence by your prestige and judgment you can easily suppress calumnious attacks although, as the proverb has it, there is no remedy for a backbite.

Perhaps there will be babblers who claim to be judges of astronomy although completely ignorant of the subject and, badly distorting some passages of Scripture to their purpose, will dare to find fault with my undertaking and censure it. I disregard them even to the extent of despising their criticism as unfounded. For it is not unknown that Lactantius, otherwise an illustrious writer but hardly an astronomer, speaks quite childishly about the earth's shape, when he mocks those who declared that the earth has the form of a globe. Hence scholars need not be surprised if any such person will likewise ridicule me. Astronomy is written for astronomers. To them my work too will seem, unless I am mistaken, to make some contribution.

[Source: Nicholas Copernicus, On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Bodies, translated by Edward Rosen, (London: Macmillan, 1972), pp. 3-5.]

GALILEO (1564-1642)Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina of Tuscany(1615)In his Letter to the Grand Duchess, Galileo explores the relationship between science and religion as he defends the heliocentric theory and the autonomy of scientific inquiry. The Letter was published (in the Italian vernacular) in 1615, a time when there was still debate

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4within the Church about the heliocentric theory, with some clergy (primarily Jesuits) defending the open exchange of ideas and defending Galileo in particular. By the following year, there were signs that clerics who sought to restrict debate were gaining the upper hand. A secret inquest ruled that the heliocentric theory was erroneous, the Church "suspended" Copernicus's On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, and Galileo was ordered not to teach or defend the Copernican theory.Questions1. According to Galileo, what rationale did critics give for rejecting the heliocentric theory?2. The argument Galileo developed in paragraph 4 is often called the "accommodation" theory. Why were the "propositions" of the Bible written to "accommodate them to the capacities, of the common people, who are rude and unlearned"?3. According to Galileo, what are the purposes of science and religion? 4. According to Galileo, what are the criteria for truth in science and religion?5. According to Galileo, what role should science play in establishing religious truths? What role should religion play in establishing scientific truths?

To the Most Serene Grand Duchess Mother:[1] Some years ago, as Your Serene Highness well knows, I discovered in the heavens many things that had not been seen before our

own age.1 The novelty of these things, as well as some consequences which followed from them in contradiction to the physical notions commonly held among academic philosophers, stirred up against me no small number of professors-as if I had placed these things in the sky with my own hands in order to upset nature and overturn the sciences. They seemed to forget that the increase of known truths stimulates the investigation, establishment, and growth of the arts; not their diminution or destruction.[2] Showing a greater fondness for their own opinions than for truth they sought to deny and disprove the new things which, if they had

cared to look for themselves, their own senses would have demonstrated to them. To this end they hurled various charges and published numerous writings filled with vain arguments, and they made the grave mistake of sprinkling these with passages taken from places in the Bible which they had failed to understand properly, and which were ill-suited to their purposes. . . .[3] The reason produced for condemning the opinion that the earth moves and the sun stands still in many places in the Bible one may

read that the sun moves and the earth stands still. Since the Bible cannot err; it follows as a necessary consequence that anyone takes a erroneous and heretical position who maintains that the sun is inherently motionless and the earth movable.[4] With regard to this argument, I think in the first place that it is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never

speak untruth-whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify. Hence in expounding the Bible if one were always to confine oneself to the unadorned grammatical meaning, one might; fall into error. Not only contradictions and propositions far from true might thus be made to appear in the Bible, but even grave heresies and follies. Thus it would be necessary to assign to God feet, hands ans eyes, as well as corporeal and human affections, such as anger, repentance, hatred, and sometimes even the forgetting of` things past and ignorance of those to come. These propositions uttered by the Holy Ghost were set down in that manner by the sacred scribes in order to accommodate them to the capacities, Of the common people, who are rude and unlearned. For the sake of those who deserve to be separated from the herd, it is necessary that wise expositors should produce the true senses of such passages, together with the special reasons for which they were set down in these words. This doctrine is so widespread and so definite with all theologians that it would be superfluous to adduce evidence for it.[5] Hence I think that I may reasonably conclude that whenever the Bible has occasion to speak of any physical conclusion (especially

those which are very abstruse and hard to understand), the rule has been observed of avoiding confusion in the minds of the common people which would render them contumacious toward the higher mysteries. Now the Bible, merely to condescend to popular capacity, has not hesitated to obscure some very important pronouncements, attributing to God himself some qualities extremely remote from (and even contrary to) His essence. Who, then, would positively declare that this principle has been set aside, and the Bible has confined itself rigorously to the bare and restricted sense of its words, when speaking but casually of the earth, of water, of the sun, or of any other created thing? Especially in view of the fact that these things in no way concern the primary purpose of the sacred writings, which is the service of God and the salvation of souls - matters infinitely beyond the comprehension of the common people.[6] 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. It is necessary for the Bible, in order to be accommodated to the understanding of every man, to speak many things which appear to differ from the absolute truth so far as the bare meaning of the words is concerned. But Nature, on the other hand, is inexorable and immutable; she never transgresses the laws imposed upon her, or cares a whit whether her abstruse reasons and methods of operation are understandable to men. For that reason it appears that nothing physical which sense experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called in question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages which may have some different meaning beneath their words. For the Bible is not chained in every expression to conditions as strict as those which govern all physical effects; nor is God any less excellently revealed in Nature's actions than in the sacred statements of the Bible. Perhaps this is what Tertullian meant by these words:We conclude that God is known first through Nature, and then again, more particularly, by doctrine, by Nature in His works, and by

doctrine in His revealed word.[7] From this I do not mean to infer that we need not have an extraordinary esteem for the passages of holy Scripture. On the contrary,

having arrived at any certainties in physics, we ought to utilize these as the most appropriate aids in the true exposition of the Bible and in

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4the investigation of those meanings which are necessarily contained therein, for these must be concordant with demonstrated truths. I should judge that the authority of the Bible was designed to persuade men of those articles and propositions which, surpassing all human reasoning could not be made credible by science, or by any other means than through the very mouth of the Holy Spirit.[8] Yet even in those propositions which are not matters of faith, this authority ought to be preferred over that of all human writings which

are supported only by bare assertions or probable arguments, and not set forth in a demonstrative way. This I hold to be necessary and proper to the same extent that divine wisdom surpasses all human judgment and conjecture.[9] But I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason and intellect has intended us to

forego their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them. He would not require us to deny sense and reason in physical matters which are set before our eyes and minds by direct experience or necessary demonstrations. This must be especially true in those sciences of which but the faintest trace (and that consisting of conclusions) is to be found in the Bible. Of astronomy; for instance, so little is found that none of the planets except Venus are so much as mentioned, and this only once or twice under the name of "Lucifer." If the sacred scribes had had any intention of teaching people certain arrangements and motions of the heavenly bodies, or had they wished us to derive such knowledge from the Bible, then in my opinion they would not have spoken of these matters so sparingly in comparison with the infinite number of admirable conclusions which are demonstrated in that science. Far from pretending to teach us the constitution and motions of the heavens and other stars, with their shapes, magnitudes, and distances, the authors of the Bible intentionally forbore to speak of these things, though all were quite well known to them. Such is the opinion of the holiest and most learned Fathers, and in St. Augustine we find the following words :It is likewise commonly asked what we may believe about the form and shape of the heavens according to the Scriptures, for many

contend much about these matters. But with superior prudence our authors have forborne to speak of this, as in no way furthering the student with respect to a blessed life-and, more important still, as taking up much of that time which should be spent in holy exercises. What is it to me whether heaven, like a sphere surrounds the earth on all sides as a mass balanced in the center of the universe, or whether like a dish it merely covers and overcasts the earth? Belief in Scripture is urged rather for the reason we have often mentioned; that is, in order that no one, through ignorance of divine passages, finding anything in our Bibles or hearing anything cited from them of such a nature as may seem to oppose manifest conclusions, should be induced to suspect their truth when they teach, relate, and deliver more profitable matters. Hence let it be said briefly, touching the form of heaven, that our authors knew the truth but the Holy Spirit did not desire that men should learn things that are useful to no one for salvation. . . .[10] Now if the Holy Spirit has purposely neglected to teach us propositions of this sort as irrelevant to the highest goal (that is, to our

salvation), how can anyone affirm that it is obligatory to take sides on them, that one belief is required by faith, while the other side is erroneous? Can an opinion be heretical and yet have no concern with the salvation of souls? Can the Holy Ghost be asserted not to have intended teaching us something that does concern our salvation? I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree: "That the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven. not how heaven goes."

FOOTNOTE1. Galileo is referring to observations of the heavens that he made with his telescope, observations that undermined (but did not disprove) the geocentric theory and reinforced (but did not prove) the heliocentric theory. He published his findings in The Starry Messenger in 1610.

DESCARTESOn the Principles of Human Knowledge, From The Principles of PhilosophyI. THAT in order to seek truth, it is necessary once in the course of our life, to doubt, as far as possible, of all things.

As we were at one time children, and as we formed various judgments regarding the objects presented to our senses, when as yet we had not the entire use of our reason, numerous prejudices stand in the way of our arriving at the knowledge of truth; and of these it seems impossible for us to rid ourselves, unless we undertake, once in our lifetime, to doubt of all those things in which we may discover even the smallest suspicion of uncertainty.

II. That we ought also to consider as false all that is doubtful.Moreover, it will be useful likewise to esteem as false the things of which we shall be able to doubt, that we may with greater clearness discover what possesses most certainty and is the easiest to know.

III. That we ought not meanwhile to make use of doubt in the conduct of life.In the meantime, it is to be observed that we are to avail ourselves of this general doubt only while engaged in the contemplation of truth. For, as far as concerns the conduct of life, we are very frequently obliged to follow opinions merely probable, or even sometimes, though of two courses of action we may not perceive more probability in the one than in the other, to choose one or other, seeing the opportunity of acting would not unfrequently pass away before we could free ourselves from our doubts.

IV. Why we may doubt of sensible things.Accordingly, since we now only design to apply ourselves to the investigation of truth, we will doubt, first, whether of all the things that have ever fallen under our senses, or which we have ever imagined, any one really exist; in the first place, because we know by experience that the senses sometimes err, and it would be imprudent to trust too much to what has even once deceived us; secondly, because in dreams we perpetually seem to perceive or imagine innumerable objects which have no existence. And to one who has thus resolved upon a general doubt, there appear no marks by which he can with certainty distinguish sleep from the waking state.

V. Why we may also doubt of mathematical demonstrations.We will also doubt of the other things we have before held as most certain, even of the demonstrations of mathematics, and of their principles which we have hitherto deemed self-evident; in the first place, because we have sometimes seen men fall into error

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4in such matters, and admit as absolutely certain and self-evident what to us appeared false, but chiefly because we have learnt that God who created us is all-powerful; for we do not yet know whether perhaps it was his will to create us so that we are always deceived, even in the things we think we know best: since this does not appear more impossible than our being occasionally deceived, which, however, as observation teaches us, is the case. And if we suppose that an all-powerful God is not the author of our being, and that we exist of ourselves or by some other means, still, the less powerful we suppose our author to be, the greater reason will we have for believing that we are not so perfect as that we may not be continually deceived.

VI. That we possess a free-will, by which we can withhold our assent from what is doubtful, and thus avoid error.But meanwhile, whoever in the end may be the author of our being, and however powerful and deceitful he may be, we are nevertheless conscious of a freedom, by which we can refrain from admitting to a place in our belief aught that is not manifestly certain and undoubted, and thus guard against ever being deceived.

VII. That we cannot doubt of our existence while we doubt, and that this is the first knowledge we acquire when we philosophize in order.While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge, I THINK, THEREFORE I AM, is the first and most certain that occurs to one who philosophizes orderly.

QUERELLES DES FEMMES

While rarely acknowledged, women actively participated in scientific research in chemistry, astronomy, biology, botany, physics, and medicine. Although most European universities and academies of science excluded women entirely, in Italy a few women held professorships in science and mathematics. Women translated scieitific works on physics, astronomy, entomology, and anatomy; they also participated in scientific discussions held in salons. Read the following excerpts about the participation of women in the new science. Who was critical? Who was supportive? Why?Johann Eberti, describing the German astronomer Marie Cunitz, whose 1650 book on astronomical tables clarified the work of Johannes KeplerShe was so deeply engaged in astronomical speculation that she neglected her household. The daylight hours she spent, for the most part, in bed because she had tired herself from watching the stars are night.

Marie Meurdrac (female), French scientist, introduction to her "Chemistry Simplified for Women" 1666When I began this little [book], it was solely for my own satisfaction. I objected to myself that it was not the profession of a lady to teach; that she should remain silent, listen and learn, without displaying her own knowledge. On the other hand…minds have no sex and that if the minds of women were cultivated like those of men, they would be equal to the minds of [men].

Samuel Pepys (male, an English Diarist), describing Margaret Cavendish, 1667After dinner, I walked to a meeting of the Royal Society of Scientists in expectation of the duchess of Newcastle (author of "A World Made by Atomes," 1653), who had desired to be invited to the Society. She was invited after much debate, pro and con; it seems many being against it. The duchess had been a good, [attractive] woman; but her dress so antique and her manner so ordinary, that I do not like her at all, nor did I hear her say anything that was worth hearing.

Maria Sibylla Merian, German entomologist, "Wonderful Metamorphoses and Special Nourishment of Caterpillars," 1679Since my youth, I have studied insects. When I realized that butterflies and moths develop more quickly than other caterpillars, I collected all the caterpillars that I could find, in order to observe their metamorphosis. Thus, I withdrew from human society and engaged exclusively in these investigations. In addition, I learned the art of drawing so that I could draw and describe them as they were in nature.

Gottfried Kirch, German astronomer, husband of Maria Winkelmann, 1680Early in the morning (about 2:00 a.m.), the sky was clear and starry. Some nights before, I had observed a variable star, and my wife (as I slept) wanted to find and see it for herself. In so doing, she found a comet in the sky. At which time she woke me, and I found that it was indeed a comet. I was surprised that I had not seen it the night before.

Johann Theodor Jablonski, secretary to the Berlin Academy of Sciences, letter to the Academy president opposing Maria Winkelmann's application for membership in the Academy, 1710I do not believe that Maria Winkelmann should continue to work on our official calendar of observations. It simply will not do. Even before her husband's death, the Academy was ridiculed because its calendar was prepared by a woman. If she were to be kept on in such a capacity, mouths would gape even wider.

Dorothea Erxleben, first woman to be granted a German M.D. (University of Halle), "Inquiry into the Causes Preventing the Female Sex from Studying," 1742

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4Some will feel as if I declare war on men (by practicing medicine) or at least attempt to deprive them of their privilege. Many of my own sex will think I place myself above them.

THE ENLIGHTENMENT DEFINES ITSELFImmanuel Kant, “What is Enlightenment?”

Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.

Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.

Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the nonage which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas, these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use--or rather abuse--of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting nonage. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from nonage by cultivating their own minds. It is more nearly possible, however, for the public to enlighten itself; indeed, if it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. There will always be a few independent thinkers, even among the self-appointed guardians of the multitude. Once such men have thrown off the yoke of nonage, they will spread about them the spirit of a reasonable appreciation of man's value and of his duty to think for himself. It is especially to be noted that the public which was earlier brought under the yoke by these men afterwards forces these very guardians to remain in submission, if it is so incited by some of its guardians who are themselves incapable of any enlightenment. That shows how pernicious it is to implant prejudices: they will eventually revenge themselves upon their authors or their authors' descendants. Therefore, a public can achieve enlightenment only slowly. A revolution may bring about the end of a personal despotism or of avaricious tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform of modes of thought. New prejudices will serve, in place of the old, as guide lines for the unthinking multitude.

This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom--and the most innocent of all that may be called "freedom": freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. Now I hear the cry from all sides: "Do not argue!" The officer says: "Do not argue--drill!" The tax collector: "Do not argue--pay!" The pastor: "Do not argue--believe!" Only one ruler in the world says: "Argue as much as you please, but obey!" We find restrictions on freedom everywhere. But which restriction is harmful to enlightenment? Which restriction is innocent, and which advances enlightenment? I reply: the public use of one's reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment to mankind….

A man may postpone his own enlightenment, but only for a limited period of time. And to give up enlightenment altogether, either for oneself or one's descendants, is to violate and to trample upon the sacred rights of man….When we ask, “Are we now living in an enlightened age?” The answer is, “No, but we live in an age of enlightenment.” As matters now stand it is still far from true that men are already capable of using their own reason in religious matters confidently and correctly without external guidance. Still, we have some obvious indications that the field of working toward the goal [of religious truth] is now opened. What is more, the hindrances against general enlightenment or the emergence from self-imposed nonage are gradually diminishing. In this respect this is the age of the enlightenment and the century of Frederick [the Great].

A prince ought not to deem it beneath his dignity to state that he considers it his duty not to dictate anything to his subjects in religious matters, but to leave them complete freedom… [Frederick's Prussia] is a shining example that freedom need not cause the least worry concerning public order or the unity of the community. When one does not deliberately attempt to keep men in barbarism, they will gradually work out of that condition by themselves.

I have emphasized the main point of the enlightenment--man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage--primarily in religious matters, because our rulers have no interest in playing the guardian to their subjects in the arts and sciences. Above all, nonage in religion is not only the most harmful but the most dishonorable. But the disposition of a sovereign ruler who favors freedom in the arts and

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4sciences goes even further: he knows that there is no danger in permitting his subjects to make public use of their reason and to publish their ideas concerning a better constitution, as well as candid criticism of existing basic laws. We already have a striking example [of such freedom], and no monarch can match the one whom we venerate.

But only the man who is himself enlightened, who is not afraid of shadows, and who commands at the same time a well disciplined and numerous army as guarantor of public peace--only he can say what [the sovereign of] a free state cannot dare to say: "Argue as much as you like, and about what you like, but obey!" Thus we observe here as elsewhere in human affairs, in which almost everything is paradoxical, a surprising and unexpected course of events: a large degree of civic freedom appears to be of advantage to the intellectual freedom of the people, yet at the same time it establishes insurmountable barriers. A lesser degree of civic freedom, however, creates room to let that free spirit expand to the limits of its capacity. Nature, then, has carefully cultivated the seed within the hard core--namely the urge for and the vocation of free thought. And this free thought gradually reacts back on the modes of thought of the people, and men become more and more capable of acting in freedom. At last free thought acts even on the fundamentals of government and the state finds it agreeable to treat man, who is now more than a machine, in accord with his dignity.

ENLIGHTENED DESPOTS (Fred II, Joseph II, Catherine the Great)

From Frederick the Great, Essay on the Forms of GovernmentA sovereign must possess an exact and detailed knowledge of the strong and of the weak points of his country. He must be thoroughly

acquainted with its resources, the character of the people, and the national commerce....Rulers should always remind themselves that they are men like the least of their subjects. The sovereign is the foremost judge,

general, financier, and minister of his country, not merely for the sake of his prestige. Therefore, he should perform with care the duties connected with these offices. He is merely the [first] servant of the State. Hence, he must act with honesty, wisdom, and complete disinterestedness in such a way that he can render an account of his stewardship to the citizens at any moment. Consequently, he is guilty if he wastes the money of the people, the taxes which they have paid, in luxury, pomp, and debauchery. He who should improve the morals of the people, be the guardian of the law, and improve their education should not pervert them by his bad example.

Princes, sovereigns, and king have not been given supreme authority in order to live in luxurious self-indulgence and debauchery. They have not been elevated by their fellow-men to enable them to strut about and to insult with their pride the simple-mannered, the poor, and the suffering. They have not been placed at the head of the State to keep around themselves a crowd of idle loafers whose uselessness drives them towards vice. The bad administration which may be found in monarchies springs from many different causes, but their principal cause lies in the character of the sovereign. A ruler addicted to women will become a tool of his mistresses and favourites, and these will abuse their power and commit wrongs of every kind, will protect vice, sell offices, and perpetrate every infamy....

The sovereign is the representative of his State. He and his people form a single body. Ruler and ruled can be happy only if they are firmly united. The sovereign stands to his people in the same relation in which the head stands to the body. He must use his eyes and his brain for the whole community, and act on its behalf to the common advantage. If we wish to elevate monarchical above republican government, the duty of sovereigns is clear. They must be active, hard-working, upright and honest, and concentrate all their strength upon filling their office worthily. That is my idea of the duties of sovereigns.

From Joseph II of Austria, Proclamation of Religious TolerationIn order to make the Jews more useful, the discrimination hitherto observed in relation to their clothing is abolished in its entirety. Consequently the obligation for the men to wear yellow armbands and the women to wear yellow ribbons is abolished. If they behave quietly and decently, then no one has the right to dictate to them on matters of dress.

Within two years the Jews must abandon their own language…. Consequently the Jews may use their own language only during religious services.

Those Jews who do not have the opportunity to send their children to Jewish schools are to be compelled to send them to Christian schools, to learn reading, writing, arithmetic and other subjects.

Jewish youth will also be allowed to attend the imperial universities.

To prevent the Jewish children and the Jews in general suffering as a result of the concessions granted to them, the authorities and the leaders of the local communities must instruct the subjects in a rational manner that the Jews are to be regarded like any other fellow human-beings and that there must be an end to the prejudice and contempt which some subjects, particularly the unintelligent, have shown towards the Jewish nation and which several times in the past have led to deplorable behaviour and even criminal excesses. On the other hand the Jews must be warned to behave like decent citizens and it must be emphasised in particular that they must not allow the beneficence of His Majesty to go to their heads and indulge in wanton and licentious excesses and swindling.

Credits: T. C. W. Blanning, Joseph II and Enlightened Despotism (London: Longman, 1970), 142-144.

Joseph II, The Serfdom Patent

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4Patent of November 1, 1781, in re Manorial Lords and Subjects

The servile status of subjects is herewith abolished completely and the following dispositions enacted:1. Any subject is entitled to marry, subject to previous notification and acquisition of a certificate, to be delivered free of charge.2. He may, provided he observes the regulations governing conscription for military service, leave his present manor and settle or take service on another within the Province; but if he wishes to establish himself as a peasant cultivator or cottager on another manor, he must ask for a leaving certificate, which must also be issued him free of charge, to be shown to the new manorial authority.[ . . . ]3. A subject is free to learn any handicraft, trade, etc., and seek his livelihood where he will. For this no leaving permit is necessary.4. Subjects are no longer required to perform domestic service for their lords, except orphans, who may be required to do such service for a period not exceeding three years.5. No services shall be imposed on or required of subjects beyond the robot and payments in kind and cash attaching to their holdings. Subjects are bound to render obedience to their lords in virtue of the existing laws.

Catherine the Great, Various SelectionsCatherine II (l762-1796), a German princess who became Empress of Russia after disposing of her ineffectual husband was one of the most successful European monarchs. She followed Peter the Great in seeing Russia (which had been part of an Asian Empire for centuries) as European Power. Among her other achievements, added some 200 000 square miles to the territory of the Russian empire. The following letter was written by a French diplomat in Moscow.

From Letter of Baron de BreteuilThis princess seems to combine every kind of ambition in her person. Everything that may add luster to her reign will have some attraction for her. Science and the arts will be encouraged to flourish in the empire, projects useful for the domestic economy will be undertaken. She will endeavor to reform the administration of justice and to invigorate the laws; but her policies will be based on Machiavellianism; and I should not be surprised if in this field she rivals the king of Prussia. She will adopt the prejudices of her entourage regarding the superiority of her power and will endeavor to win respect not by the sincerity and probity of her actions but also by an ostentatious display of her strength. Haughty as she is, she will stubbornly pursue her undertakings and will rarely retrace a false step. Cunning and falsity appear to be vices in her character; woe to him who puts too much trust in her. Love affairs may become a stumbling block to her ambition and prove fatal for her peace of mind. This passionate princess, still held in check by the fear and consciousness of internal troubles, will know no restraint once she believes herself firmly established

From Decree on Serfs (1767)Although Catherine liked to use the liberal rhetoric of the Enlightenment, she actually ruled Russia with a heavy hand. Her government enacted this decree f- in the same year that the instructions about the proposed law code were issued.

The Governing Senate. . . has deemed it necessary to make known > that the landlords' serfs and peasants . . . owe their landlords proper submission and absolute obedience in all matters, according to the laws r that have been enacted from time immemorial by the autocratic forefathers of Her Imperial Majesty and which have not been repealed, and which provide that all persons who dare to incite serfs and peasants to disobey their landlords shall be arrested and taken to the nearest government office, there to be punished forthwith as disturbers of the public tranquillity, according to the laws and without leniency. And should it so happen that even after the publication of the present decree of Her Imperial Majesty any serfs and peasants should cease to give the proper obedience to their landlords . . . and should make bold to submit unlawful petitions complaining of their landlords, and especially to petition Her Imperial Majesty personally, then both those who make the complaints and those who write up the petitions shall be punished by the knout and forthwith deported to Nerchinsk to penal servitude for life and shall be counted as part of the quota of recruits which their landlords must furnish to the army. And in order that people everywhere may know of the present decree, it shall be read in all the churches on Sundays and holy days for one month after it is received and therafter once every year during the great church festivals, lest anyone pretend ignorance.

AP EUROPEAN HISTORY/SPENCER ASSIGNMENT SHEET – UNIT 4

HIGH CULTURE OF THE 18 TH CENTURY: The Grand Tour

Young English elites of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries often spent two to four years traveling around Europe in an effort to broaden their horizons and learn about language, architecture, geography, and culture in an experience known as the Grand Tour. The Grand Tour began in the sixteenth century and gained popularity during the seventeenth century.

The term Grand Tour was introduced by Richard Lassels in his 1670 book Voyage to Italy. Additional guidebooks, tour guides, and the tourist industry were developed and grew to meet the needs of the 20-something male and female travelers and their tutors across the European continent. The young tourists were wealthy and could afford the multiple years abroad. They carried letters of reference and introduction with them as they departed from southern England.

The most common crossing of the English Channel (La Manche) was made from Dover to Calais, France (the route of the Channel Tunnel today). A trip from Dover across the Channel to Calais and onto Paris customarily took three days. The crossing of the Channel was not an easy one. There were risks of seasickness, illness, and even shipwreck.

The Grand Tourists were primarily interested in visiting those cities that were considered the major centers of culture at the time - Paris, Rome, and Venice were not to be missed. Florence and Naples were also popular destinations. The Grand Tourist would travel from city to city and usually spend weeks in smaller cities and up to several months in the three key cities.

Paris was definitely the most popular city as French was the most common second language of the British elite, the roads to Paris were excellent, and Paris was a most impressive city to the English.

A Tourist would not carry much money due to the risk of highway robbers so letters of credit from their London banks were presented at the major cities of the Grand Tour. Many Tourists spent a great deal of money abroad and due to these expenditures outside of England, some English politicians were very much against the institution of the Grand Tour.

Arriving in Paris a Tourist would usually rent an apartment for weeks to several months. Day trips from Paris to the French countryside or to Versailles (the home of the French monarchy) were quite common. Visiting French and Italian royalty and British envoys was a popular pastime during the Tour. The homes of envoys were often utilized as hotels and food pantries which annoyed the envoys but there wasn't much they could do about such inconveniences brought on by their citizens. While apartments were rented in major cities, in smaller towns the inns were often harsh and dirty.

From Paris, Tourists would proceed across the Alps or take a boat on the Mediterranean Sea to Italy. For those who made their way across the Alps, Turin was the first Italian city they'd come to and some remained while others simply passed through on their way to Rome or Venice. Rome was initially the southernmost point they would travel. However, when excavations began of Herculaneum (1738) and Pompeii (1748), the two sites became major destinations on the Grand Tour.

Other locations included as part of some Grand Tours included Spain and Portugal, Germany, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and the Baltic. However, these other spots lacked the interest and historical appeal of Paris and Italy and had substandard roads that made travel much more difficult so they remained off most itineraries.

While the goal of the Grand Tour was educational a great deal of time was spent in more frivolous pursuits such as extensive drinking, gambling, and intimate encounters. The journals and sketches that were supposed to be completed during the Tour were often left quite blank. Upon their return to England, Tourists were supposedly ready to being the responsibilities of an aristocrat. The Grand Tour as an institution was ultimately worthwhile for the Tour has been given credit for an dramatic improvement in British architecture and culture. The French Revolution in 1789 marked the end of the Grand Tour for in the early nineteenth century, railroads totally changed the face of tourism and travel across the continent.