Imagine that you are writing a study of Paris during the Terror. In an essay of no more than 800 words:

Authors Avatar

X2256374                 

A103  Introduction to Humanities

TMA 04

Question

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 of your study?

  1. Are there any particular words and phrases in the document that require elucidation or special comment before you can make use of it?

  1. What can you learn from this source with respect to Paris during the Terror?  You should distinguish, where appropriate, between witting and unwitting testimony.

I will discuss the type of primary source, its strengths and weaknesses as a study source, mention some words and phrases that require special comment or elucidation and discuss what I can learn from this source about Paris during the Terror. I will also comment on the witting and unwitting testimony within the extract.

This primary source is a public discursive source, as it is a speech made by Jacques Roux on 23rd June 1793, giving his opinions on the constitution. It is strong because it represents the personal views of Roux and his colleagues in the énragés, at the time of the event. Its main weakness would be that it is only the view of one section of the population. Further research into differing opinions at the time of the Terror would be needed to represent alternative views, these could be, for example documents from the ‘femmes sans-coulettes’ (Resource Book 2, A21, p71) that could support this source, or a statement from the Convention expressing the reasons they disagreed with Roux’s views. Another weakness worth mentioning is the possibility that some of its meaning may have been lost in translation.

Join now!

There are a number of words that necessitate explanation in order to interpret the extract as a source for historical study. The first is the phrase ‘sacred precincts’, where are they? Roux mentions the ‘bloodsuckers of the people’ we would need to know who he was referring to. Roux refers to ‘The Constitutional Act’, which requires further explanation, he mentions ‘sovereign’, this refers to the people of France rather than the king, as Roux’s was a republican. (History, Classicism, and Revolution, p97). Roux mentions the ‘Counter-Revolution’, I would need to know what that was and who the ‘sans-coulottes’ ...

This is a preview of the whole essay