European Intellectual History
History 3103
Fall 2014 / Phillips Hall 328 / Monday 9-10.50am
Prof. Theo Christov, christov@gwu.edu
Office: Ames 101R, Mt Vernon
Office Hrs: Wednesday 2.15-4.15pm & by appt
‘All History is the History of Thought’
RG Collingwood
Course Description
Over the last half century, intellectual history has stood at the heart of debates among historians over meaning,
context, the relation of thought and action and explanations of historical change. It has also overlapped more
than most other fields of history with work in adjacent disciplines, such as philosophy and political theory. This
course will introduce students to some of the major approaches and developments within European history
particularly by reading primary sources in intellectual history, along with methodological discussions and some
classic works and debates in the field. The course is designed as a survey of early modern European intellectual
history, beginning from late fifteenth century continuing on to the middle of the nineteenth. The course is
divided into three main parts:
I.
II.
III.
IV.
Knowledge (Vitoria and Montaigne): How the ‘discovery’ of America unleashed European
expansion globally, and how it altered the conception of who the human is;
Sovereignty (Hobbes and Locke): How the internecine wars of religion produced the autonomous
sovereign states of today, and how the case for religion-state separation was made;
Equality (Rousseau and Mill): How notions of political obedience and government intervention
came to be challenged by aspirations for liberty and equality.
Humanity (Herder and Kant): How notions of nationhood and belonging square with commitment
to a single common humanity.
The course will be centrally concerned with the question of the relation between politics and universal
humanity. In the process we will examine historical debates over such fundamental political and social concepts
as state sovereignty, natural law, social contract, toleration, and equality. The course ultimately aims to bring
conceptual and historical questions to bear on ongoing debates in intellectual history about methodologies of
interpretation in our understanding of the formative forces that shaped the political universe we inhabit.
Course Material
In addition to the required books for purchase, there will be additional readings, which have been posted on
Blackboard. You must bring a printout of these additional readings with you to class, no laptops please. We will
read together, discuss together as a group, agree, and disagree as we grapple with these difficult texts, written in
idioms that bear little resemblance to those idioms that even people who do read encounter today. It therefore
requires that you practice slow reading, which takes time, concentration, patience, and reflection, before coming
to class for discussion.
No laptops/electronic devices will be allowed during class.
Classroom Decorum
First rule: arrive on time. If you know beforehand that you must leave early, let me know in advance and make
sure you choose a seat near the door. Disruptions, especially in a small group like ours, tend to be highly
distracting to everyone. Absences will only be excused in the case of illness or emergency. If there is a conflict
between course participation and religious observance, please contact me in advance. The rule of thumb is
simple: stay in touch with me. If you have more than two unexcused absences, you should come and see me- I
will not be chasing you.
Be respectful towards one another as much as you would expect others to respect your position. Listen to the
views of others and engage with their arguments. Common courtesy ensures a productive and intellectually
stimulating environment. Allow others to finish presenting their argument before you disagree with them.
Classroom Participation
Our course will be discussion-based. Classroom discussion will be collective, guided by our questions and
concerns. You will be expected to participate thoughtfully and regularly in our discussions. As we grapple with our often
subtle and complex readings, our goal will be both interpretive and evaluative. We will seek, so far as is possible,
to correctly interpret the meaning of an author's claims, and we will attempt, so far as possible, to evaluate the
validity and truth of these claims. Because of the challenging nature of our readings, it is to be expected that
our interpretations and judgments of our readings will differ widely. Our discussions are therefore to be viewed
as open-ended opportunities to test competing readings, interpretations, and evaluations of an author's ideas
and assumptions through thoughtful and responsive conversation. Through dialogue, it is hoped and expected
that each one of us will gain new insights. As you prepare for classroom discussion, please keep in mind that
contributions to our dialogue can take many forms: posing relevant questions, pointing out perplexing
problems, or listening and responding thoughtfully to your peers' ideas and interpretations. Finally, let us readily
admit that sharing one's thoughts and ideas in a group setting can be a difficult and challenging experience in its
own right. In addition to thoughtful reading and reflection, it requires a certain courage. While that is asked of
you in this course, it is also expected that we will collectively cultivate a conversational space in which room is
given for a wide range of voices and perspectives, in which all can be heard and engaged. The task is a serious
one for all of us.
Blackboard
A good reading question is one that directly and explicitly engages the text. Your question should concern a
specific passage, term, concept or idea that you are puzzled about, and it should offer your interpretation in a
brief and meaningful way. It should be focused on something that genuinely puzzles you in the reading, and
which you can probably assume that others find puzzling or confusing as well. There will be no pre-assigned
questions as such for you to answer (although the syllabus lists a number of questions for you to consider
before you begin the readings); rather, you are expected to bring up a couple of discussion questions that have
sparked your curiosity while doing the reading. The weekly postings should be paragraph-long and posted
on Blackboard by 7pm every Sunday. Note: Late postings will not be counted.
Oral Presentation
Each student will have one oral presentation during class on a set of weekly readings of the student’s choice.
The presentation should have two parts- first, a brief presentation of the authors’ arguments, and second, your
own critical analysis and engagement with the material, bringing up points for discussion.
Course Objectives
Throughout the semester, our goals will be the cultivation of your capacity to engage in critical thinking and
analytic reasoning, develop sound research questions, identify and utilize scholarly resources to defend
2
arguments, grasp the rhetorical principles of academic writing, and engage in careful proofreading and editing.
You will also learn to tackle fundamental questions posed by key thinkers and acquire a range of perspectives on
the human condition.
Grading and Course Requirements
Participation
Two shorter papers
One Final Paper
Weekly Postings
One oral presentation
25% (regular attendance and active participation)
35% (First paper of ca. 1,800 words: 15%; Second paper of ca. 2,300 words: 20%)
25% (ca. 3,000 words)
10% (a single critical paragraph)
5% (5-7min)
Office Hours
My office, Ames 101R, is located in Ames Hall on the Mount Vernon campus. I have office hours every
Wednesday 2.15-4.15pm, and am also available by appointment, in case you cannot make office hours only for
class scheduling reasons.
Plagiarism Policy
This course is designed to teach you to write and research responsibly and ethically. To learn strategies for
researching, compiling, and presenting your arguments, you must complete all stages of the work yourself:
taking the words of others, or presenting the ideas of others as your own not only prevents you from learning
the skills of academic research, it is also a violation of the University's Code of Academic Integrity. The
University defines academic dishonesty as “cheating of any kind, including misrepresenting one's own work,
taking credit for the work of others without crediting them and without appropriate authorization, and the
fabrication of information.” You can find more information about the Code of Academic Integrity at
http://www.gwu.edu/~ntegrity/code.html. The minimum penalty for such offenses, whether on rough or final
drafts, is to fail the assignment; the more common penalty is to fail the course.
Disability Support Services
Any student who feels s/he may need an accommodation based on the impact of a disability should contact me
privately to discuss specific needs. Please contact the Disability Support Services office at 202-994-8250 in the
Marvin Center, Suite 242, to establish eligibility and to coordinate reasonable accommodations. For additional
information please refer to: http://gwired.gwu.edu/dss/
GW Writing Center
Located at the Gelman Library, Suite 103, The GW Writing Center is an open, welcoming, professional
environment within which members of the GW community can receive dedicated attention to their writing and
research projects. You can schedule an appointment with a tutor to discuss your academic paper.
http://www.gwu.edu/~gwriter/
3
SCHEDULE OF CLASSES AND READINGS
INTRODUCTION
Week 1. Introduction: The Age of ‘Discovery’ and the Question of the Other.
Monday 8/25
1. Anthony Pagden, Peoples and Empires (Modern Library, 2001), pp. 49-72;
2. John H. Elliott, ‘The Uncertain Impact,’ The Old World and the New: 1492-1650 (Cambridge, 1992), pp. 127;
3. Anthony Pagden, ‘The Impact of the New World on the Old: The History of an Idea,’ Renaissance and
Modern Studies 30:1 (1986), pp. 1-11.
4. Anthony Pagden, ‘Europe and the Wider World,’ in The Short Oxford History of Europe, pp. 185-216.
Questions to consider:
1. What could be considered the most significant impact of the ‘discovery’ of America, both from the
Europeans’ and non-Europeans’ perspectives?
2. Do we still feel the intellectual repercussions of the moment of ‘discovery’?
3. What are the distinct meanings of ‘discover’ and is it a proper signification of describing encounters
between peoples?
4. What kinds of intellectual questions should Intellectual History ask, and what general approaches to
understanding the past should intellectual history consider? Do you think there should be more than
one way of doing Intellectual History?
PART I: KNOWLEDGE
Week 2. CERTAINTY: VITORIA.
Monday 9/8.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Francisco de Vitoria, On the American Indians [1530’s];
Anthony Pagden, ‘The School of Salamanca’, pp. 246-257.
Anthony Pagden, ‘From Nature’s Slaves to Nature’s Children,’ pp. 64-108.
Anthony Anghie, ‘Francisco de Vitoria and the Colonial Origins of International Law,’ in
Imperialism, Sovereignty, and the Making of International Law (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 13-31.
Questions to consider:
1. Given the context of Spanish presence in America, is Vitoria a defender of the Amerindians and a
champion of their rights, or is he an apologist for European colonization?
2. How are the Amerindians distinct from the natural slaves that Aristotle had defined?
3. According to Tuck, did Vitoria justify Spanish presence in America?
4. Does Anghie present convincing evidence that international law, through Vitoria, has its origins in
theories of expansion and colonization, and if so, what kinds of historical problems does it raise for
the contemporary practice of international law?
Week 3. SKEPTICISM: MONTAIGNE.
Monday 9/15
4
1. Michel de Montaigne, Essays [1560’s];
2. Pierre Force, ‘Montaigne and the Coherence of Eclecticism,’ Journal of the History of Ideas 70:4
(2009), 523-544 (emphasis on 528-544);
3. Richard Tuck, ‘Skepticism and Toleration in the Seventeenth Century,’ in ed. Susan Mendus,
Justifying Toleration: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives (Cambridge, 1988), 21-35;
4. Tsvetan Todorov, On Human Diversity (Harvard, 1993), 32-57 (emphasis on 32-45);
Questions to consider:
1. What kind of skeptic is Montaigne, and does he present a truly philosophical body, or just a mosaic
of incoherent thoughts? Is it theoretical philosophy, or is it a handbook for how we should practically
live our lives?
2. How does Montaigne’s particularism compare to Vitoria’s aspirations for universalism? Are there
common points of agreements between the two thinkers?
3. Does Tuck present a more or less skeptical Montaigne in light of the toleration debates during the
17th century? Does Montaigne’s skepticism present a political solution?
4. In Todorov’s view, can Montaigne’s view be accommodated in a theory of human diversity?
5. What is Force’s view of eclecticism and does he present a convincing evidence for Montaigne the
skeptic? What is Montaigne skeptical about? Is he a complete skeptic?
PART II: SOVEREIGNTY
Week 4. NATURAL LIBERTY: HOBBES.
Monday 9/22
1. Hobbes, De Cive [1642]: Preface (pages 7-15), and Chapters 1-4 (pages 21-65);
2. Noel Malcolm, ‘Hobbes and Spinoza,’ in The Cambridge History of Political Thought (Cambridge,
1995), 530-545;
3. Kinch Hoekstra, ‘Hobbes on the Natural Condition of Mankind,’ in Cambridge Companion to
Hobbes (Cambridge, 1996), 109-127.
Questions to consider:
1. Why does Hobbes theorize on the nature of man outside civil society?
2. Are agreements binding according to natural law, and if they are, how can they be enforced outside
sovereignty?
3. Is the observance of the laws of nature voluntary, or is it not?
4. How is the concord of the brute animals different from that of humans?
5. Who can rightfully hold sovereign power?
6. Can a citizen resist the sovereign? Is rebellion possible under Hobbes’s theory?
Week 5. CIVIL GOVERNMENT: HOBBES (CONT.)
Monday 9/29
1. Hobbes, De Cive [1642]: Chapters 5-14 (pages 69-167) [emphasis on Chapters 5, 8, 9, 12 and 13].
2. Abizadeh, Arash. ‘Hobbes on the Causes of War: A Disagreement Theory,’ American Political
Science Review 105 (2011), pp. 298-315.
5
Questions to consider:
1. What principles distinguished the three kinds of commonwealth?
2. Is existence outside dominion possible? What is the basis for obedience?
3. Is the dominion of parents and children categorically distinct from that of masters and servants?
4. Is there a best and most perfect kind of commonwealth?
5. Why do we need Scripture to support rights of kingship?
6. Are the causes of dissolution of the commonwealth preventable, or are they inevitable?
7. Are the holder/s of sovereign authority accountable to the people, and is subjection to the sovereign
absolute, with no right of resistance?
Week 6. COMMONWEALTH: LOCKE.
Monday 10/6
1. Locke, Second Treaties of Government [1690]. [Emphasis on Chapters 2-5, 7, and 19];
2. James Tully, An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 281-307
and 315-323.
Questions to consider:
1. Does Locke’s theory of the state of nature differ from that of Hobbes, and if so, in what ways that
may be considered significant?
2. How universally applicable is Locke’s theory of property, and what are its practical implications in an
age of European expansion?
3. How is Locke’s state of nature distinct from that of Hobbes?
4. Are the causes that lead to the dissolution of the commonwealth in Locke parallel or not to those
advanced by Hobbes?
5. How does Tully’s interpretation of the relationship between natural law and liberty complicate our
understanding of Locke’s political thought?
Week 7. TOLERATION: LOCKE (CONT.)
Monday 10/13
1. Locke, Letter of Toleration [1689];
2. Richard Vernon, Locke on Toleration (Cambridge, 2010), xv-xvii;
3. Jeremy Waldron, ‘Locke: Toleration and the Rationality of Persecution,’ in ed. Susan Mendus,
Justifying Toleration: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives (Cambridge, 1988), 61-86.
4. Perez Zagorin, How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West (Princeton, 2003), 1-13 and 256267.
Questions to consider:
1. Does Locke insist on a meaningful distinction between toleration, as the act of accepting others
from various religions, and tolerance, as the process of tolerating but never truly embracing
competing religious views?
2. How can Locke maintain religious toleration in the face of his own denial of Catholics and atheists
from civil society? Is his position tenable, or is it not?
3. Can we trace our own defense of separation of church and state in contemporary America to the
ideas on toleration defended by Locke?
4. What is the significance of Locke’s ideas on toleration, according to Jeremy Waldron, to
contemporary debates in modern democratic societies?
6
PART III. EQUALITY
Week 8. ORIGINS: ROUSSEAU.
Monday 10/20
1. Rousseau, Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts [1750] (pages 1-21);
2. Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality [1755] (pages 25-109) [skim through pages 25-37;
emphasize on pages 39-81];
3. Victor Gourevitch, ‘Rousseau on Arts and Sciences,’ The Journal of Philosophy 69 (1972), pp. 737754.
4. Anthony Pagden, ‘The Savage Decomposed,’ pp. 117-140.
Questions to consider:
1. Do the arts and sciences advance human progress?
2. Is the growth of the arts and sciences inevitable in the development of political society?
3. What is Rousseau’s theory of the origin and emergence of property, especially in light of Grotius
and Locke?
4. What kind of history does Rousseau present in the inequality account: is it purely conjectural, or is it
a narrative story?
5. Why are the arts and sciences, in Gourevitch’s reading of Rousseau, harmful to the development of
political culture?
6. How do we situate Rousseau’s idea of the development of inequality in the broader 18th century?
Week 9. FREEDOM: ROUSSEAU (CONT.)
Monday 10/27
1. Rousseau, On The Social Contract [1762] [emphasis: Book 1, entire; Book 2, entire; Book 3, Ch. 18;
Book 4. Chs. 1-3, 7-8].
2. H.D. Lewis, ‘Freedom and Authority in Rousseau,’ Philosophy (1978), pp. 353-362.
3. George Kateb, ‘Aspects of Rousseau’s Political Thought,’ Political Science Quarterly (1961), pp. 519543.
Questions to consider:
1. Is self-enslavement possible, on Rousseau’s account?
2. For what reasons is it essential that we need ‘to return to a first convention’?
3. Is the sovereign different from the people, and what characteristics does sovereignty wield?
4. What is the general will the will of, what is its object, and may it ever err?
5. Who is the people, and how is the people distinct from the government?
6. Is Rousseau’s contract a blueprint for freedom, or a recipe for a dictatorship?
Week 10. LIBERTY: MILL.
Monday 11/3
1. JS Mill, On Liberty;
2. Ross Harrison, ‘John Stuart Mill, mid-Victorian,’ pp. 295-318.
7
Week 11. EQUALITY: MILL (CONT.)
Monday 11/10
1. JS Mill, On the Subjection of Women;
2. Julia Annas, ‘Mill and the Subjection of Women,’ pp. 179-194.
3. Mary Lyndon Shanley, ‘Marital Slavery and Friendship: John Stuart Mill’s The Subjection of
Women,’ pp. 229-247.
PART IV. UNIVERSALITY
Week 12. HISTORY: KANT.
Monday 11/17
1. Immanuel Kant, Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose [1784] (pages 41-53);
2. Reviews of Herder’s Ideas [1785] (pages 192-220);
3. Conjectures on the Beginning of Human History [1786] (pages 221-234).
Questions to consider:
1. What is Kant’s disagreement with Herder?
2. How does ‘antagonism’ help the course of history, and isn’t Kant’s ‘unsocial sociability’ inherently
paradoxical?
3. What kind of history does Kant present in his Conjectures?
4. What emphasis does Kant place on human agency in history, if historical development is inevitable?
Week 13. HUMANITY: HERDER.
Monday 11/24
1. Eds. Evrigenis and Pellerin, Introduction to Herder (pages ix-xxxix);
2. Johann Gottfried Herder, Another Philosophy of History [1774] (pages 3-97);
3. Johann Gottfried Herder, Reflections on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, Book XV
(pages 79-118).
Questions to consider:
2. Herder is universally regarded as the father of nationalism: To what extent can we trace any
linage of nationalism to Herder’s thought in his Another Philosophy of History?
3. What is Herder’s notion of ‘humanity,’ ‘nature,’ and ‘history’?
4. Does humanity, in Herder’s view, constantly progress towards civilization, and what exactly
constitutes progress?
5. What kind of role does reason play in history?
CONCLUSION
Week 14. CONCLUSION
Monday 12/1
Anthony Pagden, ‘Stoicism, Cosmopolitanism, and the Legacy of European Imperialism,’ pp. 3-22.
Student presentations of final paper outline.
8