What is the Third Estate?
This pamphlet was written by Abbé Siéyès at the dawn of the Revolution.
How does he define the Third Estate? What injustices does he claim it suffers? What complaints does he point out that the Third Estate has with the monarchy?
Due: MIDNIGHT, Monday, Nov. 6
How does he define the Third Estate? What injustices does he claim it suffers? What complaints does he point out that the Third Estate has with the monarchy?
Due: MIDNIGHT, Monday, Nov. 6
posted by RJS at
8:10 AM
6 Comments:
Going back to the original 5 questions.... I find most of the reading confusing.
--but I'll do my best.
He defines the Third Estate as a freedom of sorts from opressive government. He consideres it to be necassary to political progression and government. It seems less like an institution or gathering of people and more like the entire state itself. The Third Estate just doesn't get enough justice. people don't recognize it and don't put aside opression and hostility. He also states that the noble rankings and status do nothing but hinder the progression of the state, and that with the Third Estate, all are equal. With this notion, the Third Estate has the right to argue the lessening of status of clergy and nobility and the forming of a single solitarty unit to represent the state: The Third Estate.
By
TeganLove, at Monday, November 06, 2006 10:39:00 PM
Very eloquent, very wordy, very. . . rational. The third estate is defined as the unnappreciated member of society who nonetheless carries everyone else on his back. In today's business he is the help desk, in football the offensive lineman- in Revolutionary France the majority of citizens. To be specific, he divides the Third estate into four classes- farmers and miners, smiths and producers and artisans, merchants, and a fourth group of writers, artists, maids, etc.
This is written by someone who wants change but is prepared to go about that change cautiously and cleverly. The author brings up a list of grievances against nobles and the monarchy. He asks what possible good restraining the group which carries France does. He sneers at the idle lifestyle of nobles and calls the special priveledges of the nobles a barbaric departure from reason and effective government.
The emphasis on reasoned arguement of course springs from enlightenment works and papers.
One of the more controversial notes is the assertion that " all which is not the Third Estate, cannot be regarded as being part of the nation." Some nobles and clergy might disagree.
The above arguements are also applied to the monarch. Why should one man control all of Fracne when the efforts of the Third Estate keep it rolling?
In summary, he simply says not to bite the hand that feeds you. Caging the beast is not a good way to extract further assistance- and sometimes the beast gets angry.
By
ThomasBatson, at Monday, November 06, 2006 10:55:00 PM
He defines the third class as the group of people who pretty much support everyone else. He breaks them into Brokers, who think of how to profit, and Merchants, who distribute. The third class is the group of people who are stuck with doing everything that no one else is willing to do. All of the little annoying chore type things that the other two estates don't want to do. Along with that injustice, he says that the third estate is not allowed to progress at all. They are where they are, they do what they do, but they cannot go further.
By
manxomefoe, at Monday, November 06, 2006 11:44:00 PM
He defines the Third Estate as the truly useful members of the nation, those that keep it breathing and are far more essential than those considered to be the noble and priviledged classes. The Third Estate is essentially the farmers, the wage earners, the artisans, the laborers in general, the merchants, and the like. He claims this class suffers extreme undervaluing and is treated as though it is useful whereas in actuality it is the only thing keeping the nation afloat. He claims the Third Estate is the nation, that the noblity and ruling classes are merely distractors and on the whole quite useless. He portrays the monarchy as a thing that limits the members of society that would be truly valuable if allowed to rise from their allocated shelf space. In other words, the ruling classes really have very little purpose and are rather useless. His closing sentence puts it most eloquently- the Third Estate is the whole.
By
laura, at Tuesday, November 07, 2006 3:38:00 PM
The author defines the Third Estate as the workers, men with jobs that actually propel society forward rather than make it stagnate and only consume like the nobility. He constantly portrays the Third Estate as the protagonists in the world, and argues that it everyone should be just as they are, and that the world would be much better with only their kind, never consuming more than they produce. He claims that the Third Estate suffers from serious injustice at the hands of the nobility which oppresses them and their desires because of their general lack of power in the system, consuming more than they produce by far and making the world a very unfair system, as they have all the power, neglecting the desires of the general populace and producing nothing to help them either. The monarchy seems a very unnecessary part of the social system to the author, as they are put in power with the theoretical purpose of helping the common need, but in fact only help themselves with the power and trust they're given.
By
Unknown, at Tuesday, November 07, 2006 7:05:00 PM
The Third Estate is literaly defined by Abbe Sieyes as a collection of farmers, craftsmen, merchants and the like, whose major injustice is having to bear the pains that nobility does not wish to bear while propelling the economy and making contributions to society that the nobles don't. He proposes that the third estate should either be recognized for their work, or make the minority recognize them by refusing to do it. In his words, the third estate, carrying the burden of supporting a nation, IS the nation itself, with the nobility as deadweight. The monarchy basically exists to oppress them, when in reality their freedom would make the nation stronger. So basically he points out that the Nation should be viewed by the monarchy as what it is, a force to be reckoned with, and be given the rights that the nobility is given but that they (the third estate) actually earn.
By
Victoria, at Tuesday, November 07, 2006 10:35:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home