37 pages • 1 hour read
Eric JagerA modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.
One of the purposes of a microhistory like The Last Duel is to illuminate the social life, culture, and certain trends in a specific time and place. Do you believe The Last Duel succeeds in exploring the society and lived experience in 14th-century France? Why or why not?
Eric Jager often uses speculation to fill in the blanks left by the sources in his history. What is one example of when Jager uses speculation? Do you believe his speculation is effective?
Using information conveyed in The Last Duel, write a brief “primary source” of your own from the perspective of a noblewoman or nobleman living in Normandy or in Paris at the same time as Jean de Carrouges IV and Marguerite.
Name at least two important rituals or oaths mentioned in The Last Duel. What is the purpose of these oaths or rituals? Why were they important?
Discuss what it was like to be a noblewoman in 14th-century Normandy. What is at least one way such a noblewoman could exercise her influence?
Do you agree with Eric Jager that Marguerite had any agency during the events described in The Last Duel? Or do you believe she had very little or no control? Support your argument with specific examples.
What role does violence play in The Last Duel? Does violence (and contemporary attitudes to it) explain the actions of anyone Jager discusses? If so, explain who and why. If not, explain why not. Use examples from the text to support your answers.
Based on the information Eric Jager presents in The Last Duel, why do you think Jean de Carrouges IV took such a huge risk in seeking a judicial duel?
From the perspective of someone alive at the time, write an argument supporting the use of judicial duels and urging that the Parlement of Paris permit them more often. Use specific examples from The Last Duel.
Eric Jager asserts that Marguerite did not make a false accusation against Jacques Le Gris, even though other modern historians have argued otherwise. Do you agree? Why or why not?