History

Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790

Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790

  • Downloads：1900
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2022-10-15 05:52:14
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Jonathan I. Israel
  • ISBN：0199668094
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

That the Enlightenment shaped modernity is uncontested。 Yet remarkably few historians or philosophers have attempted to trace the process of ideas from the political and social turmoil of the late eighteenth century to the present day。 This is precisely what Jonathan Israel now does。

In Democratic Enlightenment， Israel demonstrates that the Enlightenment was an essentially revolutionary process， driven by philosophical debate。 The American Revolution and its concerns certainly acted as a major factor in the intellectual ferment that shaped the wider upheaval that followed， but the radical philosophes were no less critical than enthusiastic about the American model。 From 1789， the General Revolution's impetus came from a small group of philosophe-revolutionnaires， men such as Mirabeau， Sieyes， Condorcet， Volney， Roederer， and Brissot。 Not aligned to any of the social groups represented in the French National assembly， they nonetheless forged "la philosophie moderne"-in effect Radical Enlightenment ideas-into a world-transforming ideology that had a lasting impact in Latin America， Canada and Eastern Europe as well as France， Italy， Germany， and the Low Countries。 In addition， Israel argues that while all French revolutionary journals powerfully affirmed that la philosophie moderne was the main cause of the French Revolution， the main stream of historical thought has failed to grasp what this implies。 Israel sets the record straight， demonstrating the true nature of the engine that drove the Revolution， and the intimate links between the radical wing of the Enlightenment and the anti-Robespierriste "Revolution of reason。"

Download

Reviews

Robert Jeens ，

First， the book is a brick。 It is over a thousand pages long and would make a great doorstop or yoga brick。 In fact， if you used it as a yoga brick， all of your fellow yogis would think， “What a smart and cultured fellow human being。” I am a dedicated reader and it took me a month to read it。 Next， the language。 The book is written in English， but there are extensive quotes in French， with no translations。 Finally a use for my university French！ If you can’t read any French， don’t even open the First， the book is a brick。 It is over a thousand pages long and would make a great doorstop or yoga brick。 In fact， if you used it as a yoga brick， all of your fellow yogis would think， “What a smart and cultured fellow human being。” I am a dedicated reader and it took me a month to read it。 Next， the language。 The book is written in English， but there are extensive quotes in French， with no translations。 Finally a use for my university French！ If you can’t read any French， don’t even open the book。 Just forget about it。 As well， there are quotes in other European languages。 Fortunately， translations are provided for these， but often not for things like book titles。 Personally， I just kind of glazed over these to the next part I could actually understand。 As for the English， it is highly erudite， as you would expect， and generally I would say you need at least some university to really get the most out of it。 Even for， for example， a freshman university student， you should probably only try to read this as a textbook that you use with a professor to explain it to you。 I have a graduate degree in the history of the period （in another area） and there were large areas of the book that I struggled with。 This book is the third book of a trilogy and I have not read the first two。 Too many names and ideas and I don’t know who those people were or what they thought。 I have a passing knowledge of some of the main philosophers and principles， but Israel has an encyclopedia in his head， and he expresses it here。 There is a coherent story in the book， from start to finish， so the details are important， but you could probably choose the important half of the chapters and get 90% it。 There are many details on who hated whom and who were allies in the philosophy wars of the time Why did Voltaire and Rousseau not get along？ What were their relations with the various European courts？ Now， the argument。 The author is trying to explain the causes of the French Revolution。 Israel posits that there were three main intellectual traditions in the second half of eighteenth century Europe。 First， there was a moderate Enlightenment centred around writers like Hume， Locke， Voltaire， Montesquieu and Kant。 These supported “reason” as a basis for organizing society and government， but also things like tradition， authority and the church。 They generally wanted to reform institutions like monarchy， aristocracy and the church to make them more tolerant and fair。 Most educated people held moderate Enlightenment beliefs。 There was a Radical Enlightenment centring around especially Spinoza and also the Encycopedists Diderot and d’Holbach。 They wanted to use reason alone to completely bring about a revolution in European life， eliminating aristocracy， monarchy， serfdom and slavery， and any special privileges for the churches。 They were generally atheistic and wanted democracy， toleration， freedom of the press and human rights。 They were considered outside the realm of polite opinion and their books were banned and only circulated surreptitiously。 Finally， there were the Counter-Enlightenment thinkers。 These people resisted any change to the status quo， believing in the divine right of kings， special privileges for the aristocracy， censorship， the necessity to not tolerate unorthodox religious opinion， and the necessity to keep common people in serfdom and black people in slavery。 Many people in the establishment supported these ideas。 While moderate Enlightenment ideas predominated in the United Kingdom， in continental Europe， moderate Enlightenment failed。 People like Voltaire and Kant supported Enlightened despots like Catherine the Great or Peter the Great， but the dynamics of the European governmental systems prevented the kind of reform that was necessary to make societies more tolerant or fairer。 So， in the end， it came down to a contest between the Radical and Counter Enlightenment ideas。 In France， from 1789 to 1792， the Radical Enlightenment won， until it was forced from power by a right-wing， populist dictatorship。 Israel emphasizes the primacy of ideas in history， “intellectual and social history， ideas studied in socio-economic and political context。” What did the most important people think？ What did philosophers， academics and journalists write in books， pamphlets， newspapers and letters？ His contention that ideas were the prime cause of the French Revolution has two very important corollaries。 First， this is an anti-Marxist book。 Marx posited that the base of society changes and then this changes the superstructure。 Specifically， in the context of the French Revolution， the rise of a commercial bourgeoisie brought with it an unseating of the aristocracy and a consequent change of ideas。 Israel says no， the ideas were foremost and the bourgeoisie was largely irrelevant。 “The people” were generally Counter-Enlightenment。 They usually followed the church and believed in witches and devils。 It was a small elite who were working to change the ideas among a larger elite that actually led to change。 None of those people were from a bourgeois background。 Also， the postmodernists are wrong。 Their radical relativism and emphasis on inconsistencies and hypocrisies are somewhat true， but they are analyzing secondary phenomenon， not the main story。 All this means that he is basically upending the last 50 years of scholarship on this subject。 Revolutionary。 The book begins with a discussion of earthquakes。 The Lisbon earthquake of 1755 killed 60，000 people and upon this subject， European intellectuals held one of three positions。 1。 Natural disasters are caused by God。 Most people believed this， and this was the Counter Enlightenment view 2。 Natural disasters are purely natural phenomena。 This is the Radical Enlightenment view。 3。 Natural disasters are sometimes caused by God and sometimes by natural phenomena。 This is what most thinkers espoused and was characteristic of the moderate Enlightenment。 Unfortunately， it was not as logically rigorous as either one or two and so illustrates for the author why the moderate Enlightenment lost out in the end。 Many parts of the book are relevant for the way we think about our lives today and for many of the contradictions that still bedevil our governments and societies。 How much should we allow pure reason to shape our lives？ What about emotion， tradition， authority and the precedent of law？ How much should we allow “the people” to decide？ What if they are not reasonable？ Are all men created equal？ How exactly？ What does that mean in practice？ Where do human rights fit in？ What exactly are our human rights？ Who can enforce them？ How？ When is reform enough？ When is a revolution necessary？ Is man’s natural condition liberty or misery？ The French revolutionaries debated all of those problems and we are still debating them today。 Finally， I like this book for several reasons。 Israel gives you a definition of the Enlightenment and he tells you the causes and consequences。 He makes a consistent argument and tells you why he is right and others are wrong。 It fits in with the push-back against Marxism and postmodernism and is a very welcome weapon in the scholarly arsenal。 And when you read a book like this， you really realize the diversity of views in the past and how they have changed。 Most people actually believed in witches and devils and that the king was put in place by God。 They really hated people who had other religious ideas。 They thought that equality， toleration and democracy were dangerous fantasies。 It reminded me that when we judge the past and the people in it， it is necessary to explain all this， to concentrate upon the bold new ideas some expressed while showing understanding of those who mirrored common opinion。 The book is wide-ranging。 He brings in thought， people and politics from all over Europe， there is a section on thought in the Spanish Empire in the Americas， and of course the American Revolution figures prominently。 The book challenged me。 Yes， when he was discussing scholarship， philosophy and politics in 1770s German states， I found it hard to follow him。 But that is what we are supposed to do。 Bring your understanding to the edge， push it over， and see what happens。 。。。more

Jan ，

Excellent intellectual history of the Enlightenment movement in the second half of the 18th century， leading up to the French Revolution in 1789。Israel traces the roots of the Enlightenment all the way back to Spinoza's monism。 In the 18th century Spinoza was （wrongly） considered a materialist and an atheist。 A universe that was created by a supernatural good and all-powerful God had to be the best possible， as Leibniz had said， so could not be improved upon and just had to be accepted。 But a un Excellent intellectual history of the Enlightenment movement in the second half of the 18th century， leading up to the French Revolution in 1789。Israel traces the roots of the Enlightenment all the way back to Spinoza's monism。 In the 18th century Spinoza was （wrongly） considered a materialist and an atheist。 A universe that was created by a supernatural good and all-powerful God had to be the best possible， as Leibniz had said， so could not be improved upon and just had to be accepted。 But a universe without a creator God， that was a work in progress， could be improved， by reason and knowledge。 By eradicating ignorance and error。Israel's story focusses on the ideas， with events taking second place。 The events are shaped by the ideas。 Israel differentiates between radical， moderate and anti-enlightenment ideas。 The moderate ones， like those of the deist Voltaire， who preferred to reform the system from within rather than overthrow it， largely failed because of a lack of results， causing the radical ones to eventually triumph。 The anti-enlightenment movement， defending tradition， historical experience and existing social structures， mainly served to disseminate the radical ideas， because to refute them they first had to show what they were。 Apart from that the radicals had to depend on the clandestine press， or on printers in Holland and Switzerland。 Their ideas were also spread by incorporating them surreptitiously in the articles in the Encyclopedie that was written by the philosophes modernes， like Diderot， d'Holbach and Helvetius， who were materialist atheists。 This war of ideas， including especially the struggle for the right to express them， makes fascinating reading， and deals with issues that are still very relevant today。The book has chapters on the enlightenment and revolutions in many other countries too， but it's an option to just read some of them and just dip into others， or set them aside for later reading。 The French story is by far the most interesting。That there was a radical revolution in France instead of gradual and partial reform was in Israel's view mainly the result of the ideas of the radical philosophes， and only secondly of the financial failure of the ancien regime and the economic and social problems of the country， which only created a climate in which the ideas （condensed into slogans and pamphlets） of a small group of unrepresentative intellectuals （often from the nobility itself） could stir up the angry masses （who just understood the slogans but nothing of the philosophy） into a revolt against the existing power structures。 This created an intimidating climate in which radical ideas like abolishing all privileges of special groups and complete equality before the law for everyone could be made into laws by a radical minority in the new National Assembly。 The King and the nobility mainly tried to appease， but appeasement of course often serves as encouragement。Radical Enlightenment proclaimed that liberty is not a matter of restoring historic privileges granted by Kings to certain groups in society that latterly had become infringed， but of abstract， universal rights that had to be encoded in completely new laws。 The country should not be a mixed， constitutional monarchy， as in Britain， but a representative democracy， in which policies are made by technocrats enlightened by the philosophie moderne， using reason and knowledge instead of precedence。 The technocrats should be elected by the people to represent them and implement the Will of the People （Volonté Générale） for the Common Good。 The people themselves， despite being equal， were considered to be still too ignorant and uncivilised to participate more directly。 They were easily swayed by demagogues and religion。But how do we know these technocrats interpret the people's will correctly？ According to the radicals， the Will is universal and could be determined by reason。 Dissenters like Rouseau， who emphasised the importance of feelings and the intuitive wisdom and moral instinct of the uneducated man's unspoiled nature instead of philosophy and cold reason， preferred direct democracy。 But in a large country this is very difficult to realize。 His followers， the Jacobin fanatics like Robespierre， failed miserably and led the Revolution into the totalitarian dictatorship known as the Terror。 。。。more

Domhnall ，

This third volume of a trilogy explores the Enlightenment in the period from 1750 to 1790。 Despite its apparent length （952 pages to read） there are many topics that it can only cover very briefly and succinctly。 In exchange， it places the work of several generations of thinkers across a very complex mixture of European states into a meaningful framework that clarifies what they were working to achieve and how they relate to each other。 There is a sense of accumulating pressure over this period， This third volume of a trilogy explores the Enlightenment in the period from 1750 to 1790。 Despite its apparent length （952 pages to read） there are many topics that it can only cover very briefly and succinctly。 In exchange， it places the work of several generations of thinkers across a very complex mixture of European states into a meaningful framework that clarifies what they were working to achieve and how they relate to each other。 There is a sense of accumulating pressure over this period， with the ideas of the Enlightenment gradually achieving such impetus that Europe succumbed to a series of revolutions that gave birth to our modern world。 But this is no Whig history， it draws attention to very dark episodes and noxious currents within the process of change， and leaves the strong impression that the Enlightenment project was in fact defeated， while arguing the case in favour of recovering and defending its most valuable qualities。 One justification for the exhaustive nature of this survey is that Israel is attacking and revising the majority view of other historians of the Enlightenment and the period generally， not least about the French Revolution but also about the status of prominent philosophers who retain their importance in today’s politics， such as Locke， Hume or Kant。 That is in fact greatly needed but it also lands his readers in a quandary， since we are now officially out of kilter with prevailing commonsense on so many topics。 This will continue to be the case， not because Israel is wrong but because his findings are potentially radical; and the factors that kept the Radical Enlightenment at odds with the majority in terms of both official and popular consensus in the 17th and 18th centuries are still at work today。 Radical Enlightenment， in Five Points•tPhilosophical “Reason” is the Only True Guide in Human Life•tNo Scripture or Revelation can be Authoritative•tTherefore there has to be full Freedom of Thought， Freedom of Conscience， Freedom of Expression， Freedom of the Press•tTrue Morality can only be found out by Reason alone and its first principle is that everyone’s happiness （and interests） must be deemed equal•tGiven equality is the principle basis of Modern Social Theory， democracy （according to Spinoza， not Bayle） is the best form of government [Slide from The Islamic World and the Radical Enlightenment， YouTube， at 25 minutes]Note: A lot of lectures by Jonathan Israel are available on Youtube and well worth watching。 They often run for far more than an hour but the actual talks do not cover the entire video， so they are manageable。 I spent close to three months reading this massive trilogy and not absolutely everyone has the opportunity to give so much time to one writer。 It is possible to read selected chapters and skip others but that can be unsatisfying。 Some quotesOur best chance of understanding the evolution of Enlightenment ideas， thinking and debate in terms of their contemporary meaning， and relevance to society， is to focus primarily on major public controversies and examine their broader context。。。。 I mean a procedure ， starting from the vantage point of general history， to determine what political， social and cultural context of a given controversy is and how the controversy’s course is shaped by political， legal， ecclesiastical， academic and popular interventions， most of which are not recorded in literary or philosophical texts but in other kinds of records。 。。。 What such a methodology amounts to is general history， political， economic， legal and social， employing intellectual controversies as its material。 [p32]Intellectual accounts of the Enlightenment that focus just on the evolution of ideas are fundamentally unsatisfactory， truncated and methodologically wrongly conceived。 They are also useless for explaining the relationship of the Enlightenment to revolution。 Any account of the Enlightenment that is satisfactory must be both intellectual and social history， ideas studied in socio-economic and political context。 There is simply no way round this basic desideration。 [p938]。。。the Enlightenment could not be a simple spectrum of positions with infinite gradations and nuances between the most conservative and most radical standpoints。 In the case of earthquakes， droughts and volcanic eruptions， there were， unalterably， only three positions possible: either all earthquakes and other natural disasters arise from purely natural causes and none from divine intervention， or， all natural disasters are divinely ordained and none arise from purely natural causes; or， finally， some result from natural causes and others from divine interventions， leaving those adopting this dominant standpoint with the ticklish problem of explaining how we can account for the difference。 These three standpoints corresponded exactly to Radical Enlightenment， Counter-Enlightenment and moderate Enlightenment wit the last being everywhere the most favoured overall but the thorniest philosophically。 It was hard reality itself， the reader will realize from the example of earthquakes， that ensured there was no tenable intermediate ground between radical and moderate Enlightenment， or Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment positions。 Lovers of compromise， as always， abounded; but that could not prevent a general polarization driven by reality and metaphysical positions locking thinkers into lines of thought showing no spectrum of intermediate views。 [p33， 34]The overriding defect of both Scottish Common Sense and Hume’s and Smith’s ‘moral sense’ in an age of far-reaching reform was that neither provided any viable grounds for challenging aristocracy， monarchy， empire， race distinction or ecclesiastical authority。 Rather both ‘moral sense’ and ‘Common Sense’ cohered with a social theory proclaiming rank and inequality integral to the divine plan。。。 [p269]What this Counter-Enlightenment rhetoric envisaged was always war between ‘philosophy’ and religion， never science and religion as the nineteenth century came to think of it。 All men must be constantly on their guard against the chief apostles of this world threatening new filosofia opposing religion， authority， morality and sovereignty。’ [p405]Goethe and Schiller convinced themselves they had found the inward way。 What does it mean to strip divine providence from one’s view of nature and acknowledge that man’s body and soul constitute a single substance？ It could signify a re-evaluation of all values taking place entirely within。。。 The ‘revolution of the mind’， in short， could be an outwardly oriented revolution transforming law， politics， institutions and morality， hence fomenting a new kind of individual as a consequence of political revolution and legal revolution， something Fichte， Hegel， Schelling and Holderlein were all deeply preoccupied with through the 1790s。 But Spinoza could also be taken to heart in a way that detaches his philosophy from social and political concerns， via a ‘revolution of the mind and of sensibility’ transforming the individual outlook， an artistic， cultural and moral emancipation。 [p756]Searching for the influence of businessmen， merchants， men with strong enterprise concerns within the revolutionary process either inside or outside what in 1789 became the National Assembly， research comes up with very little。 The entrepreneurial class concerned with business， markets and opportunities for profit clearly had practically nothing to do with the Revolution。 Artisans and peasants， by contrast， played a large part – but only indirectly and secondarily （often anarchically）， in reacting to the Revolution once set in motion。 Plainly the initiative was seized by a tiny group that was socially entirely unrepresentative – a remarkable fact。 [pp764]The Assembly’s Declaration [of the Rights of Man and the Citizen] clearly envisaged society’s renewal on a completely fresh basis， not one supposedly inherent in the nation’s legal past （as with the American declaration）， 。。。Where the American declaration spoke of inalienable rights as something inherent in ‘our constitution’ and ‘our laws’ that had been infringed by the ‘present king of Great Britain’， but not necessarily past ones， the French declaration spoke of wholly natural rights that needed to be enshrined in laws yet to be made。 。。 For the first time in history， freedom of thought and expression for everybody was enshrined as a basic principle and right of enlightened and morally justified human society， the very bedrock of democratic modernity was in place。 [p908] 。。。more

E。A。M。 Van ，

In Radical Enlightenment lag de nadruk op de verregaande politieke en religieuze consequenties van Spinoza's materialistische filosofie。 Enlightenment Contested behandelde de grote， maar meestal vergeefse， moeite die zowel de pleitbezorgers van de gevestigde politieke en kerkelijke macht， als de voorstanders van geleidelijke en beperkte sociaal-politieke verandering zich getroostten om de standpunten van Spinoza en zijn navolgers te ontkrachten。 In Democratic Enlightenment gaat Israel op de inge In Radical Enlightenment lag de nadruk op de verregaande politieke en religieuze consequenties van Spinoza's materialistische filosofie。 Enlightenment Contested behandelde de grote， maar meestal vergeefse， moeite die zowel de pleitbezorgers van de gevestigde politieke en kerkelijke macht， als de voorstanders van geleidelijke en beperkte sociaal-politieke verandering zich getroostten om de standpunten van Spinoza en zijn navolgers te ontkrachten。 In Democratic Enlightenment gaat Israel op de ingeslagen weg voort。 Hij toont aan dat na 1750 ideeen van de gematigde Verlichters vermorzelt worden tussen de extremere， maar consistentere opvattingen van de radicale Encyclopedisten enerzijds en de verdedigers van de Kerk en het Ancien Regime anderzijds。 Wat de gematigde Verlichters fataal wordt， volgens Israel， is dat zi j de kool （voor enige mate van maatschappelijke verandering， veelal in de vorm economische liberalisering） en de geit （vasthouden aan de bestaande hierarchische verhoudingen en het geopenbaarde Christendom）。 Voor beide standpunten blijkt uiteindelijk geen filosofisch of praktisch draagvlak te zijn。 In filosofisch opzicht blijkt Spinoza's kritiek keer op keer onweerlegbaar en in praktisch revolutionair opzicht verschafte het gematigde ideeengoed geen bruikbare ideologie。 Deze tweeslachtigheid van de gematigde Verlichters maakte hen daarentegen wel zeer suspect in de ogen van de vertegenwoordigers van de status quo。Ook in Democratic Enlightenment verdedigt Israel de overtuiging dat het filosofische openbare debat en de eindeloze stroom intellectuele controverses van doorslaggevende betekenis geweest zijn bij de verspreiding van het radicale ideeengoed， en dat zij in het verlengde daarvan noodzakelijke voorwaarden vormden voor de Amerikaanse en Franse revoluties。 Een aanzienlijk deel van Democratic Enlightenment is dan ook gewijd aan de beschrijving van het proces van doorsijpeling van de oorspronkelijk door de intellectuele elite geformuleerde radicale theorieen naar een breed draagvlak in de laat 18de-eeuwse samenleving。 Voor Israels these is het immers van groot belang dat het verband tussen radicale theorie en praktisch revolutionaire praktijk wordt aangetoond。 Volgens Israel zijn er drie bijzonder invloedrijke publicaties aan te wijzen die instrumenteel waren om de kloof tussen theorie en praktijk te overbruggen。 Ten eerste speelde de uitgave van de Encyclopedie een grote rol， ze ker na het koninklijk verbod daarop dat in 1759 werd uitgevaardigd。 Israel stelt dat juist dit verbod de verspreiding van radicale opvattingen over tolerantie， rationaliteit， God， de kerk， individuele vrijheid， koningsschap， de rol van de adel en slavernij enorm heeft gestimuleerd。 Enerzijds maakte het koninklijk verbod velen juist nieuwsgierig naar de ideeen van de philosophes modernes; anderzijds gaven de door kerk en staat gesponsorde apologeten van de contra-Verlichting in hun -meestal onsuccesvolle- pogingen de perfide radicaliteit te bestrijden juist de verboden theorieen gedetailleerd weer。 De tweede publicatie die volgens Israel de potentieel revolutionairen van een gedegen filosofisch fundament voorzag was Systeme de la Nature van Diderot's mede-encyclopedist Baron D'Holbach uit 1770， waarin deze het gedachtengoed van de radicale Philosophie Moderne op een voor het publiek toegankelijke wijze uiteenzette。 Tesamen met de uitgave van de absolute bestseller Histoire philosophique des deux Indes -niet verwonderlijk ook een co-productie van de Encyclopedisten- wordt de publieke opinie doordrenkt met goed gefundeerde en praktische toepasbare theorieen om het lot in eigen hand te nemen。 Israel beschouwt deze boeken dan ook als intellectuele bombs die direct hun bruikbaarheid tonen in de laat 18de-eeuwse revolutionaire bewegingen。De Amerikaanse en Franse revoluties zijn de belangrijkste en meest succesvolle voorbeelden van de politieke explosiviteit van het filosofische erfgoed van Spinoza， hoezeer ook tijdens de Franse revolutie onder de terreur van Rousseau-adept Robespierre en de staatsgreep van Napoleon het radicale gedachtengoed en hun vertegenwoordigers om zeep worden geholpen。Democratic Enlightenment is， evenals de eerste twee delen， minutieus gedetailleerd en streeft een volledigheid na die -waarschijnlijk onvermijdelijk- de leesbaarheid niet altijd ten goede komt。 Desalniettemin dwingt Israel toekomstige generaties historici zich tot zijn trilogie te verhouden en dat is alleen al een prestatie van formaat。 Bovendien zet Israel hedendaagse critici van de radicale verlichtingswaarden en de daarop gebaseerde democratische fundamenten op hun plaats。 Hun hedendaagse verwerping van rationaliteit， atheisme en tolerantie blijken weinig nieuws te bevatten en blijken al eeuwen geleden uiterst effectief weerlegd te zijn door de radicale verlichters。 。。。more

robin friedman ，

Democratic Enlightenment"Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy， Revolution， and Human Rights， 1750 -- 1790" is the final volume of a massive trilogy of intellectual history discussing the nature and impact of the Enlightenment。 The author， Jonathan Israel， finds that the Enlightenment began in approximately 1680 and concluded by about 1800， after which it was followed by a lengthy period of reaction。 The two earlier volumes in the trilogy are "Radical Enlightenment" which deals primarily with Spi Democratic Enlightenment"Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy， Revolution， and Human Rights， 1750 -- 1790" is the final volume of a massive trilogy of intellectual history discussing the nature and impact of the Enlightenment。 The author， Jonathan Israel， finds that the Enlightenment began in approximately 1680 and concluded by about 1800， after which it was followed by a lengthy period of reaction。 The two earlier volumes in the trilogy are "Radical Enlightenment" which deals primarily with Spinoza as the key Enlightenment figure and "Enlightenment Contested": Philosophy， Modernity and the Emancipation of Man， 1670-1752"。 I have read and reviewed the first book but have not yet read the second。 Jonathan Israel is Professor of Modern European History at the Institute for Advanced Study， Princeton。Israel describes the Enlightenment as "the single most important topic， internationally in modern historical studies， and one of crucial significance also in our politics， cultural studies and philosophy"。 His books go far to validate that strong claim。 This book is not for the casual reader。 It consists of 950 pages of dense and difficult text covering both ideas and history。 It demands close， slow reading。 I had to pause many times after reading only a small number of pages to reflect upon what I had just read。 The writing style is lively， passionate， and informed but not especially graceful。 Sentences are long and interspersed with many passages from a variety of languages。 Most of these passages are translated with the exception of the many important quotations in French which are given only in the original。Israel offers a complex， multi-threaded account of the Enlightenment， a movement which， he realizes， resists easy summarization。 An important theme of the book is the role of ideas in moving human behavior and of the objective， universal character of the nature of truth。 Both these themes run against a good deal of contemporary relativism and postmodernism。 In the lengthy 35- page introduction with which "Democratic Enlightenment" begins， Israel tries to summarize his project and the direction of the book。 Among the first things Israel does is to explain what "Enlightenment" is。 It is best to rely on Israel's own descriptions rather that to paraphrase:"Enlightenment， then， is defined here as a partly unitary phenomenon operative on both sides of the Atlantic， and eventually everywhere， consciously committed to the notion of bettering humanity in this world through a fundamental， revolutionary transformation， discarding the ideas， habits， and traditions of the past either wholly or partially， this last point being bitterly contested among enlighteners。 Enlightenment operated usually by revolutionizing ideas and constitutional principles， first， and society afterwards， but sometimes by proceeding in reverse order， uncovering and making better known the principles of a great 'revolution' that had already happened。 All Enlightenment by definition is closely linked to revolution。" "Enlightenment is， hence， best characterized as the quest for human amelioration occurring between 1680 and 1800， driven principally by 'philosophy'， that is， what we would term philosophy， science， and political and social science including the new science of economics lumped together， leading to revolutions in ideas and attitudes first， and actual practical revolutions second， or else the other way around， both sets of revolutions seeking universal recipes for all mankind and ultimately， in its radical manifestation， laying the foundations for modern basic human rights and freedoms and representative democracy。" Throughout his study， Israel distinguishes between "radical" and "moderate" Enlightenment。 The former has its source in Spinoza and begins with a single-substance metaphysics， the rejection of teleology， providence， miracles， revelation， and religion in favor of reliance on reason as a guide to human affairs。 The latter "moderate" enlightenment has its source in a number of individuals， including John Locke， David Hume， Newton， and Leibniz。 It tends to seek compromises and to give weight to both reason and religion （either deism or revealed religion） in understanding and in conduct。 Radical Enlightenment， for Israel， was the underlying source of the American and particularly the French Revolutions of the late 18th Century。 These revolutions were founded on the destruction of arbitrary privilege， on the fundamental equality of all persons， and on the belief that government was made to serve the people rather than the rulers and to promote individual happiness。 Moderate enlightenment tended towards skepticism and towards caution against drastic changes。 It was willing to temporize with aristocracy and monarchy which it saw as leading to Enlightened despotism。 Moderate enlightenment drew a distinction between doctrines appropriate for the learned， which may have approached the teachings of radical enlightenment， and doctrines understandable by the large majority of people， which tended towards support for religion and supernaturalism。 Moderate enlightenment produced some reforms， on Israel's account， but ultimately useless in leading to fundamental change。 Israel's mind and heart lie clearly with the "radical" form of the Enlightenment project， as exemplified in Spinoza， French philosophes such as Diderot and D'Holbach， Lessing， and others。In the long ensuing text of the book， Israel compares and contrasts radical and moderate enlightenment thought in a variety of places and conditions。 The book is extraordinarily learned and richly-textured。 Israel begins with a discussion of responses to a series of earthquakes， culmination in the Lisbon earthquake of 1755。 Responses to the cause of this disaster varied from the purely natural， with no teleology， （radical enlightenment）， to viewing earthquakes as manifesting divine displeasure with humanity （counter-enlightenment） to a view stating that some （most） earthquakes could be explained naturalistically but， perhaps， some could not fully be so explained （moderate enlightenment）。 These divisions in thought might， without a great deal of modification， track easily to the present day。There are five large parts to the book and many detailed subchapters。 Part I， "The Radical Challenge" begins with the Lisbon earthquake and offers a detailed introduction to competing views of Enlightenment。 Part II， "Rationalizing the Ancien Regime" begins with a perceptive， and somewhat unusual account of the skepticism of Hume viewed as a critique of radical enlightenment thinkers。 Israel discusses the "Scotch" Enlightenment， and early attempts at moderate enlightenment in Germany， Italy， and Spain， among other things。Part III of the book， "Europe and the Remaking of the World" discusses the American revolution， by， among other things， contrasting the views of John Adams and Tom Paine。 Israel discusses enlightenment in Spain's American colonies， which he views as more influenced by radical thinkers than by the example of the thirteen colonies。 He offers extended historical treatment of enlightenment ideas as they spread to India and the East through colonization and to Russia。Part IV "Spinoza Controversies in the Later Enlightenment" was the part of the book of greatest interest to me。 Israel discusses the different ways in which German thinkers such as Lessing， Mendelssohn， Goethe， and Jacobi read and attempted to make use of Spinoza。 Israel offers a long discussion of Kant's critical philosophy， in metaphysics， ethics and politics， which he views as a moderate enlightenment programme directed primarily against Spinozism。 Kant usually is seen as the seminal figure of modern philosophy。 Israel argues as against Kant for the virtues of Spinoza's approach which rejects theology， embraces naturalism， and insists upon the primacy of human reason。The final part of the book， "Revolution" consists of a study of the French Revolution and of the sources of radical enlightenment influence。 In this section， as elsewhere， Israel traces the surreptitious spread of radical enlightenment ideas。 Israel's understanding of the Revolution is complex， as he admits that few of the participants had knowledge of philosophy or of the ideas of the philosophes。 Yet， Israel argues that the ideas were there when they mattered and influenced fundamentally the course of the revolution's leaders。 Israel argues， somewhat briefly， that the Terror， with Robespierre， constituted a rejection of the ideals of the French Revolution of reason， liberty， equality and constituted a return to a theological， particularistic， and sentimental manner of thinking that grew and persisted until， perhaps， the end of WW II。 Israel is committed to the view that it is reason and equality that remains the salvation of humanity， rather than supernaturalism or relativism。Israel has written a masterful challenging book， and trilogy， about the nature of Enlightenment as a period of history and as an ideal of human thought。 Readers with patience and with a serious interest in the life of the mind will benefit from this wonderful study。Robin Friedman 。。。more

Ann Talbot ，

Scattered in the crypt of the church of Saint-Roch in Paris lie the remains of the Baron d’Holbach and Denis Diderot: one the patron of the Encyclopédie française， the other its indefatigable editor。 It was the book which defined a century and would shape progressive thought for generations to come。 Despite their importance， the remains of neither man were transferred to the Pantheon during the Revolution。 They lacked the celebrity of Voltaire and the popular appeal of Rousseau and， largely beca Scattered in the crypt of the church of Saint-Roch in Paris lie the remains of the Baron d’Holbach and Denis Diderot: one the patron of the Encyclopédie française， the other its indefatigable editor。 It was the book which defined a century and would shape progressive thought for generations to come。 Despite their importance， the remains of neither man were transferred to the Pantheon during the Revolution。 They lacked the celebrity of Voltaire and the popular appeal of Rousseau and， largely because of their materialist philosophy， have slipped even further out of the limelight since then。 No plaque records the resting place of their mortal remains and their philosophical legacy has suffered hardly less neglect。 Many of Diderot’s writings did not appear in authoritative editions until the twentieth century and the Encyclopédie has long remained untranslated; it is only now beginning to appear in an comprehensive internet edition。 Jonathan Israel’s latest book， Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy， Revolution， and Human Rights 1750-1790， the third volume in his survey of the Enlightenment， is therefore very welcome in that it focuses on the Encyclopedists and sets them in their international context。 Almost all the leading intellectual figures of the day sat at Holbach’s table at some point: Adam Smith， Benjamin Franklin， Jean-Jacques Rousseau， Jean le Rond d’Alembert， Nicolas de Caritat de Condorcet， Etienne Bonnot de Condillac， David Hume， Joseph Priestley， David Garrick， and Laurence Sterne; philosophers， scientists and mathematicians， historians， actors and novelists were all made welcome。 Not all of them were materialists， and not all them contributed to the Encyclopedia， but the discussions that went on at Holbach’s house must be seen as playing a key role in defining the character of this remarkable work and creating the intellectual climate of the time。 The d’Holbach circle and the Encyclopedia can， with some justification， be said to represent one of the high-points of the Enlightenment。Having reached this third volume， Professor Israel recognizes that it is necessary to set out a summary or overview of the argument that has run through all the books both to refresh his readers’ memories and to counter the spate of criticism that has recently been aimed at his work。 Writing in the Nation， Professor Samuel Moyn described Israel’s work as having “the dogmatic ring of a profession of faith” and preaching “the story of a renegade Jew―the philosopher Benedict Spinoza。” If it is strange to hear one academic describe another in these terms it is even stranger to hear one of the leading philosophers of the early modern period described as ‘a renegade Jew。’ Spinoza was expelled from the Jewish community of Amsterdam because of his philosophical views。 To call him a ‘renegade’ puts him in an extremely negative light and suggests that he set out to harm his former co-religionists in some way or abandoned his religion for disreputable reasons。 Nothing could have been further from the truth。 Were we to apply this approach to all the philosophers who moved towards religious toleration， deism， atheism or secularism the Enlightenment would offer us a very long list of ‘renegades’ from various religious groups。 This kind of criticism reflects the current postmodern hostility to the Enlightenment。 Israel makes it clear that his intention throughout the series has been to counter postmodernism。 “Postmodernist thinkers，” Israel writes， “have argued that its [the Enlightenment’s] abstract universalism was ultimately destructive， that the relentless rationalism， concern with perfecting humanity， and universalism of what they often disparagingly called ‘the Enlightenment project’ was responsible for the organized mass violence of the later French Revolution and the still greater horrors perpetrated by imperialism， Communism， Fascism， and Nazism in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries。” He rejects the now prevalent idea that the Enlightenment contributed to the ideology of various forms of totalitarianism in the twentieth century and Michel Foucault’s contention that the Enlightenment’s insistence on the primacy of reason “was just a mask for the exercise of power。” A new ‘project’ has replaced that of the Enlightenment， Israel argues， “framing a postmodern world built on multiculturalism， moral relativism， and indeterminacy of truth。” Israel unashamedly identifies the Enlightenment with the now unfashionable notion of social amelioration， human betterment， or， in other words， social progress which is anathema to postmodernism。 His is a comprehensive definition that embraces many distinct intellectual currents within what can broadly be defined as Enlightenment thought。 Rather than following the current vogue of identifying national Enlightenments， Israel insists on its universal character。 For Israel， the Enlightenment cannot be cut down to fit into the confines of national borders。 “Enlightenment， then， is defined here as a partly unitary phenomenon operative on both sides of the Atlantic，” writes Israel， “and eventually everywhere， consciously committed to the notion of bettering humanity in this world through a fundamental， revolutionary transformation， discarding the ideas， the habits， and traditions of the past either wholly or partially， this last point being bitterly contested among enlighteners; Enlightenment operated usually by revolutionizing ideas and constitutional principles， first， and society afterwards， but sometimes by proceeding in reverse order， uncovering and making better known the principles of a great ‘revolution’ that had already happened。 All Enlightenment by definition is closely linked to revolution。”He traces the political impact of the Enlightenment in Europe， North America， Spanish America， India， Japan and Russia。 Above all， he makes a necessary connection between the French Revolution and the Enlightenment。 The leaders of the Revolution expressed themselves in the language of the Enlightenment and were denounced by their opponents for living in the world of the philosophes and daring to believe that humanity was not irredeemably corrupt and condemned to live in subjection to their divinely appointed rulers。 The Enlightenment produced “a new kind of reading public that finally assumed the role of a collective tribunal of opinion judging kings and ministers。”The Encyclopédie was crucial to this transformation of consciousness since it brought together all the sciences and technology in a single compilation providing the basis for a public discussion of politics， government and state finances。 Enlightenment philosophy established the essential principle of social equality thus cutting through the centuries old legalities of privilege， deference and birth。 The Enlightenment would shape the debates of the National Assembly and if the people at large seldom read the philosophes themselves they certainly read their ideas when they were reproduced in cheap， popular editions by countless revolutionary journalists， particularly after 1788 when freedom of the press was achieved。Many of the philosophes suffered imprisonment for their writings。 They were well aware that a great revolution must take place in the not too distant future。 At every point the ideas of the Enlightenment ran counter to the interests of the French church and state。 From the 1750s and 1760s the ideas of the philosophes increasingly met up with discontent among artisans， especially in Paris。 It was a financial crisis that forced the king to call the Estates General in 1789， but it was the Enlightenment and the experience of the American Revolution that informed the Third Estate’s demands for equality， their rejection of privilege and their decision to form a National Assembly。There is much to admire in this book and much to defend。 But there is a problem too。 Israel argues that the Enlightenment can be divided into a radical， progressive Enlightenment which was based on a materialist philosophy derived from Benedict Spinoza and a conservative Enlightenment which tended more toward deism than materialism and was to a certain extent acceptable to the authorities。 There are always difficulties in dividing up the Enlightenment whether one chooses to do it on national lines， on religious lines or on the basis of chronology。 Even a chronological division， which is perhaps the most common device available to the historian， inevitably has a certain arbitrary character， since history in general cannot be cut up neatly into centuries or any other periods and intellectual history is less easily divisible than usual。 Writing of distinct national Enlightenments， while common， offers even more pitfalls， since the Enlightenment has an inherently international character and confining a David Hume or an Adam Smith to a Scottish Enlightenment necessarily downplays the influence of the French intellectual milieu on their work in a period when Paris became the centre of progressive intellectual life。 Israel’s conservative/radical distinction is an attempt to overcome these pitfalls， but in many respects it opens up just as many of its own。One of those pitfalls has become an elephant trap in this book。 The question of Rousseau and how his work should be characterized is problematic for Israel’s radical/conservative distinction because the complex figure of Rousseau will not fit comfortably into either category。 He is at once more radical and more conservative than his contemporaries。 Israel characterizes Rousseau as a prophet of the counter-Enlightenment who was fatally associated with Maximilien Robespierre and the Revolutionary Terror。 Rousseau’s theory of the general will， according to Israel， provided the ideological basis for repression and a counter-revolution which rode roughshod over human rights and the liberties of the individual citizen after 1793。 He draws a fundamental distinction between Rousseau’s early writings， completed under the influence of Diderot， and his later writings， such as the Social Contract， where these dangerous tendencies were fully developed。In fact， it is by no means a simple matter to make such a distinction between the early Rousseau， and the later Rousseau， since there is a marked continuity between his early and his later writings。 Many of the features which Israel criticizes in the Social Contract are already evident in an article that Rousseau wrote for the fifth volume of the Encyclopédie published in 1755。 There is the same conception of the general will， the same appeal to patriotism and the same use of examples from the history of Greece and Rome。 Yet this early article was subject to Diderot’s editorship and must have passed his scrutiny as everything that went into the Encyclopédie did。 Rousseau and Diderot were divided by a bitter quarrel in 1758 but the similarities in their work remained apparent。 Quarrels between philosophers are not necessarily philosophical quarrels。In the Encyclopédie article Rousseau advocates a public education system in which children are “trained early enough to consider their individual selves only in relation to the body of the state， and to see their own existence， so to speak， only as a part of its existence，” which is a statement sufficient to arouse all the concerns that the Social Contract has provoked in relation to civil liberties if taken out of context。 It should be pointed out that neither Rousseau， nor Diderot， nor indeed any other writer of the period， ever meant what we mean when they referred to the state。 We have come to characterize the state as a specialised body standing apart from and controlling the rest of society， representing the interests of property owners and capable of exercising a police function。 Rousseau did not understand it in that way。 When he writes of the state， both in the Encyclopédie article and in the Social Contract he means the whole of a political society， with all its institutions， the people who make it up and the territory they occupy。 Historical context is all important。 In the Social Contract Rousseau wrote that men must be forced to be free。 “If any one refuses to obey the general will he will be compelled to do so by the whole body”。 This statement is often taken to mean that he wished the individual to be relentlessly subordinated to a totalitarian state。 But we find the same insistence on the general will in the early Encyclopédie article: Rousseau wrote “the most general will is also the most just， and that the voice of the people is truly the voice of God。”The general will was a concept used by all natural law theorists。 Its implication was that no one should be above the law or exempt from the law。 Rather than being a repressive principle it expressed the equality of all members of society。 France was a society in which an aristocrat could have a writer beaten up – as Voltaire was – with impunity， where the king’s arbitrary will could imprison a man indefinitely – as Diderot was – and in which burdens such as taxation and labour services fell entirely on the poorest members of society。 To state under these circumstances that the law should be an expression of the general will and that all members of society should be bound by that law had a profoundly revolutionary and democratic character。 It was a concept shared by both Diderot and Rousseau and， for that matter， by Spinoza。 Set in this context Rousseau’s now notorious phrase can be seen to be no more than a statement of the principle that all members of a political society should obey the law and that the law should conform to the general will of the whole society rather than the will of particular individuals or classes within it。Rousseau was aware of the problem of political oppression but the form of oppression which he and his contemporaries experienced was at the hands of princes and powerful elites。 His response to it was direct and widely shared – if the prince began to rule in a way that was not consistent with the general will and asserted his particular will and employed force to impose his will then the social union “would evaporate instantly and the body politic would be dissolved。” In other words the people would have the right of revolution in those circumstances。 That right was what the French people would exercise in 1789。Diderot and Rousseau remained intellectually close even as the row between them rumbled on and others took sides。 Their closeness is most evident in those writings that Diderot did not publish。 He had learned when he was imprisoned for publishing his Letter on the Blind that he needed to be careful if he was to protect the Encyclopédie from the authorities and as a result many of his most innovative ideas were only circulated in manuscript form among friends。 It is in these that we see that both Rousseau and Diderot had come up against the inherent limitations of the materialism of their day and were attempting to develop a form of philosophy that would overcome them and allow progress to be made in the natural and social sciences。Rousseau， without the responsibility of the Encyclopédié， was able to explore these philosophical possibilities， particularly in relation to society， more freely even if he risked persecution。 Israel dismisses the personal danger to Rousseau， but his books were burned in Paris and Geneva as repression， always arbitrary and unpredictable， increased during the 1760s。 The decades of the later eighteenth century were the period when Voltaire engaged in a series of celebrated human rights cases on behalf of victims of religious and state oppression。 But he too was cautious and was always ready to slip across the border。 Rousseau’s fears were by no means exaggerated。 In D’Alembert’s Dream Diderot explored questions such as biological evolution and the nature of human consciousness by contrasting a dialogue with his friend d’Alembert the mathematician with what he imagined d’Alembert saying in a feverish dream。 His ideas in this unpublished work have the same paradoxical character that can be found in Rousseau’s writings。 Rousseau’s paradoxes， such as the phrase that men must be forced to be free， are an indication that he was grappling with the contradictions of social life just as Diderot was trying to come to grips with the complexity of human thought。 Israel’s desire to sort his philosophers into radicals and conservatives was never sustainable but in this book his categories begin to look merely wilful and fail to give the reader a sense of the rich complexity of thought in the period。 The history of social thought necessarily works through a process of conflict and debate， even within the mind of one person。 A conservative/radical split is too rigid and does violence to the organic nature of the development of thought through many contradictory channels and eddies。 Nonetheless， it must be said that at a time when materialism， the concept of social progress and the Enlightenment are all under sustained attack Israel’s books are an important contribution to the debate。 As Israel writes， “Given the overriding importance and vast scope of this global cultural-philosophical clash today any scholar discussing Enlightenment in broad terms has a clear responsibility to to render as accurate， carefully delineated， and complete a picture of the phenomenon as possible。 Except for those willing to yield to Postmodernism and concede the death of reason and moral universalism， it remains an ongoing， live， and vital issue。” 。。。more

John Chaffinch ，

Encyclopedic， and far-reaching in every sense。 But insufficiently critical of the idea that revolution implies a 'clean-slate'， and frequently unfair to those who are thrust - for the sake of polemic - into the reactionary camp。 The enshrinement of Spinoza is at the cost of much injustice to Locke， Voltaire， Hume， and Smith。 Encyclopedic， and far-reaching in every sense。 But insufficiently critical of the idea that revolution implies a 'clean-slate'， and frequently unfair to those who are thrust - for the sake of polemic - into the reactionary camp。 The enshrinement of Spinoza is at the cost of much injustice to Locke， Voltaire， Hume， and Smith。 。。。more

Leo Schulz ，

This is the third of a trilogy on the philosophy of the Enlightenment。 I am interested to read it， though there seems something oddly reactionary about a defense of universal liberty through an assertion of the validity of absolute principles， presumably based on absolute truth。 It as though， while Professor Israel has been writing his monumental work of freedom， he has failed to notice that the post-colonial settlement was in many cases a cure worse than the disease， that people he sees as repr This is the third of a trilogy on the philosophy of the Enlightenment。 I am interested to read it， though there seems something oddly reactionary about a defense of universal liberty through an assertion of the validity of absolute principles， presumably based on absolute truth。 It as though， while Professor Israel has been writing his monumental work of freedom， he has failed to notice that the post-colonial settlement was in many cases a cure worse than the disease， that people he sees as repressed may not see themselves as repressed， that the age of reason was also the age of genocide and enslavement。。。 。 If only Spinoza really had been right， and we were all of a piece and needed only to think about things logically。 。。。more

Dayton ，

pretty much anything b by Jonathan Israel is worth reading。 This book is very interesting if you are interested in the enlightenment era and Democracy

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Democratic Enlightenment: Philosophy, Revolution, and Human Rights 1750-1790&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0