Enlightenment Encyclopedia

Author: Peter Rail/Alan Wilson (USA)
Translator: Liu Beicheng/Wang Wanqiang (Compiler)
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2004-05-01
Features: The late 17th century to the 18th-century Enlightenment was undoubtedly one of the most dynamic periods in Western intellectual history. It was convinced that nature was orderly and, and that human reason could overcome any obstacle. Rousseau, Voltaire, Descartes, Mozart, and Newton were its outstanding representatives. The Enlightenment was also a historical turning point: people moved away from religious dogma, superstition, and absolutism, turning instead to reason and experience to explore social organization, art, economics, education, government, and science. This transformation contributed to the birth of the United States in many ways: Jefferson, Franklin, and Paine were all children of the Enlightenment. This book is designed and edited for researchers and general readers who wish to understand the Enlightenment. In the form of an encyclopedia, it presents this rich, tumultuous, and far-reaching era through carefully written entries. The entries in this book are organized by category. Some are comprehensive, such as those on science, education, art, architecture, aesthetics, and music; some are shorter and explain concepts and figures; others recount the relevant European countries and cities that served as the cradle and stage of the Enlightenment. The book also includes cross-references, a chronology of major events in the Enlightenment, a detailed bibliography, and an index of foreign-language entries. This book is comprehensive and detailed, serving as both an ideal introductory read and a highly practical reference. It opens up a vast and splendid realm of thought. Now, follow this book into this fascinating field!
Part I: General Overview of the Enlightenment
1. Politics and Society of the Enlightenment
Dynastic States (dynastic states)
18th-century monarchies and empires were largely dynastic states. Many of these states consisted of territories ruled by a single ruler who was either a king or queen, duke or duchess, grand duke or grand duchess. Thus, whether a dynastic state was unified depended on the individual rulers who held the right of succession. The unification of these regions simply meant that they were ruled by the same ruler. For example, Scotland and England became dynastic states in the 17th century when James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne, thereby becoming James I of England. In France, the ruler was the King of Central France, but he also ruled Provence as a count. In the Habsburg Empire, the monarch was the Archduke of Austria and King of Hungary; in Prussia, the ruler was the King of Prussia and Elector of Brandenburg. Within a dynastic state, the scattered territories retained many unique laws, customs, and privileges. These determined the relationship between the localities and the ruler. For instance, the laws of Central France did not apply in Provence. Therefore, rulers who sought centralization and unification of their territories had to contend with various complex obstacles within their realms. Across Europe in the 18th century, monarchs attempted to unify and integrate the scattered regions within their kingdoms. They achieved some success, but they were all constrained by traditional local powers and privileges. Compared to earlier periods, dynastic states in the 18th century were indeed more centralized, but they were still not, and should never be considered, unified nation-states of the 19th century. We must remember the special nature of such states to understand the political conflicts of this period and the radical reforms in Europe triggered by the French Revolution. See also: Absolutism (divine right of kings)
17th-century political theory used to justify absolute monarchy. The French Catholic bishop Bossuet provided the clearest and most famous exposition of this theory. In a book advising the French heir to the throne, he explicitly stated his views. The book was titled Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture (1679). It blended the Bible, law, and traditional political theory with the ideas of contemporary absolutist theorists. The cornerstone of this theory was the analogy between the God of the universe and the king of a kingdom. According to Christian theology, God is the creator of the universe and the king of all things. God is omnipresent and the creator of all things. God holds all power but is not tyrannical. God rules according to the laws he himself has established. Similarly, within a kingdom, the land is the king’s domain. The king is sacred, ruling like a father in a family. His rule is also absolute. All authority—legislative, judicial, or executive—comes from the king. His authority cannot be divided or shared by others. This does not mean the king can be tyrannical. Like God, the king is bound by the laws he himself has established. In this case, the foundation of the law is natural law, which is correct reason and natural equity (not to be confused with equality). But natural law is, of course, the law created by God himself. In this way, Bossuet began with God and skillfully turned the argument back to God. He concluded that the king’s absolute authority came from God himself; the king ruled through law, which reflected the natural order created by God. Bossuet supported the divine right of kings theory with historical evidence and appealed to practical individual interests. For example, he claimed that monarchy was the oldest and most common form of government. Moreover, monarchy was the best form of government because it was the best guarantee against conflict. Monarchy ensured the greatest freedom for subjects, not by participation in government but by protection from oppression and exploitation. Bossuet’s divine right of kings theory supported Louis XIV’s absolutist rule. However, with the arrival of the 18th century and the development of secular views on nature and the universe, absolutism began to require other forms of support. This support came not only from secular natural law theory but also from utilitarian and humanitarian ideals, transforming the divine right of kings theory into enlightened absolutism.