British and Continental Enlightenment(s)

REMBRANDT, Philosopher in Meditation 1632, Mus�e du Louvre.

Gandalin commenting to mentalblog.com: Novus Ordo Seclorum:

The differences between the Britannick Enlightenment (Scottish in particular) on the one hand and the French Enlightenment on the other hand, are striking and critical to understanding how the continental Enlightenment gave rise to statism in its various avatars of fascism-nationalsozialismus-communism whereas the British Enlightenment, as brought to fruition in America, gave rise to a society which freed its slaves, enfranchised its laborers and women, and twice sent armies to Europe not as conquerors but as liberators.

The existence of the Masonic Lodge as a laboratory in which Godfearing men of differing faith communities could develop the personal habits that permit democracy was undoubtedly important. Democracy is not NO-government, it is SELF-government. The Masonic Lodge provided a dojo in which self-government could be learned, even in a society that was still monarchical and hierarchical.

berl, crown heights: Very illuminating. Can you please elaborate on the 'the differences between the Britannic and French Enlightenment'? Any good book on the subject?

Gandalin: The Britannick Enlightenment as I see it has roots that go back before the actual period of the Enlightenment, at least to Elizabethan Times. The philosophy of Francis Bacon, whose "New Atlantis" may be the remnant of a Masonic or Rosicrucian project to establish a model polity in the Americas, is certainly one precursor.

I find in the Britannic Enlightenment a concern for the individual, an epistemological skepticism, and an anti-utopian reformism, if you will, that seeks to ameliorate the life of mankind while recognizing the complex and problematic in human nature.

In the French "lumieres" I find an utopian perfectionism, clothed in a Rousseauian idyll which conceals the murderous rage that the philosopher-kings will later turn on their subjects, when the people are unable to live up to the ideals that were upheld for them. The absolutism of Saint-Just, the formal and open establishment of The Terror as an instrument of public policy (I believe this is the first appearance of terrorism in the world-historical-political lexicon.)

In order to perceive the difference between them, one need only compare the American Declaration of Independence and Constitution (remarkable for their sobriety and realism) with the perorations of a Babeuf, a Robespierre, or a Marat.

TA: Gandalin, can you suggest a "for dummies" reading list on this?

Gandalin: Here is a suggested reading list for those who may have an interest in the British and Continental Enlightenment(s).

First of all, since you entered this subject by way of Napoleon Bonaparte�s supposed Masonic connections; I am going to suggest an historical work which discusses the possible influence of Freemasonry on continental politics in the XVIIIth century. Most of what is published on this subject is, I fear, nonsense. The Masons who have written on the topic tend, I think, to over-estimate the role played by the Masonic Lodge in the republican Revolutions of the Enlightenment, and the books written by anti-Masons are largely nothing more than conspiratorial fantasies. (As I�m sure you know, the text of the �Protocols of the Elders of Zion� was originally written to �expose� a supposed Masonic plot to conquer the world, before it was re-edited to turn the plot into a Jewish one, and it is equally fictional in that context.)

A scholarly work using sound principles and based on the examination of primary sources is Professor Margaret Jacob�s �Living the Enlightenment,� Oxford University Press, 1991. She shows that Masonry provided a vehicle to transmit throughout the continent, originally British ideas. Politically, these ideas included the notion that men were capable of choosing their own leaders in elections that proceeded by a secret ballot; that a voluntary association could be governed by an explicit constitution, bylaws, and decisions made by elected representatives; that men of different professional backgrounds and social origins could meet and converse as equals (albeit, at first, in a carefully delimited locale, namely the Lodge); and that religious believers from very different faith communities could dedicate themselves to the service of Deity together, and that underlying the different particularistic manifestations of their faith was a shared understanding that Natural Law derives from a benign and omnipotent Creator. Thus was �civil society� created in the midst of the decaying �ancient regime.�

Philosophically, the major figures in the British Enlightenment were, I think, Locke and Hume. The English physician John Locke was a XVIIth century figure whose interests, unlike those of his friend Sydenham, extended well beyond the boundaries of medical science. He wrote the �Essay,� as well as �Treatises� on government and other subjects. The Scotsman David Hume lived during the XVIIIth century, and is best remembered today, I think, for his �Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding.� But the most important thinker in terms of political economy or political philosophy was probably Adam Smith, a professor at Glasgow, who�s �Wealth of Nations� (1776) remains relevant and enlightening today. Another XVIth century philosopher worth reading is Thomas Hobbes, whose skepticism about the state of nature contrasts with Rousseau�s view of the noble savage.

I claim that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States are practical documents that embody the philosophy of the British Enlightenment, and a close reading of both would provide an excellent background in key concepts of the British Enlightenment. If you want to delve more deeply into the political ramifications of the enlightenment ideals, then I suggest the Federalist Papers or the Adams-Jefferson correspondence.

As for the continental enlightenment, we should distinguish between the German Aufklaerung, which was largely academic, and the French �lumieres� whose philosophy devolved into the Revolution, the Terror, the Empire, and the various statist doctrines that bedeviled Europe in the XXth century. (Margaret Thatcher has saliently pointed out that neither communism nor nationalsozialismus nor fascism originated in Britain, but that all are manifestations of a continental European tradition or sickness, depending on your point of view. For intellectual histories of socialism, I like Joshua Muravchik�s �Heaven on Earth,� which is especially good on Babeuf and the early German thinkers Lasalle and Bernstein. I also like Shafarevich�s book on Socialism, which in its English translation is now out of print, although you have to take it with a grain of salt. I am aware that Shafarevich has allied himself with anti-Semitic nationalist parties in Russia, and he tends to take the view, mistaken I think, that modern socialism is the direct outgrowth of a long-standing, anti-Christian, heretical conspiracy which he sketches in from Freemasonry backwards through to the radical Anabaptists, the Free Spirit movement of late medieval Northern Europe, and the Cathars. I don�t buy that. However, it is remarkable to see what he could do with the materials that were available to him in the Soviet Union, and his depiction of the early Chin Empire and of the Inca Empire as socialist dystopias is compelling. He does show I think that the socialist idea does not derive from any supposed contradiction between the industrial proletariat and bourgeoisie, but is rather a totalitarian ideal found already in a quite developed form in Plato�s �Republic� and St Thomas More�s �Utopia.�)

Immanuel Kant is the quintessential German Enlightenment writer, but he is quite difficult. Perhaps his pamphlet �Was ist Aufklaerung� would be of interest.

The French Enlightenment authors include Denis Diderot, the paragon of materialism, Voltaire, the Baron de Montesquieu, and of course Rousseau. Rousseau�s essays on the Social Contact, on the Origin of Inequality, and on the Arts and Sciences are relatively straightforward. Diderot expended his life on the Encyclopedie, but his fictional works are of great interest, including the story of Jacques le Fataliste � et son maitre � and the remarkable conversation with �Rameau�s Nephew.� Many of his essays were circulated only in manuscript, but were quite influential when you consider that the subscribers included Catherine the Great and Frederick the Great. Voltaire�s works are better known, and in Voltaire we find the extreme anti-clericalism of the French Enlightenment taking form. Montesquieu�s �De l�esprit des lois� is important, and his �Lettres Persane,� is also quite good. He used a fictional Persian setting to evade royal censorship.

Delving into all that would be quite a start!