The Enlightenment and Its Shadows

235 Pages·1990·43.166 MB·English

by  Peter Hulme

Firstpublished1990
byRoutledge
11NewFetterLane, LondonEC4P4EE
SimultaneouslypublishedintheUSA andCanada
byRoutledge
adivisionofRoutledge, ChapmanandHall, Inc.
29 West35thStreet, New York, NY10001
©1990PeterHulmeandLudmillalordanova foreditorialmaterialandtheirown
contributions;allothercontributions©1990therespectivecontributors
TypesetbyScarborough TypesettingServices
PrintedinGreatBritainby
T. 1. Press, Padstow, Cornwall
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthisbookmayberepn'ntedor
reproducedorutilizedinany form orbyanyelectronic,
mechanical, orothermeans,nowknownorhereafter
invented, includingphotocopyingandrecording, orinany
informationstorageorretrievalsystem, withoutpermission
in writing from thepublishers.
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
TheEnlightenmentanditsshadows.
1. Europeanculture,history
I Hulme, Peter, 1948- D.lordanova, L.1.(LudmillaI.)
940
ISBN0-415-04231-3
LibraryofCongressCataloginginPublicationData
TheEnlightenmentanditsshadows/editedbyPeterHulmeandLudmillalordanova.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferences.
ISBN0-415-04231-3
1. Europe- Intellectuallife- 18thcentury.2. Enlightenment. 3. Civilization,Modem
18thcentury. I Hulme, Peter. D.lordanova, L.1.
CB411.E55 1990 89-24176
940.2'53- dc20 CIP
Illustrations
1 Genoese map ofthe world (1457). 6
2 Dutch map ofthe world (Joan Blaeu 1648). 6
3 BenoIt-Louis Prevost, frontispiece to the Encyclopedie (1772); after
an original drawing by Charles-Nicholas Cochin II (1764). 13
4 The tree ofknowledge from the Encyclopedie (detail). 14
5 Wood-engraving illustratingSouth American Indians (1505). 19
6 Title-page ofFrancis Bacon, Novum organum (1620). 21
7 J. M. Moreau, Ie jeune, engraved illustration for Rousseau's La
Decouvertedu nouveaumonde, from vol.VIII ofthe 1774-6 edition
ofthe Oeuvres Completes. 40
8 Sixteenth-century map ofEI Dorado (from L. Hulsius, Travels 1599).
British Library. 44
9 The Universe accordingto Ptolemy, from Andreas Cellarius,
Harmonia Macrocosmica (1660). 51
10 Louis XIV as Apollo in the Balletdu Roydes Festes du Bacchus
(1651), by an unknown artist. Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. 61
11 Philibert-Louis Debucourt, Calendrierrepublicain (Republican
Calendar) (1794). Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. 87
12 Antoine Watteau, LesFetes venitiennes (ca. 1718). National Gallery
ofScotland, Edinburgh. 125
13 Jacques-Louis David, The Death ofMarat (1793). Musees Royeaux
des Beaux-Arts, Brussels. 128
14 The First SealoftheRepublic(1792). Archives Nationales, Paris. 130
15 The Goddess ofLiberty attheFestivalofReason (November 1793).
Reproduced from RevolutionsdeParis, no.215. 131
16 Pierre-Paul Prud'hon, The Republic, with Liberty, Equality and
Fraternity (ca. 1792). Private collection. 133
viii Illustrations
17 Auguste Barr, The SecondSealofthe Republic(1848). Archives
Nationales, Paris. 136
18 The Statue ofLiberty (1886). Aerial view photograph by Jack
Boucher. Reproduced by courtesy ofthe US Departmentofthe
Interior, National ParkService. 137
19 Eugene Delacroix, Liberty attheBarricades (1830). Louvre, Paris. 139
20 Anonymous, Le Calculateurpatriote(The Patriotic Calculator)
(1789). Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. 151
21 Jacques-Louis Copia, Droits de l'homme etdu citoyen (Rights ofJl;Jarz
andofthe Citizen) (ca.1793), after Alexandre-Evariste Fragonard.
Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. 174
22 Anonymous, Declaration des droits de l'homme etdu citoyen
(Declaration oftheRightsofMan andofthe Citizen) (1793).
Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. 175
a
23 James Gillray, Un PetitSouper, laparisienne; - or- A Family of
Sans-Culotts Refreshing, aftertheFatigues ofthe Day (1792). The
British Library. 212
24 Anonymous, L'HeureuseEtoile(TheLuckyStar) (1802).
Bibliotheque Nationale, Paris. 214
1
Introduction
PETER HULME AND
LUDMILLA JORDANOVA
InaverydarkChamber, ataroundHole, aboutonethirdPartofanInchbroad,
madeintheShutofaWindow, IplacedaGlassPrism, wherebytheBeamofthe
Sun's Light, which came in atthe Hole, mightbe refracted upwardstoward the
opposite Wall ofthe Chamber, and there form acolour'd Image ofthe Sun.
(Newton, Opticks [17031, book 1, part 1)
The Enlightenment was a self-conscious intellectual movement that discussed its
own origins and characteristics with passion. Two texts ofparticular importance
which illustrate this are Jean d'Alembert's preliminary discourse to the
Encyclopedie (1751) and Immanuel Kant's 1784 essay 'What is Enlightenment?'.
D'Alembert recounts a now familiar story in which the Enlightenment is
intensifyingthat 'lightofreason', first litin Greece, which had been 'rekindled' in
the fourteenth century after almost a millenium of darkness (in Diderot 1967:
1-41); Kant defines Enlightenment as 'man's emergence from self-incurred
immaturity' (Kant 1970: 54; cf. O'Neill, this volume). The frequency with which
these two analogies recur serves to define the self-image ofthe period, although,
like all analogies, each has atroubling ambiguity.
These two texts can also stand, briefly, for the very different kinds ofaddress
encompassed by the Enlightenment. The Encyclopedie, as its name suggests,
attempted to speak of the totality of human knowledge. In his preliminary
discourse, d'Alembert, a renowned mathematician, emphasizes in high-minded
fashion the progressive nature of human knowledge; although the Encyclopedie
itself is also full of scurrilously satirical comments on contemporary life. Kant's
short, surprising, yet philosophically elegant and precise essay 'What is
Enlightenment?'isunexpectedlythemorepoliticalofthetwotexts,sinceheargues,
quite directly, thatEnlightenmentthinkingcanbefully realizedonlyinthe public
sphere- ofwhich he offers an original and provocative definition.
Yet encyclopaedia and essay are linked by that 'single style ofthinking' which
PeterGayseesasconnectingawhole 'familyofintellectuals' (Gay 1967-70: 1,xii),
an extended family that spanned several generations and that had branches in
variousEuropeanand, eventually, Americancountries. Certainlyintheeighteenth
2 PeterHulme andLudmillaJordanova
centurytherewas aconstantinterchange ofvisits: Voltaireand Rousseaucameto
England, astrean1ofphilosophes, including Humeand Gibbon, visitedVoltaire at
Ferney. Learnedsocietiesburgeonedwiththeirinternationallinksandcorrespond
ing members. And ifthe French branch ofthe family seemed dominant, then full
homagewaspaidtothetrio ofEnglish 'pioneers': Bacon, Newton, and Locke. But
sincethe Enlightenmentwas, in many ofits aspects, also highlyself-critical, itwas
inevitablethat,evenasitsidentityemerged,itwassubverted.Therecanbenomore
powerfulexemplificationofthispointthanthewritingsofDenisDiderot,whocould
besolemnanddidactic, excitedbyscience,movedbythemoralpotentialofart, yet,
at the same time, playful, mischievous, and completely sceptical about settled
notions ofhuman nature.
Therehavebeenbasicallytwoapproachestotheinevitablequestionsofdefinition
and periodization. The first is more exclusive; its origins lie in the period
immediately after the French Revolution, and it views the Enlightenment as
consisting of a group of more or less likeminded individuals, writing mainly in
France in the period between the death ofLouis XIV (1715) and the onset ofthe
Revolution (1789). The dominant figures are seen as Montesquieu, Voltaire and
Rousseau. Inthisnarrowdefinitionthe Enlightenmentisviewedasarevolutionary
movementofideasthatculminatedintheeventsof1789-94. Standardworks also
periodize the history·of Europe in this way. In France these boundaries are
emphasized through such series as Peuples et Civilisations, whose two volumes
entitled Le Sieele des Lumieres deal with the periods 1715-50 and 1750-89
(Soboul etal. 1977). The same periodization is then found in the Norton history,
which includes Tradition and Progress, 1715-1789 (Woloch 1982), and in the
Pelican Guides to European Literature, which include an 'Age ofEnlightenment'
running from 1715to 1789(Grimsley 1979). Histories ofthe Enlightenmentitself
tend to follow suit: Norman Hampson's The Enlightenment (1968) is divided into
two parts, 1715-40 and 1740-89, while the chronology in Lester Crocker's
anthology, The Age ofEnlightenment (1969) is slightly longer, framed by the
Revocation ofthe EdictofNantes(1685) and the guillotiningofLouis XVI (1793).
Evenleavingasidetheflexibilityoftheseconventions,thereisaseriousproblem
with this approach. Although the term 'Enlightenment' was quickly adopted asa
generalhistoricalperiod, the useofpoliticaleventstomarkthebeginningandend
of a predominantly intellectual and cultural movement is bound to be not only
arbitrary - as all such 'marks' are -but also tendentious. In particular, a dating
which endsthe Enlightenment in 1793 or 1794 strongly implies thatthe multiple
strandsoftheEnlightenmentculminateinthesingleeventof'theTerror'.Itiseasy
and tempting to use such political markers because they are discrete events and
because we can see (or think we see) the links between political ideas and their
effects. In fact we know very little about how ideas move, either across or within
societies.Sinceitseemslikelythattheirpassageisoftenhaltinganduneven,itis,to
say the least, problematic to mark the end of a movement that was essentially
concernedwith ideasbyinvokingapoliticalevent. Furthermore, thereisconsider-
Introduction 3
ableevidencetosuggestthat, inthelateeighteenthandearlynineteenthcenturies,
someofthemostferocious criticsoftheEnlightenmentwere, nonetheless,deeply
indebted to it. Their interpretation of the Enlightenment (see Jordanova, this
volume) is not necessarilywrong, butitis importantto historicize such interpret
ations, forcing them to argue on the evidence rather than accepting them on the
basis ofthe founding gesture ofperiodization itself.
At the beginning of this century Gustave Lanson and his students began to
broaden the understanding of the Enlightenment in decisive ways, studying its
'origins' in the seventeenth and even sixteenth centuries; paying attention to the
importanceofEnglishwriterssuchasBacon,Newton, andLocke;andstressingthe
continuityofits'philosophicalspirit' intothetwentiethcentury(foranaccount,see
Wade1971:3-57).ThemostinfluentialofLanson'spupilswasPaulHazard,whose
crucial works - published in 1935 and 1946 - effectively defined the modern,
'broader' notion ofthe Enlightenment. His mostimportantmoves, which are now
widely accepted, were to establish the beginnings ofthe Enlightenmentproper in
theseventeenthcentury;toclarifythecontrastbetweenthe'stability'oftheclassical
ideal andtheintrinsically'restless' characterofEnlightenmentthinking; to realize
thegenuinelyEuropeannatureofthephenomenonoftheEnlightenment,withdue
weightgivento itsScottish, English, andGermancomponents; and- insomeways
1110stcrucialofa11-toarguefortheimportancetotheEnlightenmentofthewayof
thinkingintroducedbyDescartes(againstthepreviousargumentthatthesubstance
of Descartes' thought had been soon rejected so that he was not a significant
precursor). This is how Hazard puts it:
The pineal gland, in which he deemed the soul was lodged; those robots or
mechanical animals insensible alike to pain and pleasure, the plein; the
whirlpools;thephysics, andeventhemetaphysics,ofDescarteshadfallenbythe
wayside.What,then, ofessentialsignificancesurvived?Hisspirit;hismethod- a
lasting acquisition, that - his rules for guiding the operations ofthe mind, so
simple, yet withal so powerful, that even if they did not illuminate the whole
domain oftruth, they at all events caused some ofthe shadows to recede.
(Hazard 1973: 158)
LightwasacentralmetaphorforknowledgelongbeforetheEnlightenment, butat
that period ittook on new vitality. The cosmology ofCopernicus and Galileo had
established the sun at the centre of the universe, and its light had become the
subject- in Newton's Opticks(published 1703)- ofthe greatestscientific investi
gations ofthe seventeenth century. In Newton's work the laws oflightseemed to
have been laid bare, yet still in devout fashion. Even Alexander Pope, often an
acerbiccommentatoronscientificdevelopments, couldseesuch understandingas
part of God's plan: 'Nature, and Nature's Laws lay hid in Night.! God said Let
Newton Be! and All was Lighf (Epitaph, intended for Sir Isaac Newton 1730).
Consequently,therewasawholeepistemologybehindtheuseofimagesof'light'in
theeighteenthcentury, onethatwasboostedbythebeliefthatallknowledgecame
4 PeterHulme andLudmillaJordanova
fromthesensesandthatvisionwasqueenamongthesenses,withobservationatthe
heartofthe acquisition ofsolid knowledge ofthe world. Enlightenmentwasless a
state than aprocess ofsimultaneous unveiling and observation. To lookwell and
carefully sufficientlight is required, and looking in this way was deemedthe only
route to secureknowledge, although even aprioriknowledge couldbe analogised
tovisionastheproductofinnerlight. ItwasagainstthisbackgroundthatDiderot's
prospectus for the Encyclopedie spoke of 'the general enlightenment which has
spread throughout society' Des lumieres generales qui se sont repandues dans la
societe] (Diderot 1967: 34). The eighteenth centurywas commonly referred to by
the enlighteners as their century, 'Ie siecle des lumieres', and the German term
Aufkliirungwascommonbythe1780s- althoughitstranslationas'Enlightenment'
only came into English usage in the nineteenth century.
Dispute overthesignificanceofthe Enlightenmenthasremainedattheheartof
much twentieth-century intellectual debate. One of the most sophisticated and
involuted condemnations of the Enlightenment, the Dialectic ofEnlightenment,
was written between 1944 and 1945 by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer.
This critique 'from the left' has proved an important reference point in the
contemporary debate between two increasingly entrenched positions: a 'post
structuralism' which, in its various forms, is indebted to the anti-Enlightenment
viewsassociatedwith Friedrich Nietzsche; andastandpointwithinMarxist'critical
theory'defendedbyJurgenHabermasasa'completion'ratherthanrejection ofthe
Enlightenmentproject. SinceAdorno and Horkheimerare themselves key figures
in critical theory, Habermas's discussion of the Dialectic ofEnlightenment is of
special importance (Habermas 1987: chapter V), as too is the fascinating but
tragically incomplete dialogue between Habermas and the late Michel Foucault,
whichwasenjoinedpreciselyoverKant's'Whatis Enlightenment?'essay(Foucault
1984, 1986; Habermas 1986).
Similar complexities can be observed elsewhere on the political spectrum. The
calculationsofreason havetraditionally been rejected by an English conservatism
drawing its language from Burke's reflections on the French Revolution. More
recently, elements oftheself-styled 'NewRight' have associatedthemselveswith a
liberalism thatsupposedly has its roots in Adam Smith and David Hume. A'New
Enlightenment'hasevenbeenproclaimed,speakinginthenameof'reason'against
whatitseesasthetransientintellectualfashionsofthe 'newrelativism' (cf. Graham
and Clarke 1986; and- for a French parallel- Bruckner 1986).
The point here is not to intervene in those complex debates, butto indicate in
briefcompassthatthemajorissuesofourintellectuallifetodayarestillimplicated,
for better or worse, in the shadows cast by the multifaceted enterprise of the
Enlightenment project.
Ifyou were to trace onto amap the principal orbits ofthe Enlightenmentwriters
and their books, traversing the places where their books were written, published
and read, youwouldfind thatthewritersclusteredinto a,!?~~~~~I_g~~g!'!PJ1Lc~1
Introduction 5
area: the north and westofFrance, the low countries, the north-eastofGermany,
Switzerland, thesouth ofEngland, thesouth ofScotland, northern Italy, andthat
the readership would stretch to the rest ofwestern Europe with afew outposts in
eastern Europe and within populations of European descent outside Europe,
especially in north and south America. In that sense the Enlightenmentwas very
much aEuropean phenomenon (see Porter and Teich 1981).
The map in Figure 1was drawn in 1457, 200 years before the beginning ofthe
Enlightenment;themapinFigure2in1648,sixyearsafterthedeathofGalileoand
twoyearsbeforethedeathofDescartes,inotherwordsrightatthebeginningofthe
Enlightenment period. Several very broad but important generalizations are
illustratedbythese maps. To beginwith, the mapsshowthe extentofthechanges
thathad taken place in conceptions ofthe world in the two centuriespriorto the
Enlightenment. In 1457 Europe's knowledge of the rest of the world was very
limited.ThereisanotionalAfrica,andalargeareatotherightthatapproximatesto
Asia. Butthereisno Indianpeninsula, noAustralia., and- perhapsmostimportant
ofall-noAmerica, notevenaspaceintowhichAmericacouldfit. Bythe1640sthe
changes are dramatic. This map is at least recognizably ofour world. Africa has
approximately the right shape, Asia has more definition, and America is very
definitely there, in fact occupying almost exactly halfofthe map.
There is no naturaldivision between west and east, so the vertical line on the
second map is simply an assertion in the circumstances probably not
unreasonable- thatthecentralaxisofthenorthernEuropeanworldin1648liesin
the Atlantic (see Davis 1973). America, which was not there at all 200 years
previously, is, onthe 1648map, nowtoobig, almostovershadowingthe'old'world
to its east. It would be difficult to underestimate the shock to the European
intellectual system ofthat 'discovery' ofAmerica, a new world with a whole new
faunaandfloraand,aboveall,ahumanpopulationthatwasundreamtofbyclassical
antiquity and of which no mention was made in the Bible. The philosophical
implicationsoftheexistenceofAmericawerebythe1640sstillintheearlystagesof
their incorporation into the European world-picture.
The other striking feature ofthe 1648 map is that Australia is notthere at all:
insteadthereisamassivesoutherncontinentrunningrightalongthebottomofthe
map, which is presumed to exist. It says on the map TERRA AUSTRALIS
NONDUM COGNITA, the land of the south not yet known. The bringing into
knowledgeofthis'landofthesouth'- or, asitturnedout, amultitudeofislandsof
thesouth- wastodominatedebatesonthestateofnatureduringthesecondhalfof
the eighteenth century.
The 'discovery' of these various 'new worlds' also gave the Enlightenment a
metaphor that could be applied far beyond its immediate geographical meaning.
Above all itevokedthe nature ofscientificadvance, forwhich imagesofmarching
intonewterritories,tamingwhatonefoundthere,andgivingacoherentaccountof
freshterrainwereespeciallyapt(seeFigure6).Atlasescouldbecollectionsofmaps,
buttheywere also diagramsand illustrationsofthatother'terranondumcognita',
the human body.
6 PeterHulme andLudmilla Jordanova
Figures1and2 Themid-seventeenthcenturymarksashiftinthebalanceofEuropeanpower
from the Mediterranean to northern Europe. Powerlies where mapsare produced: the top
map(1457) wasdrawn in Genoa, the bottomone(1648) in Amsterdam. Itwas thenorthern
European countrieswhich were undergoing duringthose years in the middle ofthe seven
teenth centurywhatwe now recognizeas theearlystagesofthe developmentofcapitalism,
and those countrieswhich nowtook adecisive initiative incolonialventures.
Introduction 7
Butthesecondmap isalso insomerespectsmisleading. Becausetheshapesare
more orlesswhatwe expectthem to be, we mightpresume more knowledge than
actually existed in the middle ofthe seventeenth century. 'Discovery', up until the
end of the Enlightenment period, generally meant voyages of discovery often
linked with trading ventures. So the outlines were known, but not what they
contained: the vast expanse of North America had been little travelled by
Europeans in 1650, and was notthatmuch betterknown in 1800. Theinteriorof
sub-Saharan Africawas absolutely crucial to the European economiesthroughout
the eighteenth century because itwas this areathatsuppliedthe blackslaveswho
workedtheplantationsalongtheeasternseaboardofcontinentalAmerica. Butthe
slavetraders bought the slaves on the Atlantic coast: Europeans had little
knowledge ofthe complexsocietiesofthe interioruntilthe nineteenth century. In
some ways most mysterious ofall was China and the Far East, still known mainly
through the reports ofearliertravellers such as Marco Polo. Africawas unknown
and despised: China was unknown and admired as the single ancient civilization
that had survived into the modern age, respected both for its polity and its
aesthetics. Until the Opium Wars ofthe nineteenth century when Europe was to
force its way into China, Europeans would be obliged to trade on Chineseterms,
buying Chinese goods made for export at a handful of approved ports on the
Chinese coasts. At this stage the only Europeans allowed a closer knowledge of
Chinese society were afew Jesuitmissionaries (see, for example, Spence 1984).
The Enlightenment's self-consciousness was to some extent a geographical
consciousnessbasedonthedistinctivenessofthepartoftheworldthatcametobe
called 'Europe'. Even the 1648 map shows that the only line separating Europe
from thecontinentofAsia(ofwhich Europeisinfactapeninsula)musthavebeen,
as it still is, an ideological line. In the seventeenth century Europe - or more
preciselycertainpeoplelivingonthenorth-westofthatlandmass- begantodefine
themselves as different in significant respects from the rest of the world. That
difference was represented by positing an imaginary continent with a somewhat
flexible eastern boundary. Christendom had furnished the banner for the early
voyages of discovery. Widespread scepticism about religious institutions, and
especially aboutthe temporalpowerofRome, weakenedthe valencyofthatidea
at least in intellectual circles. Ageographical self-definition such as 'European'
implied identification with secular and progressive values: Gibbon called Europe
'one greatrepublic' (Gibbon 1896-1900: IV, 163).
Atkey momentsintheDiscourseonMethodandtheDiscourseontheOriginsof
Inequality, both Descartes and Rousseau contrastthe worthlessness of'the book'
withtheneedtoinvestigate'theworld',bywhichtheyunderstoodboththeworldof
natureandtheworldoftheself. FromaperceivedEuropean'centre'writersbegan
to speculate about the 'peripheral' parts of the world. In that sense Descartes'
references to the Chinese and the Cannibals inaugurate an important
Enlightenmenttradition(seeHulme,thisvolume). Thisisthe'comparativeproject'
ofthe Enlightenment, one ofits most fundamental methodologies. It was at this