the elightenment part 2

The radical effects of the elightenment movemnet did not lie solely in its political agenda ut more so in its creation of a more general questioning spirit, a 'toolkit of ideas' that could turn upon contemporary society. this idea/movement taught people that there is nothing that can't be questioned and also taught them how to question.

in his Persian letters (1721), Montesquieu adopted the technique of the 'ingenuous outsider', a supposed foreigner who had observed the french society and makes devastating comments upon its injustices and vanities, apparently in innocent incomprehension. Of course, the Persian never existed although this fictional character provided Monequieu with a postition in which he could view the society with fresh eyes and willingly question what was taken for granted. when the 'Persian' mocked the laziness and uselessness of the court nobility, he was eroding nad weakening the habit of respect that formed the very basis of the culture of deference.

The closest thing the philosphers had to critique in relation ot the old regime was the churnch. they justifiably attacked the churches inequalities, especiallty the upper clergy's wealth and uselessness.they rejected religious orthadoxy, the idea that one religion can be proclaimed 'right'and all other religions 'wrong'.they also condemned the church for their intollerance, particually towards prostants and jews, who were allowed to work and live in france but unable to register their birth with the catholic church, therfore they were unable to gain employment by the state.

on occasions the philisophers would take a more direct approach, such as when Voltaire defended the cause of Jean Calas, a prostestant who had been wrongfully exacuted in 1762 for the alleged murder of his suicidal son. Voltaire secured posthumous justice for Calas in 1765, he he gained considerable public sympathy for htwe impoverished family and increased awareness of both religious and judicial incompetance of the old and deteriating regime.

while some historians believe that criticism of the old regime from the phiospohers and its collapse must be linked, whereas others have questioned whether critical or suversive ideas by themselves have the power to actually cause a revolution.

Revisionist historian Willian Doyle challanges this argument by asking how we know that , even if the philospohers had not written a single word that, the french revolution might not hve happened anyway. the revisionists argue that the philosophers were not actually revolutionary but quite conservative and that very few of their ideas could actually be seen as advocating the massive changes that occurred in the revolution of france.

Revisionist historian Timothy Blanning believes that the enlightenment was not opposed to the idea of the regime but its abuses. By the 1780's many of the leading philosophers were dead, and those who were still alive had been safely intergrated into high society of the old regime backing up the idea that the philosophers were against its abuse not the old regime itself.

the readers of the philosophers were a small, fashionable, social elite of nobles and bourgeois. very few if any at all actually reached the vast majority of the population, although the peasants in the countryside would manage ot formulate radical thoughts and undertake revolutionary action without ever having read any of the works of these philosophers.

The Enlightenment had begun in the 1720's (Monequieu's 'Persian Letter') and had reached its peak by the 1770's (Diderot's encyclopedia 1751-1772).
although many of the philosophers were dead by the time the revolution came about, the men and women of 1789 had all read the great works of theelightenement and had learnt how to think critically about there own society. the suggestions brought about by the philosophers themselves were mainly about reform not revolution.