Chapter 19 – The Enlightenment

No man has received from nature the right to give orders to others. Freedom is a gift from heaven, and every individual of the same species has the right to enjoy it as soon as he is in enjoyment of his reason.

(Denis Diderot, L’Encyclopédie )

Armed with literacy, books, scientific tools, complex mathematics, and evolving political and religious ideologies, 18th -century Europe considered itself quite advanced indeed. The middle classes of the land had expanded to such a degree that more citizens than ever before were able to acquire a basic education and learn how their world was organized. More and more, it seemed, both the common people and much of the aristocracy could agree that reforms were necessary for the betterment of all. A principal philosophy of the time was the separation of church and state. [139]

For more than a thousand years, the poor and aristocratic alike had cowered under the immense shadow of the Catholic Church. Taught that to follow the church and the law of the monarchy was equivalent to saving one’s soul, people’s lives had been truly ruled by priests, bishops, cardinals, kings, queens, and popes. Though specific laws varied from kingdom to kingdom, it was usually mandatory for citizens to attend local church services and pay tithes to their ministers. In exchange, the various Christian-based churches of the day claimed to teach their congregations how to avoid going to hell and suffering for all eternity following their deaths. People were genuinely fearful of the wrath of God and the treachery of Satan, and they relied on the advice and instructions of the clergy to keep them safe.

The appearance of wider educational curriculums for the wealthy and middle classes during the 17th and 18th centuries provided different perspectives of humanity’s role in the world. The sciences and economic philosophy gave people a glimpse into the natural world, administration, and means of production, and people began to foster serious doubt in organized religion. Emboldened by their ideas, people started to gather secretly and speak against the authority of the church. Their hushed conversations rang with facets of humanism, this time even more liberal in nature. Reason and logic were suggested as the foundations of human behavior and decision-making in place of the self-appointed leadership in churches and palaces.

People began to openly discuss the potential benefits of individual freedom and the details of a democratic monarchal system. In France, Jean-Jacques Rousseau expanded on an ancient idea he called the “social contract,” first described by Plato in his book Crito . Plato’s ubiquitous character, Socrates, explained social contract as the informal agreement between rulers and citizens of a civilization. It was an agreement in which citizens agree to follow the rules (pay taxes, provide labor, etc.) of a king or governor in exchange for protection and social benefits (defensive structures, army, food availability). Rousseau, in his book The Social Contract , argued that contemporary monarchies and their governments had failed to uphold their end of the bargain. He posited that: “MAN is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they.”

Of course, this was no good for the authoritative dynasties of the continent. In centuries past, they had dealt with such talk swiftly and violently; now, with multitudes of people in agreement—among them, the wealthiest of the land—monarchs were forced to either destroy their own people or come up with a new solution. The compromise reached by some rulers was that of a constitutional monarchy.

England’s Glorious Revolution of the 17th century ensured such a political system for itself. This came after a civil war just a few decades before during which King Charles I was beheaded in 1649 for refusing to allow his government a reasonable modicum of authority. [140] His son, Charles II, was invited to rule as his successor, and after his death, the crown went to his brother, James II. Both Kings Charles and James did little to relieve the tension between the Crown and Parliament, however; so, in 1688, William of Orange decided to intervene. [141]

William III, more commonly known as William of Orange, the military general of Holland, was invited by enemies of King James II to advance with his army. The invitation was extended for one main reason: William’s wife, Mary Stuart, was the daughter of King James II and therefore a logical successor. William and Mary both approved the plan and seized London while allowing James II to flee to Scotland. Legally documented as the abdication of the throne on the part of King James II, the seizure gave English Parliament the chance to place both Mary and William on dual thrones. In exchange for their positions, William and Mary signed the English Bill of Rights in 1689, thereby leaving the taxation of the kingdom to Parliament. The powers of the English monarchy were greatly reduced from that point forward with authority placed more and more with the government.

England’s political changes reverberated throughout the continent and fueled anti-monarchal debates. France, in particular, was greatly influenced by the revolution of its close neighbor, especially during the rule of the opulent King Louis XV not a century later. The French royal family, the House of Bourbon by ancestry, represented the absolute height of contemporary fashion and trend during the 18th century, and in doing so, they taxed their kingdom remarkably. [142] Given their traditional political educations, the Bourbons believed that it was their duty to present a perfect, lavish front to their citizens. This tactic may have worked for hundreds of years, but the days of such arrogance and waste were numbered.