The Question of Enlightenment - Theory and Practice in Eighteenth ...

Recommendations

Info

The Question of Enlightenment 40 Philosophical Critique of Reason and Its ‘Postmodern’ Radicalization,” in Reason and Its Other, edited by Dieter Freundlieb and Wayne Hudson (Providence, RI: Berg, 1993) 67-86. 13 14 Cassirer, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment Paul Hazard, La Crise De La Conscience Europeénne (1680-1715) (Paris: Boivin,1935) [translated by J. Lewis May as The European Mind (Cleveland and New York: Meridian Books, 1963) xv]. 15 Herbert Dieckmann, “Themes and Structure of the Enlightenment,” in Herbert Dieckmann, Harry Levin, and Helmut Motekat, Essays in Comparative Literature (St. Louis: Washington University Studies, 1961) 45-6. For another evaluation of Cassirer and Hazard, see Robert Niklaus, “The Age of the Enlightenment,” in The Age of the Enlightenment: Studies Presented to Theodore Besterman, edited by W. H. Barber, J. H. Brumfitt, R. A. Leigh, R. Shackleton, and S. S. B. Taylor (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1967) 395-412. 16 17 18 Dieckmann 51-2 Dieckmann 56 See, among many other possible examples, Franklin L. Ford, “The Enlightenment: Towards a Useful Redefinition,” Studies in the Eighteenth Century, edited by R. F. Brissenden (Canberra: Australian National University Press, 1968) 17-29 and Lester G. Crocker, “The Enlightenment: What and Who?” Studies in Eighteenth- Century Culture 17 (1987) 335-347. 19 Peter Gay, “The Social History of Ideas: Ernst Cassirer and After,” in The Critical Spirit: Essays in Honor of Herbert Marcuse, ed. Kurt H. Wolff and Barrington Moore, Jr. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967). See also Gay, “The Unity of the French Enlightenment,” in The Party of Humanity 114. 20 Darnton, “The Social History of Ideas,” reprinted in The Kiss of Lamourette (Boston: Faber and Faber, 1990) 238, 222. For critical appraisals of Darnton’s work (and a response by Darnton) see Haydn T. Mason, editor, The Darnton Debate: Books and Revolution in the Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 1998). 21 Robert Darnton, The Literary Underground of the Old Regime (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982), Jonathan I. Israel, Radical Enlightenment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), and Roy Porter and
The Question of Enlightenment 41 Mikulás Teich, editors, The Enlightenment in National Context (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), Siegfried Jüttner and Jochen Schlobach, editors, Europäische Aufklärung(en) (Hamburg: Felix Meiner, 1992). 22 For an overview, see Fania Oz-Salzberger, “New Approaches towards a History of the Enlightenment: Can Disparate Perpectives Make a General Picture?” Tel Aviver Jahrbuch für deutsche Geschichte XXIX (2000) 171- 182. 23 Arthur O. Lovejoy, “On the Discrimination of Romanticisms,” in Lovejoy, Essays on the History of Ideas (New York: Capricorn Books, 1960) 235 24 25 Erwin Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences in Western Art (Stockholm, 1965). For an early discussion of the discrepancy, see Peter Gay, “The Enlightenment in the History of Political Theory,” Political Science Quarterly 69:3 (1954) 374-389. 26 See, for example, two attempts to “reclaim” the legacy of the Enlightenment for the Left, neither of which displays much interest in the recent historical literature on the period: Stephen Eric Bronner, Reclaiming the Enlightenment: Towards a Politics of Radical Engagement (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004) and Neil Postman, Building a Bridge to the Eighteenth Century: How the Past Can Improve Our Future (New York: Knopf, 2000). For a similar effort, from the Right, see Gertrud Himmelfarb, The Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American Enlightenments (New York: Vintage, 2005), which – whatever its shortcomings – displays a greater awareness of the recent historical literature. For a comparison of Bronner and Himmelfarb, see Bernard Yack, “Naming and Reclaiming the Enlightenment,” European Journal of Political Theory 5 (2006) 343-354. For more on the shortcomings of Bronner’s study, see my review in Government and Opposition [forthcoming]. 27 Throughout this book, I will follow the convention I used in my collection What is Enlightenment? and use “the Enlightenment” to designate an historical period and “enlightenment” to refer to a process that is not necessarily confined to the period known as “the Enlightenment.” 28 29 P. L. Haffner, Die deutsche Aufklärung. Eine historische Skizze (Mainz: Franz Kirchheim, 1864). Haffner,1 The “origin” to which Haffner was returning would appear to have been one of the Catholic encyclopedias from this period, in which definitions of this sort could still be found. See the discussion in Horst
Page 1 and 2: The Question of Enlightenment: A Co
Page 3 and 4: The Question of Enlightenment 3 Yet
Page 5 and 6: The Question of Enlightenment 5 who
Page 7 and 8: The Question of Enlightenment 7 be
Page 9 and 10: The Question of Enlightenment 9 his
Page 11 and 12: The Question of Enlightenment 11 Wh
Page 13 and 14: The Question of Enlightenment 13 it
Page 15 and 16: The Question of Enlightenment 15 Un
Page 17 and 18: The Question of Enlightenment 17 We
Page 19 and 20: The Question of Enlightenment 19 sm
Page 21 and 22: The Question of Enlightenment 21 se
Page 23 and 24: The Question of Enlightenment 23 hi
Page 25 and 26: The Question of Enlightenment 25
Page 27 and 28: The Question of Enlightenment 27 be
Page 29 and 30: The Question of Enlightenment 29 mo
Page 32 and 33: The Question of Enlightenment 32 an
Page 34 and 35: The Question of Enlightenment 34 In
Page 36 and 37: The Question of Enlightenment 36 hi
Page 38 and 39: The Question of Enlightenment 38 No
Page 42 and 43: The Question of Enlightenment 42 St
Page 44 and 45: The Question of Enlightenment 44 Sc
Page 46 and 47: The Question of Enlightenment 46 57

The Question of Enlightenment - Theory and Practice in Eighteenth ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?