I enjoyed the reading regarding the enlightenment and historiography and I found it to be interesting and informative. There were a number of actors who came upon the stage of history, specifically as historians providing a narrative of what occurred during or leading up to the enlightenment as well as the why and how. What I should have expected was in some respects unexpected. I sometimes have to remind myself to step back and let go of any preconceived ideas I might have about people I may have heard about or read about and have long since forgotten. I might say to myself, "I don't remember anything about that guy except his or her name, so let's start afresh." And since there were some names I had never heard of, in their case, it was easy to start afresh.
Though not intended to be humorous, I found what Voltaire said about the church and the state to be very interesting. In relation to the church's influence on the state, state he says, "It (the church) sometimes disturbed its (the state) peace, and at others been its defense; and which, though instituted for the inculcating of morality too frequently gives itself up to politics and the impulse of the human passions." This statement is in some respect akin to something that Ghandi said along similar lines. I had not known much about Voltaire, but I found him to be a fascinating historian and I felt I could relate to him in regards to his fitting fixation on freedom. Coming from what would have been, in his time, an absolute monarchy along with a church whose authoritative tendrils (or flowering vines) were everywhere, it makes sense. The concept of freedom is not valued enough and it's contemplation is not encouraged as much as it ought to be, both in America and in the modern world. Voltaire's real name was François-Marie Arouet, but we, of course, know him by his nom de plum, or pen-name, Voltaire.
I was delighted to discover that Thomas Carlyle wrote (so far as I have read) using illustrations and analogies which was nice and made it more relatable. I had known about Thomas Carlyle's 'French Revolution' before, though of course, I was less acquainted with his hitherto. Carlyle's French Revolution seems to break the mold of historical narratives with its foray into metaphysics.
There were a few times reading Hegel that I had to make a conscious effort to prevent my eyes from crossing. There were a few times where I re-read what he wrote. Not being a seasoned sage philosopher, some of what he related here and there required more deliberate unpacking, but as far as history as it has flowed from his time, his efforts resulted in a ripple effect cascading down to effect many historians and how they approach history and historiography.
These historians and their respective works reflect the enlightenment in that they were new and flew in the face of tradition and expectation from that time. Voltaire was in some respects bold to say what he did about the Church, but what he said was in some respects true. A few hundred years earlier he might have been excommunicated or worse. The story of Galileo and his conflict with the church regarding the controversy of the the center of the universe is a testament to this. Hegel's statement about how the Reformation first attained truth and reality was unanticipated (by myself anyway) coming from a philosopher/historian. I did not find a place where Hegel or Voltaire actually said this, but reading through the lines, I got the impression that they believed there were sincere/good people in religion as well as opportunists, frauds and scoundrels. Thomas Carlyle's mode of narrating history in his, "French Revolution," is unique from history books that precede his, in that he does not relate dates and events as prominently as how and in what manner the characters are progressing or contributing to the historically inevitable conclusion or outcome. Such a manner of writing a historical narrative helped to inspire Charles Dickens who wrote 'A Tale of Two Cities." Dickens claimed that he had read Thomas Carlyle's "French Revolution", five hundred times.
It is interesting to note that France as a country, was on a different path in the 1700's than Britain, Germany and America. So it makes sense that it's thinkers would also be focused on a different trajectory. In France especially, the old regime of government and church was under siege even before the French Revolution, and according to Historiography, Ancient, Medieval and Modern, "Radically new interpretations came from the French Philosophies." Also, in the same book, "Many of the German Historians taught history as members of law faculties where caution and erudition were praised more than radical innovation."
In France, Jules Michelet claimed that the all healing balm of nationalism was the prescription for how to constructively deal with all of the social upheavals, turbulence and varying unpredictability. His nationalistic fervor was that despite whatever social class people belonged to, championing nationalism in France was the ultimate answer. "One People! One Country! One France." It is interesting to take this into view considering what George Bancroft in the United States had to say about progress in America in regard to freedom and liberty. According to Bancroft, the history of liberty in America, from being settled by the pilgrims, being ruled by Great Brittan, the revolutionary war, the constitution and the incremental march of freedom and prosperity he saw, was all part of a gradual climb towards liberty, sanctioned as he felt by God's blessings. In France Michelet was using nationalism and in America, Bancroft was using progressivism. The two styles were different from the Enlightenment styles of Hegel, Voltaire and Carlyle. In America, the very nature of the church made it a radically different entity than it was in Europe. Voltaire's varying denunciation of religion was a little different than Bancroft because Voltaire from what I have gleaned (and I want to read further) seems to have left religion behind while Bancroft considered divine providence as the fuel for the fire. Michelet's French nationalism was not really compatible with Hegal's philosophy and the nature of Carlyle's 'French Revolution' was very different than Bancroft's 'History of the United States,' in how he narrated history. The enlightenment figures of Voltaire, Hegel and Carlyle were different from Bancroft in that none of the aforementioned enlightenment thinkers, with the possible exception of Hegel, appeared to put any de facto stock in religion or divine providence. Voltaire wrote before the French Revolution occurred and died a year before it began, thus, with the influence of the monarchy and the church as both an evil and a blessing depending on who was in church or states offices, for Voltaire, as an enlightenment thinker, nationalism could have been something he may only have given lip service to because under the monarchy it was expected whether the citizens truly felt that nationalism offered any answers. All of the enlightenment thinkers including Bancroft wanted a better world as opposed to what had been the past. And none of them forged an identical path with other enlightenment thinkers, but they all had a profound effect on how we view history even today, and a perusal of their interpretations can leave us wiser and more informed.
No comments:
Post a Comment