The Enlightenment

During the years 1350 to 1800 the foundation of modern western culture is laid: with the Renaissance the entire culture is reconnected to its traditional Greco-Roman ideals (i.e., individualism and democracy); the Reformation's Protestant theology is an extension of this "westernization" to the sphere of religion (n.b., original or traditional Christianity is a near-eastern religion); the Reformation, which had begun as a strictly religious movement, gradually extends its emphasis of individual experience to all aspects of the culture; finally, with the Enlightenment, rational evaluation ( as opposed to superstition, traditional or religious belief), scientific development, and social toleration are added. In this lecture I will give an outline of the key elements of this last phase of the foundation.

The Enlightenment is characterized by rational analysis and social toleration: the former finds its basis in science, the latter may be divided into ethical and economic sources.

As the physical, or outer world, had been analyzed by Sir Isaac mathematically, so John Locke (1632 - 1704) produces the first rational examination of the human mind in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). Here we have, importantly, not only the beginning of modern philosophy, with its logical emphasis, but also the first work of modern psychology. Thus, Locke's Essay may be seen as the psychological counterpart of Newton's Philosophiae.

The second aspect of the Enlightenment, social toleration, finds expression, primarily, in the French writers Rousseau and Voltaire, and the American activist Paine (it should be noted, however, that Locke also wrote on these subjects: his three Letters, concerning religious toleration, pub. 1689 - 1692, as well as his two Treatises, on government, pub. 1690, were all widely read and highly influential).

If we were to make a full comparison of these three thinkers (i.e., Rousseau, Voltaire, and Paine), we would, very likely, find nearly as many points of contrast as of similarity; regarding their position on social toleration, however, I only wish to make the following general statement. Rousseau, Voltaire, and Paine all emphasize that as there is no scientific (meaning inductive) nor logical (meaning deductive) method to determine among the various belief systems (i.e., religious and social practices), that, in so far as these belief systems and social practices do not observably violate individual liberties or the public good, they should be tolerated - as this is the only rational response.

Note well, what we have here is a rational argument in defense of, what might be called, an ethical position. This is, indeed, a social advancement.

So much, then, for the reasons philosophers supported social toleration; we turn now to the basis of government and business support of the same. Here, I would argue, we have not an ethical basis, but, rather, simply an economic one. In short, the government and business powers of 18th century England realized the following three points: 1) industrialization is the trend of the future, 2) the only practical method to finance this development is massive international trade, and 3) this type of large-scale international exchange necessitates social toleration (i.e., things alone do not move in trade but ideas as well; you simply will be unable to accept the one and simultaneously restrict the other).

Thus, in conclusion, we have the very interesting situation of two different groups (i.e., the philosophers, and the government and business people) both desiring the same result (i.e., social toleration), and both having rational reasons for doing so (i.e., philosophic, and the practical facts of international trade), although the sources of their reasons (i.e., ethical, and economic) are wholly different.

Welcome to the modern world.

Defoe's two main works are Robinson Crusoe (1719), who represents a type of ideal of 18th century England (which, from the modern standpoint, has as many flaws as virtues), and Moll Flanders (1722), which is notable in that the protagonist is a female of lowly background. Both of these novels, while certainly fine productions of their type, are, first and foremost, popular writing (as opposed to literature), with, furthermore, an instructive or moral character.

Here I could digress (but will not) and will merely offer the following suggestions. A comparison of Robinson Crusoe with (James Fenimore Cooper's) Natty Bumpo would, indeed, be an enlightening (!) study of "period cultural-heroes": the key difference between the two being that Bumpo has respect for non-Europeans (namely, the Native Americans), whereas Crusoe has all but none. The comparison of these characters is not only valid, but also profitable. To take now an invalid, though still profitable (how wonderful literature is!), comparison, let us place Moll Flanders beside (Hawthorne's) Hester Prynne. The contrast borders, to this writer at least, on the absurd: the depth of character and appreciation of moral complexities found in Hester are all but absent in the shallow, didactic figure of Moll. But, as I say, the comparison is wholly unfair: Defoe was a fine popular writer, whereas Hawthorne was a literary artist of genius.

Swift's Gulliver's Travels is a classic of social satire (and, more generally, the human condition); his essay A Modest Proposal, which although of the same genre is far more caustic in tone, I would mark as probably the finest example of its type in all English writing. Swift is also the first of the great (modern) Irish writers (more below).

Finally, Fielding must be recognized as producing, in his The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling (1749), the first modern novel in the English language. Fielding's acknowledged influences were Cervantes (whose Don Quixote de la Mancha, 1605, is the first modern novel in any European language), Swift, and the ancient Roman writer Lucian. Fielding abandons the epistolary-method popular at the time (most notably Richardson's Pamela, 1741), and sets out to write "comic epics in prose". Thus, Fielding's innovations set the stage for Dickens and Thackeray.

In conclusion, Defoe, Swift, and Fielding are all didactic, and thus are representative of the spirit of their time. This idea that the function of the writer is to improve and instruct is, as we shall see, a neo-classical one (gone is Shakespeare's mirror!). Note this division of instruction: science in technical subjects, "literature" in morals. Further note, that Swift, although using satire, is overt in his intentions, whereas Defoe and Fielding, in this if nothing else, follow Shakespeare, in that, "the play's the thing"!

A major form of writing to develop during this time is the newspaper-magazine essay. As I mentioned in a previous lecture, the modern essay was pioneered by the French writer Montaigne (Essais, 1580), its first English master being Bacon (Essays, 1597). During the period of the Enlightenment the journalists Addison and Steele, who were partners on several periodicals, move the essay into the mainstream of popular culture.

In connection with the advancement of print technology, and the form of the essay, we also have the appearance of modern, here meaning written, political rhetoric. As the ancient Greek and Roman leaders sought to persuade their senates with oral brilliance, so now political parties seek to sway the public with convincing essays. Note well, however, the vast difference between proper rhetoric, which uses rational arguments, as opposed to propaganda, which, at best, simply attempts to manipulate your emotions, or, at worst, consists of cleverly constructed lies.

Neo-classicism is defined by "The Oxford Companion to English Literature" (1985), as follows: in literature, the habit of imitating the authors of antiquity (notably its poets and dramatists) as a matter of aesthetic principle; and the acceptance of the critical precepts which emerged to guide that imitation.

What we have then, essentially, is 1) an imitation of the form and content of the ancient Greco-Roman writers, and 2) a system of rules to "guide that imitation". Classicism, as a whole, may be divided into two major stages: 1) the Renaissance (c. 1350 - 1550), and 2) Neo-classicism (c. 1700 - 1800). (I would mark 1550 - 1700 as a period of transition.)

Now, the fundamental difference, and a big difference it is, between the humanism of the Renaissance and that of Neo-classical period is that the former began in imitation of the ancients but finally move past this into a full acceptance of the spirit of humanism (do you remember Dr. Johnson's criticism of Shakespeare? He says the Bard "seems to write without any moral purpose"); with the latter, they attempt to restrict humanism to their own critical interpretation of the ancients. Thus we see that here neo means not only new, in the sense of recent, but, additionally, carries the idea of "revision".

Finally, it should be noted that it is at this time that Irish writers begin to make their impact on English literature and culture. By the present date, this influence has been considerable, and a complete list of Irish writers of importance would be lengthy. Here is a list of the major names only: Jonathan Swift, Oscar Wilde, W.B. Yeats, G. B. Shaw, and James Joyce.

The question which naturally arises here is: what were the factors behind this rapid development of Irish writers? Indeed, a difficult problem to tackle (we find something similar, about 100 years later, in the case of Russian writers), which various researchers have attempted to answer in various ways. None of these answers, to my knowledge, however, have been wholly convincing (in either the case of the Irish or the Russians!). The only (small) fact I would like to mention is that during the infamous Dark Ages it was only at the two extreme ends of western civilization - Ireland to the west, and the Byzantine Empire to the east - that the ancient classics escaped destruction. Thus, we have, at least, this long-standing background of literacy.  

Looking over Irish writing as a whole, I would take note of the extensive use of satire and irony in this tradition: the dark Swift, the paradoxical Wilde, and the myriad-minded Joyce are all fine examples.

Erin go bragh.