The Age of EnlightenmentUnit

15: The Age of Enlightenment

FC97The Birth of Modern

Science
FC97 in the Hyperflow of History; Covered in multimedia lecture
#1851.

Western science, like so many other aspects of Western

Civilization, was born with the ancient Greeks. They were the first
to explain the world in terms of natural laws rather than myths
about gods and heroes. They also passed on the idea of the
value of math and experiment in science, although they usually
thought only in terms of one to the exclusion of the other. It is
easy for us to be critical of their early scientific theories, but we
must remember several things about their world. First, by that
time, the human race had learned to exploit the environment for
survival (e.g., agriculture, woven cloth, metallurgy, etc.), but knew
little about the physical laws that rule nature and the universe.
Also, there were no telescopes, microscopes, or other
instruments to aid the naked eye in its observations and
measurements. Everything they learned about the natural world
had to be done
with the unaided senses and whatever rational deductions they
could make based on them.

Knowing the limitations the Greeks operated under helps us

appreciate the scientific view of the world they evolved and
handed down to posterity. The Greeks realized the limitations to
their observations, and many of them argued that relying on one's
senses was a faulty way to unravel the mysteries of the universe.
The philosopher, Plato, compared our perception of reality to that
of a man chained to the wall of a cave who only sees shadows
from the outside world cast against the opposite wall.

However, other Greek philosophers argued that use of the senses

for observation, as faulty as it may be, was still worthwhile. One of
these Greeks, and by far the most influential figure in Western
science until the 1600's, was the philosopher, Aristotle, who
created a body of scientific theory that towered like a colossus
over Western Civilization for some 2000 years. Given the
limitations under which the Greeks were working compared to
now, Aristotle's theories made sense when taken in a logical
order.

Three basic observations laid the foundations for Aristotle's view

of the universe and laws of motion: First of all, there was the
theory of the elements. The Greeks came up with several theories
on the elements, including Democritus' atomic theory, the idea
that all matter is composed of tiny indivisible particles called
atoms (from the Greek atomon = indivisible). Other Greeks
observed three basic states of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. As a
result, they came up with four basic elements to correspond to the
states of matter: earth (solid), water (liquid), air (gas), plus fire,
which the Greeks saw as an element. Of course, since few
objects are made of just one element, it was logical to assume
they were compounds of two or more of the terrestrial elements.
The Greeks spent a good deal of time figuring out the elements
different objects contained by observing the qualities they
exhibited. For example, wood is composed of earth (because it is
solid), fire (because it burns), and air (because the ash left behind
floats on top of water). Second, there was the observation that the
stars, sun, planets, and moon seem to orbit the earth in perfect
circles. Finally, all dropped objects seem to fall toward the center
of the earth. These led to several important conclusions.
For one thing, the theory of four elements plus the perfect circular
orbits of the stars and planets gave rise to the idea that the
celestial bodies were made of a perfect element, ether. Ether was
weightless or very light so the stars and planets could easily orbit
the earth every day. It must also be perfect, incorruptible, and
unrelated to the earthly elements since its motions are always in
perfect circles, a motion rarely seen on earth.

Second, the motion of dropped objects toward the center of the

earth (no matter where on earth they are dropped) and the
apparent orbits of the heavenly bodies around the earth led to the
geocentric theory, the idea that the earth is the center of the
universe. Aristotle and most educated Greeks assumed the earth
was round since one can see ships disappear over the horizon,
the earth casts a round shadow on the moon during lunar
eclipses, and the positions of the stars change as we move north
or south.

Finally, there was Aristotle's law of motion. Aristotle saw that

heavier objects (made of earth and water) have a tendency to fall
or sink toward the center of the earth, while lighter objects (made
of air and fire) rise or float. He called these tendencies of the
elements to rise or fall natural motions and said that all elements
have an inclination to rise or fall to their natural resting places in
relation to one another. Aristotle called all other terrestrial motions
forced or violent motions since they needed an outside force in
constant contact with the object in order to take place. Thus the
theory of four terrestrial (earthly) elements and the falling of those
elements toward the center of the earth led to a law of motion
which said everything must stay in contact with a prime mover in
order to keep moving and could only be stopped by some other
intervening object or force.

Toward a new universe: the downfall of

Aristotle (1543-1687)

There were several factors that worked both to overthrow

Aristotle's system and to preserve it. First of all, Aristotle's
theories relied very little on experiment, which left them vulnerable
to anyone who chose to perform such experiments. However,
attacking one part of Aristotle's system involved attacking the
whole thing, which
made it a daunting task for even the greatest thinkers of the day.
Secondly, the Church had grafted Aristotle's theories onto its
theology, thus making any attack on Aristotle an attack on the
tradition and the Church itself.

Finally, there were the Renaissance scholars who were

uncovering other Greek authors who contradicted Aristotle. This
was unsettling, since these scholars had a reverence for all
ancient knowledge as being nearly infallible. However, finding
contradicting authorities forced the Renaissance scholars to try to
figure out which ones were right. When their findings showed that
neither theory was right, they had to think for themselves and find
a new theory that worked. This encouraged skepticism,
freethinking, and experimentation, all of which are essential parts
of modern science.
Pattern of development

The combination of these factors generated a cycle that

undermined Aristotle, but also slowed down the creation of a new
set of theories. New observations would be made that seemed to
contradict Aristotle's theories. This would lead to new
explanations, but always framed in the context of the old beliefs,
thus patching up the Aristotelian system. However, more
observations would take place, leading to more patching of the
old system, and so on. The first person who started this slow
process of dismantling Aristotle's cosmology was Copernicus. His
findings would reinforce the process of finding new explanations,
which would lead to the work of Kepler and Galileo. The work of
these three men would lead to many new questions and theories
about the universe until Isaac Newton would take the new data
and synthesize it into a new set of theories that more accurately
explained the universe.

Nicolaus Copernicus

was a Polish scholar working at the University of Padua in

northern Italy. The problem he wrestled with was the paths of
planetary orbits. Through the centuries close observations had
shown that the heavens do not always appear to move in perfect,
uninterrupted circles. Rather, they sometimes seem to move
backwards in what are known as retrogradations. (This, in fact,
occurs when Earth passes another planet in its orbit, thus making
it appear to go backwards.) In order to account for these
irregularities, astronomers did not do away with Aristotle's theory
of perfectly circular orbits around the earth. Instead, they
expanded upon it, adding smaller circular orbits (epicycles) that
spun off the main orbits. These more or less accounted for the
retrogradations seen in orbits. Each time a new irregularity was
observed, a new epicycle was added. By the 1500's, the model of
the universe had some 80 epicycles attached to ten crystalline
spheres (one for the moon, sun, each of the five known planets,
the totality of the stars, a sphere to move the other spheres, and
heaven). The second century Greek astronomer, Ptolemy was the
main authority who put order to and passed this cumbersome
system of epicycles to posterity.

Copernicus' solution was basically geometric. By placing the sun

at the center of the universe and having the earth orbit it, he
reduced the unwieldy number of epicycles from 80 to 34. His
book, Concerning the Revolutions of the Celestial Worlds,
published in 1543, laid the foundations for a revolution in how
Europeans would view the world and its place in the universe.
However, Copernicus' intention was not to create a radically new
theory, but to get back to even older ideas by such Greeks as
Plato and Pythagoras who believed in a heliocentric (sun
centered) universe. Once again, ancient authorities were set
against one another, leaving it for others to develop their own
theories.

It took some 150 years after Copernicus' death in 1543 to achieve

a new model of the universe that worked. The first step was
compiling more data that tarnished the perfection of the Ptolemaic
universe and forced men to re- evaluate their beliefs.

Johannes Kepler
At this time, Tycho Brahe, using only the naked eye, tracked the
entire orbits of various stars and planets. Previously, astronomers
would only track part of an orbit at a time and assume that orbit
was in a perfect circle. Brahe kept extensive records of his
observations, but did not really know what to do with them. That
task was left to his successor, Johannes Kepler.

Kepler was a brilliant mathematician who had a mystical vision of

the mathematical perfection of the universe that owed a great
deal to the ancient Greek mathematician Pythagoras. Despite
these preoccupations, Kepler was open minded enough to realize
that Brahe's data showed the planetary orbits were not circular.
Finally, his calculations showed that those orbits were elliptical.

Galileo

As important as Kepler's conclusions was his method of arriving

at it. He was the first to successfully use math to define the
workings of the cosmos. Although such a conclusion as elliptical
orbits inevitably met with fierce opposition, the combination of
Brahe's observations and Kepler's math helped break the
perfection of the Aristotelian universe. However, it was the work of
an Italian astronomer, Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), armed with a
new invention, the telescope, which would further shatter the old
theory and lead the way to a new one.
In the year 1608, several Flemish gentlemen arrived in Venice
carrying a startling new invention: the telescope. Upon hearing of
this, Galileo, who was then working in Venice, quickly figured out
its principles and built one himself, increasing its magnification
from three times to ten. He got the Venetian senate excited about
the telescope as an early warning device that could spot enemy
ships twenty miles away and make them appear as if they were
only two miles away. Galileo's curiosity was a bit more far ranging
than spotting enemy ships, and eventually he turned his gaze
toward the skies. That was when trouble began.

The impact of that first telescope can better be appreciated by

imagining how our views of the universe might change if our
technology increased our view of the universe by a factor of ten
times. Galileo's findings were probably more disturbing. He saw
the sun's perfection marred by sunspots and the moon's
perfection marred by craters. He also saw four moons orbiting
Jupiter. In his book, The Starry Messenger (1611), he reported
these disturbing findings and spread the news across Europe.
Most people could not understand Kepler's math, but anyone
could look through a telescope and see for himself the moon's
craters and Jupiter's moons.

The Church tried to preserve the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic view

of the universe by clamping down on Galileo and his book and
made him promise not to preach his views. However, in 1632,
Galileo published his next book, Dialogue on the Great World
Systems, which technically did not preach the Copernican theory
(which Galileo believed in), but was only a dialogue presenting
both views "equally". Galileo got his point across by having the
advocate of the Church and Aristotelian view named Simplicius
(Simpleton). He was quickly faced with the Inquisition and the
threat of torture. Being an old man of 70, he recanted his views.
However, it was too late. Word was out, and the heliocentric

heresy was gaining new followers daily.

Galileo's work was the first comprehensive attack on the

Aristotelian/Ptolemaic cosmic model. He treated celestial objects
as being subject to the same laws as terrestrial objects. However,
Galileo was still enthralled with perfect circular motion and, as a
result, did not come up with the synthesis of all these new bits of
information into a new comprehensive model of the universe. This
was left to the last, and probably greatest, giant of the age, Isaac
Newton.

Meanwhile, two celestial phenomena added further doubts about

the Aristotelan system. First, a bright new star (probably a
supernova explosion) suddenly appeared in 1572. Within a year, it
was gone from the sky, leaving in its wake doubts about the
changeless perfection of the stars. Five years later, a new comet
cut across the skies and through the crystalline spheres that were
supposed to hold the stars and planets in their orbits. Of course,
the question was raised: did such perfect spheres even exist, and,
if they did, how could a comet cross through them?
One needs to understand the new problems that the discoveries
of the 1500's and early 1600's presented for seventeenth century
scientists. Galileo's work had done more to destroy the
Aristotelian system than create a new working one. As a result,
there was great confusion among scholars as to what the
structure of the universe really was. There were three major
problems confronting them. One problem bothering seventeenth
century scientists concerned the nature of motion. Aristotle's law
of inertia said basically two things:

1. An object is naturally at rest unless moving toward its natural

resting place. It takes forced or violent
action to move that object, and that force must be in constant
contact for the object to keep moving.

2. The object will keep moving until something else intervenes to

stop it.

The main problem with Aristotle's law of inertia was the

assumption that the moving object had to be in constant contact
with the moving force. For example, the question was raised of
how could an arrow keep flying once removed from the force
driving it. This was explained by saying the air being displaced by
the arrow went around behind it and pushed it along. This
seemed unlikely, since the same air driving the arrow also would
also be slowing it down.

This concept of a prime mover had bothered Renaissance

scholars, who then came up with the new theory of Impetus.
According to this, moving objects were carried forward by some
vague force within the object or imparted to it like the heat in a
red-hot piece of iron. The theory of impetus allowed people to
discuss motion after contact with a mover was broken. There was
just one problem with this theory: it was wrong. Nevertheless, it
was an important theory because it challenged Aristotle's
authority and opened the way to a new theory. The great French
mathematician, Descartes, finally came up with the modern theory
of inertia, which said a moving object will keep moving in a
straight line until something interferes to stop it or slow it down.

The second problem bothering philosophers was what kept

objects from flying out of their orbits and into space. Descartes,
like Aristotle, did not believe in the existence of vacuums, since
they would create no resistance to moving objects, thus allowing
them to accelerate to infinite speed, which, of course, is both
impossible and absurd. Space, according the Descartes, was
filled with ether and cosmic whirlpools that kept the planets in
orbit. Not everyone discounted the existence of vacuums,
especially since the experiments of Galileo's student, Toricelli,
with barometric pressure proved that vacuums can and do exist.
Once again this raised the problem of what keeps the planets and
stars in orbit if ether did not

The Englishman, William Gilbert offered a solution in 1600,

suggesting that magnetism was the answer. He saw the earth as
a giant magnet, keeping both terrestrial and celestial objects from
flying off into space. Although his theory was basically wrong, it
did open people's minds to the idea of objects exerting a pull on
one another. As a result, in 1643, the Frenchman, Roberval,
suggested a theory of universal gravitation, the tendency of all
matter to have an attraction for all other matter. However, he did
not have the math to prove the theory.
Even if Roberval's theory of gravity were right, it raised a third
problem: what keeps the moon and other celestial bodies from
falling to earth? For Roberval, it was the resistance of ether in
space. In 1665, Alphonse Borelli suggested centrifugal force. A
mathematician named Huygens figured out the formula for
centrifugal force, but he also believed in circular motion. And
there was still the problem of what kept the sun, moon, planets,
and stars in their orbits. That was where Isaac Newton came in.

The story of Newton being hit on the head by an apple may very
well be true. However, the significance of this popular tale is
usually lost. People had seen apples fall out of trees for
thousands of years, but Newton realized, in a way no one else
had realized, that the same force pulling the apples to earth was
keeping the moon in its orbit. Of course, Roberval had suggested
this before, but Newton proved it mathematically. In order to do
this, he had to invent a whole new branch of math, calculus, for
figuring out rates of motion and change. The genius of Newton in
physics, as well as William Harvey in medicine and Mendeleev in
chemistry, was not so much in his new discoveries, as in his
ability to take the isolated bits and pieces of the puzzle collected
by his predecessors and fit them together. In retrospect, his
synthesis seems so simple, but it took tremendous
imagination and creativity to break the bonds of the old way of
thinking and see a radically different picture.

The implications of Newton's theory of gravity can easily escape

us, since we now take it for granted that physical laws apply the
same throughout the universe. To the mentality of the 1600’s,
which saw a clear distinction between the laws governing the
terrestrial and celestial elements, it was a staggering revelation.
His three laws of motion were simple, could be applied
everywhere, and could be used with calculus to solve any
problems of motion that came up.

The universe that emerged was radically different from that of

Aristotle. Thanks to Newton, it was within our grasp to
understand, predict, and increasingly manipulate the laws of the
universe in ways no one had been able to do before. Newton's
work also completed the fusion of math promoted by Renaissance
humanists, Aristotelian logic pushed by medieval university
professors, and experiment to test a hypothesis pioneered by
such men as Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo into what we call the
scientific method. This fusion had gradually been taking place
since the Renaissance, but the invention of calculus made math a
much more dynamic tool in predicting and manipulating the laws
of nature.

The printing of Newton's book, Principia Mathematica, in 1687 is

often seen as the start of the Enlightenment (1687-1789). It was a
significant turning point in history, for, armed with the tools of
Newton's laws and calculus, scientists had an unprecedented
faith in their ability to understand, predict, and manipulate the
laws of nature for their own purposes. This sense of power
popularized science for other intellectuals and rulers in Europe,
turning it into virtual religion for some in the Enlightenment. Even
the geometrically trimmed shrubbery of Versailles offers testimony
to that faith in our power over nature. Not until this century has
that faith been seriously undermined or put into a more realistic
perspective

FC98Unravelling the Mysteries

of the Heart: William Harvey
and the Discovery of the
Circulatory System
FC98 in the Hyperflow of History; Covered in multimedia lecture
#1853.

It seems amazing that the basic functions of the heart, circulatory

system, and other bodily organs remained such a mystery to
humans for so long, since they are so close to us and so vital to
our very existence. However, early doctors faced serious
obstacles in determining those functions. Religious taboos
seriously limited the amount of human dissections taking place.
Surgery's low status and primitive state is seen by the fact that
barbers would typically double as surgeons, since they had the
necessary cutting tools. Another major limitation was the lack of
anesthetics to kill the pain. Heavy doses of liquor or a blow to the
head were the closest thing to painkillers that doctors had before
the 1800's.
As a result, people would rarely submit to surgery except in the
most extreme circumstances (e.g., amputation for gangrene). And
by then it was often too late. Without willing patients, surgery was
rarely performed and could not advance. And without such
advances, few people would risk operations. Caught in this
vicious cycle, doctors had to resort to the dissection of animals.
However, inferences made from animal dissections about human
anatomy were often incorrect. Also, the practice of dissecting
animals bled to death led to the misconception that only air flowed
through the arteries and left side of the heart. This plus Aristotle's
theory of four terrestrial elements led to various conclusions about
human biology as seen in the theories of the dominant medical
authority since the second century, the Greek physician Galen.

Galen's physiology
While Galen did clear up the misconception that only air flowed
through the arteries, he also passed on several misconceptions.
For one thing, he said that air passes directly from the lungs to
cool the heart, which is the seat of the soul, a furnace to heat the
body, and the source of the blood in the arteries, while the liver is
the source of blood in the veins. His second contention was that
blood then flows out to the body, which absorbs the blood and
does not recirculate it. Third, Galen said that air mixes with the
blood to form a spirituous substance called pneuma . There are
three kinds of pneuma, formed in the liver, heart, and brain, and
controlling such things as the passions, senses, and
consciousness. According to Galen, pneuma is the main source
of the life process and consciousness in an organism. Finally,
drawing upon Aristotle's theory of four terrestrial elements, there
was the theory of the four humours (blood, bile, black bile, and
phlegm), which must be in balance in order for one to be healthy.

These incorrect conclusions about human biology in turn led to

two major misconceptions about disease. First of all, scholars saw
sickness as a sign of an imbalance of the four humours that
should be treated by bloodletting or other forms of purging. This
supposedly would rid the body of imbalanced humours and cause
it to restore the balance. This tied in closely with the second
misconception: that disease is purely a result of internal balance,
not external factors. Therefore, each person's disease was seen
as a purely individual matter having no relationship to anyone
else's disease, no matter how similar the symptoms may be

Despite the Church's support of Galen and feelings against

dissection, problems started to arise with Galen's theories over
time just through normal observations. This and two other factors,
both leading out of the Renaissance, led to new research to figure
out what the nature of the heart was. For one thing, the
Renaissance artists placed increased emphasis on accurate
representation of nature and human anatomy. Leonardo da Vinci's
notebooks are the best-known examples of this emphasis on
realism. Also, the printing press helped publicize and popularize
these ideas within the medical community.

Second, in biology, as in physics and astronomy, the Renaissance

oftentimes was not so important for breeding new ideas as for
discovering other ancient authors that contradicted the accepted
authority, thus forcing scholars to seek the truth for themselves.
Interestingly enough, the opposing authority was Aristotle, who
differed with Galen on several points, claiming the life process
was the product of all the various organs in the body, not of
pneuma. This helped open up discussion on the life process and
the nature of disease.

As with Aristotle, the combination of these factors generated a

cycle that both undermined Galen and slowed down the creation
of a new set of theories. New observations would be made that
seemed to contradict his theories. This would lead to new
explanations, once again framed in the context of the old beliefs,
thus patching up the system. However, more observations would
take place, leading to more patching of the old system, and so on.
Eventually, the system would be so full of holes that someone
would take the new data and synthesize it into a new set of
theories that more accurately explained the universe.
Much of this research was done at the University of Padua, which
was one of the main centers of research and new theories in the
1500's and 1600's. Being controlled by Venice, which had a bit of
an anti-clerical tradition, the University of Padua encouraged
more of the intellectual freedom needed to develop new theories
that better
explained nature. Copernicus and Galileo, had both worked there,
as did most of the men who discredited Galen's theory and
formed the modern theory of circulation. Two men in particular
opened the way for challenging the old theories: Vesalius and
Paracelsus.

Paracelsus (1493-1541) never received a medical degree, but he

continued to teach, write about, and practice medicine. However,
he taught from his own experiences, not Galen's books, and he
taught in the vernacular. This was contrary to the Hippocratic
Oath by which doctors were supposed to teach in Latin to prevent
any trade secrets from getting into the wrong hands and being
popularized. Paracelsus' actions made him an outsider to the
medical community and caused him to challenge many of its most
honored (and mistaken) theories and practices. One thing he
claimed was that disease was the result of outside forces acting
on the body, not an internal imbalance. Although he had no
concept of germ theory, this idea opened the way for a new
approach to diagnosing and treating disease. Paracelsus was
reviled by the medical establishment of his day, but became
something of a folk hero to later generations and inspired further
challenges to Galen.
Vesalius (1514-64) also took steps in overthrowing Galen and
opening the way for a new theory on the heart and circulatory
system. Unlike most medical scholars, who had assistants do the
actual dissection while they read the appropriate passages from
Galen, Vesalius did his own dissections and saw things for
himself. He even saw things he was not looking for and that
disagreed with Galen. He had a hard time believing that what his
eyes saw was true and that Galen could be wrong. Nevertheless,
in 1543, the same year that Copernicus (who also worked at
Padua) published his book proposing a heliocentric universe,
Vesalius published De Fabrica. This book, which was illustrated
by the great artist Titian's own art students, provided anatomical
drawings of unprecedented accuracy for medical manuals and set
the standard for years to come. It also proved many of Galen's
anatomical descriptions to be completely wrong.

Thanks to Vesalius and Paracelsus, more evidence kept coming

in to cast doubts on Galen. In 1559, one of Vesalius' students,
Colombo, published a description of how blood went from the
right side of the heart to the lungs and then to the left ventricle.
However, he still kept the traditional view that blood flowed out of
the heart through both the arteries and veins. In 1574, Fabricius
published a work describing valves in the veins preventing the
outward flow of blood from the heart. Still, he refused to see that
this meant the blood flowed from the veins to the heart. Instead
he said the purpose of the valves was to keep too much blood
from flowing to the veins from the heart. In 1606, Cesalpino
observed blood flowing from the arteries to the veins and toward
the heart. However, he also failed to grasp the meaning of this. As
obvious as it should have been that Galen's system was not
working, scientists' minds were too rigidly set to admit it. Finally, a
man came along whose genius, like that of Newton and
Mendeleev, was to synthesize the recent evidence into a new
system that shattered the old views. That man was William
Harvey, an Englishman also working at Padua.

Harvey, who was influenced by Fabricius' work on valves in the

veins, developed very modern methods of observation and
experimentation. In 1628, nine years after his experiments
confirmed his suspicions about Galen's system, Harvey published
his findings in De Motu Cordis (Concerning the Motion of the
Heart). The wealth of evidence it brought to bear effectively
shattered Galen's theory forever.

Harvey showed that blood did not seep through a septum and that
blood passes through the lungs to be refreshed, although he was
not aware of oxygenation. He pointed out that animals without
lungs also had no right ventricle and, that in developing embryos,
the blood took a shorter route from the right to left side of the
heart. Harvey's most important and astounding contribution was
the calculation that, in one hour, the heart pumps more than the
body's weight in blood. This could only mean one thing: that the
blood circulated from the left side of the heart, through the body,
then to the right side of the heart, and from there through the
lungs and back to the left side of the heart.

It took nearly half a century for Harvey's work to be accepted by

the medical community. Once it was accepted, it provided a much
better framework for studying the rest of the body. With the
mysteries of the circulatory system unraveled, the respiratory and
digestive systems could be better understood. And with those in
place, other functions of the body could be figured out. Thanks to
Harvey's brilliant synthesis, the way to modern
biology was opened.

FC99From Faith to Reason:

Deism and Enlightenment
Philosophy
all was light — Alexander Pope If God did not exist, it would be
necessary to invent him. — Voltaire
Blinded by Science

Alexander Pope's short poem largely summarizes the impact that

Isaac Newton's work had, not just on science, but also on the
imaginations of his contemporaries. The 1700s abounded with
heightened interest and discoveries in the sciences. Nobles and
monarchs pursued different sciences as hobbies as well as
funding serious research. In a popular play of the era, a woman
even refuses to elope with her lover because she would have to
leave her microscope behind. There were serious advances as
well.

In astronomy, William Herschel, noticing fluctuations in Saturn's

orbit, surmised they were caused by the gravitational pull of a
hitherto unknown planet and discovered Uranus. He also showed
the vastness of space by demonstrating the Milky Way is not a
cloud of gas but a whole galaxy of stars, and that so-called fixed
stars were actually entire distant galaxies. Carl Linnaeus, using
his system of binary nomenclature, catalogued the huge numbers
of new plants and animals being discovered across the planet. In
chemistry, Henry Cavendish isolated hydrogen; Joseph Black
discovered carbon dioxide, and Antoine Lavoisier, separated
water, supposedly an indivisible element, into oxygen and
hydrogen. This destroyed Aristotle's theory of four elements and
opened the way for the emergence of modern chemistry in the
1800s. And in medicine, Edward Jenner created a vaccine
against the deadly disease, smallpox, although germ theory would
not be developed for another century.

However, not everyone was impressed with the scientific progress

of the day. Among them was Jonathon Swift who satirized much
of contemporary society, including its obsession with science, in
his book, Gulliver's Travels. In the following selection, Gulliver
visits the science academy of the mythical Laputa, a land where
everyone is so absorbed in theoretical speculation that they have
lost all touch with reality. Supposedly, he based this fictional
account on real experiments being conducted at the time.

The first Man I saw was of a meagre Aspect, with sooty Hands
and Face, his Hair and Beard long, ragged and singed in several
Places, His Clothes, Shirt, and Skin were all of the same Colour.
He had been Eight Years upon a Project for extracting
Sun-Beams out of Cucumbers, which were to be put into Vials
hermetically sealed, and let out to warm the Air in raw inclement
Summers. He told me, he did not doubt in Eight Years more, that
he should be able to supply the Governors Gardens with
Sun-shine at a reasonable Rate; but he complained that his Stock
was low, and entreated me to give him something as an
Encouragement to Ingenuity, especially since this had been a
very dear Season for Cucumbers. I made him a small Present, for
my Lord had furnished me with Money on purpose, because he
knew their Practice of begging from all who go to see them.

I went into another Chamber, but was ready to hasten back, being
almost overcome with a horrible Stink. My Conductor pressed me
forward conjuring me in a Whisper to give no Offence, which
would be highly resented; and therefore I durst not so much as
stop my Nose. The Projector of this Cell was the most ancient
Student of the Academy. His Face and Beard were of a pale
Yellow; his Hands and Clothes dawbed over with Filth. When I
was presented to him he gave me a very close Embrace, (a
Compliment I could well have excused). His Employment from his
first coming into the Academy, was an Operation to reduce human
Excrement to its original Food, by separating the several Parts,
removing the Tincture which it receives from the Gall, making the
Odour exhale, and skimming off the saliva. He had a weekly
Allowance from the Society, of a Vessel filled with human Ordure,
about the Bigness of a Bristol Barrel.

There was a most ingenious Architect who had contrived a new

Method for building Houses by beginning at the Roof, and working
downwards to the Foundations; which he justified to me by the
like Practice of those two prudent Insects the Bee and the
Spider....

I was complaining of a small Fit of the Cholick; upon which my

Conductor led me into a Room, where a great Physician resided,
who was famous for curing that Disease by contrary Operations
from the same Instrument. He had a large Pair of Bellows with a
long slender Muzzle of Ivory. This
he conveyed eight Inches up the Anus, and drawing in the Wind,
he affirmed he could make the Guts as lank as a dried Bladder.
But when the Disease was more stubborn and violent, he let in
the Muzzle while the Bellows was full of Wind, which he
discharged into the Body of the Patient; then withdrew the
Instrument to replenish it, clapping his Thumb strongly against the
Orifice of the Fundament; and this being repeated three or four
Times, the adventitious Wind would rush out, bringing the noxious
along with it (like Water put into a Pump) and the patient recovers.
I saw him try both Experiments upon a Dog, but could not discern
any Effect from the former. After the latter, the Animal was ready
to burst, and made so violent a Discharge, as was very offensive
to me and my companions. The Dog died on the Spot, and we left
the Doctor endeavouring to recover him by the same Operation...

Deism

The Enlightenment saw more than new advances in the sciences.

In fact the very revolutionary nature of those scientific discoveries
ensured that no field of thought would remain untouched. This
was especially true of religion and philosophy, which had been so
closely intertwined with the old scientific theories.

Starting with the rise of towns in the High Middle Ages, several
historical forces converged to produce a revolution in European
religion and philosophy. First of all, there was the Protestant
Reformation. As we have seen, the Reformation led to a series of
religious wars that ravaged Europe for nearly a century
(c.1550-1650). One result of those religious wars was that many
people grew tired of religion and looked for less restrictive modes
of thought. Second, the Renaissance, with its interest in ancient
Greek philosophies, gave rise to secular ideas that helped spawn
the scientific revolution of the Enlightenment as well as. This
helped discredit the Church's old ideas on the universe and raise
the status of humanity and its ability to reason on its own. Finally,
the rise of towns led to resurgence of feudal monarchies into
nation states. We have seen how they started challenging the
Church's power during the turmoil of the Later Middle Ages. By
the sixteenth century, they were using the doctrine of Divine Right
of Kings to undercut the Church's authority in order to elevate
their own.

All of these factors converged to undermine the role of blind faith

in the Church's authority. While faith was still of prime importance,
human reason was also an important element, especially in
recognizing and avoiding the pitfalls of religious fanaticism and
intolerance. After all, if God gave us the power to reason, should
we not use it? As time went on the role of reason in religion
increased while the role of faith declined correspondingly. Finally,
reason completely replaced faith in a philosophy known as Deism.
This was based largely on a Greek philosophy, Epicureanism,
which saw God as detached from worldly affairs. Our main
purpose in life was to avoid pain, not through sensual
self-indulgence, which ultimately brings pain, but through a
reasonable and moderate way of life.

While Deism incorporated the Epicurean ideas and added its own
twists, it was not an organized religion with a central dogma and
places of worship. However, despite differences on various points,
their beliefs can be summarized as follows:

1. God exists, but is detached from the affairs of this world.

Drawing upon the mechanistic views of
Newtonian science, they saw the universe as a giant clocklike
machine that God had set in motion and then left to run on its
own.
2. Religious truth can only be found through reason, not divine
inspiration or clerical authority.

3. Miracles do not exist, only natural phenomena for which we

have not yet found reasons.

4. Universal moral laws exist and can be found in all cultures

around the globe, not just in Christian Europe.
This reflected the exposure of Europe to other cultures in the Age
of Exploration.
Keep in mind that Deism was a philosophy mainly of an upper
crust of intellectuals (known then as philosophes). Most people in
the Enlightenment stayed devout church members totally
untouched by Deistic ideas. However, although Deism was
confined to such a narrow upper class, including Thomas
Jefferson in the United States, its influence was profound, since it
was the ideas of these intellectuals who inspired the revolutionary
ideas of the later eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Deism also
downplayed the role God plays in this world. This thrust more
power and responsibility upon humanity to solve its own social,
political, and economic problems, giving rise to remarkable new
ideas in those areas as well.

FC100Enlightenment Political
& Social Ideas
FC100 in the Hyperflow of History; Covered in multimedia lecture
#1862. Killing is murder unless it is done to the sound of trumpets.
— Voltaire

The Enlightenment was a period of nearly unbounded optimism

and faith in the human race's ability to solve its own problems,
including restructuring government and society along more
reasonable lines. There were two main factors leading into this
search for a rational approach to creating a better society. First of
all, Deism, with its idea of a God detached from our affairs, gave
us the ability and responsibility to solve our own problems.
Second, this was a period of rapid social and economic changes,
especially in England with its booming colonial empire and
economy. London's population jumped from c.700,000 in 1715 to
2.7 million by 1815. Such rapid growth led to squalid living
conditions, alcoholism (gin consumption increasing by a factor of
10 times), drug
abuse, and crime. While Deism may have given us the power and
responsibility to reform society, these conditions provided an
urgent need for such reforms. The result was a flurry of new ideas
in political science, economics, psychology, and social reform.

Enlightenment ideas on politics were rooted in John Locke's Two

Treatises on Government (1694). Locke's basic idea was that
government, rather than being at the whim of an absolute
monarch with no checks on his power, existed merely as a trust to
carry out the will of the people and protect their "lives, liberty, and
property." If it failed in its duties or acted arbitrarily, the subjects
had the right to form a new government, by revolution if
necessary.
Locke's ideas largely summarized the achievements of the
English Revolution of the 1600's. They had a tremendous impact
on political thinkers in France chafing under the corrupt reigns of
Louis XV and Louis XVI. Three of these men, Montesquieu,
Voltaire, and Rousseau would profoundly influence French
political thought and provide the theoretical justification for the
French Revolution.

Montesquieu, sometimes seen as the father of political science,

looked at various types of government and analyzed what made
them work in his book, The Spirit of the Laws. Among the ideas
he supposedly derived from England was the separation of
powers in government, a vital part of our own constitution.

Voltaire, who first made his name by championing the cause of a

Jew wrongly accused and executed for a crime, was probably the
most famous of the Enlightenment philosophers. Voltaire wrote on
a wide range of topics, but should be remembered here for
advocating more civil and political liberties, at least for educated
people who can understand the implications of their actions.
Voltaire was less clear on what rights the illiterate masses should
have.

Finally, there was Rousseau who said that people could only
legitimately follow laws they themselves have made. Otherwise,
they were the victims of someone else's tyranny. Therefore the
ideal state is a small-scale democracy in which everyone
participates. Together, the ideas of Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire,
and Rousseau provided the basic ideas we have today on
personal rights and liberties and how a government can best be
structured to guarantee those rights and liberties.

In economics, the most important figure was Adam Smith, whose

The Wealth of Nations pushed for a wholly new attitude toward
economics. Smith saw people as selfish and willing to work much
harder and produce much more if they had the incentive to do so.
He saw the mercantilism of the 1600's and 1700's, where the
state tried to import gold and silver while exporting its goods, as
stifling to an economy. Therefore, doing away with mercantilist
monopolies and restrictions would provide more incentive to
produce. There was no need to regulate the market since
people's greed and the law of supply and demand would make
the market self- regulating. Smith's free market policy, known as
laissez faire ("hands off") was widely adopted in the 1800's as
Britain, Europe, and the United States rapidly industrialized. It is
still a vital part of our economic thinking today.

In psychology, there was Helvetius, who claimed our minds and

personalities are blank slates at birth and that we are the products
of our environment and the sum total of our past experiences.
Combining Helvetius' "blank slate" theory with the prevailing
optimism of the age was Jeremy Bentham. He felt we could teach
people to act in rational ways by providing an ideal environment
where they can learn the right sorts of behavior. Bentham's
movement, Utilitarianism, became quite popular and pushed for a
wide range of social reforms in such areas as prisons, law codes,
and public health.
FC100AEnlightenment Salons
and the Changing Role of
Women
Reading in development
FC101The Rise of the Modern
State in Enlightenment Europe
FC101 in the Hyperflow of History; Covered in multimedia lecture
#1855. “It appears that God has created me, pack horses, Doric
columns, and us kings generally to carry the burdens of the world
in order that others might enjoy its fruits.” — Frederick II, "the
Great", of Prussia

Introduction

Just as the Enlightenment philosophes saw a rational plan in the

laws of nature and the universe, they also influenced rulers in
building their states along rational lines. For the first time in
European history, there was a general realization of the
relationship between economic, administrative, diplomatic, and
military factors in state
building. Despite their vast differences, there was a general trend
in both Eastern and Western Europe toward more tightly run
bureaucratic states. Public works projects, such as roads,
bridges, dams, and canals, multiplied in the hope of building the
economy of the mercantilist state. New government departments
also appeared in such areas as postal service, forests,
agriculture, and livestock raising. States also took censuses and
kept statistics in order to plan out policies better.

In order to understand the evolution of the modern state, one

needs to understand that the feudal state was patrimonial. In
other words, the kingdom was the patrimony (hereditary property)
of a dynasty. Likewise, the various judicial and administrative
offices that ran the kingdom at the provincial and local levels were
the patrimonies of privileged families. The modern concept of
kings and officials who were accountable for their actions and
responsible for the welfare of their subjects was alien to the old
feudal state. This made the feudal state more a federation of
separate principalities that, in theory, owed allegiance to a
common monarch. In the High Middle Ages, this concept of one
monarch, among other things, provided at least some degree of
order, helping lead to the rise of towns and feudal monarchies
which supported each other and increased each other's strength.
Over the years, a common language and culture along with the
spread of nationalism after the French Revolution united many of
these states into what we would call nations. The feedback
between the rise of towns and kings produced two lines of
development that would help each other in the rise of the modern
state.

For one thing, the rise of towns and a money economy helped
provide the basis for the Italian Renaissance and Protestant
Reformation. Calvinism, in particular, saw all believers as equal in
God's eyes, which discredited Divine Right of Kings, helped justify
religious/political revolution, and lay the foundations for modern
democracy in the Dutch Revolt and English Revolution. By the
late 1600's the religious element was fading from theories of
revolution. Such political writings as John Locke's The Social
Contract pushed the idea of the ruler being responsible for the
welfare of his subjects. Second, kings were building strong
nation-states that, by the 1600's, were assuming greater control
over all aspects of the state. For example, the economic theory of
mercantilism spurred rulers to work to develop the resources of
their kingdoms.

Together these led to a growing realization of the

interrelationships between administrative, economic, and political
factors in the overall welfare of the state. As a result, more and
more royal officials were trained professionals. They had to take
competitive exams to gain their positions and did their jobs
efficiently and impartially. Kings and their officials also paid more
attention to building and maintaining public works such as roads,
bridges, and canals to improve the economy. While the purpose
of these reforms was to increase the tax base for the kings, they
also benefited their subjects. Higher standards of administration
made people see their officials as a bureaucracy of service rather
than one of privilege. And since they were the king's men carrying
out his will, people also saw their kings as public servants rather
than as privileged owners of the state. Frederick the Great's
quotation at the top of the reading best represents this idea of the
king as public servant. As a result, in the 1700's the term absolute
monarchy gave way to the term "enlightened despot", a monarch
who ruled according to enlightened principles rather than the
divine right of kings.

The eighteenth century state still had problems. For one thing, it
had a modern political administration superimposed upon a feudal
social order. Nobles were still the privileged social class, holding
most of the important administrative and military positions.
Peasants in Central and Eastern Europe were still downtrodden
serfs. Even French peasants, who were otherwise free, had
feudal obligations imposed upon them.

In spite of this, the centralized states emerging in the

Enlightenment were important in the evolution of our own modern
states in two ways. First of all, the emergence of a professional
bureaucracy, chosen largely for merit, not money or birth,
provided the state with a modern administrative structure that
continues today. Second, the idea of the rulers and officials being
servants, not owners, of the state was central to the revolutionary
ideas that swept Europe starting with the French Revolution in
1789. A closer look at several of the major states of eighteenth
century Europe will give a better idea of their accomplishments
and limitations.

France
under Louis XV may at first glance have seemed like a strongly
unified state. But it had serious problems at the center of
government. First of all, the court at Versailles with its petty
intrigues stifled the work of most capable officials. Instead of
tending to their appointed duties, officials spent more time
defending their positions at court. Under Louis XV there were 18
foreign secretaries and 14 controller generals, most of them
eventually ruined by palace intrigue. Their average terms of office
were between two and three years. At the center of this was the
king, Louis, who was a somewhat intelligent, but weak willed and
disinterested man who let others run the government for him.

Another problem for the central government was the intense

competition between the council of state (from which all laws
supposedly emerged) and the various ministers (justice, finance,
war, navy, foreign affairs, and the king's household). The ministers
carried out and often formulated the king's policies. However, we
have seen what court intrigue did to many of the ministers, and
one can imagine the confusion and lack of direction in the central
government.

By contrast, the provincial government was fairly efficient. The

main figures here were the intendants that ran the 32 generalites
(provinces) set up by Richelieu some 100 years before. He was in
charge of tax collection, justice, and policing his province, and he
had a fairly free hand to carry out these duties as he saw fit. The
intendant was the king's agent in the province and was the man
most Frenchmen saw as representing royal authority. He also
represented the interests of the people to the central government,
and his opinion was generally respected by the king's ministers
and councilors. In contrast to the unfortunate officials close to
Versailles, the intendants generally kept their positions for
decades, which allowed them to know their territories and peoples
more thoroughly and better rule them. The intendants were often
criticized for being too powerful and corrupt. There certainly was
some corruption, but in general, the intendants represented
efficient and conscientious government. Unfortunately, nobles,
anxious to preserve and regain their ancient prestige, even took
over more and more intendant positions as the 1700's
progressed.

The intendants needed help at the local level. These lower level
officials fell into three categories. The first category consisted of
feudal officials who had bought or inherited their positions. Such
men had little training or care for their work and were a burden to
the intendants that were stuck with them. Next, there were
subdelegates, who were poorly paid, poorly trained, and also of
little use. Finally, there were what we might call true civil servants.
These were specialists (engineers, architects, physicians, etc.)
who had to take competitive tests to gain their positions. These
were the men who usually carried out the directives of the
intendants and kept the French state running. It was these
officials who would survive the French Revolution and become
the nucleus of the modern French civil service.

The Hapsburg Empire

may have been an absolute monarchy, but it was a far cry from
being a unified state. The War of the Austrian Succession
especially pointed out the need to organize an administration
such as Richelieu and Frederick William the Great Elector had
done for their respective states a century earlier. The central
government in Vienna had a number of governing bodies whose
functions overlapped, which led to great confusion. A full one-
third or more of all taxes collected never made it to Vienna, so no
effective budget could be made. Local government consisted of
noble estates (assemblies) that granted or refused the central
government its taxes. Nobles in Hungary owned 80% of the land
and paid no taxes, leaving the full tax burden to the peasants. The
nobles also maintained jurisdiction over the peasants on their
lands. It was this mess that the Austrian minister, Count Haugwitz,
set out to clean up. He did it at the central, provincial, and local
levels. The central government was streamlined into five
ministries: foreign affairs, commerce, war, justice, and internal
affairs. Typical of the prevailing mercantilist philosophy of the day,
the minister of finance was deemed most important in both
France and Austria.
At the provincial level, an administrative board known as the
gubernium largely replaced the power of the noble estates. In
1748, after the disasters of the War of the Austrian Succession,
the estates recognized the need to
reform the state and granted ten years worth of taxes to the
central government. This meant that the empress could rule
without the estates for the next decade. As their power withered,
that of the gubernium increased. Thus the feudal estates were
gradually replaced by a more modern system. Another important
principle that took over here was that of the separation of powers
within a government, specifically between the courts and the
executive/legislative branches. This principle was pushed by the
French philosophe, Montesquieu, and has remained an important
part of the modern state down to this day.

At the local level, a Hapsburg official, the kreishauptmann,

interfered more and more in the affairs traditionally left to the
noble estates. The more such officials became involved in the
daily affairs of the peasants, the more concerned they and the
Hapsburgs were for their welfare and their ability to pay taxes.
Therefore, the kreishauptmann became the virtual champion of
the peasants against the nobles, preventing them from evicting
peasants and taking their lands or forcing them to do extra servile
labor.

Maria Theresa's government also effected a major fiscal reform to

raise revenue. Even nobles and clergy had to pay regular
property and income taxes. This distributed the tax load more
evenly, but there were still gross inequities. The average peasant
still paid twice the taxes that a noble paid. And Bohemia was
liable for twice the taxes that Hungary was. Still, her reforms were
a giant step forward for the Austrian Empire, and her system
remained the basis for Hapsburg administration to the end of the
empire in 1918.

Maria Theresa's son, Joseph I, carried the spirit of enlightened

rule even further than his mother had. He was an enlightened
ruler who was determined to use his power to make his people
live according to enlightened principles whether they liked it or
not. Joseph's reforms cut across the whole spectrum of the
Hapsburg state and society. In the judicial realm, he had the laws
codified, tried to get speedier and fairer trials presided over by
trained judges, and outlawed torture, mutilation, and the death
penalty. He ordered toleration for both Protestants and Jews and
legalized interfaith marriages. Along the same lines, he relaxed
censorship, restricting it only to works of pornography, atheism,
and what he deemed superstition.

Joseph was a devout Catholic, but saw the Church as a virtual

department of state that needed some house cleaning. Therefore,
in 1781 he closed down many monasteries or converted them into
hospitals and orphanages. He also required a loyalty oath from
the clergy to ensure tighter control of the Church. He controlled
and encouraged education, especially for the purpose of
producing trained civil servants. Through a combination of
incentives for families who sent their sons to school and
punishments for those who did not, Austria under Joseph had a
higher percentage of children in school than any other state in
Europe.
Joseph's reforms extended to trying to make his subjects' lives
easier. Although he failed to abolish serfdom, he did get the
number of days per week that peasants had to work for their lords
reduced from four to three and evened out the tax burden paid by
peasants and nobles. He tried to encourage trade and industry
through high protective tariffs, tax relief, subsidies, loans, and the
building of roads and canals. He rewarded immigrants, but
severely punished those trying to emigrate from his empire.
Sometimes, his decrees could interfere with the minutest aspects
of people's lives, such as forbidding them to drink the muddy
water of the Danube or to eat gingerbread and encouraging
peasants to mix vinegar with their water.

By his death, Joseph had increased his empire's revenues from

66 million to 87 million florins, while virtually tripling the size of his
army. Unfortunately, no amount of reform probably could have
solved the Empire's most serious problem: the large number of
different nationalities and cultures forcibly held under Hapsburg
rule. German language and culture were imposed throughout the
Empire. But in the long run, the Hapsburg Empire was a virtual
time bomb of nationalities waiting to explode and fragment into
different states.

Prussia was the state that most people saw as the epitome of

the enlightened despotate. At the center of this was Frederick II

himself, whose incredible energy, drive, and intelligence were
more than equal to what all the
ministers and rulers of any other state in Europe were capable of.
Frederick clearly saw the interdependence of foreign, domestic,
military, and financial affairs and was determined to direct all
these affairs personally. Therefore, he served as his own foreign
minister, finance minister, and general staff. (He even scouted
enemy positions by himself, much to the worry of his officers.)

Frederick's workday started at 4 AM and extended to 10 PM. The

vast body of work and responsibilities he undertook required an
incredibly organized schedule and work routine. His civil servants
in Berlin sent him details and data on specific matters, and he
sent back orders he expected them to carry out punctually. His
court at Potsdam had neither family, court etiquette, religious
holidays, nor other distractions to impair the government's
efficiency. The court and government resembled a barrack and
were run with military precision. If any one man gave us the idea
of the state serving the people rather than the other way around, it
was Frederick the Great.

Frederick had little faith in either his troops or bureaucracy and

subjected them to severe surveillance and discipline to make sure
they did their jobs. Royal agents, known as fiscals, combined the
duties of spies and prosecuting attorneys to keep the bureaucrats
in line. Any examples of corruption led to immediate dismissal.
Civil servants had virtually no civil rights (including that of a trial)
and have been described as the "galley slaves" of the state. Even
with the fiscals, Frederick felt he needed better information about
his government and kingdom. Therefore, he had subordinates
report to him about their superiors. He also made an annual tour
of the kingdom from May to August, personally examining
officials, interviewing private citizens, inspecting local conditions,
and gathering immense amounts of information. There were few
things of importance that escaped Frederick's notice for long.

Unlike the rest of Europe, where most public offices were either
bought or inherited, Prussia required all of its civil servants to earn
their positions by passing a civil service exam. Most candidates
had a college education in jurisprudence and government
management. All of them, regardless of class, also had to spend
one to two years on a royal farm to familiarize themselves with the
various aspects of agriculture, in particular the new scientific
agricultural techniques being developed and the problems of
lord-serf relations.

At the provincial level, there were 15 provincial chambers, each

with 15 to 20 members. Since the members were responsible for
each other's actions, there was little corruption at this level. The
provincial chambers had two main duties: to collect taxes; and
stimulate the economy to raise the tax base. In true mercantilist
spirit, they had sandy wastes reclaimed, swamps drained, and
new settlements founded. They went to England and Holland to
study commercial and agricultural methods there, sought out
markets for Prussian goods, and arrested any vagabonds they
found, since laziness and indolence were public offenses in
Prussia.

At the local level there were the steurrat and landrat, who
administered towns and rural affairs respectively. The steuerrat
ruled from 6 to 10 towns, and left them little in the way of home
rule. In addition to collecting taxes, he fixed food prices, enforced
government decrees, regulated the guilds, and kept the garrison
properly housed. The landrat had much the same duties in the
countryside, but was not so closely supervised by the central
government, largely because the king had too little money to
closely control the Junkers (nobles). The landrat was always a
local noble and estate owner and was elected to his position by
his fellow Junkers as often as he was appointed by the king. The
landrat exercised all the functions of local government: tax
collecting, administering justice, maintaining public order, and
conscripting recruits for the army. As long as he did his job and
did not abuse the peasants too severely, the central government
largely left him alone.

To a large extent, poverty built the Prussian state of the 1700's. It

created a tightly run and loyal officer class by forcing
impoverished nobles into service to the state. It also forced
Prussia's rulers to adopt the tight-fisted economic measures that
became the basis of Prussian discipline and regimentation into
this century.

Russia
Catherine the Great of Russia also strived to be an enlightened
despot, at least in appearance. However, Russia was too big and
too far behind the West for it to be transformed into an
enlightened society overnight. The court, to be sure, reflected the
fashions and manners of courts in the rest of Europe. However,
this was a mere facade to mask the still medieval nature of the
rest of society in the countryside. Symbolizing this facade was the
series of fake villages stocked with healthy prosperous looking
peasants that Catherine's prime minister, Potemkin, set up to fool
Catherine into thinking her realm was indeed on a par with the
West. Unfortunately for Russia, parity with the West was far from
the case, and Russia would pay a heavy price for its
backwardness in the years to come.

FC102The Flow of Ideas in the

Enlightenment
FC102 in the Hyperflow of History; Covered in multimedia lecture
#1866. Introduction. Although the Enlightenment spawned ideas
on a wide range of subjects from the sciences to religion and the
state, it is important to see how all these ideas occurred in
something of a sequence that fit together in a fairly unified way.
This is especially crucial for us today, since we largely isolate the
various academic disciplines from one another rather than see
how they relate to one another. Perhaps the twenty-first century
will see such a synthesis take place.

Starting with the scientific revolution, we need to go back to the

Renaissance with new findings in astronomy and physiology that
seemed to contradict old theories, especially those of Aristotle. At
first these led to explanations that were still framed in the context
of old theories, especially if another ancient authority, such as
Plato or Pythagoras, could be used to back it up. However, these
natural philosophers, as they were called, kept finding more and
more evidence that seemed to contradict the old theories until
they had to come up with new syntheses and theories of their
own. We have looked at two of these processes in particular:
Newton’s synthesis in physics and astronomy, and Harvey’s
synthesis concerning the circulatory system.

In addition to creating the scientific basis for the industrial

revolution in the 1800s, they also opened the way for new ideas
outside of science. Key to this was the fact that the scientific
revolution had discredited the Church and raised the belief in
humanity’s ability to reason. For some, this led to the philosophy
of Deism, the belief that God exists but is not actively involved
with this world, leading to the conclusion that humans can and
must solve their own social, economic, and political problems. Out
of this came a new branch of study, the social sciences.

In the realm of political science, a whole new body of ideas

emerged concerning the state and our relationship to it: the belief
in civil liberties for everyone (or at least all men), democracy, and
the separation of powers within a government. Central to all of
these was the idea that the state, instead of being a divinely
ordained absolute monarchy, is an implied contract between ruler
and subjects, each with mutual rights and obligations. In
economics, the prevailing idea, as expressed in Adam Smith’s
Wealth of Nations, was free trade capitalism. In psychology there
was the Blank Slate theory that our characters are purely the
result of our environment and experiences. This would spark a
nature versus nurture debate that still goes on.

The new theories about the state had a very real impact on many
Enlightenment rulers, such as Frederick the Great of Prussia and
Joseph II of Austria, who were increasingly aware of the impact of
their administrative, economic, and political policies on their own
power. Therefore, following the prevailing philosophy of
mercantilism, they started establishing better civil services by
choosing more o f their officials based on merit, sometimes
determined by civil service exams. They also created more public
works (roads, bridges, canals, etc.) to improve the economy and
their tax base. Sometimes these mercantilist policies were too
heavy-handed in how they were carried out, but in many cases
they benefited society. Unfortunately, at this time, trying to impose
these reforms on a society that still had many feudal features also
impeded progress: such things as tax exempt nobles, hereditary
offices (including the monarchy), and extra feudal dues burdening
the peasants.

Of course, these reforms were done in most cases for the benefit
of the king, but they also often benefited society as a whole,
giving rise to the idea that the state was working for the benefit of
the people instead of the other way around. Out of that idea came
rising expectations for more benefits from the state. People even
started feeling that when those expectations were not met, they
had the right to rebel. That is exactly what would happen in
France in 1789.

FC103Balance of Power
Politics in the Age of Reason
(1715-1789)
FC103 in the Hyperflow of History; Covered in multimedia lecture
#1864. “Dogs! Do you want to live forever?” — Frederick the
Great, to his troops in the heat of battle.

Introduction

The period from 1715-1789 was one of transition between the

religious wars of the 1500's and early 1600's and the wars of
nationalism and democracy starting with the French Revolution.
This was also the era of balance of power politics where Europe
operated as an integrated system, so that one state's actions
would trigger reactions from all the other states. As a result, it was
hard for one state to gain an overwhelming position in Europe
without everyone else, in particular Britain, ganging up to restore
the balance. Finally, it was a period of intense competition
between European states, a competition that would launch
Europe into the two bloodiest centuries in all human history.

Diplomatic maneuvering (1715-1740)

The death of Louis XIV in 1715 ended the bloodiest and most
exhausting period of warfare up to that point in European history.
The scale of bloodshed and expenditure was so massive that it
would take several years before Europe would be ready for
another major war. However, mutual distrust kept the various
powers eyeing each other suspiciously and constantly
maneuvering to maintain a stable or superior position in case war
did break out. Spain and Austria conspired to take Gibraltar from
England, causing Britain and France to ally to stop this plot.
Britain, Austria, and Holland signed the Barrier Treaty in 1718, by
which Austria got the Spanish Netherlands (modern Belgium) in
return for manning the barrier fortresses against French
aggression. Because of this maneuvering (or maybe in spite of it)
peace ruled over most of Europe for nearly two decades.

The first major disturbance was the War of the Polish Succession
(1733-39). The death of the Polish king led to rival claims by
French and Austrian candidates, and these claims led to war.
Austria and its ally, Russia, being closer to Poland, emerged
victorious over France and Spain. The only compensation was
that the Spanish Bourbons got control of Southern Italy and Sicily.
The War of Polish Succession symbolized the growing importance
of Eastern and Central Europe in diplomatic affairs. In fact, events
surrounding two of these states, Prussia and Austria, would
dominate European affairs for much of the eighteenth century.

The rise of Prussia

Since the late 1600's, Prussia had been quietly but steadily
gaining strength. Under Frederick William the Great Elector
(1640-88) and his grandson, Frederick William I (1713-40),
Prussia evolved from a small war ravaged principality to a highly
centralized independent kingdom. The two pillars of Prussian
strength were a highly disciplined and efficient army and
bureaucracy. Prussia was a poor country, and Frederick William I
did a masterful job of making the most from the least. He did this
through a combination of intense economizing and severe
discipline and regimentation of virtually every aspect of Prussian
society. History has seen few skinflints of Frederick William I's
caliber. He cut his bureaucracy in half, cut the salaries of the
remaining civil servants in half, dismissed most of his palace staff,
sold much of his furniture and crown jewels, and even forcibly put
tramps to work. But he expected no more of his subjects than he
did of himself as the first servant of the state, probably a legacy of
his Calvinist upbringing.

Frederick William's main expense was the army, which is not

surprising when one considers Prussia was surrounded by
Austria, Russia, and France, all with large armies of at least
90,000 men. By his death in 1740, Prussia’s army numbered
some 80,000 men. Frederick William's pride and joy was his
regiment of grenadiers, all of them over six feet tall (a remarkable
height back then). His friends would give him any six-foot tall
recruits they could find, while he kidnapped most of the rest. In
spite of this military buildup, Frederick William I followed a
peaceful foreign policy and left his son, Frederick II, both a large
army and full treasury.

Frederick II presents a fascinating contrast to his father. While the

old king detested anything that suggested France and culture, his
son treasured those very things. This made Frederick's childhood
very difficult. On the one hand, he was required to wear a military
uniform and live the life of an officer. On the other hand, he took
every possible chance to learn music, speak French, and curl his
hair and dress in French fashion. This infuriated the king who
often beat his son in fits of rage. The king's chronic illness did not
help his temper. Neither did Frederick's tendency to tease his
father and see how far he could push him. At one point, Frederick
tried to escape from Prussia, was captured, court-martialled,
condemned to death, and finally released after a lengthy
imprisonment. It is a wonder that one of them did not kill the other.
However, when Frederick William I died, father and son were
reconciled. It is interesting to see how similar to and different from
his father
Frederick II would turn out to be as king.

The War of the Austrian Succession

(1740-48)

Frederick's eyes were turned toward the rich province of Silesia,

then under Hapsburg rule. The timing could not have been better
for Prussia. Austria was in pitiful shape to fight a war, having just
lost a disastrous struggle with the Ottoman Turks. Its generals
and ministers were old men past their prime, while the
administration was full of corruption and confusion. And to make
matters worse, the old emperor, Charles VI had just died, leaving
only a young woman, Maria Theresa, to succeed him. Charles
had gotten most of Europe's rulers to sign the Pragmatic
Sanction, a document recognizing Maria Theresa as the lawful
heiress. But many questioned the legality of Maria and her
husband taking the throne, and set up the elector of Bavaria as an
alternate candidate. This was the situation for the unfortunate
Maria Theresa (who was also pregnant) when Frederick invaded
Silesia.

However, as Frederick William I had warned the young Frederick,

wars were generally much harder to end than start, and this one
did not stop at Silesia. France, Spain, Bavaria, and Saxony all
joined Prussia, hoping to pick Austria clean. Austria's ally, Russia,
was neutralized when Sweden joined the other side against it and
Austria. That left Britain, who was already involved in a war with
Spain over control of the West Indies trade. Britain, which
generally tried to maintain the balance of power and its trade,
backed Austria. Unfortunately for Austria, Britain had a small army
and was mainly concerned with defending George II's principality
of Hanover from neighboring Prussia. As if Frederick William I had
been a prophet, a simple move into Silesia had triggered what
amounted to a global conflict, with fighting in India and the
American colonies as well as Europe.

Mollwitz, the first battle of the War of the Austrian Succession,

was a bit embarrassing for Frederick. His army won, but not until
he had run prematurely from the field. After that, however, he
showed a flair for brilliant generalship and decisive movements
that were unequalled until Napoleon some fifty years later.
Frederick's victory at Mollwitz left him with Lower Silesia and left
Maria Theresa, who had just given birth to a son, somewhat
destitute. However, the young queen showed she had some spirit
and fight of her own. She rallied the Hungarian nobles to her side,
raised an army, and secured an alliance with England. Next, she
made a secret truce with Frederick, giving him Lower Silesia if he
would drop out of the war. Then, she surprised everyone by
invading Bavaria and throwing her enemies, now without
Frederick, off balance.

With Austria's fortunes restored, the war dragged on for eight

more years. Frederick would occasionally re-enter the war, revive
his allies with his brilliant leadership, and then be bought off with
more of Silesia. At last, bloodshed and exhaustion led to the
Peace of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748. Frederick kept Silesia, while
Maria Theresa had survived and saved the rest of her empire.
However, she was burning for revenge against Frederick.

The "Diplomatic Revolution" of 1756

The first thing Maria Theresa needed to do was reorganize the

Hapsburg Empire. Therefore, she centralized the government,
reorganized finances, and built up the army. Next, she set about
looking for allies to help her gang up on Frederick. First, she
renewed her alliance with Russia, thus securing her eastern flank
and endangering Prussia's at the same time.

In this she was helped by Prussia's own position and actions. The
Austro-Russian alliance already threatened Frederick with a two
front war. If he were also attacked from the west and faced a
three front war, that would be disastrous. His choice for allies lay
between France and Britain. France, his traditional ally was slow
moving and reluctant to fight another war. England, on the other
hand, threatened him with its Hanoverian lands on his western
border, and had signed a treaty agreeing to pay for Russian
armies. By secretly allying with Britain, Frederick felt he was
neutralizing the threats to both his western and eastern borders,
since Britain would now guard, not threaten, his western borders,
and subsidize his armies, not Russia's.
Frederick felt that Russia could not fight without British money. He
also felt France would not mind his alliance with Britain to keep
the balance of power in Germany. He was wrong on both
accounts. Louis XV was furious about Frederick making this treaty
with Britain without consulting France. As a result, France allied
with Austria and agreed to finance Russia's war effort. This ended
250 years of hostility between France and Austria and brought
about a virtual diplomatic revolution in how the powers in Europe
were aligned. Frederick, finding himself surrounded by enemies,
took the initiative and invaded Saxony. The Seven Years War had
begun. Now it was Frederick's turn to prove himself in the face of
overwhelming odds.

The Seven Years War (1756-63)

was actually two conflicts combined into one giant war. In addition
to the continental war of Prussia against Austria, Russia, and
France, there was also the struggle for colonial empire between
Britain and France. The war assumed global dimensions,
extending from Europe to North America, the West Indies, Africa,
India, and the Philippines.

Prussia's struggle was especially desperate. Frederick, faced with

a three front war, was forced to race from one frontier to the next
in order to prevent his enemies from combining in overwhelming
force. Even then, he still was always outnumbered. Frederick's
oblique formation, where he stacked one flank to crush the
opposing enemy flank and roll it up, worked time and again to
save the day for Prussia. After two brilliant Prussian victories in
1757, Britain came to the rescue with troops to guard Hanover
and money to pay for the Prussian army, thus neutralizing the
French war effort on the continent.

Even with France out of the picture, the war against Austria and
Russia raged year after year and fell into a sort of vicious cycle
where Frederick would clear one frontier of enemies. Meanwhile,
another enemy would invade Prussia elsewhere, forcing Frederick
to rush there to expel this new threat. However, this only exposed
another frontier to invasion, and the cycle went on. Against such
odds, Frederick lost as many battles as he won. However, his iron
will and determination to save Prussia gave him the strength to
bounce back, gather a new army, and drive back each new
invasion. The Seven Years War became something of a patriotic
struggle for the Prussian people, who were called on in greater
numbers to defend their homeland. Junkers (nobles) only 14 or 15
years of age rushed to enlist, as did many peasants. The civil
service carried on throughout much of the war without pay. The
heroic example of Frederick inspired many Germans outside of
Prussia to praise him as the first German hero within memory
able to defeat French armies. Even French philosophes sang his
praises.

But the grim business of war dragged on and on. From

Frederick's point of view, this was a war of attrition and
exhaustion. If he could hang on long enough and inflict enough
casualties, his enemies would tire of the war and go home. As
luck would have it, the Tsarina Elizabeth died in 1762. Her
successor, Paul, was an ardent admirer of Frederick. Not only did
he abandon Austria, but also he offered Russian troops to help
Frederick. But Paul was soon murdered by his wife, Catherine,
who ascended the throne and pulled Russia completely out of the
war. This left only Austria and Prussia, who were both exhausted
by the war.

Meanwhile, Britain was striving to build a colonial empire and

eliminate French competition. Part of its strategy was to protect
Hanover in order to keep Frederick in the war and divert French
men and money away from the colonial wars. The colonial
struggle took place over North America (known as the French and
Indian Wars), the West Indies, India, and slave stations on the
African coast. In each case, British financial and naval superiority
proved decisive, cutting French troops off from home support
while bringing British colonial armies overwhelming
reinforcements. The resulting British victories cut French colonial
trade by nearly 90% while British foreign trade actually increased.
This both deprived France of the means to carry on the colonial
war and gave Britain added resources for it, which led to more
British victories, more British money, and so on.

In 1762, Spain suddenly joined France's side. By this time, the

British war machine was in high gear under the capable
leadership of Prime Minister, William Pitt. Therefore, British forces
easily crushed the Spanish and took Havana in Cuba and Manila
in the Phlippines.
By the end of 1762, both sides were ready for peace. The
resulting Treaty of Paris in 1763 was a victory for Prussia and
Britain. Prussia, while getting no new lands, kept Silesia and
confirmed its position as a major power. Britain stripped France of
Canada and most of its Indian possessions, and emerged as the
dominant colonial power in the world. Although Russia gained no
new lands, it emerged as an even greater European power.

The Partitions of Poland

The Treaty of Paris had effects in both Eastern and Western

Europe. In the East, the emergence of Russia as a major power
was a matter of concern to other European nations. The country
directly in Russia's path of expansion was Poland. At one point,
Poland had been a major power in its own right that had picked
on the emerging Russian state. Now the tables were turned.
Russia was a growing giant, and Poland was crumbling to pieces,
largely because of a powerful nobility and weak elective
monarchy. Frederick also had his eyes on Poland, in particular the
lands cutting Prussia off from the rest of his lands in Germany.
Since Russia, Prussia, and Austria were still exhausted from the
Seven Years War, they agreed to divide part of Poland peacefully
among themselves in 1771. However, their greed was not
satisfied, and there were two more such partitions in 1793 and
1795, which eliminated Poland from the map. Since that time until
the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1989), Poland has mostly lived
under the yoke of foreign (mainly Russian) domination.

The American Revolution

In the West, the last major event before the French Revolution
was the American War for Independence (1775- 83). For once,
Britain, the big colonial power, found itself ganged up on by
France, Spain, and Holland. This war had two important results in
Europe. First, it left France bankrupt, which helped spark the
French Revolution. Second, it established a democratic republic
that many Frenchmen saw as an inspiration for their own
revolution and the spread of democratic ideas across Europe and
the globe.