Category: Enlightenment

Enlightenment period took place between 17th and 19th centuries and it witnessed significant developments in political thought that became the building blocks of Modern Western system of state and liberal democracy. The English, French and American Revolutions were inspired from reformist political ideologies of the time such as social contract, rights, liberty, separation of power, general will and free market economy (Bristow, 2017). This paper will examine the main political thinkers of Enlightenment. Those are Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Montesquieu, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

Thomas Hobbes was an English political thinker who born toward the end of 16th century. Hobbes argued that human nature is selfish and violent, and he rejected the idea of ‘men is a political animal’ because state is established by the consent of people. In the state of nature, he believed no one could be safe from others violent actions, therefore people willingly give their rights to the ruler in return for protection of life, liberty, and property. To Hobbes in absence of the state, there would be constant fear and harm, and everyone would be in war with everyone. In his famous book Leviathan, he justified the necessity of a strong monarch as for protecting the rights of and keeping order in the state. However, the monarch should not endanger people’s life or liberty because everyone born free and social contract is made by consent of people to protect right to live. Therefore, anyone who is imprisoned or sentenced to death can fight for their life and liberty until the its been carried out.

He was opposing the idealist thoughts about the state because they could harm the authority of the state which was needed for everyone’s sake. People also should not oppose monarch’s authority unless the authority endanger life or liberty of citizens.

Another English political thinker of Enlightenment is John Locke. Unlike Hobbes, Locke is more optimistic about human nature, he believed that human as the creation of God is free and has natural rights- life, liberty, and property. Both Hobbes and Locke believed in the consent of the governed, but Locke opposed the divine right of absolute monarch. He believed that human born free and no one can claim right over another.

Social contract is made to protect ‘life, liberty and property’. Therefore, state is responsible for protection of natural rights and if it does not protect its citizens rights, then people have right to overthrow the government and replace it by a new government that is chosen by the society. He supported the superiority of the rule of law and the equality before the law. In contrast with Hobbes, Locke believed rights and liberties come before the obligations. On the other hand, Hobbes argued after the social contract people have an obligation to obey the monarch to avoid disorder.Moreover, both of these Enlightenment thinkers are very important in development of political philosophy, their ideas are also very crucial in shaping the political conjecture of the period.

Montesquieu is a French Enlightenment thinker who had pioneer ideas about the society and system of government. His thoughts influenced many Enlightenment thinkers such as Jean Jacques Rousseau and his ideas were also adopted to state systems. He was the first political thinker who introduced the separation of power to limit the abuse of authority. Thus, this could create a balance of power among the branches of the government

Moreover, Montesquieu argued that many variables such as climate, geography, traditions, population, economic life have serious effects on society’s law and political order. Therefore, he does not offer a universal system of government. According to him, the most appropriate system of government is the one that is suitable for a particular society and serves its interests.

Genevan thinker Jean Jacques Rousseau is another important Enlightenment political thinker. He was very critical about the development of his time and argued that primitive people and human in the state of nature are morally superior to modern people because pure innate human nature is damaged by society. He believed before the civilized life, people were happier and were living in harmony with each other in small communities but in urban life people are jealous of each other and constantly seek more property.

When it comes to Rousseau’s system of government, he was in favor of direct democracy. He argued that state should be governed by the general will of people which seeks common good. In Rousseau’s approach society is more important than individual because unlike Locke’s individualistic perspective, Rousseau was in favor of common good and common benefit of the society that is provided by the general will. In other word, sovereignty belongs to general will.

Rousseau was also very critical about the superiority of the Western ideologies and system of government, moreover he argued that Eastern peoples can develop their own system of government that is best fit for them.

The Enlightenment was a philosophical movement which took place during the 1700’s. During this time period, many new beliefs and views of government, economics, and religion arose. There were many figures who had exemplified the ideas of the Enlightenment, but the person who best exemplified the ideas of the Enlightenment was Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon Bonaparte was a French military leader and emperor who had conquered most of Europe, who had promoted the ideas of the Enlightenment was through his belief in liberty, equality and fraternity (Keithly). Additionally, Napoleon empowered the Enlightenment ideals by promoting beliefs such as equality before the law, religious freedom, and abolition of feudalism. In order to build off the ideals of the Enlightenment, Napoleon created the Napoleonic Code which reflected Napoleon’s interpretation of the French Revolution.

Napoleon had created the Napoleonic Code which reflected the ideals of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was built around ideas such as equality and freedom and the Napoleonic Code had enforced those ideas throughout a long period of time. Napoleon strongly believed in the Enlightenment ideals and had made sure to emphasize on them during his reign. Quoted straight from Napoleon, “My glory is not that I won forty battles and dictated the law to kings… Waterloo wipes out the memory of all my victories… But what will be wiped out by nothing and will live forever is my Civil Code” (Mirow). This quote alone stands to show that Napoleon had a firm belief in the Enlightenment ideals, and if there was one thing he made sure about throughout his rule was that the Napoleonic Code was going to stay and have an impact on the society. The effects of the Napoleonic Code can even be seen today, as it had greatly influenced many European and Latin American countries (Mirow).

In addition to the Napoleonic Code, another way that Napoleon demonstrated his commitment to the Enlightenment ideals was by creating public school education. He believed that education was crucial towards developing the future, so he provided education to all families. The reforms of the educational systems included the establishment of academic high schools, which prepared the youth for university level studies. At these universities, children were trained to become the country’s greatest leaders, administrators, engineers, scientists, and teachers (Keithly). Additionally, in order to enforce one of the most important ideals, which was equality, Napoleon had abolished privileges based on birth. This meant that no matter what type of family someone was born into, they would be provided the same opportunities as any other kid would.

Although I believe Napoleon was extremely committed to the Enlightenment ideals, many people disagree. One of the biggest arguments I’ve heard is, if Napoleon believed in equality, why didn’t he provide the public education to everyone and not just the rich people. This is a valid argument, but there is a crucial reason behind why Napoleon couldn’t provide the public education to everyone and only to the wealthy. The reason is, during this time period, kids were working from young ages in order to support their families, mostly for the poor families only because the wealthy families were well enough, and they didn’t need their kids working (Keithly). Additionally, although Napoleon hadn’t provided public education to everyone, he did show many other examples of equality. One example of equality was when he abolished being born into privileges (Kulshrestha). That is why, the argument that Napoleon wasn’t very equal to everyone isn’t too crucial although it’s not completely invalid either.

Napoleon Bonaparte made many commitments in his reign in order to fulfill the Enlightenment ideals. Napoleon back then kind of resembles Donald Trump today just because of how committed they are to fulfill the ideals of their own society. Napoleon enforced the Enlightenment ideals and Trump enforces the Constitution. As we know, the French Revolution had changed the way of life back then and how people lived their lives. If we had an American Revolution today, what do you think would change in today’s society?

Firstly, Enlightenment is a era that stressed on rationalism. It is characterized people for being self determination and more like fulfillment of individual aptitudes. However, Romanticism is more like individualism, emotions and nature. The Age of Enlightenment opened the ways to free reasoning and improvement. For example, mathematics, astronomy, politics and more. At the finish of the Age of Enlightenment, the Romantic Era was conceived and it was by all accounts in challenge to the thoughts that the Enlightenment had conveyed to society. Even thought both Enlightenment and Romanticism were built up around increasingly self-reliant and development, Enlightenment and the Romantic are differentiate essentially. These two periods varied in pretty much every perspective, including their convictions, explanations behind appearing, and the effects that they have had on society.

In my view, I think both Enlightenment and Romanticism are rebellious. The Enlightenment was a transformation against religion. On the other hand, Romanticism was an against movement for Enlightenment. Actually they both played more on individualism. Enlightenment took individual independent as their own personal feeling. While Romanticism concentrated on individualistic sentiment. So I think, in spite of the fact that their idea on individual was unique and underscored the individualist appropriate to intensity of their own individual. Besides that, it can be seen that Enlightenment and Romanticism have different thoughts about nature. Enlightenment believer tends to clarify, watch and study the nature of man. But for Romanticism concentrated more on the traditional side of nature and natural side of man. In my view, they both look to nature and both motivation and also a source of learning in man’s limits.

My view as a Muslim is the contrast is religion and the portrayal of God between these two era. Rather than the non-intelligent God as imagined by Enlightenment believe, Romanticism people perceived God as a profound power and valued the ethical principles lectured by religious belief. Medieval times which were considered as dark ages by Enlightenment on account of superstition and devotion, was valued by Romanticism scholars on account of social consistency and religious. While the Enlightenment viewed history as simple confirmations of human obliviousness, Romanticism saw history as one of a kind substance and esteemed local society and nearby conventions.

Another real conflict between these two was human emotions. While the Enlightenment contended that human sentiments block unwavering understanding, Romanticism commended emotions as one of a kind element of people. Romanticism trusted that the mind startle nature of human instinct is outside the ability to understand of reason and normal reasoning. They thought about that creative and instinctive scholars had a superior understanding into life and human instinct. The artists, writers, musicians and others thinkers of Romanticism period broke the guidelines and methods underlined and set up amid illumination and thought about them as hindrance to creative ability.

In conclusion the Enlightenment and Romantic are different from numerous points of view. Intelligence and thinking rule the Enlightenment while sentiments and feelings ruled over the Romantic time frame. Regardless of the distinctions, the two of them started from a progressive structure. Even so we have to open our minds and look for the world from contradicting points of view.

Imagine this, you are living in France and are part of the current Third Estate which consists of a variety of people with different occupations, levels of education, and wealth. You consisted of around 97% of the people but only owned about 65% of the land whereas the other two Estates, the First and Second Estates, consisted of both the nobility and clergies. The First Estate was only around 1% of the population but owned 10% of the Land and the Second Estate had around 2% of the population and owned 25% of the land. The Third Estate was also the only one of the three Estates who paid taxes, on top of that they had no voice in politics until in 1788 King Louis XVI called for the Estates General when the French Government was close to collapsing due to the Depression France suffered through from 1778-1787 as result of a loss of overseas markets and overproduction. Upon the King’s request, the Estate General gathered together for the first time since 1614. When the decision was made, on what they were going to do, again the Third Estate felt they were being treated wrongly since they consisted of close to all of the people but still only got one vote. They revolted and created the Tennis Court Oath which signified the first time that French citizens stood up against Louis XVI. This was just the beginning of the Revolts, one individual who had a great impact on the French Revolution went by the name of Maximilien Robespierre who was a member of the Estates General, politics was his life, and he was dedicated to using power to benefit the people. His definition of power is often looked over to not just be power but severe violence and some ask if he destroyed the principles of the Revolution or if he preserved them. I believe that he destroyed the Principles of the Revolution by murdering thousands of people who didn’t support every idea had and by making his idea of virtue and representing it as pride in their own country but then killing his people.

On June 21, 1791, King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette attempted to flee Paris appalled by the growing radicalism of the revolution, particularly its lack of respect for them. The royal family traveled within 30 kilometers of their goal before the king was recognized by a local. That’s when King Louis and his family were promptly detained and hustled back to Paris under guard. This escape plan is now known as The Flight to Varennes their attempt to escape was seen as a lack of virtue. He was convicted of conspiracy with foreign powers and sentenced to death by the French National Convention on January 21, 1793 he was executed via guillotine, and following that, his wife was executed around 6 months later on October 16, 1793. These people who at one point were on top of the social class suddenly are treated the way that the Third Estate was treated but I believe that Robespierre made it go a step or two too far, I think he would have benefited better if he had just forced them to live the way people did all these years, instead of viciously and brutally murdering the Monarchy.

The Monarchy is not the only people who fell victim to Robesspierre’s vicious Reign of Terror. In Robespierre’s time of rule, he led the execution of over 40,000 people who didn’t agree with the Revolution. Robespierre says “If the basis of popular government in time of peace is virtue, the basis of popular government in time of revolution is both virtue and terror: virtue without terror is murderous, terror without which virtue is powerless. Terror is nothing else than swift, severe, indomitable justice; it flows, then, from virtue.’’ now in this quote he relays the message that without terror the idea of virtue, or pride in one’s country, is vicious but later states that terror without virtue is powerless so he believes that you can’t have power without pride in one’s nation. Now I see this as the opposite, you should be able to have power without terror, you should inspire people not scare them so much they feel they still don’t have power. Although much of Robespierre’s followers were of the Third Estate in the past I would like to believe that some people felt a sense of pity for the people of the two other Estates or people who just didn’t have the same idea on how the country should be run. One should be able to live in a country that is controlled by morals and a steady government, not a place where they are terrified of doing something that may not be up to their ideas on virtue. In addition to showing Nationalism, many people would dress in Red, White, and Blue but those who were caught not wearing it were seen as not being prideful of their country and were assaulted for not supporting the Republic.

During the French Revolution the idea of Total War, warfare in which all of a nation’s resources including civilians at home as well as soldiers in the field, were mobilized for the war effort, was brought into effect to try and spread Revolutionary ideals to Europe. All of the Nationalism that this country had is what fueled much of the war effort, in 1793 The War of Vendee which was led by the Catholic and Royal Army in reaction to rising taxes on land, the brutal murdering of King Louis XVI, the constant attacks on the Catholic Church, and the expansion of the Revolutionary War. During this war, the use of tactics such as guerrilla fighters is what ultimately won them that war and left around 20,000 dead. Around a year later, many deputies in the National Convention feared that they were not safe if Robespierre was free to act. An anti-Robespierre coalition in the National Convention, eager to destroy Robespierre before he destroyed them, gathered enough votes to condemn them. Robespierre along with his followers were guillotined on July 28, 1794, which brought an end to the radical stage of the French Revolution

Although the end of the French Revolution wasn’t until around 5 years after the execution of Robespierre he had a huge impact on how the French Revolution is remembered in history. The gruesome and terror tactics that he used to achieve his goals are what make me remember him as a key person in the murdering of tens of thousands of people during the French Revolution. He destroyed the principle of the French Revolution solely by using the power he achieved to do awful things for the people of France, he used people’s fear against them which caused many of the people to be fearful in a sense of the government for the next few years.

Throughout History, hundreds of thousands of people have died whilst fighting to overthrow a government that had ceased to lead the country in the way that it should. The French Revolution was caused by many factors including bankruptcy, the degradation of the feudal system, and a ruler who did not rule. It was a dark time for France but eventually, the country came through and became the country it is today. The Enlightenment idea of equality was tested during the French Revolution about taxation. France’s involvement in the American Revolution left France close to bankruptcy and in an attempt to rectify the situation heavy taxes were imposed. Aristocrats and the clergy were largely exempt from taxation and whilst they only made up around twenty percent of the population, taxing just the commoners did not bring enough money in. Worse still the lack of taxes paid by the upper class angered the lower class. They wanted a system like the one in America where rank was based on achievement and tax was balanced depending on income.

The middle class was not entirely for this but eventually, in the Declaration of Rights of Man and Citizen, they declared: ‘ A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.’ This comes from one of the most important documents in the revolution and was written by the revolutionaries themselves. It was part of a statement of what they believed to be basic human rights and has since been used in human rights movements. Whilst taxation did not cause much blood to be spilled, it caused conflict, both between the revolutionaries and the king and the revolutionaries themselves; in the end, the conflicts were resolved and France was left with equality between the social classes. Rousseau’s idea of a ‘social contract’ between the ruler and the people was used to justify the revolution.

The theory was that the people allowed a government or ruler to lead them but if they didn’t do their job properly the people could abolish the government and start again which is what the French did. The worst harvest in forty years left the people starving, whilst their king lived in luxury. Despite their pleas for help, the king did nothing in the end they ordered King Louis XVI to sign their new constitution, which removed many of his powers. Eventually, the National Assembly removed the monarchy altogether. A French newspaper reported: ‘ The crowd, besieging every baker’s shop, received a parsimonious distribution of bread, always with warnings about possible shortages the next day. … I was curious to see what sort of bread was being eaten at court or served at the ministers’ and deputies’ tables. Nowhere could I find even rye bread. Everywhere I saw only beautiful bread, of the finest and most delicate quality.’ This was written by one of the people who experienced the food shortage and saw firsthand the luxury that the rich lived in. The writer may, however, have been unhappy with the upper class and wrote in such a way as to discredit them. The food shortage caused much suffering but it allowed the people to justifiably get rid of the monarchy so the country could move forward.

The French monarchy caused more trouble than it did well; the royal family fought wars that they did not need to fight and ended up running France into debt, they made their people pay for their lavish lifestyle, and did nothing to relieve the hardship faced by the people. Shortly after he signed the new constitution, King Louis XVI was executed; his wife followed nine months later. By executing the king the people had completely abolished and were free to start again; doing what Rousseau said they had the right to do. Henry Essex Edgeworth, an English priest who traveled to the place of execution with the king, wrote: ‘… they dragged him under the axe of the guillotine, which with one stroke severed his head from his body.

All this passed in a moment. The youngest of the guards, who seemed about eighteen, immediately seized the head, and showed it to the people as he walked round the scaffold; he accompanied this monstrous ceremony with the most atrocious and indecent gestures.’ This source was written by a priest who witnessed the death of the king making it quite reliable. It gives us a good idea of how gruesome the execution was giving us an idea of the horror of that day. Whilst the king was weak, he was completely innocent and did very little to deserve the death penalty however, his death allowed the nation of France to move forward to a modern and fair government. The French Revolution helped Europe emerge from the Middle Ages. Despite the rise of Napoleon, the ideas of the revolution stayed in France and eventually, feudalism was abolished, the French monarchy was abolished, France, and eventually all of Europe was left in the fair and civilized state that we know them to be in today. Adrien Duquesnoy, a representative for the estates general wrote: ‘…Thus the clergy of second degree and almost all provincial noblemen, who were recently oppressed by bishops and court nobles, should consider themselves fortunate to be relieved of this aristocracy.’ This tells us about how the people were freed from a strict social structure, however, it is not entirely reliable.

The man who wrote this was probably a revolutionary and therefore supported the things that were done after the revolution; he says that everyone should be supportive with the phrase ‘should consider themselves fortunate,’. The piece is quite biased. Removing the medieval ideas was essential in making France the nation it is today. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed both during the French Revolution and in the war that came straight after it. It allowed France to be relieved of an unfair system that allowed the wealthy to gain money and the poor to lose what little they had. Ineffective kings had caused France to become a country in debt and plagued by hardship, the enlightenment freed the people of France; and later, the rest of Europe followed.

1. The French Revolution: Causes, Outcomes, Conflicting Interpretations Author: Mr. Schwartz Viewed: 7/4/19 https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/rschwart/hist151s03/french_rev_causes_consequences.htm
2. French Revolution Author: The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica Last changed: 5/2/19 Viewed: 7/4/19 https://www.britannica.com/event/French-Revolution
3. French Revolution Author: History.com Editors Last Changed: 28/8/19 Viewed: 7/4/19 https://www.history.com/topics/france/french-revolution
4. French Revolution for Kids Author: Ducksters Last Changed: N/A Viewed: 8/4/19 https://www.ducksters.com/history/french_revolution/
5. Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen Author: Marquis de Lafayette and Thomas Jefferson Viewed: 7/4/19 https://www1.curriculum.edu.au/ddunits/downloads/pdf/dec_of_rights.pdf
6. Economic Crisis During the French Revolution Author: N/A Viewed: 7/4/19 http://www.indiana.edu/~b356/exams+assignments/extra%20credit%20assignment.pdf
7. The Ideas of the French Revolution Author: Jennifer Llewellyn and Steve Thompson Last Changed: 2018 Viewed:7/4/19 https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/revolutionary-ideas/
8. History Author: BBC Last Changed: 2014 Viewed: 7/4/19 http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/louis_xvi.shtml
9. DUQUESNOY ON THE CHANGES BROUGHT BY REVOLUTION (1790) Author: DUQUESNOY Viewed: 8/4/19 The Execution of Louis XVI, 1793 Author: Henry Essex Edgeworth Viewed: 7/4/19 http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/louis.htm
10. A PARIS NEWSPAPER ON BREAD SHORTAGES (1789) Author: L’Ami du Roi – A Newspaper Viewed: 7/4/19 https://alphahistory.com/frenchrevolution/paris-newspaper-bread-shortages-1789/

Hi, my name is Daho. Historical achievements are achievements that were succeeded a long time ago. There are many historical achievements, but today I will talk about the French Revolution and

French Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1789, was a revolutionary movement that shook France between 1787 and 1799. The French Revolution had general causes common to all the revolutions of the West at the end of the 18th century and particular causes that explain why it was by far the most violent and the most universally significant of these revolutions. About this revolution, there are 5 reasons why it was started.

First, the increasingly numerous and prosperous elite of wealthy commoners-merchants, manufacturers, and professionals, aspired to political power in those countries where it did not already possess it. The bourgeoisie resented its exclusion from political power and positions of honor. Second, the peasants were acutely aware of their situation and were less and less willing to support an anachronistic and burdensome feudal system. Third, the philosophes had been read more widely in France than anywhere else. Fourth, French participation in the American Revolution had driven the government to the brink of bankruptcy. Last, for France, which with 26 million inhabitants in 1789 was the most populated country in Europe, the problem was most acute.

The French Revolution is significant for the fact that it marked the end of the institution of absolute monarchy in France and saw the establishment of a Republic. Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, which had become the guiding principles of the French Revolution, also became the foundational values of the French Republic. The Revolution led to the establishment of a democratic government for the first time in Europe. Feudalism as an institution was buried by the Revolution, and the Church and the clergy were brought under State control. It led to the eventual rise of Napoleon Bonaparte as the Emperor of France. It also signified the end of ancient beliefs and political systems and a qualified acceptance of the new era of the Industrial Revolution. It popularised the idea of nationalism. It also led to the eventual development of the Welfare State. The success of the French Revolution inspired people all over the world, especially in Europe. Mobilized by the spirit of nationalism and the ideas of liberty, equality, and fraternity, people rose in revolt against the absolutist

autocratic State and strived to install democracy as the new form of Government.

This French Revolution was a tragedy for the French people. But because of this revolution, on 1789 August 26th, the French Congress announced the declaration of human rights. This announcement made France’s people equal. Because of this announcement, the absolute monarchy and monopoly right was gone. Instead of a status system,

Back in the early 1700’s there was a major literary movement shoo the very foundation of the world, creating what we have today. This period of course was the age of Enlightenment. It was a time of questioning philosophers, scientific advancement, political strife, and most importantly the birth of a new form of writing. It wasn’t long after the Enlightenment period however, a new era began. In the beginning days of the 19th century, during colonization and slavery, Romantic writing began to appear leading to what we now call the Romanticism era. A time of emotional pieces, creative art, and very outspoken artist. It is hard to say which period was the more impactful of today. Romanticism affects us in America more so, but it could be said the Enlightenment started the hole series of events.

“Why? How?” or even “Who?” Philosophers and scientist of the Enlightenment were focused on answering these questions of the world. There were many conclusions, many went against the churches ideals, such as Issacs Newton’s idea of “God as a watchmaker” (Puchner page 4) or David Hume’s “idea of individual, all had an impact on the society of time. Specifically, the hands and minds of the literary writers. Two notable ones being Moliere and Voltaire. Voltaire, responsible for the story of Candide, questioned the philosophy of mans optimism, his greed, and his denial. He was someone who truly emphasized the ideal of the time in his writing covering all aspects. The story of Candide is a comedy/tragedy that follows the life of a young boy named Candide who is thrown into a constant downward spiral of misfortune. His entire life Candide Lived by the Philosophy of his mentor Pangloss to know that “that things cannot be otherwise than they are, for since everything is made to serve an end, everything necessarily serves the best end.” (Puchner 425) In shorter terms, it means to never hate a moment in life because everything happens for a reason. Candide is tested shorty after when he is exiled from his home and begins his life of torment. He faced death many times, saw his love in a ragged state, heard the story of a poor old women. Even when his master was captured by the inquisitors and supposedly executed, he still tries to claim that “All will be well” (Puchner 436) when he speaks to Cunegonde. It becomes apparent that it isn’t optimism but instead denial that Candide shows. Skipping to the end of the story, Candide comes to a realization that leads to one of the most iconic quotes in Enlightenment literature. After all the hardships in his life Candide seems to finally have accepted that optimism has no place in his world. He makes the statement after speaking to an elderly farmer “That is very well put, but we must cultivate our own garden.” Showing that Candide can no longer be optimistic and hope for the best. He as well as all of us must focus on ourselves and make life as comfortable as possible. The overarching character development in Votarie’s Candide is based on the main character discovering that the way he as lived his life has been flawed and needs to change. This kind of plot development was common for in the time since it matched the trend of society.

As it was hinted in the story, the church was the overarching power in the time and ruled by very strict guidelines. Many “Enlightenment thinkers sought to curtail the political power of organized religion” (Norton, George). These writers did just that by not only bringing to light the philosophical question like those explored in “Candide” or in Moliere’s “Tartuffe” but another method just as powerful, satire. “Satire calls attention to powerful presence of the irrational, opens that presence with the clarity of the satirist’s own claim to reason and tradition.”(Puchner 19) Another way of stating satire is that it is the authors way of addressing the issues of society with outlandish acts or topics. It was one of the first ways that literature directly address the government and societal issues, but it was the first to lead to a new wave.

If satire was the first step, then the next step would be directly stating the issue. That is the specialty of the Romantic artist. A defining characteristic of the Romanticism period was the transition from thoughts to one of emotion. Artist of the Romantic time made works that were direct expressions of their emotions and /or attempts to appeal to the emotions of their reader. America’s own Fredrick Douglas is a prime example of appealing to readers. He recounts the time he was taken away from his own mother saying, “it was a common practice” (Puchner 810) and gives vivid details of the life he lived such as watching “Kids eat from the trough like pigs” (Puchner 814). Douglas intentionally attacked people’s sense of morality, directly appealing to their humanity. Humans fear being ripped from family and being worked to death. Douglas showed society that those same fears were real for slaves. By doing this he changed the very foundation of American society. Another author who was noted for this was William Blake and his poem “Chimney Sweepers”. Douglas appealed to the emotions of others to make a point, Blake on the other hand used his emotions to change others. Blake was known as a man who would condemn all kinds of authority (Puchner 904). Even going so far as to say, “he admired the devil for his disobedience” (Puchner 904). But Blake was more than a disobedient author, he was also a man who wanted to see change. Particularly he wanted change in the child labor industry. To apply express his emotions Blake wrote “Chimney Sweepers” with the line about the children’s mindset: “And got with our bags & brushes to work…So if all do their duty, they need not fear harm.” (Puchner 911) It was a point that the only consultation the kids had was to work hard and well so when they die, they can play with the angles. Blake was so passionate about his beliefs that it became almost contagious through his works. Both authors followed the ideal of Romanticism, to directly address the issue through the emotion and call for change. Whereas the ideas of enlightenment were focused on making people aware and letting them decide.

Enlightenment was all about “Rejecting the ‘truths’ of logic and mathematics” while Romanticism focused “the powers of the ‘underside’ of the human psyche: imagination, emotion” (Pellegrino). One would think the Romantics had the greater impact on society because of their direct influence and control on the socio-political nature of things but that door was opened by the Enlightened period. The Enlightenment period got people thinking about modern issues and got them to question the role of things. In what in this block of confusion and doubt that the Romanticism artist thrived. People were looking for a change and everybody had an idea of what they wanted so the Writers came in and told them what needed to be changed and how to do it. Because of their works, our own modern society is what it is today. We have free thought and the freedom to question because of the Enlightenment period. We are made aware of the issues that need to be fixed because of the Romanticism writers. It begs the question “Where would we be today as a society without those crucial periods in time?”

Works Cited

1. Norton, George. “William Blake’s Chimney Sweeper Poems: a Close Reading.” The British Library, The British Library, 13 Feb. 2014, www.bl.uk/romantics-and-victorians/articles/william-blakes-chimney-sweeper-poems-a-close-reading.
2. Pellegrino, Joe. “Introduction to Romanticism.” Romanticism, jpellegrino.com/teaching/romanticism.html
3. Puchner, Martin. The Norton Anthology of Western Literature. 9th ed., vol. 2, W.W. Puchner, 2014

In looking at the philosophical ideas of Newton, Locke and Descartes, one could argue that the Enlightenment did lead to significant changes in how people thought about the world, due to innovations, new ideas, and new ways of thinking which led to the rejection of beliefs in superstition and pessimism and acceptance of rationale, experimentation, and progress, leading by experience and observation. The rejection of religious dogmatism, monarchical authority and magic led to the acceptance and growth of equality, toleration, intellectual autonomy, liberty and democracy, and universal natural rights. I will argue that the Enlightenment did lead to significant changes in how people thought about the world.

Science within the Enlightenment gave way to different types of thoughts and discourse. Inventions such as the first manned hot air balloon by the Montgolfier Brothers quite literally changed the way we thought about the world with different ways of being able to view it. However, this is just a point to exemplify how inventions had an impact in the Enlightenment. Contributions by Leonhard Euler in applied mathematics, in fields such as mechanics and hydraulics are two examples, as well as advancements in algebra, number theory, and geometry. Advancements within chemistry, physics, and mathematics ultimately had an impact on how we would think about the world as this these advancements would be used to discredit fields such as astronomy and alchemy which would also then cast doubt on the religious authority. However, whilst the advancement in science was positive, it wasn’t universally seen in the same light. Jean-Jacques Rousseau criticized the field as it did not aim to make man happy and would seek to separate themselves from nature.

Science was also becoming relevant in an increasingly literate society. With the increase of scientific academies came a need for scientific publications which the academies could not solely fulfill. This led to more independent journals and periodicals being published to help fill in this gap which in turn gave the increasingly literate society access to new scientific ideas and thoughts. With this newfound access, how people thought about the world would significantly change compared to how the world was thought about previously. However, most journals published their work in their local or regional vernacular, so the spread was greatly reduced and some ideas were not widely accepted until later in time such as the theory by Mikhail Lomonosov that the ring of light around Venus was its atmosphere. So while science was becoming widely accepted in the world and would ultimately let the general public view the world in a different way, it was still limited due to constraints such as regional and language barriers, nevertheless, despite these hindrances, how people thought about the world was significantly changing.

Philosophy laid the foundations and encouraged the way of thinking commonly associated with the Enlightenment. Regarding the philosophical way of thinking, changing the way we as a species see ourselves would also open a different way in which we would think about not only ourselves but the world around us. Rene Descartes’ rationalist philosophy challenged the empiricist way of thinking. Whereas one would base their knowledge through experience and external senses, a rationalist would use logic, independent of sensory experience. With that school of thought, if one applied rationalist theory to their everyday life then the way they would think about the world would change. Instead of having to base everything on what they see, they would instead start using their intuition without the prior need for experience.

Two schools of thought in the Enlightenment that I believe are key in how people thought about the world; the moderate view which was championed by Descartes, John Locke, and Christian Wolff, and the other radical which was pioneered by Baruch Spinoza. The moderate way of thinking sought to accommodate the traditional concept of the world such as faith and the current power structure. The radical side aimed at freedom of expression, weakening of the religious order and faith, individual freedoms, and advocating democracy. Regarding the radical side of philosophical thinking during the Enlightenment, those key themes would be detrimental in changing how people would think about the world.

Freedom of expression would lead people to challenge the current power doctrine and structure without fear of repercussion. This then links with the advocacy of democracy which would then challenge the religious power structure rooted within monarchies across Europe and even the United States to which they based their Constitution. Montesquieu was a firm champion of the belief in separation of powers. However, whilst many within the Enlightenment were part of the nobility such as in France, these ideas played an important role in shaping how people thought about the world during the Enlightenment when traditions were beginning to break down.

Attempts to reform religion during the Enlightenment would change how people think about the world due to the freedom of speech in religious discourse without fear of persecution and prejudice. Organized religion was dominant, and pioneers of the Enlightenment sought to curtail the power it had upon the general public. This was in response to religious conflicts in the previous century such as the Thirty Years War. But while some sought to eradicate the chokehold religion had, others such as Locke sought to reform it so that religious discourse wouldn’t spill over into politics and cause another religious war. Thomas Jefferson tried to separate how they believed one should live their life, that being the moral code within Christianity and the true essence of Jesus Christ from what they believed to be false such as miracles, angels, and Christ’s resurrection. As more or less most of the public followed religion or was surrounded by religion in their everyday lives, these changes would certainly change how one thought about the world.

During the Enlightenment, many contemporary ideas came about such as Deism and Atheism. Whilst the latter deals with the nonexistence of deities, the former deals with the belief of a god but without reference to certain scripture such as the Bible. But despite this new way of thinking about the world, very few Enlightenment scholars whether they were critics of religion were not atheists but rather sceptics that came about this new way of thinking. So, whilst there was this attempt to push towards a more free-thinking society, morality as a way of thinking about the world was always within the Enlightenment as they would be without the need for religious persecution and prejudice and more acceptance and tolerance in the world. Different ways of thinking about the world through religion could be interpreted differently. Whilst Thomas Paine put forward that a simple belief in God the Creator would let a person live his life through personal reason, Locke argued that without god and divine law, there would be moral anarchy. With this, one could argue that a sense of free will separate from religious constraints would change how one would think about the world as they would be driven solely by their self-satisfaction and would look towards more pleasure in the world.

The Enlightenment was a period of major change within Europe and allowed those living within it an opportunity to think about or start thinking about the world in different ways. Scientifically, advances in fields such as chemistry, physics, medicine, and mathematics helped how we as a species would think about the world as well as allowing the common man and general public the opportunity to see and think about the world differently than what was previously thought and allowed as they had access through published journals and periodicals, as well as the transition from universities to academies.

Philosophy was instrumental in kickstarting the change within the Enlightenment, especially being at the core of changes in other areas. Different ways in which men thought about themselves would ultimately lead to changing the way they thought about the world. Instead of living in and seeing the world through experience only, they could allow themselves to think about the world in a more hypothetical sense, which would open up new realms of possibilities that would ultimately lead to advancements elsewhere as well as the breakdown in traditions.

As the Enlightenment introduced new schools of thought and freedom of expression, it allowed man to challenge the traditional religious power structure within Europe at the time. The separation of religion from the state was at the forefront of this movement to not allow another repeat of the Thirty Years War and prevent religious spillover into politics in the future whilst religious reformers tried to go back to a more basic way of thinking within religion, as well as limit religious prejudice and persecution.

Staring out from the page, his perfectly proportioned, toned body emanates the perfection of God’s image: man. Leonardo da Vinci’s The Vitruvian Man (1490) epitomized Renaissance Humanism and the rejection of the Gothic tradition of placing man in the shadows of God, positioning the white, able-bodied, European man at the centre of the universe, at the center of God’s universe. The human became a microcosm for the Macrocosm: mans’ proportions mirrored the mathematical perfection of the cosmos, nature, and time. However, while Humanism may have embraced and encouraged the notion of the human as the pinnacle of Creation, individualism went a step further and placed the autonomous, independent human – the individual – above that of the human; the human required a body and a mind, the individual required an objective body and mind. It was this notion of the objective body and mind, the idea of the individual, that gave strife to those who sought to define and in turn be defined as individuals, fuelling the Reformation and the Enlightenment, and the individual agency of Mary Wollstonecraft who sought to extend the realms of ‘liberal individualism’ to women, highlighting the inconsistencies and contradictions of the freedom theorists of the Enlightenment. Therefore, despite being conceived in the 1830s, individualism and ultimately the idea of the individual made the history of Europe, without which the Reformation and the Enlightenment would not have been possible. The idea of the individual is European history.

In a recent book, The Christian Roots of Individualism, Maureen P. Heath discussed at length the role of Martin Luther in the rise of individualist Christianity. Luther’s conviction against the Catholic Church’s uses of indulgences, intermediary forces such as priests, bishops, and ultimately the Pope, between humans and God, and his development of the Humanist idea of sola scriptura (by scripture alone), have left a lasting impression on the evolution of the autonomous individual. Thus it could be inferred that Luther and his advocation for the human to become autonomous was the core principle of the Reformation and the other concerns such as the idolisation of the Saints were secondary to the core of the idea of the individual. However, while Martin Luther was indeed a pivotal force, if not the force, of the Reformation it was not Luther alone who introduced the ‘self’ as the key figure in religious experience and the relationship between humans and God, ultimately leading to the Reformation, a point in which Heath perhaps does not touch upon in great detail. St Augustine in his Confessions, Book X vehemently advocated for God to be realized within the self, first and foremost. Religion and God were deeply connected to the self in St Augustine’s mind: ‘I the inner, knew them; I, the mind, through the senses of my body. I asked the whole frame of the world about my God; and it answered me, ‘I am not He, but He made me.’’. The notion that God was to be found within, that God was the essence of humanness fuelled religious debates and the questioning of the role of the Church leading to Lutheran thought and the birth of the Protestant Church. Furthermore, individual faith developed by Luther and Calvin became ever more important leading up to the Reformation with the emphasis on the search for eternal salvation becoming paramount. The role of the individual developed further as the Church under Protestantism could no longer be relied upon for the deliverance of sin – in Luther’s mind one was either born damned or saved and nothing the Church did could change one’s fate. Thus, individual actions and in particular faith, sola fide (by faith alone), became the dominant forces in the eras during and post-Reformation. Luther and the Reformation, without necessarily knowing it, were catalysts in the development of individualism and the progression of individual autonomy. The Reformation while on the surface a response to the corruption of the Catholic Church, beneath a thin veil is a movement that hollowed out a space for the individual, a space which has only grown with time. Humanism introduced the self, the Reformation was a movement of the self, of the

The only true refreshment that exists

You get from where? Yourself— where all things start.

Faust, Lines 592 – 593

While the Reformation was a movement concerned with the inner self – the implicit individual – the Enlightenment approached the role of the individual head-on and explicitly. The lines from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s Faust, a narration of the life of the modern individual, written during the Enlightenment, epitomizes the transition between the Reformation and the Enlightenment, where the individual became of paramount importance to the functioning of not only the self but of 18th Century society and beyond. The Enlightenment saw the individual evolve from the singular to the systemic where society became a collection of individuals. The Enlightenment echoed and adapted the Lutheran application of sola scriptura, the practice of relying on the original religious scripture and seeing and interpreting the text for oneself. ‘Cartesian doubt’ (sourcing information firsthand and doubting everything to achieve an individual understanding) ensured the development of a concrete set of definitive rules, contrary to relying on others for second-hand information, rather the information was sourced independently without bias or interference. The consolidation of knowledge enabled the individual in the Enlightenment to become a figure who embodied and exercised rationality and imagination. The willingness and the desire to be defined as a rational and in turn an individual drove the process of Enlightenment and in turn fortified the individual as the defining figure of the Enlightenment. Yet, despite the prevalence of the individual within the Enlightenment, the idea and its power also faced several setbacks in a changing society. Mauro Magatti and Monica Martinelli have suggested that the Church and the dependency on the Church were becoming increasingly catechized, giving way to new modes of dependence in the form of ‘institutional apparatus’ such as ‘the state and the market, intertwined with science and technology’. The Enlightenment saw mass upheaval not only in select groups but how people interacted with one another and the elites due to changing socioeconomic dynamics. While Magatti and Martinelli make excellent points, they miss perhaps the crucial development of the 18th Century: the public sphere, an idea developed by Jürgen Habermas, without which individualism in the 18th Century would not have thrived. The public sphere allowed anyone (de jure) to define themselves through what they said, not who they were – one could make themselves. In de facto this ‘equal opportunity’ was often not practiced. Although 18th-century society became increasingly enmeshed, the opportunities to define and be defined as an individual outweigh the shortcomings of individualism elsewhere. Enlightenment was the process of becoming an individual.

The French Revolution in 1789 saw the individual develop from an abstract status to a judicial identity of sorts. The enshrining of the individual in law drove fierce debates about who was considered an individual and who was not. Women were not considered individuals. Individualism shifted from being a position in which one could become by acting with autonomy and rationality, into something in which one was born: The Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen, 1789, Article I, ‘Men are born, and always continue, free and equal in respect of their rights. Civil distinctions, therefore, can be founded only on public utility.’ Furthermore, at the start of the 18th Century the term ‘individual’ was associated with terms such as ‘system’, ‘composition’, and ‘essence’, associations no doubt remnant of the Scientific Revolution of the 17th Century, however, towards the end of the 1700s in the 1790s, the term ‘individual’ became associated with terms such as ‘legislative’ and ‘tribunals’. The individual became a citizen, anyone not deemed an individual, not free, was excluded from legal rights. In respect, the law defined the individual as autonomous and independent – the capacity to make a life for oneself, to be free, to become an individual fuelled the ‘feminism’ of Mary Wollstonecraft. Wollstonecraft recognized that women’s presupposed ‘inadequacies’ were not products of their nature but rather consequences of their present conditions; women’s lack of autonomy and independence were imposed upon them by a society that valued their silence, appearance, and frivolity. Women were suppressed individuals, ‘Make them free, and they will quickly become wise and virtuous, as men become more so, for the improvements must be mutual…’. Wollstonecraft recognized that having been taught not to engage in rationality or imagination women were conceived not to be capable of the former and latter, given an equal opportunity such ‘lacking’ would be resolved. If one is taught they are not worthy of freedom one believes they are not worthy of freedom. The individual for Wollstonecraft was an act of individual autonomy and once women acted with autonomy they too could be representatives of the individual. Thus it can be observed that without the concept of the individual Wollstonecraft would not have become an agent of individualism.

During the 18th century and 19th century, much of Western civilization went through many cultural, intellectual, social, and political changes. The main two movements that caused many of these changes during the 18th century and 19th century were the Enlightenment and Romanticism movements. From individualism to governing ethics, both movements caused changes in Western civilization. The Enlightenment movement took place from the late 17th century to the middle of the 18th century, and heavily influenced the French Revolution of the 18th century. While the Romanticism movement was during the late 18th century to early 19th century. Both movements share some of the same ideals and intellectual ideas such as individualism and rebellious nature, however, they also have different main focuses and views on the Church and religion. Despite the differences, both the Enlightenment and Romanticism movements emphasized individualism for everyone and rebelling against the status quo and past traditions. Most of the ideas of each movement are conveyed through the art, literature, and music of the time. Therefore, Enlightenment and Romanticism movements share some areas of intellectual continuity such as individualism and rebellious nature, however, both movements have also had intellectual change from each other like view on religion and the main focus of the movements.

Both Enlightenment and Romanticism shared the intellectual idea of focusing on individualism, however, they looked at individualism on two different levels. On one hand, the Enlightenment movement focused on the individual based on personal reasoning, while on the other hand, Romanticism focused on the individual feelings of people. Despite these differences, both movements emphasize everyone’s right to be their own person. During the time before each movement the common people were exploited and lacked individual freedom. For example, during the Industrial Revolution right before the Romanticism movement, most of the common people worked day in and day out at the factory and lacked time and resources to be themselves. As for the Enlightenment movement, the common man lived their life working for nobles and lacked the land and resources to live a life outside of the Feudalism system. Because of the exploitation of the common man before the movement, both of the movements focused on individualism and granting the right for everyone to find and be themselves. Voltaire expresses his and Enlightenment view on the importance of individualism through free-thinking and free speech in his book the Idées républicaines. Much like Voltaire, Rousseau and Romanticism believe people should be individuals and be free-thinking and free feeling. In Rousseau’s novel, The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right, he talks and focuses on the importance of free-thinking and free feeling in relation to individualism.1 Therefore, a common area of interest that both movements focused on was individualism.

Ultimately the main focus of each movement was to rebel against past traditions. Voltaire and Rousseau convoy a lot of the rebellious nature towards past traditions through their literature. In Voltaire’s writing, it is seen that the Enlightenment was a rebellion against the religion of the past and the governing ethics of the past. An example, of Voltaire’s rebellious writing, is his Letters on the English, in the writing he criticizes and mocks the French system of government.2 Voltaire writes in Letters on the English:

“In France the title of marquis is given gratis to any one who will accept of it; and whosoever arrives at Paris from the midst of the most remote provinces with money in his purse, and a name terminating in ac or ille, may strut about, and cry, ‘Such a man as I! A man of my rank and figure!’ and may look down upon a trader with sovereign contempt;”.3

Voltaire in Letters on the English novel criticized the power of money in France along with other parts French government. The French government saw the novel as an attack, as a result, the French government had the book suppressed. However, this did not stop Voltaire from continuing to criticize and rebel against past traditions. Much

like Voltaire, Rousseau criticized and rebelled against past traditions through his writing. However, the main focus of Rousseau’s writing and the Romanticism movement was a rebellion against the ideas of the Enlightenment. Emile, or On Education was one of Rousseau’s earlier writings that judges the education systems of the time and the nature of man.4 In a 20th century publication of Emile, or On Education, the publisher says in the appendix, “Due to a section of the book entitled ‘Profession of Faith of the Savoyard Vicar’, Emile was banned in Paris and Geneva and was publicly burned in 1762, the year of its first publication.”.5 Most of Rousseau’s other writings also judge and mock political and social problems such as science and philosophy. Because of the Enlightenment movement, many people looked up to science, and Rousseau’s judgment of science was criticized at first. What makes Emile, or On Education and other books Rousseau wrote fit in so well during the Romanticism movement was that he stressed the importance of nature in everyday life and wanted people to rebel against science. Although Rousseau and other writers during the Romanticism criticized the ideas of the Enlightenment, they share the rebellious nature against past tradition that Voltaire and the other writers of the Enlightenment possessed.

Although both movements share some intellectual ideas, each movement has its own focus that differs from each other. Enlightenment focused on human reason and the importance of science. While Romanticism focused on nature, human emotions, and human moods. Art and Literature of each movement display the different focuses of each movement. For example, many writings of Voltaire convoy human reason and the importance of science, such as Idées républicaines which puts importance on human reason. Through, Voltaire and other pieces of literature at the time it is conveyed the Enlightenment Movement’s main focus was human thought and reason. William Burn says in his novel Science in the Enlightenment, “Many Enlightenment writers and thinkers had backgrounds in the sciences and associated scientific advancement with the overthrow of religion and traditional authority in favour of the development of free speech and thought.”.6 Many writers during the Enlightenment wrote about science because their background in science made them realise the importance of science to everyone. Just as William Burn says, many Enlightenment writers throughout scientific advancements would help to overthrow past traditions and lead the way for free thought and speech, which Enlightenment writers associated with human reason. Writers were not the only advocates for human reason during the Enlightenment Movement, painters used an art style called Neoclassical to convey the importance of human reason. The Neoclassical art style put one clean strong looking person as the focus of the art piece. Neoclassical much like the Enlightenment movement put human thought and reason as the main focus of everything. An art piece titled A Philosopher Giving that Lecture on the Orrery as described by “In this picture Wright depicts a contemporary scene of a scientific lecture. A red-gowned philosopher demonstrates the workings of the solar system using a clockwork model known as an Orrery”.7 The artwork puts the focus of the piece on the Orrery and the kids around it that are learning. Much like this piece and other artwork during the Enlightenment, humans and science together at the center of the piece conveying the importance of science and human reason. On the other hand, the Romanticism style of literature, art, and music focused on human emotions and moods such as spirituality, imagination, mystery, and fervor. The Romanticism movement fueled this style by reviving fairy tales and putting the main focus of art in the foreground which usually was nature. In regards to the artwork called Wanderer Above the Sea of Fog which a writer from The Art Story describes as:

“An aristocratic man steps out upon a rocky crag as he surveys the landscape before him, with his back turned toward the viewer. Out of swirling clouds of fog, tall pinnacles of rocks loom, and a majestic peak on the left and a rock formation on the right fill the horizon”.8

In the art piece as described by The Art Story has the main focus of the piece in the background were the sea and other nature is found. Many art pieces of Romanticism movement made nature and human looking upon nature the focus. The difference between the two styles of art and literature during the times perfectly displays the ideas of each movement.

During both movements, the Church and religion played a huge role. For the Enlightenment movement, the Church was seen as too powerful and Catholicism was the main religion for everyone. The Romanticism movement on the other hand supported the Church and saw Protestantism as the main relgion. In the History Today article the writer talks about Clathloic church during the Enlightenment:

“The Enlightenment quest to promote reason as the basis for legitimacy and progress found little to praise in the Church. While the philosophes appreciated the value of religion in promoting moral and social order, the Church itself was condemned for its power and influence.”

The Church’s counter view to Enlightenment caused many writers and activists of the movement to view the Church but not religion as hostile. Letters Concerning the English Nation and Idées républicaines perfectly convoy Voltaire and other Enlightenment activities hostile view towards the Catholic Church. In Idées républicaines, Voltaire writes, “Magistrates alone should have the power to allow or prohibit work on feast days because it is not the business of priests to forbid men to cultivate their fields.”. Voltaire’s thoughts on the Church as soon though his writings were that they had to much power. Romanticism had a different view on the Church and religion than Enlightenment because it had a different focus than Enlightenment. Due to the Romanticism’s focus on human emotion and nature, many Romanticism activists believed that without religion there was no purpose. So during the Romanticism movement many people became apart of the Protestantan and Catholic church. The movement back to religion and the Church during the Romanticism caused many people to side with the Church and their view that the ways of the Enlightenment movement were wrong and incorrect. The movement away from the church during the Enlightenment and the shift back to the church during the Romanticism is a major integral change from the Enlightenment movement to Romanticism.

The Enlightenment and Romanticism movements were two movements that caused huge changes in Western Civilizations. One of the biggest similarities between the two movements was their emphasis on individualism. Both movements advocated for the right for everyone to be themselves. The movements also share the fact that they rebelled against past traditions and the status quo. For example, the Enlightenment rebelled against the religion and Church of the past, the governing ethics of the past, and the traditions of the past age. While the Romanticism movement rebelled against the ideas of the Enlightenment. Along with Romanticism rebelling against Enlightenment ideals, Romanticism and Enlightenment focus on different intecutal ideas and views on the primary religions in Western Civilizations such as Protestantism and Catholicism. Both movements had different main focuses, for example, the Enlightenment focus on human reason and science while Romanticism placed importance on nature and human emotions. Therefore, Enlightenment and Romanticism movements share some of the same intellectual ideas, however, there are some transitions and differences between the two movements.