La crisi della coscienza europea

by Paul Hazard, Giuseppe Ricuperati (Contributor)

La maggior parte dei francesi pensava come Bossuet, poi all'improvviso i francesi iniziarono a pensare come Voltaire: è una rivoluzione, scriveva Paul Hazard in questo libro, diventato ormai un classico, in cui vengono descritti i mutamenti della coscienza europea dal Rinascimento, epoca del suo massimo fulgore, all’Illuminismo e ai traumatici eventi della Rivoluzione francese. In un tempo breve si verifica la trasformazione da una società basata sull’obbedienza cieca all’autorità del sovrano e del clero a una civiltà fondata sul diritto. Verso il 1680, infatti, tutto si mette in movimento: si diffonde l’idea che i Moderni sono altrettanto importanti degli Antichi, che il progresso deve avere la meglio sulla tradizione, la scienza sulla fede. Un’epoca di transizione, dunque, in cui il gusto per i racconti di viaggio amplia gli orizzonti e fa vacillare convinzioni acquisite da tempo. Si discute della Bibbia, dell’autenticità dei testi sacri; i liberi pensatori dichiarano guerra alla tradizione. Si parla di religione naturale, di morte naturale, di diritto naturale. Si sogna un’era di felicità sulla terra basata sulla ragione e sulla scienza. Secondo l’autore i principali artefici di tale mutamento furono alcuni pensatori come John Locke e Pierre Bayle, sostenitori, specialmente il secondo, dell’indipendenza della morale dalla religione, di A. Shaftesbury, difensore del principio della tolleranza e di John Toland, che sottoponeva a revisione critica le rivelazioni contenute nei testi sacri, minando così l’autorità della Chiesa fin dalle sue fondamenta.

Genres: History, Philosophy, Nonfiction, European History, France, Sociology, Classics

410 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1935

About the author

Paul Hazard was an eminent French historian of ideas and a pioneering scholar of comparative literature. After teaching at the University of Lyon and the Sorbonne, he was appointed to the chair of comparative literature at the Collège de France in 1925 and in 1940 was elected to the French Academy. From 1932 on Hazard also taught at regular intervals at Columbia University, and he was in New York when the Nazis occupied France in 1941. He immediately returned to France to assume the rectorship of the University of Paris but was rejected for the position by the Nazis. Hazard’s reputation rests on two major works of intellectual history: The Crisis of the European Mind, from 1935, and its sequel, European Thought in the Eighteenth Century: From Montesquieu to Lessing, published posthumously in 1946.

Reviews

[Ted · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read this book, long ago. In my mind it's a classic.


(Wiki)

Paul Hazard (1878-1944) was a French historian of ideas. This book, first published in 1935, is once again in print under the title The Crisis of the European Mind (NYRB Classics)

The twenty-five year period of the title corresponds to the unveiling and lightning-fast acceptance of the scientific ideas embodied in Newton's Principia; in other words, as it says on the back cover of my edition,

the most significant single revolution in human thought: the birth of Newtonian science and of comparative religion; the impact of Descartes and Bayle, Newton and Locke, Spinoza and Leibniz; the creation of our world (my emphasis)

Do the ideas of these monumental thinkers of three centuries ago matter in our modern age? Of course they do from an historical perspective. But how about practically speaking? Isn't it true that we've kept what we've found useful, forgotten the rest, and moved into a world inhabited with our own views and discoveries? Some would say the question isn't even worth trying to answer.

I have a strong conviction that, if one has the time to study such things, there are rewards to be had. Yes, we've kept what we've found useful ... but largely forgotten where those useful notions came from. They've just become part of our backstory. "There's nothing new under the sun." In the history of ideas this is quite possibly true. But when things come around again that were stated, discussed and debated long years ago, it can be crucially important to have some idea what the argument was about all those years ago, and why the conclusions that formed the modern world were made.


. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Previous review: Casanova’s Chinese Restaurant Anthony Powell
Random review: The Martian Chronicles Ray Bradbury
Next review: Martin Ramirez – The Last Works

Previous library review: Renaissance Essays Hugh Trevor-Roper
Next library review: The Second World War John Keegan

[Inna · Rating 5 out of 5]

Majestic work of intellectual history - large in scope, erudite, brilliantly written. We can almost feel the joy of victory of the modern ideas while reading. Saying this, the book should be supplemented with some social history of Europe during the period. Otherwise it rather feels like the ideas in it are in the air - it is clear which intellectual developments took place, but unclear why some rather than other won and what was the context. Not that the author aimed to explain that, so this is not a valid criticism. Another issue is that the author is clearly in love with modernity and perhaps somewhat idealizes it.

[Karl-O · Rating 4 out of 5]

I came across this book while reading a review of another book on the Enlightenment called The Enlightenment: And Why It Still Matters by Anthony Pagden. The review was by John Gray and it was called The Virgin Birth and other myths. He bashes the book (no surprise there) as a piece of propaganda by someone who doesn't truly understand how the enlightenment came about and sees it pretty much as a miracle, hence the title of the review. As a counterexample, Gray mentions this very book and how it traces the evolution of the different strands of ideas from the times preceding the Enlightenment. Whether Padgen's book is good or bad I do not know, but the idea of using the virgin birth as a metaphor about someone's idea of the Enlightenment of all things, seemed ingenious to me. Such irony was irresistible to say the least and it was enough by half for me to take any recommendation from Gray.

Most interesting about this book is the tone of Monsieur Hazard. It is at once poetic and disinterested. At times vague and at others clear-cut. Hazard seems to skillfully adopt and subsequently relenquish the arguments of all the people he discusses and doesn't state clearly when he is voicing his own opinions or those of his subjects. I have seen some french documentaries and I wonder whether this is a characteristically French way of handling historical topics where the self of the historian loses its significance and becomes merged with the fabric of the story he/she is presenting.

The book can be heavy at times but it is very enjoyable. I learned a lot about many figures and events about which I tried to do some complementary reading online. It was an awesome experience.

This is highly recommended for anyone interested in intellectual history and history of ideas.

[Mahmoud Taher · Rating 5 out of 5]

لطالما كان هذا الكتاب مصاحبا لي على الدوام ، عثرت عليه مترجما ترجمة رصينة ورائعة للدكتور يوسف عاصي صادرة عن المنظمة العربية للترجمة .
الكتاب يحكى تسلسلاً تاريخيا لتطور الفكر الأوروبي فى الفترة التى يمكن أن يطلق عليها جمعت كل المتناقضات داخل أوروبا من الناحية الفكرية .
أعظم العقول التى مهدت للثورة الفرنسية وكذلك الخرافات والأساطير التي ملأت أفكار الشعوب الأوروبية ومن ضمنها نظرتهم علي سبيل المثال للإسلام والتي بدأت تتغير في تلك الأعوام كما تغير الكثير.
التغير الرئيسي يتمثل في استبدال الحضارات القائمة في أوروبا على فكرة الواجبات ( الواجبات نحو الله و نحو الملك )إلي حضارات ترتكز علي فكرة الحقوق ( حقوق الانسان وحقوق العقل وحقوق النقد )
من هذا الكتاب عرفت الكثير من المفكرين الذين كنت أقرأ عنهم لأول مرة أمثال ريتشارد سيمون وبوسوييه و بيار بايل ممن كان لهم أدوار عظيمة في تغيير أوروبا وفكرها.
بول هازارد الموسوعي بحق أبدع في هذا الكتاب الذى لم أكف عن الرجوع إليه كثيرا ، ربما لأن ما أقرأه فيه نمر به كثيرا الآن في عالمنا العربي بالأخص من سيطرة الجهل والأساطير و الاستبداد والفقر و النفاق وكيف تخلصت أوروبا منه .

[Beauregard Bottomley · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book looks at the ground work that was necessary for Western Europeans, principally British, French and Germans to shake the neo-classical thought and make the West ready for the Enlightenment. To me, there is just something magical about reading a book from the 1930s which explains the beginnings which will lead to enlightened thought, the rejection of authority as the final say in any question about the world, the tolerance of ideas over dogmatism and the full blossoming of thought over tradition.

The author seems to have read all the books and such from the time period and puts them into the story. He writes the book mostly thematically but does tie them together with some main characters. In particular, Pierre Bayle, Richard Simon, and John Locke become recurring characters.

Richard Simon (pronounce with the French accent since he is French) opens a large crack by his exegeses on the Old and New Testaments. Moses could not have possibly written the Pentateuch since he writes about his own death. Simon writes because he is a true believer and wants everyone to know the truth. Once a crack is put into the facade the wall starts to open up.

Pierre Bayle (my most favorite character from the Enlightenment) knows how to write a footnote in his Dictionary. A twenty three page footnote on King David and he shows what it means to be chosen by God, and which leads to the only possible conclusion that free will must be an illusion and the Calvinistic thought must be right. Atheist can be moral, comets do not happen because God is angry at man, and all awhile he keeps within the orthodoxy.

Also, the author mentions repeatedly that the heart of protestant thought is that the individual is empowered by Grace to understand for himself. That argument allows for everyone to learn by rational thought, reason, and empirical methods or even by introspection. The change comes slowly but comes and lays the foundation for the thinkers to follow.

Travel books, poetry, histories (G. Vico and his new way of thinking about history), even the Monads of Leibnitz are covered. Everything that teaches one to drop the walls that separates us from the other. Let us not build walls to separate us but lets understand what others have to give.

Spinoza and to a lesser degree Hobbes are written about and thought about and are expanded upon and refuted by the thinkers mentioned in this book.

Overall, I love books about the Enlightenment. The modern ones (what few there seems to be) don't really seem to capture the spirit as well as this book written from 1935 does. One warning about this book, it really helps to speak French because a lot of the titles cited won't be translated.

[Charlie Huenemann · Rating 5 out of 5]

Summarizing this work would be like summarizing a classic novel: you might capture the highlights, but will not convey the rich details and textures of the telling. In brief, one might say that according to Hazard, the early modern period was characterized by a new and welcoming attitude toward change and diversity, though its thinkers tried to find equanimity in Roman classical philosophy. This attempt at quietude, however, was violently interrupted by the political and theological upheavals raging across the continent, and a new need was discovered to secure a stable and secular foundation for authority. In the end, both science and sentiment were to lead the way. Hazard draws compelling sketches of the principal movers tangled up in this search for a new equilibrium, and paints in both broad and fine strokes at once. Masterful work by a man whose knowledge (of this period at least) had distant limits.

[Lauren Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found the second half of the book much harder to follow than the first half. I do feel, like another reviewer said, that it is hard to tell when Hazard is speaking for himself and when he's speaking for another writer. The edition I have (an older one) also doesn't distinguish very well between quotes and text with an ever-so-slightly smaller text for quotes. If there's no footnote at the end, it can be difficult to tell. Strangely, they also didn't translate Latin quotes though they translated French quotes.

[noblethumos · Rating 5 out of 5]

Paul Hazard’s The Crisis of the European Mind, 1680–1715 (originally published in French in 1935, English translation 1952) is a classic intellectual history that charts the profound shift in European thought at the turn of the eighteenth century. Widely regarded as one of the foundational works in the study of the Enlightenment, the book examines how inherited certainties—religious, political, and philosophical—were challenged by a wave of new ideas that eventually culminated in the rationalist, scientific, and secular spirit of the modern age.


Hazard’s central thesis is that Europe experienced an intellectual “crisis” between roughly 1680 and 1715, in which the traditional framework of Christian humanism and Aristotelian scholasticism was undermined by skepticism, empiricism, and comparative cultural analysis. This was not a sudden rupture, but rather a tension-filled transitional moment, where competing worldviews contended for dominance. The result was what Hazard memorably called “the European mind” breaking from its medieval moorings and opening onto the Enlightenment.


The book is organized thematically rather than chronologically, with Hazard weaving together discussions of theology, philosophy, literature, and cultural comparison. One of the strengths of Hazard’s approach is his panoramic scope: he moves fluidly across national traditions, drawing from French, English, Italian, and Dutch intellectual contexts to construct a truly European narrative.


The opening chapters examine the disintegration of religious orthodoxy. Hazard highlights how rationalist philosophers, Protestant dissenters, and Catholic reformers alike destabilized traditional belief. Thinkers such as Pierre Bayle, with his Dictionnaire historique et critique, are presented as central figures, using skepticism and erudition to undermine dogma. Similarly, Hazard underscores the rise of Deism in England, where Locke’s empiricism provided philosophical support for a rationalized conception of faith.


Another major theme is the challenge posed by the expansion of horizons beyond Europe. The growing awareness of non-European civilizations, facilitated by travel literature and missionary reports, introduced unsettling relativistic comparisons. Hazard emphasizes how the encounter with China, India, and the Islamic world provided European thinkers with alternative models of morality, religion, and governance. These comparisons weakened the presumption of the superiority of Christian Europe and fed the cosmopolitanism of Enlightenment discourse.


Hazard also devotes significant attention to the transformation of philosophy. Cartesian rationalism, Newtonian science, and Lockean empiricism each contributed to the intellectual destabilization of the old order. The authority of ancient texts, scholastic traditions, and ecclesiastical pronouncements gave way to an emphasis on critical reason, observation, and experimentation. Hazard dramatizes this intellectual upheaval with rhetorical flourish, portraying a generation of thinkers eager to question everything, from biblical miracles to the divine right of kings.


Stylistically, Hazard’s prose is eloquent and evocative, sometimes bordering on the literary. Rather than offering a strictly analytical narrative, he seeks to capture the spirit of intellectual ferment, often describing the period in metaphors of storm and revolution. This rhetorical energy gives the book a lasting readability, though at times it sacrifices precision for dramatic effect.


From a historiographical perspective, The Crisis of the European Mind represents an important moment in Enlightenment studies. Hazard helped establish the idea of the Enlightenment as a European-wide phenomenon, rather than a national or narrowly French development. However, later scholarship has critiqued his tendency to dramatize change as a “crisis” and to emphasize rupture rather than continuity. Historians such as Jonathan Israel, with his work on the “Radical Enlightenment,” and Robert Darnton, with his studies of the philosophes, have expanded and nuanced Hazard’s narrative, questioning the neat temporal boundaries of 1680–1715 and highlighting the complexities of intellectual exchange.


Nevertheless, Hazard’s achievement lies in his ability to synthesize disparate intellectual movements into a coherent interpretive framework. His depiction of the European mind in transition captures both the excitement and the anxiety of a culture undergoing profound transformation.


Paul Hazard’s The Crisis of the European Mind, 1680–1715 remains a landmark in intellectual history. While later scholarship has revised its emphases and questioned its framing of “crisis,” the book endures for its breadth, literary quality, and insight into the forces that gave birth to the Enlightenment. It remains indispensable reading for students of early modern thought, not least because it dramatizes how deeply contested the path to modernity truly was.

GPT

[Justin Evans · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very well done, but also utterly baffling, because Hazard's style is *so* rhetorically over-the-top that it should be unreadable. What was in the water in France in the first half of the twentieth century?

And yet I made my way through the book easily enough, on the beach, even. Hazard covers a huge number of subjects (biblical criticism? Check. Opera? Check), does them justice, mostly, and makes a good case for avoiding the silly kind of Enlightenment worship that still exists in some parts, while also (inadvertently) making a good case for avoiding the silly kind of Enlightenment demonization that still exists in other parts.

[Tom Wascoe · Rating 5 out of 5]

A book which one not only reads but on which one must reflect. The author's theory is that much of the thought that led to the decline of monarchies, the revolutions and the rise of democracy came from the philosophical debates and writings during this period of European history. The author does an exhaustive literature search of European thought during this time period,reviewing works by DesCartes, Liebnitz, Spinoza, Bayle, Locke, Newton, Bossuet, Fenelon and others, to prove his hypothesis. An admirable piece of work. The only negative is that, at times, it's difficult to tell when the author is expounding his own ideas rather than that of the writer he is discussing.

[mohab samir · Rating 5 out of 5]

ان الروح التى سادت اوروبا فى القرن السابع عشر هى امتداد للروح الثورية التى نضجت طوال القرن السابق خلال النهضة والاصلاح او الانشقاق الدينى الذى انهكت حروبه القارة وهرمت بسببها امبراطوريات عظمى رغم حداثة عمرها كهولندا واسبانيا ولكنها عملت اخيرا على بلورة امبراطوريات اخرى كانت فيما مضى مجرد ممالك مقسمة وغارقة فى الفوضى وليست متحدة الا بالاسم كانجلترا وفرنسا . وبهذا تغيرت السياسات جنبا الى جنب مع التغير المستمر فى الحدود الجغرافية وامتداد المستعمرات التابعة خارجيا .
اما ما يلى حرب الثلاثين عاما حوالى منتصف القرن السابع عشر والتى لم تعرف انتصارا حاسما الا لمفهوم التسامح الدينى فكان رغبة فى الهدوء والخلود الى السكينة والعمل والتعاون الفكرى والعلمى والثقافى وان كان بشكل تنافس حضارى فتريد كل دولة ان تمحو صورتها الشخصية السيئة والمشينة لدى جيرانها التى تولدت بدوافع البغض والعداء والحسد وتكوين صورة مسالمة واكثر شرفا وافتخارا .
وبذلك بدأ التناقض يصبح اشد سيطرة ووضوحا فى الروح الاوروبية فهناك من ادرك قيمة السلام وتبنى قيم العقل وهناك لازال من المتعصبين او الطموحين تحت ستار الدين والعادات والراغبون فى استعادة امجاد اجدادهم النبلاء فى الحروب وتوسيع حدودهم وزيادة مواردهم على حساب جيرانهم بالقوة .
كما كانت الروح المتحررة لدى الفلاسفة والاصلاحيون المنقسمون الى مئات الطوائف التى تتبع تفسيرها الذاتى للكتاب المقدس والصوفيون يمثلون الجانب المضاد للفكر الارثوذوكسى الخرافى والمتوارث من الكنيسة الرومانية الاولى وكانت الحروب بينهما فى صورة نقد ورسائل وكتب حينا وحينا فى صورة حروب اهلية واخرى حروبا دولية وقارية كحرب الثلاثين عاما .
ولكن فى هذه الاجواء التى تعمل على تقليب التربة وزيادة خصوبتها وانتشار الافكار السياسية والاجتماعية والعلمية والدينية والنقدية فى هذه الاجواء التنافسية العاصفة تتقدم الافكار وتتهذب من خلال الجدل الشديد والمتواصل وتتقدم العلوم بتغير الحاجات وتقدم التجارب وابتكار ادوات البحث وتطويرها لتصبح اكثر دقة . لهذا كان العصر لا يزال يحفل بالمنجمين والعرافين ولكن بدأ صيت العلم يطغى بسبب العقليات العلمية الفذة التى اقامت العلم من ثباته الطويل كجاليليو وديكارت وبرونو ولايبنتز وكبلر ونيوتن .
بنهاية القرن السابع عشر كانت التناقضات قد بلغت ذروتها وكان نصلها حادا ولا يمكن الا مواجهته وهكذا كان هناك فى كل دولة اوروبية قوة كبيرة جديدة تطالب بالتغيير والتطور وتهتم بالعمل على ارض الواقع من اجل الحياة لا بالعمل فى الماوراء من اجل نعيم الخلود . انهم يطالبون بالحرية ولا يعتقدون بنبالة الدم وينقدون نظريات الحكم المطلق . ويجهرون بافكارهم الديمقراطية الحديثة ولا يعتقدون الا بما تقره حواسهم وعقولهم خلال التجربة .
وبنظرة ماركسية لا تخلو من الواقعية فان هذه الافكار الثورية وزيادة المفكرين والفلاسفة المتحررون لم يكن ليشتد عودها لو لم تجد لها نصيرا سياسيا واقتصاديا ولكن البرجوازية الصاعدة والمتوسعه فى نشاطها وثروتها ونفوذها السياسى وجدت فى هذه الثورية تحررها من ضرائب الملوك التعسفية ومن سيطرة النبلاء الوراثية . فظهر مفهوم الشرف البرجوازى الذى يحصل عليه الانسان النشيط بنفسه ويستأهله بنجاحاته مقابل الشرف الوراثى للدم النبيل الذى قد فسد بفعل الزمن والترف والكسل .
ان الخط المتواصل لتطور العقلانية والوعى منذ القرن السابع عشر وحتى اليوم هو ما نسميه الحداثة وان السمات العامة للحداثة كنقد الدين والاتجاه العلمى التجريبى والتفكير المنطقى والوعى التاريخى ومحاولات التحرر السياسى والاجتماعى على المستوى الفردى او الطبقى او القومى هى كلها امور لا تزال تنمو منذ نشأة الوعى بها بشكلها الاكثر حداثة حتى يومنا هذا وهى الامور التى بلغت حدة النقاش والخلاف فيها بين الطوائف والطبقات السياسية المتعارضة لاول مرة - خلال الفترة موضوع الكتاب اى نهاية القرن السابع عشر - وهى امور اختلف فيها المحافظون مع المتحررون والمتدينون مع مخالفيهم فى العقيدة والبرجوازيون مع النبلاء والنبلاء مع الاكليروس والملكيون ضد الارستقراطيون والفلاسفة ضد الكهنة والكاثوليك ضد البروتستانت والبروتستانت ضد السوسينيين والعلماء ضد المشعوذين من سحرة وكهنة ودعاة التسامح ضد محاكم التفتيش وغيرها الكثير من التناقضات التى خلقت تنوعا وثورة فى التفكير المتجمد منذ العصور الوسطى والذى بدأ يذوب بحرارة الفكر التى انطلقت شرارتها فى عصر النهضة منذ القرن الخامس عشر وكان نهر الجليد قد وصل مرحلة الجريان والتدفق بعد ذوبان بطئ استمر حتى نهايات القرن السابع عشر فأخذ هذا النهر فى طريقه كل ما كان مستقرا على فكره المتجمد منذ الماضى ولتزول معالم الروح القديم ببداية الوعى التنويرى الشعبى خلال القرن الثامن عشر .

[Jackson Cyril · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hazard has a very low opinion of "material conditions" and argues instead that ideas are the engines that turn history-- an idea which I was once fond of, but now am rather skeptical of. In any case, few historians today would write like Hazard, with his Voltairean flair and quite obvious bias (in favor of the enlightenment). Of course, few historians today could also digest so much information, handle with equal facility primary sources in a half-dozen languages, and present the imbroglios of the past with such clarity and panache.

[Luai Alrantisi · Rating 3 out of 5]

يستحق نجمتين ونصف فقط.
رغم الأهمية البالغة للأفكار التي يطرحها الكتاب، إلا أن اسلوب عرض الافكار من قبل الكاتب لم يكن موفقاً.
مشكلة الكاتب أنه استعمل الأسلوب المجازي، التشبيهي، البلاغي لعرض الافكار، واعتمد كثيراً على المبالغة والإطناب. في حين انه كان يمكن ان يكون اكثر مباشرة واكثر وضوحا وبساطة في عرض افكاره.

المشكلة الثانية في الكتاب هي مشكلة الترجمة، التي لم تفلح في صياغة جمل صحيحة في الكثير من الاحيان، مما أفقد القراءة كثيراً من متعتها.

عدا عن ذلك، فإن الفكرة الأساسية التي يعالجها الكتاب هي في الغاية قصوى من الأهمية، فكرة ( التفتح الفكري والتمرد على القديم ) في المجتمع الأوروبي إبان عصر الأنوار، وهي صورة عما يحصل الآن في الوطن العربي.

[Laura · Rating 4 out of 5]

"He was not exactly a revolutionary in the sense of one who is systematically opposed to the whole established order of things; he was a man who was merely determined to be himself, and that, according to circumstances, may mean a little less, or a great deal more, than a revolutionary. "

This quote, in a nutshell, is the essence of The European Mind . Paul Hazard explores all the ways that Europe awoke from her mindless/blind allegiance to the Catholic church. "For a civilization founded on Duty--duty towards God, duty towards the sovereign, the new school of philosophers were fain to substitute a civilization founded on the idea of rights--rights of the individual, freedom of speech and opinion, the prerogatives of man as man and citizen." He shows how exploration to other cultures (the orient, Africa, Persia) opened the explorers eyes to other schools of thought. He discusses the rationalists and their attack on miracles. He explores Deism, Locke's influence, and the rise of Deism. He then delves into natural law vs. divine law, social morality, and a new focus on happiness on earth vs. focusing all attention on the afterlife. I especially liked the section on science and progress--and Newton's influence on the scientific method--"[Newton] starts from what he sees to find out the cause of it."

Given 4 stars or a rating of "Excellent". I'm really glad I read this book, but it *was* a bit of a slog to get through due to the dated language (written in 1935). Hazard does inject his own opinions into some of the history he reviews, but he nonetheless did a great job of illustrating his point. Namely, we owe much of our 21st century freedoms and way of life to the pioneers of the late 1600's. They were indeed revolutionaries!

Favorite quotes:
"The trouble one has to take in looking for the truth with one's own eyes is mighty indeed when one reflects how easy it is to be one of the blind following the blind." (Claude Gilbert, Histoire de Calejava, 1700 )
"The longer error has held sway, the more pluck it takes to attack it."
"I must say that it causes much less fuss to combat errors before they have had a chance to take root in the minds of men in general, than it does when time has conferred on them a sort of sacrosanctity. But there is no statute of limitations where truth is concerned, and it would be wrong to let it remain perpetually buried in oblivion on the grounds that no one had ever recognized it." (Pierre Bayle, 1683)

"We must learn to laugh. There is no better moral remedy. What is the good of losing one's temper and slinging mud at the mud-slingers? No good at all. Far better laugh at them. Deflate the pompous, chaff the dismal, and as for the enthusiasts, treat them with derision." (while this sounds cruel at first glance, it is a *HUGE* step in the right direction from torturing and burning at the stake those whose views differ from one's own.)

[joan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Starts well. Hazard really inhabits the spirit of the age—describing in rich and exuberant language move and countermove by rationalists and supernaturalists, the latter fatally engaging with the former on the rationalist’s territory.

Book becomes a bit sketchy and exhausted later on, but rallies toward the end as the supernaturalists retreat—or, as it turned out, progressed—to inner spirituality and then to politics. Pietism yields the Quakers, who will merge later with the socialists.. the Fabians.. the globalists..

Faith will find a way!

[Musaadalhamidi · Rating 4 out of 5]

كانت الحداثة الغربية منعطفًا حاسمًا في تاريخ الفكر الإنساني، حيث نقلت الإنسان الأوروبي من حال إلى أحوال أخرى، لما أحدثته من خلخلة في البنية التقليدية للعقل الغربي، عندما زجت به في مدماك النقد والتحليل والشك. فزلزلت عالمه العجائبي، وفرضت عليه القيام بنقد جذري نحو الإبقاء على ما يمكن الإبقاء عليه، وترك ما يتوجب تركه من طرق في التفكير ونظرة للذات والآخر والعالم. لكن السؤال الذي يطرح هو، ما الذي كان وراء ذلك؟ ماذا حدث في هذه المرحلة من التاريخ الأوروبي كي ينطلق إنسانه بكل هذه القوة؟
بصراحة، لا يمكن اختزال الحداثة في عامل واحد محدد. فضخامة الإنجاز تعني ضخامة العوامل المساعدة والميسرة لإحداثه. وكل عامل دفع بالإنسان الحديث لينحو نحو ما نحا إليه، من العلم إلى الأدب، والفن، والنقد الديني والسياسي والاقتصادي، إلى غير ذلك من العوامل التي ننظر إليها بمنظور التضافر والائتلاف.
يؤرخ الكاتب والأديب الفرنسي بول هازار (1878 - 1944)، في كتابه «أزمة الوعي الأوروبي 1680 - 1715» - الذي ترجمه إلى العربية يوسف عاصي، وأعادت المنظمة العربية للترجمة سنة 2009 إصداره لأزمة الوعي الأوروبي والتحولات العميقة التي طالت مستواه، في مرحلة قصيرة من التاريخ لا تتعدى 35 سنة. ويسلط هازار الضوء على أهم العوامل التي ساهمت في بعث العصر الحديث، ومن بينها التأثير البالغ الذي سيحدثه أدب الرحالة وفكرهم واكتشافاتهم، في تصدع بنية الوعي الأوروبي، وفي بعث الحداثة الغربية. وهو العامل الذي أحاول أن أسلط الضوء عليه في هذا المقال.
يكتب بول هازار، أن هذه المرحلة من التاريخ الأوروبي، عرفت جرأة أكبر على السفر واستكشاف الآفاق. فهذا العهد هو عهد انتصار الأسفار، إذ انطلق الرحالة الأوروبيون شرقًا وغربًا، بغية الاطلاع على متحف العالم. فغربة العالم وسحره أصبحا بقوة العقل والشك، ضربًا من السخافة، مما جعل كل شيء قابلاً للبحث والتقصي، وكل أرض صار بالإمكان السفر إليها، وكل بقعة أصبح من الضروري اكتشافها والبحث في لغزها. لقد صار الإنسان الأوروبي يحتقر الاكتفاء بالموجود، وخرق الهدنة وذهب بعيدًا للبحث عن الشكوك، خارجًا من قريته جوالاً مستكشفًا، ليطلع على طريقة عيش غيره من الناس وتفكيرهم.
لم يكن هؤلاء الرحالة مجرد مشاهدين منبهرين بالعوالم التي يكتشفونها. بل كانوا فنانين وشعراء وأدباء ومفكرين. كل رحالة هو في الوقت نفسه، ناقد وكاتب ومؤرخ ومحلل للعالم الذي يراه. يكتبون ما يرونه وما يسمعونه من قصص ومغامرات. يشكلون المعطيات الجديدة ويقارنونها بأفكارهم وأحكامهم، فيجدوا أن ما يمتلكونه مناقضًا جدًا لما يجري اكتشافه، فتتكون لديهم رؤية أخرى وتصور مغاير لما ألفوه. ما أكثر الروايات التي عاد بها الرحالة من الهند، وكذا من المستعمرات الغنية والمنشآت التجارية البعيدة، هناك حيث تعيش أقوام أخرى شديدة الاختلاف، مما يبعث على الحيرة ويجعل النفسية تضطرب مما تراه من عبادات جديدة وعادات مختلفة.
سيتعرف الإنسان الأوروبي في هذه الرحلات على الخاص والفردي والمتعذر تبسيطه في حياة الشعوب الأخرى وثقافاتها، ويتعلم درس النسبية. فالعادات التي كانت غريبة ومتوحشة، أصبح بالإمكان منطقتها. وكل أحكامنا تنشأ من الطفولة والمحيط. وهي ليست مقياسًا يمكن الاعتداد به. استعمال اليد اليمنى أو اليسرى، تطويل الشعر أو تكثيفه، كلها أمور نسبية. هنا سوف يقر الإنسان الأوروبي، بأنه لا بد من مراجعة الأحكام، والتسلح بالشك. فالشك بداية العلم، ومن لا يشك بشيء لا يمتحن شيئًا. ومن لا يمتحن شيئًا لا يكتشف شيئًا. ومن لا يكتشف شيئًا يكون أعمى ويبقى كذلك.
سيجوب الرحالة الآفاق بحثًا عن الغريب والسحري وغير المألوف. فيروي المبشرون المسيحيون في تونس والمغرب والجزائر، كيف اضطهدوا بسبب إيمانهم. ويروي البحارة عن جولاتهم الصينية بفخر وهم يخوضون طريق الهند؛ البلدان البربرية ودساتيرها وعاداتها وإمبراطورياتها، وسياسة الصين وأخلاقها، وبلاد التتار والعرب. من أكثر النماذج المؤثرة في ذلك التاريخ، كان الإنسان الأميركي. لقد كان مربكًا ضائعًا وحيدًا بين أقرانه، لا هو ابن سام ولا حام ولا يافت، أبناء من يكون الأميركيون إذن؟ من هم؟ ما سر إفلاتهم من الطوفان العام؟ إنهم عراة ومتوحشون، لكنهم مع ذلك صالحون طيبون وكرماء أكثر من الأوروبيين. جهلهم في حد ذاته امتياز. فالعلوم والفنون هي جوهر الفساد. وبما أنه يطيع الطبيعة، أمه الطيبة، فهو سعيد. إذن المتمدنون هم البرابرة الحقيقيون، الذين يجب أن يعلمهم المتوحشون كيف يستردون الكرامة والحرية الإنسانيتين، وهو المحروم من أخلاق الطبيعة. فالسعيد الحقيقي، هو الفظ المتوحش العادل. أما التعيس، فهو المتمدن المسكين، المنحط والمخبول أخلاقيًا، اللابس لقناع التحضر المزيف.
زار الرحالة الأوروبيون مصر، وأعجبوا بالمصري الحكيم الهادئ الذي أنجب الموسيقى وعلم الهندسة والعمارة. مصر التي في سمائها يقول بول هازار: «حددت، لأول مرة، أمكنة المجرات». لقد كانت مصر في نظرهم، أمة وقورة ورصينة، يأنف ذهنها الصلب والمثابر من الحداثة. هي لم تسنّ القوانين وحسب، بل كانت تراعيها أيضًا. لقد شيدت مصر الأهرام، وكونت فلسفة لا تمت بصلة إلى الفلسفة المسيحية. أما العربي المحمدي، فبعيد عن النعوت القدحية التي كانت سائدة عنه. فالنبي محمد وتابعوه لم يكونوا أدنى مرتبة من الأبطال ذائعي الصيت عند الشعوب الأخرى. ديانتهم جميلة جدًا ومتماسكة ونبيلة. فمن حافظ على حقوق الفكر والثقافة، بعد أن طغت البربرية على العالم؟ إنهم العرب.
أما فكرة أن الغرب يتغلب على الشرق، فسيعرفون أنها مجرد وهم، لأن الحياة في الشرق هي الأكثر سعادة. فالصينيون، على الرغم من عبادتهم الأصنام والأجداد، لا يعترفون بوجود نبلاء إلا بين الأدباء. ولا يحفظون ذكرى إلا لحكامهم العادلين والمسالمين. وهم قادرون على انتقاد حكامهم بكل حرية. إن الصينيين ملحدون، ليس إلحادًا سلبيًا مثل إلحاد متوحشي أميركا، إلا أنهم مع ذلك، ليسوا أقل حكمة. بل هم أتقياء واسبينوزيون. أما مستشارو البلاط وندماؤه، فكلهم من الفلاسفة، ينتقدون سيدهم بقدر كبير من الحرية، وإذا لم يفعلوا فإنهم يتعرضون لملامة الشعب وسخطه. أما بالنسبة للفلسفة، فقد مثلها كونفوشيوس قبل الغرب بقرون كثيرة، وصاغ مذهبًا يعبّر عن روح بلاده ويحمل أنفاسًا إلهية.
اللافت في هذه القصص، ليست الإثارة التي تحدثها أو سحرية العوالم التي تقاربها وعجائبيتها، بل تلك الإرادة المستمرة للهدم. فكل تقليد ومألوف، أو سلطة، إلا وجرى هدمه. لقد هدمت المؤسسات كلها، وانتقدت الأقوال بشكل كبير. وظهر مسنون حكماء يلقون المواعظ العلمانية، أشادوا بحكم القلة المتسامحة، وبالسلام الذي يجري الحصول عليه بالإقناع، والسعادة التي يعيشها الناس في هذه البلدان. لقد كانت حكايات الرحالة، هروبًا، وانتقالاً من ثبات العقل إلى الحركة، ليتعلم المرء عدم الإيمان، على حد تعبير بول هازار. وكان ذلك أحد الأسباب التي أدت إلى اضطراب وعي أوروبا القديمة.
أكاد أشبه التأثير الذي أحدثه هؤلاء الرحالة في ذلك العصر، بما أحدثه التطور التكنولوجي نفسه، وبثورة المعلومات في وعينا. فقد صرنا نعرف بقوة، الصورة جيدًا: الشرق، والغرب، والمجتمعات التي لا تماثل طريقتنا في الحياة والتفكير. ونعرف أعمق غابات الأمازون، وأقدم سكان أستراليا الأصليين. وتمتد معرفتنا من البوذية إلى عادات الصين والهند. مما يعني أنه لا بد من أن يحدث ذلك في أذهاننا رجة. وإذا كان العقل الأوروبي مستعدًا، مند قرون كثيرة، لتقبل ذلك، بسبب صدمة القرن السادس عشر، فإن ذهنيات باقي المجتمعات، لا بد أن تتأثر وتهتز لتسائل الذات، وتتمسك بسلاح الشك، والنقد طوعًا أو كرهًا، على الرغم من أن الشك يحتاج إلى عقل جريء مستعد لمواجهة العالم كما هو. وهذا ما قد يغيب، في بعض الأحيان، خصوصًا عند المجتمعات التي بنت لنفسها كهوفًا، كلما خرجت منها أعماها ضوء الشمس، فعادت لتختبئ من جديد، وترفض كل شيء. بل أكثر من ذلك، تواجه بالعنف كل من لا يسايرها الوهم نفسه.

[Rick · Rating 4 out of 5]

Rightly revered. Hazard loves what he loves and hates what he hates. A sampling of both:

On Vico: "He loves disentangling a thread of truth from a skein of error, and then, holding it up for all to see, cries, ''Tis I did it, Giambattista Vico!' There is no suggestion of classical restraint about him; fiery, intense, to an almost insane degree, he is the very personification of the Soul Unsatisfied."

On opera: "Precisely; opera was absurd, but opera caught on. That was a fact, and there was no getting away from it. This new departure, which enraged everyone with a grain of common sense about them, was a success."

I guess if you are not interested in how Europe transitioned from slavish devotion to authority and tradition to rationalism, revolution, and romanticism, you might not be so into this book.

[Chris · Rating 4 out of 5]

How the social elite of Western Europe was seduced away from a biblically-centered worldview for the mindset of modern science. How France was led from the Catholic Bossuet to the free-thinking Voltaire. First two-thirds of this are fascinating and essential, but the interest of the author is so skewed to the humanities that the scientific revolution itself receives a short shrift. Newton is skipped over in a few pages, while the last third of the book is dedicated to theatrical and poetic shifts of much lesser importance.

[icaro · Rating 5 out of 5]

..uno straordinario classico della letteratura storiografica del primo Novecento. Oggi nessuno storico potrebbe permettersi di scrivere come Hazard (purtroppo)e si possono criticare molte delle sue pagine, ma come tutti i classici, non può passare di moda, difetti compresi.
La "crisi della coscienza europea" è sempre dietro l'angolo (e anche davanti)e sapere che quella recente non è la prima dà speranza nel futuro.

[audiolibro]

[Alonso Hilka Sares · Rating 5 out of 5]

Libro con sabor enciclopédico, narra personaje por personaje los cambios de mentalidad en el paso del Antiguo al Nuevo Régimen en ámbito científico, intelectual, filosófico, religioso y social, de una manera magistral, atrayente y narrativamente barroca.

Tiene mucho mérito que consigas ubicar a todos esos personajes y comprender a los históricamente "errados" (Bossuet, por ejemplo) desde la profundidad de sus convicciones, que la hace creíble.

[N Perrin · Rating 2 out of 5]

It is ironic that a book which so triumphantly heralds the triumph of modern "Reason" should be so heavily rooted in a rhetoric of elaborate metaphors and imagery. I will admit Hazard's handling of prose and language is quite adept just like a Sophist. Yet these lyrical ramblings operate more as filler than conceptual depth.

The European Mind is concerned with intellectual trends between the years 1680 to 1715. It is the classic metanarrative which proclaims the advent of the Enlightenment, of reason, of freedom that resulted from the creative output of a variety of profound thinkers. Hazard possesses a distinctive breadth in his capacity to incorporate a wide variety of sources, and that is truly admirable.

At the same time, one can be incredibly well-read in their sources but fully incompetent in their interpretations. (Look no further than yung Christopher Hill.) Hazard's endless prostrations before the self-approbating narrative of Enlightenment triumphalism comes off as incredibly naive and laughable. The man even upper-cases reason, freedom, and progress unironically! This would be excusable if European Mind were written in the nineteenth century, but considering this was 1935, you honestly feel embarrassed for him and how he laps up the Enlightenment progress narrative. This does not only follow on the coattails of World War I but also in the wake of Hitler's election. (Also, no less importantly, the standard cringey remarks about women and Eurocentrism you'd expect at this time.)

You can tell Hazard was a clever man--he certainly would have done well peddling his opinions in salon circles with the same self-aggrandizing attitude that characterizes Proust's intelligentsia in Guermantes Way. The only redeeming part of this book is how he identifies the crucial and prescient nature of Giambattista Vico's ideas in Western thought. But, Hazard's fumbling quips about theology and biblical criticism reveal much more about his own scholarly incompetence and arrogance than they do about the thinkers he was writing about.

And this speaks to the larger problem of how Hazard's ill-conceived and poorly applied prejudices really warp his historical narrative. This is even more incriminating considering Hazard is articulating (I'm not sure whether he was an original formulator or merely a parrot) of the rise of Enlightenment reason/freedom/progress/tolerance circlejerk narrative that has been widely circulated in pedagogical settings since.

The most troubling aspect of this book is how carelessly and dismissively he marginalizes various characters in the intellectual discourse of the time. For example, Hazard briefly refers to the Huguenot pastor Pierre Jurieu at several points but always with a mocking derision that resembles the tenor of a schoolboy. For those who might not be aware, Jurieu was an exiled Reformed pastor who dedicated his live to caring for refugees who had been forced out of their homeland (often escaping death and rape). His extant writings consist of a substantial number of pastoral letters committed to preserving Calvin's teachings amidst the doctrinal chaos of the time. History lesson aside, it takes a remarkable level of arrogance to laugh at a man whose people had been subject to genocide for over a century, one who spent his life caring for both earthly and spiritual well-being of so many around him. Yet Hazard clearly feels no inhibitions about doing so. (This may just indicate the deeper contradictions of French tolerationism, but that is mere conjecture.)

The point is: Hazard's self-righteous mocking tone, the way in which he insists the pious women of the time merely needed to be instructed by more rational men, his editorial insertions that spend several pages lambasting the medium of opera for being an absurd and pointless waste of time that doesn't have enough reason to it, all of these marginalizing attitudes and polemics are embedded within the metanarrative of the Enlightenment that lives on today. It is white, male, atheist, Euro-centric, self-congratulatory, and all too quick to remind you of its utmost superiority. This is the framework we have inherited in the 21st century, and it is our duty to consign Hazard's narrative to the flames as we find a better historical identity to guide our movement forward.

[Seward Park Branch Library, NYPL · Rating 5 out of 5]

John Toland, author of 'Christianity not Mysterious' grave marker reads,

'"John Toland was born in Ireland new Londonderry, and in his youth studied in Scotland, in Ireland, and at Oxford [so on and so forth, more places he'd been to...] He cultivated the various literatures, and was acquainted with more than ten languages. The Champion of Truth, the Defender of Liberty, he bound himself to no man, on no man did he fawn. Neither threats nor misfortunes deterred him from his appointed course, which he pursued to the very end, always subordinating his own interests to the pursuit of the Good. His soul is united with the Heavenly Father from whom he first proceeded. Beyond any doubt he will live again unto eternity, yet there will never be another Toland. He was born on the 30th of November : for the rest consult his writings."

Such were the Rationalists.'"

What a difficult book to write about! Paul Hazard, who has a stunning breadth of knowledge on the murky period between the European Renaissance and The Enlightenment, that is, 1680-1715. I'll do my best to summarize, but please keep in mind, nothing will convey the full-force of this admirable work.

In this project, 'Crisis of the European Mind' Hazard furnishes the reader with figures of a changing Europe, Bayle, Simon, Spinoza, Locke, &c. intellects who were to pave the way for the likes of those we more readily hold to be the vanguard of Europe's new social order, an order which would bow to no higher authority than one's reason! And in this spirit of enquiry, information... in quantity above all else... is power! While some in vain still tried to unite a fragmented Europe once again under the banner of Christianity, some fully (and rashly) embraced this new attitude towards life, where men could be gods...

Hazard's allergic reading of this pseudo-classicism from 1680-1715 is an interesting and welcome point of view for this reader, as Hazard himself is undoubtedly a classicist, a traditionalist, and the temptation to make this book nothing more than a lamentation of some sort of European Golden Age runs thick—I was expecting some such screed upon how 'Europe lost its way' at many points throughout the work. Happily, this is no such thing! Hazard has a thorough, even, and fair approach to his subject, careful to make his thoughts known yet letting the currents of the subject's history determine his argument. Therefore : in this period of massive upheaval before the enlightenment, we lost so much, yet gained so much—whether this is something to cheer in celebration or beat your breast in mourning is quite up to you.

In the period covered by Hazard, we have a waining Classical/Ecumenical European culture, which at this point exists less as a source of inspiration for its European cultural constituency, and more as a simple force of of habit. What would take place was nothing short of a revolt against accepted cultural and philosophical models... authority would no longer be found to be a source of true inspiration, that is, the authority of the church as well as the Grecco-Roman cannon. Bow down to no authority! What did this entail?

Why, nothing short of an *entirely* different approach to knowledge. Instead of truth as those rare moments of revealing something about the spiritual character of life itself, truth is verification by quantification. Sources must be diverse, and no context can possibly be taken for granted. Yet, the more one searched the less one found! What indeed, was the measure of this new truth? This strange new criticality-as-all-costs brought forth bizarre arguments, such as 'just how many years from creation to the messiah??? the numbers don't add up!!!', a question so topsy-turvy in relation to any sort of 'truth factor' the bible may carry, it's a wonder creationists choose to make so much of it today...

Hazard illustrates the above very neatly with a short passage on History and its new relation to truth. The old history was an Epic history, deliberately a history of origins, the genealogy of a culture. The new history? Why, according to the new conception of truth, it couldn't be anything other than... well...

'A collection of fairy tales, when it treats the origin of nations; and, thereafter, a conglomeration of errors.'

Has this audacious spurning of all societal authority brought us closer to truth? One could make the case that this depends on 'their truth', which is already self defeating, since in the critical spirit, one can only admit that they know nothing since there is no authoritative/societal framework where truth may settle. One could easily make the case that Reason used in such a way only leads us towards vague conjecture and baffling perplexity. Hazard writes,

'What is lacking is any idea of how to handle it [knowledge] methodically. Men search here and enquire there, but without ever getting any definite response. We hunger for knowledge, and depart unsatisfied. And so we arrive at this melancholy conclusion, that the only really wise man is the man who knows that he knows nothing.'

Who were these freethinking *diletanti*? According to Hazard, they were 'dinner-party philosophers', rebel aristocrats who felt expansive from their comfortable vantage point. After all, it is a weak mind which allows nothing of a sense of mystery, and a simple one to reject it altogether. Mystery, for these upstarts, was merely that which was yet to be solved, nothing more (see John Toland above)...

In concert with this radical approach to knowledge, a couple of other things were turned on their heads. One : innovation became a boon, and Two : those pesky 'senses' which had ages before been regarded as untrustworthy and unreliable, where now the paragon of verification. Locke himself seats all knowledge within consciousness, against the backdrop of which is that semi-divinity which illudes all attempts at definition, 'Nature'. Nature is God, the Good! It all began to sound so familiar. Hazard notes that this period saw the founding of the first lodges of Freemasonry, those chapels to truth, liberty, and health.

Enough of this. What about the arts?

Complacency. It was indeed a *dead* culture, one which could think of no greater cultural triumph than following Aristotle's 'Poetics' to the letter, mimicking works of tradition, including the recent classics, Moliere, Corneille, Racine. Replacing the sarcophagus of the Classics and the Church(es) was a culture of, above all else, the use of one's Reason, which in turn informed an ooey gooey artistic sentimentality in revolt. Hazard's profound hatred for Opera, which he sees the embodiment of the new art of Modern Europe (summed up by Scarlatti's artistic purpose as 'because it makes one feel better') is nothing short of rib-tickling...

'It's a queer mix-up of poetry and music, in which the composer and the poet keep getting in each other's way, and put themselves to no end of trouble to produce a very mediocre result.'

Yet, this new sentimentality—was the pseudo-classical 'moralizing' art form a viable alternative? Where 'method' trumps genius? Surely not! A culture which does nothing more than produce shadows of a shadowy understanding of the classics is nothing to speak of.

If we are to take 'The West' for what it truly is we must take in to account that a great deal of Western culture is it's belief that it may stand aside and laugh at the adding machine while the cultural currents toss and turn about those who know no better. That a great deal of what the West wrought was a criticality which spared nothing, least of all itself. Are the bonds one may feel amongst others doomed to be provincial if enduring, and weak when broad? There is no simple answer... Though we usually find a simple answer at all costs which today comes in the solipsistic mantra, 'if it feels good, do it'. All is for the present moment, posterity be damned... an idea which runs deep in culture and so-called 'counter-culture' alike.

... yet without his being explicit, something tells me that Hazard doesn't believe in a conception of truth as bottomless disputation. Facts merely 'verified'... isn't it what we *do* with these facts that leads to Truth? In any case, Truth must surely be the most unfashionable of notions... surely, it cannot be an 'angry state of vigilance without a moment to call your own.'; such is this world. I'll leave us with a passage from the book, speculating on Bossuet's faith in the midst of critical argument...

'So he returns to the Gospel, not to argue and dispute, but to dwell in pious meditation upon its fairest pages, to taste the joy of calm, unquestioning belief, of tenderness and love. "Read again, O my soul, and rejoice in this sweet command to love." Mounting upward from height to height towards the celestial abodes of joy and love, he reached at last those realms sublime where, Prayer and Poetry merging into one, his words give utterance solely to his spirit's Yearning for Truth and Beauty that will never die.'

This might be the most incomplete review I've written so far.... I'm just going to have to be at peace with this.

—AF

[Drkshadow03 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Crisis of the European Mind is a comprehensive study of the intellectual changes and developments of the late 17th century. Hazard argues that almost all the revolutionary ideas and fundamental issues of the late 18th century and the French Revolution were already present and being debated in the late 17th century, identifying the period between 1680 and 1715 as the true beginnings of Enlightenment thought. These were “the years when classicism and Orthodox theology collapsed.”


“The great clash of ideals occurred before 1715, indeed, before 1700. The daring utterances of the Aufklôrung, of the age of light, pale into insignificance before the aggressive audacities of the Tractatus theologico-politicus, the amazing declarations of the Ethics. Neither Voltaire nor Frederick II ever came near the ungovernable anticlerical, anti-religious frenzy of Toland and his like. Had Locke never been born, d’Alembert would never have penned the Discours préliminaire to the Encyclopaedia: the quarrel over the philosophers and their ideas was not a whit more bitter than those which, later on, created such an uproar in Holland and England. Even Rousseau’s “Back to Nature” ideas were not more revolutionary than those of Adario the Savage, as described by Lahontan the Rebel. In this era, so turbid, so crowded with events that it seems at first sight a mere welter of confusion, there took their rise two great streams which were to flow on through the whole of the century: one is the river of rationalism; the other, a mere trickle to begin with, but, later on, to overflow its banks, was the river of feeling, of sentiment. And since, all through this conflict of ideas, the aim was to extend the discussion beyond the sphere of the intellectual few and to get at the masses, since the basic principles of government and the very conception of right and wrong were at issue, since the principle of equality and individual freedom had been publicly proclaimed; since the rights of the individual as man and citizen had been openly canvassed, let it be recognized once more that virtually all the intellectual views and ideas which as a whole were to culminate in the French Revolution had already taken shape, even before the reign of Louis XIV had ended. The Social Contract, the principle of the delegation of power, the right of subjects to rebel against their rulers—all these things were ancient history by 1760. For three-quarters of a century and more they had been freely and openly discussed (435).”

A civilization founded on duties was replaced by a civilization founded on rights. During this period religion wasn’t completely cast aside, but the idea that religion based on traditional authority came to be challenged by one based on the individual’s relation and access to God. The basis of laws came to be based on natural laws, certain rights we are born with by nature. Ideas began to spread internationally. A shift occurred from trusting authority and tradition to skepticism, rationalism, and the importance of verifying one’s own experience with the evidence of the senses. People began to question if any knowledge could ever be certain, while in addition to his ideas of religious toleration and authority ultimately stemming from the people who make up a society, John Locke presented a new ultimate source of both knowledge and our feelings: the senses. Protestantism continued to diversify, while thinkers like Spinoza presented a philosophical pantheism in which the universe and nature were God, John Toland gave us deism (a rational belief in God shorn of dogma and extraneous ritual), and a growing belief that even God was bound by natural laws and logical order of the universe, and that religion and morality were separate things.

[Stephen Crawford · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is rightly acclaimed as a classic work. Hazard can be a bit dramatic or over-generalize, but overall he is fair and concise when explaining the flow of ideas and events which characterized the pivotal years 1680-1715.

I would highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to see where his modern mindset comes from (a mindset which I have been deliberately at pains to expunge from myself these past few years). Once we let go of Authority and Tradition, the door is open to all manner of fantastic and wild dreamers and skeptics. The spirit of criticism has free reign; we will no longer know ourselves or the external world with any clarity, and we will forever be at the mercy of deluded utopians out to build a new, "free", unconstrained world.

In particular, I recommend this book to Protestants who believe that they are being faithful to Christ by insisting on "the Bible alone", "soul competency", or an end to organized Christianity. Their mindset is completely the product of deists, freethinkers, atheists and mystic nut jobs unmoored from real Christianity. After reading this book, I don't know how you could ever doubt that. Hazard praises (sometimes very implicitly) the Protestants for paving the way for man to be "freed" from Tradition and Authority.

[Matt McCormick · Rating 5 out of 5]

As I started Hazard's 1930s classic on the Enlightenment I was asking myself what I had gotten into. It was unlike anything I read on the topic; no reasoned academic argument based on chronology, characters and concepts. It struck me as epic prose. What I quickly learned was that the chronology, the characters, the history of ideas and the nurturing of a radical Enlightenment all lay within Hazard's majestic writing. He wanted the reader to feel what it was like to be in a time when all the concepts of religion, science, governance, art, and philosophy were all being upended. Hazard introduces his readers to a plethora of individuals never met nor likely never will be again crossed but interesting none the less.

It may be my bias in admiring thinkers who Hazard gives pride of place but his treatment of Spinoza, Bayle and d' Holbach was excellent. I was not put-off by his 1930s style but rather found myself smiling when he would say things like "come to the wrong address" rather than the "wrong place".

It's easy to see why Hazard ranks with Cassire, Gay and now Israel in presenting to lay readers the history and importance of the Enlightenment.

[Dan Douglas · Rating 2 out of 5]

There are some really bright spots in this book. Hazard was obviously a gifted historian with a passion for his subject matter. What made this account of the Enlightenment just so-so wasn't Hazard's ability to marshal sources or display understanding, but, it seemed to me, the accounts in TCotEM were way over-controlled. A history like this is selective by definition -- so rich in number are the source texts! -- but during my reading it seemed obvious Hazard's hand was always behind the curtain trying to do some cute thing.

If you happen to be a superfan of the Enlightenment you may enjoy TCotEM for its interesting points here and there. Otherwise I'd say hit up a more popular account first.

[Yusuf Ferzan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Eser entelektüel bir şölen. Bazı yerleri özellikle de muhtevasına yabancı olanlar için çok detay gelebilir. Bu biraz da sınırlı bir tarihi sürece odaklanmasının tabii sonucu. Ancak anlatıştaki yetkinlik, birincil kaynaklara nüfuz, fikrî dönüşümlerin toplumsal, tarihi, siyasi vb. hadiselerle bağlantılarına işaret etmesi ve fikirler arası ilişkiyi gösterecek şekilde irtibatlar kurması takdiri hak ediyor.

Erol Güngör'ün tercümesi sadece dil açısından bile ilgiyi hak ediyor. Sadece 40 sene önce tercüme edilmiş bu eserin bile dilinin bugün okumuş yazmış geçinen ekipten pek çoklarına ağır ve yabancı geleceğini düşünüyorum. Bu da Türkçe'mizin ne kadar hızla erozyona (!) uğradığının bir başka delili oldu benim nazarımda.

[Nicholas Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is not an easy read but it is a rewarding one that draws from obscurity a range of thinkers from the period successfully linking the renaissance with the enlightenment. The argument that it was an evolutionary change is a convincing one and the depth of reference is impressive. The writing style is what makes it a tricky read, although the translation may will be to blame. That said, it is a book that pays endurance and is worth persevering with.

[Sergio Maduro]

Indicação de Laura de Mello e Souza, que diz que este é um dos grandes livros de seu panteão particular. É um livro clássico, de um especialista em literatura comparada, com uma escrita elegante e agradável, que ela sempre relê

[HERZ · Rating 3 out of 5]

مااعجبتني الترجمة ولا اسلوب الكاتب القصصي لاعلام تلك الفترة المفصلية للفكر الاوروبي على الصعيد الاخلاقي والديني والفلسفي.