What do you think?
Rate this book
The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness, 1680–1790
The Enlightenment is one of the formative periods of Western history, yet more than 300 years after it began, it remains controversial. It is often seen as the fountainhead of modern values such as human rights, religious toleration, freedom of thought, scientific thought as an exemplary form of reasoning, and rationality and evidence-based argument. Others accuse the Enlightenment of putting forward a scientific rationality which ignores the complexity and variety of human beings, propagates shallow atheism, and aims to subjugate nature to so-called technical progress.
Answering the question 'what is Enlightenment?' Kant famously urged men and women above all to 'have the courage to use your own understanding'. Robertson shows how the thinkers of the Enlightenment did just that, seeking a rounded understanding of humanity in which reason was balanced with emotion and sensibility. His book goes behind the controversies about the Enlightenment to return to its original texts and to show that above all it sought to increase human happiness in this world by promoting scientific inquiry and reasoned argument. His book overturns many received opinions - for example, that enlightenment necessarily implied hostility to religion (though it did challenge the authority traditionally assumed by the Churches). It is a master-class in 'big picture' history, about one of the foundational epochs of modern times.
Answering the question 'what is Enlightenment?' Kant famously urged men and women above all to 'have the courage to use your own understanding'. Robertson shows how the thinkers of the Enlightenment did just that, seeking a rounded understanding of humanity in which reason was balanced with emotion and sensibility. His book goes behind the controversies about the Enlightenment to return to its original texts and to show that above all it sought to increase human happiness in this world by promoting scientific inquiry and reasoned argument. His book overturns many received opinions - for example, that enlightenment necessarily implied hostility to religion (though it did challenge the authority traditionally assumed by the Churches). It is a master-class in 'big picture' history, about one of the foundational epochs of modern times.
984 pages, Hardcover
First published November 5, 2020
504 people are currently reading
3762 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews
May 2, 2021
I finished this book over a month ago, but I've been putting off writing a review until I had enough time to do Robertson's book justice, and…well, that's never gonna happen, and not just cos I don't have a lot of time for reviewing at the moment: no, doing this book justice is probably only possible by reading its 984 pages again and again. It's that good. In fact, I'd say that it is the single best book on intellectual history that I've ever read.
What do I mean by that last sentence? I guess that this book floored me so much and so often because Robertson really pulled out all of the stops to let as much of the entire "long" eighteenth century speak for itself: by corralling a near-unfathomable number of (not just philosophical) voices from the period, quoting them extensively, and other than providing contextual commentary, largely getting out of the way, so that I always had the impression of eavesdropping on a conversation the Enlightenment was having with itself, across national boundaries, and almost entirely without imposing our own contemporary concerns upon them.
This is accomplished by arranging the material thematically first, and then chronologically only within each chapter, something that, as someone with a bit of a Kronos fetish I suppose, initially balked at but soon warmed to: the effect on me as I travelled through the period again and again and again, first coming to grips with the sometimes agonistic, sometimes complimentary (and never ever reductive)dialogue between reason and the passions; then the complex dance between science, religion, persecution and tolerance (including the birth of new sciences focused upon us humans); then upon relationship between the (newly invented?) public and private "spheres"; and finally the application of all of the above upon the practical terrains of education, agriculture, the arts, political economy, empire, etc., etc., etc. It was all simply breathtaking.
The principal effect of reading this book is to educate oneself in intellectual humility, in human sympathy, and to rob one of all caricatures of what the long eighteenth century meant to itself. In Roberson's own words,
What do I mean by that last sentence? I guess that this book floored me so much and so often because Robertson really pulled out all of the stops to let as much of the entire "long" eighteenth century speak for itself: by corralling a near-unfathomable number of (not just philosophical) voices from the period, quoting them extensively, and other than providing contextual commentary, largely getting out of the way, so that I always had the impression of eavesdropping on a conversation the Enlightenment was having with itself, across national boundaries, and almost entirely without imposing our own contemporary concerns upon them.
This is accomplished by arranging the material thematically first, and then chronologically only within each chapter, something that, as someone with a bit of a Kronos fetish I suppose, initially balked at but soon warmed to: the effect on me as I travelled through the period again and again and again, first coming to grips with the sometimes agonistic, sometimes complimentary (and never ever reductive)dialogue between reason and the passions; then the complex dance between science, religion, persecution and tolerance (including the birth of new sciences focused upon us humans); then upon relationship between the (newly invented?) public and private "spheres"; and finally the application of all of the above upon the practical terrains of education, agriculture, the arts, political economy, empire, etc., etc., etc. It was all simply breathtaking.
The principal effect of reading this book is to educate oneself in intellectual humility, in human sympathy, and to rob one of all caricatures of what the long eighteenth century meant to itself. In Roberson's own words,
…to identify Enlightenment ‘reason’ with cold, logical calculation, and to think of the period as first and foremost the ‘age of reason’, is to mistake its character. Enlightenment reason is not calculation but argument; it is pursued not by solitary thinkers armed with slide-rules, but by groups whose members often differ in their views and who meet in the settings of Enlightenment sociability. It is often synonymous with ‘good sense’. Even thus understood, reason is only one of the Enlightenment’s core attributes, alongside the passions sentiment and sympathy.I cannot recommend this book more highly!
[…]
Enlightened thinking will reject naïve ideas of inevitable progress, even those that originated in the Enlightenment. But it will also steer clear of the pessimism shown by some of the Enlightenment’s harshest critics […] Given that the process of enlightenment consists in criticism and self-criticism, such activity requires an open society. As the film-maker and writer Hanif Kureishi has recently said: ‘The message of the Enlightenment is that we have some choice over who we want to be, making our own destiny as individuals, without submitting to gods, revelation or ancestors. The basis of this is a liberal education and a democracy of ideas.’
May 18, 2021
This is a superior history book. As history is happening it is different from the story we end up believing and this book is always telling the story as it is happening through their own words and not into a convenient fiction of today. The enlightenment is complex, history is complex, and our understanding always gets filtered by our own expectations as weighted by our past and our hopes for the future.
‘Most enlightened Enlightenment thinkers were Pelagians’. A variation of that quote comes from Terrence Eagleton’s book Culture and the Death of God, a book that was mentioned in this book. This book, The Enlightenment, made sure that even the non-Pelagians have a seat at the table, and this book does delve into Augustine, Luther and Pelagius and why they matter to the Enlightenment. Just in case, if Pelagius is not familiar to you, note that he was a contemporary of Augustine and believed prayer would make a difference and that one could be saved through one’s good works, good thoughts, and inner goodness even without belief in the Church Fathers. That is, one could be a good Christian without Christ.
The author knows that history as it is unfolding does not fit into ordered categories and as the characters are living and experiencing their moment in time, they are not necessarily going to fit into our modern-day ideals. Even the language they are using to describe themselves in their own time period very well could mean something else before the time it comes to us.
History is living as we reflect upon it. Giambattista Vico in 1724 wrote about that in The New Science, and he is actually only mentioned once in this book and that is only in passing. Vico was not well recognized by enlightened Enlightenment thinkers and was only discovered by later thinkers, and therefore doesn’t really fit into this author’s schema.
This author knows history is fluid and tells history as best as it can be told while providing needed context for his narrative and letting all the major players tell their own story while thematically telling the reader everything they need to know about the time and place under consideration and will also give the reader the before and the after if that is what it takes to understand the history under consideration. A good book tip to read before this one: Reformations: The Early Modern World, 1450-1650 by Eire, it gives a foundation for this book.
The least enlightened of all thinkers mentioned in this book would certainly be Edmund Burke and the author would say that Burke valued ‘reverence, emotion, and instinct’, and I would say that is the exact opposite values that the enlightened Enlightenment thinkers would believe since they would have valued originality, reason, reflection and would have rejected reverence without foundation since they would have rejected religion, superstition, tradition and culture when there was no foundational support otherwise. There is no thinker that is more antithetical to enlightenment values than Burke. Burke is featured throughout this book. That is a strength about this book. Even the least enlightened of all Enlightenment thinkers is prominently featured.
Ernst Cassirer’s book The Philosophy of the Enlightenment from 1932 is called out by this author as one of the few books about the Enlightenment that the author was going to use since he wanted to use mostly their own words as they wrote them to explain the time period. Cassirer did something that makes for a better book about the Enlightenment thinkers and that was he too tells his story thematically but he always assumed that to be an enlightened thinker in the Enlightenment meant that there really was this thing called enlightenment and that all of the players thought they were part of a grand enlightened conversation. Cassirer prioritizes form over symbol (see his classic Philosophy of Symbolic Forms for an explication or for the less faint of heart and easier to understand book The Time of the Magicians by Wolfram Eilenberger). Robertson’s book gives the content and then provides the shape, a perfectly fine way for telling a history such as the history of the Enlightenment while shaping the story by all participants in their own words and how they would have thought about themselves before we label them retrospectively with the ideal of Enlightenment.
Robertson gives symbol over form because he lets the time period speak for itself through their own words and does not force the facts into a modern-day theme except for ‘the pursuit of happiness’. Burke as mentioned above is the perfect example of an unenlightened thinker during the Enlightenment. He most certainly was not a Pelagian, and he valued tradition, superstition, culture and authority and would not be considered inclusive of others unless those others were part of his ‘we self’, the exact opposite set of values from what most of us would consider as Enlightenment values. By doing that Robertson calls out the period of consideration (1680 – 1790) and makes his readers see all the pieces as a whole for the more robust nature it actually deserves, no mean feat.
‘Most enlightened Enlightenment thinkers were Pelagians’. A variation of that quote comes from Terrence Eagleton’s book Culture and the Death of God, a book that was mentioned in this book. This book, The Enlightenment, made sure that even the non-Pelagians have a seat at the table, and this book does delve into Augustine, Luther and Pelagius and why they matter to the Enlightenment. Just in case, if Pelagius is not familiar to you, note that he was a contemporary of Augustine and believed prayer would make a difference and that one could be saved through one’s good works, good thoughts, and inner goodness even without belief in the Church Fathers. That is, one could be a good Christian without Christ.
The author knows that history as it is unfolding does not fit into ordered categories and as the characters are living and experiencing their moment in time, they are not necessarily going to fit into our modern-day ideals. Even the language they are using to describe themselves in their own time period very well could mean something else before the time it comes to us.
History is living as we reflect upon it. Giambattista Vico in 1724 wrote about that in The New Science, and he is actually only mentioned once in this book and that is only in passing. Vico was not well recognized by enlightened Enlightenment thinkers and was only discovered by later thinkers, and therefore doesn’t really fit into this author’s schema.
This author knows history is fluid and tells history as best as it can be told while providing needed context for his narrative and letting all the major players tell their own story while thematically telling the reader everything they need to know about the time and place under consideration and will also give the reader the before and the after if that is what it takes to understand the history under consideration. A good book tip to read before this one: Reformations: The Early Modern World, 1450-1650 by Eire, it gives a foundation for this book.
The least enlightened of all thinkers mentioned in this book would certainly be Edmund Burke and the author would say that Burke valued ‘reverence, emotion, and instinct’, and I would say that is the exact opposite values that the enlightened Enlightenment thinkers would believe since they would have valued originality, reason, reflection and would have rejected reverence without foundation since they would have rejected religion, superstition, tradition and culture when there was no foundational support otherwise. There is no thinker that is more antithetical to enlightenment values than Burke. Burke is featured throughout this book. That is a strength about this book. Even the least enlightened of all Enlightenment thinkers is prominently featured.
Ernst Cassirer’s book The Philosophy of the Enlightenment from 1932 is called out by this author as one of the few books about the Enlightenment that the author was going to use since he wanted to use mostly their own words as they wrote them to explain the time period. Cassirer did something that makes for a better book about the Enlightenment thinkers and that was he too tells his story thematically but he always assumed that to be an enlightened thinker in the Enlightenment meant that there really was this thing called enlightenment and that all of the players thought they were part of a grand enlightened conversation. Cassirer prioritizes form over symbol (see his classic Philosophy of Symbolic Forms for an explication or for the less faint of heart and easier to understand book The Time of the Magicians by Wolfram Eilenberger). Robertson’s book gives the content and then provides the shape, a perfectly fine way for telling a history such as the history of the Enlightenment while shaping the story by all participants in their own words and how they would have thought about themselves before we label them retrospectively with the ideal of Enlightenment.
Robertson gives symbol over form because he lets the time period speak for itself through their own words and does not force the facts into a modern-day theme except for ‘the pursuit of happiness’. Burke as mentioned above is the perfect example of an unenlightened thinker during the Enlightenment. He most certainly was not a Pelagian, and he valued tradition, superstition, culture and authority and would not be considered inclusive of others unless those others were part of his ‘we self’, the exact opposite set of values from what most of us would consider as Enlightenment values. By doing that Robertson calls out the period of consideration (1680 – 1790) and makes his readers see all the pieces as a whole for the more robust nature it actually deserves, no mean feat.
July 14, 2022
Robertson’s far-flung thematic survey probes the work of philosophers and ideologues, among them Thomas Jefferson, Voltaire, and Immanuel Kant, and expertly interprets the period’s art and literature, including Samuel Richardson’s melodramatic novel Clarissa, which set all of Europe to weeping. Thanks to Robertson’s elegant prose and lucid analyses, this massive and deeply erudite work serves as a stimulating and accessible introduction to a watershed period in the intellectual development of the West.
Publishers Weekly
Robertson expands the conception of the Enlightenment from familiar topics like the scientific revolution to include areas as diverse as public administration and manners. He portrays not only well-known philosophers but also the many civil servants and functionaries, from Philadelphia to St. Petersburg, who gave practical shape to Enlightenment ideals. For Robertson, this period was ultimately “an age of feeling, sympathy and sensibility,” in which the goal was human happiness in this life."
The New Yorker
A long, thoroughly satisfying history of an era that was not solely about reason but was “also the age of feeling, sympathy and sensibility.” Robertson, a professor of German at Oxford, has clearly read all the original sources and most modern scholars and arrived at his own conclusions, which are alternately unsettling and stimulating and consistently engaging.
Kirkus Reviews
Publishers Weekly
Robertson expands the conception of the Enlightenment from familiar topics like the scientific revolution to include areas as diverse as public administration and manners. He portrays not only well-known philosophers but also the many civil servants and functionaries, from Philadelphia to St. Petersburg, who gave practical shape to Enlightenment ideals. For Robertson, this period was ultimately “an age of feeling, sympathy and sensibility,” in which the goal was human happiness in this life."
The New Yorker
A long, thoroughly satisfying history of an era that was not solely about reason but was “also the age of feeling, sympathy and sensibility.” Robertson, a professor of German at Oxford, has clearly read all the original sources and most modern scholars and arrived at his own conclusions, which are alternately unsettling and stimulating and consistently engaging.
Kirkus Reviews
April 10, 2022
Read for Booktube Prize. Review to follow in April
Three events that had the greatest impact of bringing Europe out of the Dark Ages according to this author: the invention of the compass, the printing press and gun powder.
The bookends of what instigated The Enlightenment: The Reformation by Luther, and the end this era was outcome of the French Revolution and the indiscriminate killing of so many in the name of justice, change and freedom.
Trying to catch up on the several books I read for the BTP. Not sure how this one made the original cut but I will tell you it did not make it to the 2nd round. That maybe all you want or need to know and I puzzle on how to describe this read. When I picked it up and saw it was 900+ pages on how old white men in Western Europe (mostly philosophers) envisioned how new ideas of their era would shape and were changing their world I was intrigued but largely disheartened. Too long and too much. Not sure my opinion changed much but I am glad to say I finished it, learned a lot and found it was actually only 760 pages when you discounted over 100 pages of references. I will say that the Introduction was absolutely the best part and most informative for me. Great explanation of how this author is looking at this important time and his reference points and his slant on this subject. I found it most enlightening (excuse the pun).
I had to look or listen carefully for the author's voice in all the other information that was given by constant siting references. Rarely was there a sentence that did not have a number at the end to refer to the tome it came from. Almost like the author did want to have to argue or claim to have his own opinion about something, he was always making sure the reader knew where his information came from. So much information just piled and piled till I did feel mostly buried in it. It is the type of book left on a table to read a page or two over the course of a year, maybe with a glass of wine at hand, rather than the month I gave myself.
The second big problem I found was that this is a book about ideas--not science, not history at least in terms of events but thoughts and writings of philosophers-Rousseau, Locke, Kant, Hume, Adam Smith--you get the idea. Many of these ideas presented here as revolutionary for the time have sifted their way into and subtly shaped current day institutions, politics and the like. Not all for the best.
Its been said, "That you can't not know history". don't know who said this but I've heard it quoted. It might be a good thing to have this knowledge but there is a whole lot here to try to digest. It made me wonder how our own age and thinking will be perceived in 100+ years.
Also these were the thoughts and ideas of a very elite part of society. Yes many ideas would trickle down eventually but not for decades. Probably religion was influenced the most as Bibles were printed but few but the upper classes could read or have access to written material especially books so this history looks at primarily this highly wealthy and educated group. If, in present times, one wants to argue with the validity of these ideas it is a good to know their origins and this book certainly gives you those. Just wasn't sure I was the audience this was written for but there is much worthy material for thinking about. I just would have liked to see or feel more of the common man in it.
Three events that had the greatest impact of bringing Europe out of the Dark Ages according to this author: the invention of the compass, the printing press and gun powder.
The bookends of what instigated The Enlightenment: The Reformation by Luther, and the end this era was outcome of the French Revolution and the indiscriminate killing of so many in the name of justice, change and freedom.
Trying to catch up on the several books I read for the BTP. Not sure how this one made the original cut but I will tell you it did not make it to the 2nd round. That maybe all you want or need to know and I puzzle on how to describe this read. When I picked it up and saw it was 900+ pages on how old white men in Western Europe (mostly philosophers) envisioned how new ideas of their era would shape and were changing their world I was intrigued but largely disheartened. Too long and too much. Not sure my opinion changed much but I am glad to say I finished it, learned a lot and found it was actually only 760 pages when you discounted over 100 pages of references. I will say that the Introduction was absolutely the best part and most informative for me. Great explanation of how this author is looking at this important time and his reference points and his slant on this subject. I found it most enlightening (excuse the pun).
I had to look or listen carefully for the author's voice in all the other information that was given by constant siting references. Rarely was there a sentence that did not have a number at the end to refer to the tome it came from. Almost like the author did want to have to argue or claim to have his own opinion about something, he was always making sure the reader knew where his information came from. So much information just piled and piled till I did feel mostly buried in it. It is the type of book left on a table to read a page or two over the course of a year, maybe with a glass of wine at hand, rather than the month I gave myself.
The second big problem I found was that this is a book about ideas--not science, not history at least in terms of events but thoughts and writings of philosophers-Rousseau, Locke, Kant, Hume, Adam Smith--you get the idea. Many of these ideas presented here as revolutionary for the time have sifted their way into and subtly shaped current day institutions, politics and the like. Not all for the best.
Its been said, "That you can't not know history". don't know who said this but I've heard it quoted. It might be a good thing to have this knowledge but there is a whole lot here to try to digest. It made me wonder how our own age and thinking will be perceived in 100+ years.
Also these were the thoughts and ideas of a very elite part of society. Yes many ideas would trickle down eventually but not for decades. Probably religion was influenced the most as Bibles were printed but few but the upper classes could read or have access to written material especially books so this history looks at primarily this highly wealthy and educated group. If, in present times, one wants to argue with the validity of these ideas it is a good to know their origins and this book certainly gives you those. Just wasn't sure I was the audience this was written for but there is much worthy material for thinking about. I just would have liked to see or feel more of the common man in it.
February 16, 2021
A big study of the Enlightenment with emphasis on England, Scotland, France and Germany. Robertson begins with a chapter on the Scientific Revolution and then proceeds thematically, with each chapter focussing on a different aspect of the Enlightenment.
Robertson argues against the popular view of the Enlightenment as a coldly rational movement bent on ridding the world of its enchantments. There were some thinkers on the movement's fringes whose thought might be described this way but it was a revolution in feelings and sentiment as much as it was anything else. Robertson dedicates a sub-chapter to 'empathetic fiction', in which he examines such popular novels as Richardson's Clarissa as examples of how readers learnt to imagine themselves in other people's shoes and thereby increased their understanding of a common humanity.
I am not sure that I am entirely convinced by his defence. Robertson is so keen to stress the plurality of the era that I emerge from 780 pages feeling I know little more than I did when I began. If you want answers to such basic questions as 'What was the Enlightenment? What were its core ideas?', you had as well read the introduction and leave it there. Interesting details do now and then emerge, such as that in 1737 a Venetian nobleman published a work entitled 'Il newtonianismo per le dame' - Newtonianism for Ladies, which began thus: 'Your Plurality of Worlds first softened the savage Nature of Philosophy, and called it from the solitary Closets and Libraries of the Learned, to introduce it into the Circles and Toilets of Ladies.'
But on the whole I found Robertson quite a dull presence. When he talks of Enlightenment thinkers holding views we would now label as problematic, he does so with the air of a medieval theologian talking about the Virtuous Pagans who, although born too early to have been saved, were nonetheless morally sound by the standards of their own times. He seems likewise oblivious to other religious parallels: for instance that specialisation in the sciences bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment now means that the average person must take all their knowledge of the natural world from the authority of a professional caste. Anyone who seeks to question these authorities, for instance flat-earthers, are putting themselves socially beyond the pale. Granted, they are not rounded up and burned, but they are scoffed at by people who can adduce no evidence for their own beliefs other than that Scientists Say So. I am not arguing that this is wrong, merely that Robertson appears entirely insensitive to such ironies.
Robertson argues against the popular view of the Enlightenment as a coldly rational movement bent on ridding the world of its enchantments. There were some thinkers on the movement's fringes whose thought might be described this way but it was a revolution in feelings and sentiment as much as it was anything else. Robertson dedicates a sub-chapter to 'empathetic fiction', in which he examines such popular novels as Richardson's Clarissa as examples of how readers learnt to imagine themselves in other people's shoes and thereby increased their understanding of a common humanity.
I am not sure that I am entirely convinced by his defence. Robertson is so keen to stress the plurality of the era that I emerge from 780 pages feeling I know little more than I did when I began. If you want answers to such basic questions as 'What was the Enlightenment? What were its core ideas?', you had as well read the introduction and leave it there. Interesting details do now and then emerge, such as that in 1737 a Venetian nobleman published a work entitled 'Il newtonianismo per le dame' - Newtonianism for Ladies, which began thus: 'Your Plurality of Worlds first softened the savage Nature of Philosophy, and called it from the solitary Closets and Libraries of the Learned, to introduce it into the Circles and Toilets of Ladies.'
But on the whole I found Robertson quite a dull presence. When he talks of Enlightenment thinkers holding views we would now label as problematic, he does so with the air of a medieval theologian talking about the Virtuous Pagans who, although born too early to have been saved, were nonetheless morally sound by the standards of their own times. He seems likewise oblivious to other religious parallels: for instance that specialisation in the sciences bequeathed to us by the Enlightenment now means that the average person must take all their knowledge of the natural world from the authority of a professional caste. Anyone who seeks to question these authorities, for instance flat-earthers, are putting themselves socially beyond the pale. Granted, they are not rounded up and burned, but they are scoffed at by people who can adduce no evidence for their own beliefs other than that Scientists Say So. I am not arguing that this is wrong, merely that Robertson appears entirely insensitive to such ironies.
June 18, 2025
Marvellous.
I have learned so much about the 18th century in this very long, but very well written book. The Enlightenment is a very broad subject, covering everything including philosophy, religion, history, politics, government, economics, art, theatre, drama, literature, poetry and more. The author is a master of his subject. I highly recommend The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness 1680-1790, by Ritchie Robertson.
I have learned so much about the 18th century in this very long, but very well written book. The Enlightenment is a very broad subject, covering everything including philosophy, religion, history, politics, government, economics, art, theatre, drama, literature, poetry and more. The author is a master of his subject. I highly recommend The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness 1680-1790, by Ritchie Robertson.
March 26, 2021
Do pass Go, do collect $200!
Here you’ll find a very thick book numbering 1008 small-print pages. What could be more daunting, or in this case, more enjoyably enlightening?! I first found the book at the top of a best-seller list, checked it out of my local library, then liked it so much I just had to have my own Kindle copy (with pages corresponding nicely to the printed copy). Pop the book open at virtually any point, and you’re bound to find at least one fascinating gem of history.
At first, I thought the book might be a twin to Stephen Greenblatt’s excellent “The Swerve: How the World Became Modern.” But while Robertson’s book does mention Epicurus, Bracciolini, and Lucretius, it’s much more than that. The author circumscribes the Enlightenment as more or less happening during his “Long Century” of 1680-1790. He notes the nicely trimmed decades generally cover the period from Newton and “his” comet to the French Revolution. Other historians have the Enlightenment going from William and Mary’s Glorious Revolution of 1688 through Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815, while still others have it going from 1680 to 1700, 1750, 1760, 1789, or 1800. Regardless, Robertson’s time travel is both forward and backward in measures far beyond “The Swerve’s” 300 BC (Epicurus) to cover from 2000 BC and earlier (e.g., Abraham in ancient Egypt) and on into today’s jousting of what is and is not “fake news.”
The book’s subtitle is “The Pursuit of Happiness,” something this fan of reason and the “Child of the Enlightenment” American Founding finds intriguing. But take a “Look inside” tour of the book. Scan the chapters in the table of contents: 1. Happiness, Reason and Passion 2. The Scientific Revolution 3. Toleration 4. The Religious Enlightenment 5. Unbelief and Speculation 6. Science and Sensibility 7. Sociability 8. Practical Enlightenment. 9 Aesthetics 10. The Science of Society 11. Philosophical History 12. Cosmopolitanism 13. Forms of Government 14. Revolutions. Note especially the fine conclusion: The Battle over the Enlightenment, where the author offers hope as today’s threats to the Enlightenment can even make it stronger. And, along the way to the author’s conclusion, you’ll find him pursuing the concept of happiness from virtually every angle and point of reference. Explorations of the timeless concepts of truth, beauty, and character are all here and brought to life in outstanding examples from history, with emphasis on the explosion of ideas and human progress during the “Long Century.”
Read it all through immediately, or take your time. Bottom-line I think you’ll find the book is rich in wondrous, well-documented detail and chock-full of fascinating facts. An absolute treasure definitely worth many times more than the usual $200! Very highly recommended!
Of possible interest: George Washington's Liberty Key: Mount Vernon's Bastille Key - the Mystery and Magic of Its Body, Mind, and Soul , a best-seller at Mount Vernon. “Character is Key for Liberty!” and
Strategy Pure and Simple: Essential Moves for Winning in Competition and Cooperation
Here you’ll find a very thick book numbering 1008 small-print pages. What could be more daunting, or in this case, more enjoyably enlightening?! I first found the book at the top of a best-seller list, checked it out of my local library, then liked it so much I just had to have my own Kindle copy (with pages corresponding nicely to the printed copy). Pop the book open at virtually any point, and you’re bound to find at least one fascinating gem of history.
At first, I thought the book might be a twin to Stephen Greenblatt’s excellent “The Swerve: How the World Became Modern.” But while Robertson’s book does mention Epicurus, Bracciolini, and Lucretius, it’s much more than that. The author circumscribes the Enlightenment as more or less happening during his “Long Century” of 1680-1790. He notes the nicely trimmed decades generally cover the period from Newton and “his” comet to the French Revolution. Other historians have the Enlightenment going from William and Mary’s Glorious Revolution of 1688 through Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo in 1815, while still others have it going from 1680 to 1700, 1750, 1760, 1789, or 1800. Regardless, Robertson’s time travel is both forward and backward in measures far beyond “The Swerve’s” 300 BC (Epicurus) to cover from 2000 BC and earlier (e.g., Abraham in ancient Egypt) and on into today’s jousting of what is and is not “fake news.”
The book’s subtitle is “The Pursuit of Happiness,” something this fan of reason and the “Child of the Enlightenment” American Founding finds intriguing. But take a “Look inside” tour of the book. Scan the chapters in the table of contents: 1. Happiness, Reason and Passion 2. The Scientific Revolution 3. Toleration 4. The Religious Enlightenment 5. Unbelief and Speculation 6. Science and Sensibility 7. Sociability 8. Practical Enlightenment. 9 Aesthetics 10. The Science of Society 11. Philosophical History 12. Cosmopolitanism 13. Forms of Government 14. Revolutions. Note especially the fine conclusion: The Battle over the Enlightenment, where the author offers hope as today’s threats to the Enlightenment can even make it stronger. And, along the way to the author’s conclusion, you’ll find him pursuing the concept of happiness from virtually every angle and point of reference. Explorations of the timeless concepts of truth, beauty, and character are all here and brought to life in outstanding examples from history, with emphasis on the explosion of ideas and human progress during the “Long Century.”
Read it all through immediately, or take your time. Bottom-line I think you’ll find the book is rich in wondrous, well-documented detail and chock-full of fascinating facts. An absolute treasure definitely worth many times more than the usual $200! Very highly recommended!
Of possible interest: George Washington's Liberty Key: Mount Vernon's Bastille Key - the Mystery and Magic of Its Body, Mind, and Soul , a best-seller at Mount Vernon. “Character is Key for Liberty!” and
Strategy Pure and Simple: Essential Moves for Winning in Competition and Cooperation
August 13, 2021
I feel a deep sense of gratitude to Ritchie Robertson (and to Jonathan Keeble who read the 40 hour audiobook with clarity and fine expression) for providing an astonishingly comprehensive intellectual history of the Enlightenment. All the major thinkers, writers, and players are here, along with countless less well-known ones. Their thoughts and works are discussed in good detail on a vast variety of topics and subject matter. Robertson seems to have read and absorbed everyone and everything from this period. He presents his deep and nuanced understanding of these works in a highly readable, interesting, and thoughtful way. While not a political or social history, he provides the historical background and events that were influencing, reflecting or reacting to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He addresses the many critics of the Enlightenment proponents, both their own contemporaries and those who came later, including modern day writers some of whom hold it responsible for the atrocities not only of the French Revolution’s Reign of Terror, but fascism and other horrors of the 20th century and beyond. While in no way ignoring a given “enlightener’s” errors, prejudices, biases, etc., or those of the movement overall, he offers a strong and compelling defense for the Enlightenment and its continuing relevance and value. Having enjoyed it so thoroughly, this is a book that, while I am delighted to have read it in full (okay, listened to), I’m also a little sad. I will miss not having more of it still ahead.
February 3, 2021
I didn't quite finish the book. I stopped after one third.
Lots of facts and details which one will forget quickly anyway.
But i am missing the synthesis and the overview.
When going deep in the period and wanting to know more about the different streams or types of enlightenments, Jonathan Israel is much more interesting. Lots of details, even more but the framework for these facts is much more solid
From a philosophical point of view, Charles Taylor gives much more insights into the meaning of this period
Lots of facts and details which one will forget quickly anyway.
But i am missing the synthesis and the overview.
When going deep in the period and wanting to know more about the different streams or types of enlightenments, Jonathan Israel is much more interesting. Lots of details, even more but the framework for these facts is much more solid
From a philosophical point of view, Charles Taylor gives much more insights into the meaning of this period
September 30, 2020
The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness, 1680-1790 by Ritchie Robertson is a very clearly written look at this important period with a shift of emphasis from the pursuit of knowledge to the pursuit of happiness.
This is as much a history as it is a work about the philosophical works of the time. Robertson offers excellent readings of the major works as well as many of the minor works, but most importantly he weaves these ideas into the history. Many books will touch on events in illustrating the importance of these works, but they often concentrate on one or two major events that most clearly show whatever aspect of the work they are emphasizing. Robertson certainly chooses events that support his readings but he chooses far more widely than most.
The idea of happiness needs, for the reader, to be separated from what we often think of as happiness in contemporary society. Happiness now is largely commodified and measured in luxury and/or leisure time and objects. Happiness during the Enlightenment(s) was far more concerned with making life better for more people, making the world so that everyone might find some enjoyment from their time here.
I don't know that the general idea of happiness being an important element in what Enlightenment thought was about is entirely new, I seem to remember Pagden touching on the same basic theme, though perhaps without using the word happiness as much. But Robertson makes a much stronger case through both textual analysis and historical interpretation. As such, this book stands alone in my reading in broadening my concept of what the thinkers of the time were seeking and trying to accomplish.
I would highly recommend this to readers regardless of their background in Enlightenment texts. I think Robertson explains the works well enough for anyone to grasp the main ideas and situate those ideas in the bigger picture. For those who haven't read many of the works I also think this will help you to decide which texts you might find interesting and which you might want to skip. For those who have read many of the works I think reading any good interpretations is beneficial in that it makes us think and revisit what we may have taken for granted or forgotten. We don't have to agree to get value from reading this, though I think it is hard to find fault in most of what is presented.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
This is as much a history as it is a work about the philosophical works of the time. Robertson offers excellent readings of the major works as well as many of the minor works, but most importantly he weaves these ideas into the history. Many books will touch on events in illustrating the importance of these works, but they often concentrate on one or two major events that most clearly show whatever aspect of the work they are emphasizing. Robertson certainly chooses events that support his readings but he chooses far more widely than most.
The idea of happiness needs, for the reader, to be separated from what we often think of as happiness in contemporary society. Happiness now is largely commodified and measured in luxury and/or leisure time and objects. Happiness during the Enlightenment(s) was far more concerned with making life better for more people, making the world so that everyone might find some enjoyment from their time here.
I don't know that the general idea of happiness being an important element in what Enlightenment thought was about is entirely new, I seem to remember Pagden touching on the same basic theme, though perhaps without using the word happiness as much. But Robertson makes a much stronger case through both textual analysis and historical interpretation. As such, this book stands alone in my reading in broadening my concept of what the thinkers of the time were seeking and trying to accomplish.
I would highly recommend this to readers regardless of their background in Enlightenment texts. I think Robertson explains the works well enough for anyone to grasp the main ideas and situate those ideas in the bigger picture. For those who haven't read many of the works I also think this will help you to decide which texts you might find interesting and which you might want to skip. For those who have read many of the works I think reading any good interpretations is beneficial in that it makes us think and revisit what we may have taken for granted or forgotten. We don't have to agree to get value from reading this, though I think it is hard to find fault in most of what is presented.
Reviewed from a copy made available by the publisher via NetGalley.
May 28, 2022
In this extremely detailed and erudite study of the Enlightenment, Oxford scholar Ritchie Robertson transports us back to the 17th and 18th Centuries, allowing us to see the period through the words of its most prominent thinkers. This, along with Robertson’s nuanced and balanced treatment of the subject, leaves the reader secure in the knowledge that nothing has been hidden or obscured from them. While it is tempting to be put off by the somewhat haphazard thematic structure of the book, it becomes an immensely enjoyable read if one settles in for the ride and absorbs the bounty of knowledge contained within.
The glue that does help to bind the book together, as the subtitle suggests, is the argument that the Enlightenment was first and foremost about the pursuit of happiness, “and that if happiness could be attained at all, it was to be found in the here and now, despite the manifold imperfections of earthly life”. And indeed, we find that Enlighteners as diverse as Leibniz, Locke, Pope, D’Holbach, Helvetius, Beccaria, Wieland, Condorcet and Bentham all expressed a belief that human happiness (or well-being, or the ‘general welfare’) must be increased.
To be sure, there were a few exceptions (Kant being the most prominent, and obvious), but whatever else the Enlighteners disagreed upon (religion, human rights, forms of government, the concept of progress), this was an almost universal belief, one which underlies Robertson’s description of the Enlightenment as a practical endeavour (echoing the likes of Joel Mokyr). It was not merely the ‘Age of Reason’, or a continuation of the Scientific Revolution. Knowledge was useful insofar as it could be used for the betterment of human life, and this concern for human well-being involved sympathy and sentiment.
It was also a radical belief. While Robertson freely acknowledges the debt that the Enlightenment owes to the Reformation (which helped to weaken belief in authority and the supernatural), and that it was in part a continuation of pre-existing tendencies which saw fear and superstition becoming less prevalent, it also overturned centuries of teaching in which the world was represented “as a mere vale of tears in which we had to earn the true happiness that could only be found in heaven”. In theory, it also led most Enlighteners to adopt a cosmopolitan outlook.
However, this is about as far as Robertson wants to go in trying to discern broad patterns and trends in Enlightenment thinking. Although he does often note when a thinker was in the minority, what mainly follows is a brilliant exposition of the disagreements that occurred between Enlighteners. Some were deists or even atheists, while others were theists. Some endorsed the idea of natural law and natural rights, while others denounced these concepts as “nonsense on stilts”. A few (like Condorcet) truly were Pollyannaish proponents of Progress, while many (like Gibbon) tempered their satisfaction with the progress that had been made with a warning that civilisations as well as people are mortal, and that moral and cultural progress had to keep up with material progress. Rousseau, meanwhile, ended up turning against the Enlightenment.
And, in a couple of brilliant chapters in which Montesquieu features heavily, Robertson describes the efforts of the Enlighteners to work out the ideal blend of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, as Plato and Aristotle had attempted two thousand years earlier. Few, aside from Paine and Godwin, advocated pure democracy or even anarchy. Most believed that mixed government – with a strong aristocratic element to dampen the impulses of the masses – was superior, either in the form of a constitutional monarchy or a republic.
Speaking very generally, it can be posited that the more seriously an Enlightenment thinker took the idea of the pursuit of happiness, the more radical they were in their religious, ethical and political views. A rough spectrum can be said to exist, ranging from Bentham, Godwin and Condorcet on the one hand (who were atheistic, advocated equal rights for women and universal suffrage), to Locke and Kant (who, in practice, were more concerned with natural rights and religion) on the other. Jonathan Israel, in his three-volume examination of the Enlightenment, similarly makes a distinction between thinkers of the ‘Radical Enlightenment’ such as D’Holbach and Helvetius (both, notably, are hedonists), and those of the moderate-to-conservative Enlightenment, who compromised with the political and religious status quo.
However, it should be emphasised that almost all of the Enlighteners were reformers. Even those who Israel classes as ‘moderate Enlighteners’, like Voltaire and Montesquieu, were withering in their condemnation of attempts to justify slavery, while Smith, Kant and the liberal conservative Burke were all highly critical of colonialism (joining, most famously, Raynal and Diderot).
All of this, and more, is discussed in admirable detail by Robertson, who even provides stunning portraits of the so-called “enlightened absolutists” – Peter and Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick the Great of Prussia, and Joseph II of Austria – and their connections (or lack thereof) to the Enlightenment project. The American and French Revolutions, which both explicitly promoted the pursuit of happiness, are heavily discussed too. Overall, then, he progressively immerses the reader in the era, making for a magnificent book which, particularly in the second half, simply cannot be put down.
The glue that does help to bind the book together, as the subtitle suggests, is the argument that the Enlightenment was first and foremost about the pursuit of happiness, “and that if happiness could be attained at all, it was to be found in the here and now, despite the manifold imperfections of earthly life”. And indeed, we find that Enlighteners as diverse as Leibniz, Locke, Pope, D’Holbach, Helvetius, Beccaria, Wieland, Condorcet and Bentham all expressed a belief that human happiness (or well-being, or the ‘general welfare’) must be increased.
To be sure, there were a few exceptions (Kant being the most prominent, and obvious), but whatever else the Enlighteners disagreed upon (religion, human rights, forms of government, the concept of progress), this was an almost universal belief, one which underlies Robertson’s description of the Enlightenment as a practical endeavour (echoing the likes of Joel Mokyr). It was not merely the ‘Age of Reason’, or a continuation of the Scientific Revolution. Knowledge was useful insofar as it could be used for the betterment of human life, and this concern for human well-being involved sympathy and sentiment.
It was also a radical belief. While Robertson freely acknowledges the debt that the Enlightenment owes to the Reformation (which helped to weaken belief in authority and the supernatural), and that it was in part a continuation of pre-existing tendencies which saw fear and superstition becoming less prevalent, it also overturned centuries of teaching in which the world was represented “as a mere vale of tears in which we had to earn the true happiness that could only be found in heaven”. In theory, it also led most Enlighteners to adopt a cosmopolitan outlook.
However, this is about as far as Robertson wants to go in trying to discern broad patterns and trends in Enlightenment thinking. Although he does often note when a thinker was in the minority, what mainly follows is a brilliant exposition of the disagreements that occurred between Enlighteners. Some were deists or even atheists, while others were theists. Some endorsed the idea of natural law and natural rights, while others denounced these concepts as “nonsense on stilts”. A few (like Condorcet) truly were Pollyannaish proponents of Progress, while many (like Gibbon) tempered their satisfaction with the progress that had been made with a warning that civilisations as well as people are mortal, and that moral and cultural progress had to keep up with material progress. Rousseau, meanwhile, ended up turning against the Enlightenment.
And, in a couple of brilliant chapters in which Montesquieu features heavily, Robertson describes the efforts of the Enlighteners to work out the ideal blend of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, as Plato and Aristotle had attempted two thousand years earlier. Few, aside from Paine and Godwin, advocated pure democracy or even anarchy. Most believed that mixed government – with a strong aristocratic element to dampen the impulses of the masses – was superior, either in the form of a constitutional monarchy or a republic.
Speaking very generally, it can be posited that the more seriously an Enlightenment thinker took the idea of the pursuit of happiness, the more radical they were in their religious, ethical and political views. A rough spectrum can be said to exist, ranging from Bentham, Godwin and Condorcet on the one hand (who were atheistic, advocated equal rights for women and universal suffrage), to Locke and Kant (who, in practice, were more concerned with natural rights and religion) on the other. Jonathan Israel, in his three-volume examination of the Enlightenment, similarly makes a distinction between thinkers of the ‘Radical Enlightenment’ such as D’Holbach and Helvetius (both, notably, are hedonists), and those of the moderate-to-conservative Enlightenment, who compromised with the political and religious status quo.
However, it should be emphasised that almost all of the Enlighteners were reformers. Even those who Israel classes as ‘moderate Enlighteners’, like Voltaire and Montesquieu, were withering in their condemnation of attempts to justify slavery, while Smith, Kant and the liberal conservative Burke were all highly critical of colonialism (joining, most famously, Raynal and Diderot).
All of this, and more, is discussed in admirable detail by Robertson, who even provides stunning portraits of the so-called “enlightened absolutists” – Peter and Catherine the Great of Russia, Frederick the Great of Prussia, and Joseph II of Austria – and their connections (or lack thereof) to the Enlightenment project. The American and French Revolutions, which both explicitly promoted the pursuit of happiness, are heavily discussed too. Overall, then, he progressively immerses the reader in the era, making for a magnificent book which, particularly in the second half, simply cannot be put down.
October 27, 2024
The Enlightenment can be transmuted into nearly anything its explicators want it to be. For many, it made more room for reason, the scientific method, political liberalism, and the questioning of traditional kinds of authority. For Horkheimer and Adorno, it was responsible for the rise of instrumental reason and the disenchantment that led to totalitarianism in the twentieth century. Too often, histories of the Enlightenment are described as only contributing a coldly abstract focus on reason, logic, and empiricism. In “The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness 1680-1790” (HarperCollins, 2021), Oxford professor of German Language and Literature Ritchie Robertson suggests the Enlightenment signaled a transition from a need for salvation to one of earthly happiness associated with empathy, compassion, toleration, and other virtues that we associate with liberal societies.
The subtitle “The Pursuit of Happiness” appears to be a promise to the reader to discuss aspects of the Enlightenment that usually get short shrift. Happiness here is really a byword for a constellation of ideas we associate with living in an open society: the freedom of conscience (especially of religion), the role fiction plays in shaping a more empathetic, understanding, and engaged human imagination, changing ideas about how we raise and educate children, emerging concepts of cosmopolitanism in the writing of people like Johann Gottfried von Herder and Georg Forster, the slow disappearance of the divine right of kings in the political sphere, and the rise of completely secular histories that don’t resort to religion or the supernatural for explanations. When Robertson sticks to these ideas, the book is at its strongest.
If it has one weakness, it’s that instead of immediately setting out his thesis and supporting it with evidence, Robertson uses the first third of the book as a kind of diffuse, catch-all Enlightenment primer to familiarize readers with what they already know if they’ve read similar books. He covers all the usual suspects with the result being that stretches of the book read more like a catalog of trends – an exhaustive list on everything from philosophy and art to science, government, politics and religion - that in traditional narratives coalesce to form something we recognize as the Enlightenment. I have no qualms with an 800-page book; an 800-page book that takes 250 pages to get to its point and even then, makes its argument by fits and starts is another story. The book could have been considerably shorter had Robertson just gotten down to brass tacks and detailed how the Enlightenment was responsible for a wide-ranging variety of liberalizing attitudes.
To anticipate another popular complaint, the book is marketed toward the general reader. While I loved the sections on, for example, Catharine Macaulay or aesthetics, they won’t be page-turners for most readers. I suppose that’s one of the risks you run when you read a book by an academic. When Robertson gets around to supporting the thesis suggested in the subtitle, he does a great job at shedding light on aspects of the Enlightenment that get far too little treatment outside of scholarly monographs. For those wanting more of an all-purpose survey that occasionally highlights the trends above that don’t get mentioned often, you can’t do better than this book. For anyone who wants to forego the familiar stock material on people like Diderot and company, you’ll likely find yourself wishing this book had found its way into the hands of a more skilled editor.
The subtitle “The Pursuit of Happiness” appears to be a promise to the reader to discuss aspects of the Enlightenment that usually get short shrift. Happiness here is really a byword for a constellation of ideas we associate with living in an open society: the freedom of conscience (especially of religion), the role fiction plays in shaping a more empathetic, understanding, and engaged human imagination, changing ideas about how we raise and educate children, emerging concepts of cosmopolitanism in the writing of people like Johann Gottfried von Herder and Georg Forster, the slow disappearance of the divine right of kings in the political sphere, and the rise of completely secular histories that don’t resort to religion or the supernatural for explanations. When Robertson sticks to these ideas, the book is at its strongest.
If it has one weakness, it’s that instead of immediately setting out his thesis and supporting it with evidence, Robertson uses the first third of the book as a kind of diffuse, catch-all Enlightenment primer to familiarize readers with what they already know if they’ve read similar books. He covers all the usual suspects with the result being that stretches of the book read more like a catalog of trends – an exhaustive list on everything from philosophy and art to science, government, politics and religion - that in traditional narratives coalesce to form something we recognize as the Enlightenment. I have no qualms with an 800-page book; an 800-page book that takes 250 pages to get to its point and even then, makes its argument by fits and starts is another story. The book could have been considerably shorter had Robertson just gotten down to brass tacks and detailed how the Enlightenment was responsible for a wide-ranging variety of liberalizing attitudes.
To anticipate another popular complaint, the book is marketed toward the general reader. While I loved the sections on, for example, Catharine Macaulay or aesthetics, they won’t be page-turners for most readers. I suppose that’s one of the risks you run when you read a book by an academic. When Robertson gets around to supporting the thesis suggested in the subtitle, he does a great job at shedding light on aspects of the Enlightenment that get far too little treatment outside of scholarly monographs. For those wanting more of an all-purpose survey that occasionally highlights the trends above that don’t get mentioned often, you can’t do better than this book. For anyone who wants to forego the familiar stock material on people like Diderot and company, you’ll likely find yourself wishing this book had found its way into the hands of a more skilled editor.
August 11, 2025
Happiness is Serious Business.
Ritchie Robertson’s The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness 1680-1790 (2020) is a brilliant, accessible dive into the Enlightenment, reframing it from a dry pursuit of "pure reason" to a lively quest for human well-being through reason, science, and optimism from 1680 to 1790.
Robertson explores how thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, Bentham and Kant tackled freedom, morality, and happiness, weaving together philosophy, literature, politics, and the rise of sociability in coffeehouses and novels. He doesn’t shy away from the era’s contradictions, like its stance on slavery and inequality, and includes a global perspective, though Europe obviously takes center stage.
What makes the work particularly rewarding is that Robertson quotes EXTENSIVELY from the original sources rather the books ABOUT the original sources. This creates an immediacy to the endeavor that would otherwise be lacking.
At over 900 pages, it’s not a quick read, but written with clarity and a touch of wit that keeps you engaged—like a professor who knows you might check your phone but makes the lecture too good to miss. Robertson connects ideas across cultures and time, showing how the Enlightenment shaped modern thought without glossing over its flaws. It’s not a light read, but for history buffs or anyone curious about why we think the way we do, it’s a sharp, rewarding read. Highly recommended.
Ritchie Robertson’s The Enlightenment: The Pursuit of Happiness 1680-1790 (2020) is a brilliant, accessible dive into the Enlightenment, reframing it from a dry pursuit of "pure reason" to a lively quest for human well-being through reason, science, and optimism from 1680 to 1790.
Robertson explores how thinkers like Voltaire, Rousseau, Hume, Bentham and Kant tackled freedom, morality, and happiness, weaving together philosophy, literature, politics, and the rise of sociability in coffeehouses and novels. He doesn’t shy away from the era’s contradictions, like its stance on slavery and inequality, and includes a global perspective, though Europe obviously takes center stage.
What makes the work particularly rewarding is that Robertson quotes EXTENSIVELY from the original sources rather the books ABOUT the original sources. This creates an immediacy to the endeavor that would otherwise be lacking.
At over 900 pages, it’s not a quick read, but written with clarity and a touch of wit that keeps you engaged—like a professor who knows you might check your phone but makes the lecture too good to miss. Robertson connects ideas across cultures and time, showing how the Enlightenment shaped modern thought without glossing over its flaws. It’s not a light read, but for history buffs or anyone curious about why we think the way we do, it’s a sharp, rewarding read. Highly recommended.
September 7, 2024
This is an encyclopedic history of the intellectual and cultural movements of the 17th/18th century that have come to be known as the ‘Enlightenment.’ Robertson resurrects many long forgotten figures who deserve more recognition and situates the major thinkers (e.g. Hume, Smith, Goethe, Schilling, etc.) within their cultural context. He traces the Enlightenment — however defined — to the outgrowth of the great Protestant Revolution that transformed the world and shows how many of its features grew from unlikely aspects of religious dissension. People like Pierre Bayle, Margaret Cavendish, Catharine Macaulay, James Harrington, and many others deserve to be better known than they are.
I can’t well summarize this work, but I can praise its achievement. While anyone will benefit from a cover-to-cover reading, it could also be read piecemeal based on your interests. Highly recommended for all enthusiasts of intellectual history.
I can’t well summarize this work, but I can praise its achievement. While anyone will benefit from a cover-to-cover reading, it could also be read piecemeal based on your interests. Highly recommended for all enthusiasts of intellectual history.
May 1, 2022
The book has a nuanced and sound introduction. It gives a very concise overview over the intellectual history of the enlightenment.
Robertson makes it transparent that he is out to defend the enlightenment against the reproach of being "coldly rationalistic". He argues convincingly and yet balanced. I hope people who want to defend the values of the enlightenment read this book and not the self-congratulatory, past-bad-present-good rubbish that Pinker concocted to make the elites sleep better!
Robertson makes it transparent that he is out to defend the enlightenment against the reproach of being "coldly rationalistic". He argues convincingly and yet balanced. I hope people who want to defend the values of the enlightenment read this book and not the self-congratulatory, past-bad-present-good rubbish that Pinker concocted to make the elites sleep better!
December 17, 2024
DENSE and THICK but honestly incredible. Super broad in scope and some chapters were a bit of a snooze personally (such as discussions on whether women should have rights like I am NOT gonna listen to the old white men who were arguing against that).
Every time they quoted John Locke I was just screaming "based based based" i love John Locke!
This book is not at all accessible but if you're interested in the philosophical movement that underpins modern, liberal society than it is absolutely worth a read.
Every time they quoted John Locke I was just screaming "based based based" i love John Locke!
This book is not at all accessible but if you're interested in the philosophical movement that underpins modern, liberal society than it is absolutely worth a read.
November 17, 2021
A very comprehensive narrative of the whole Enlightenment period.
During this time there was a quest for truth and reason. There is not a person, famous or otherwise, mentioned and discussed in this book who is beyond some kind of criticism. But the point is their direction and honest desire was to discover truth. Before we start to pull down any statues and replace reason with dogma, we have to remember it is a very false notion to compare their times to today. Liberty and freedom of expression is something extremely precious, never guaranteed, and can very easily disappear especially when we are most comfortable.
We should never shut down discussions, think using too much emotion, or try to exclude opinions or burn books. The well known Voltaire notion of not believing, but still defending to the death the right of free speech is self evident if we examine events such as the French Revolution or any such period of mob rule or dictatorship.
The beauty is that not only is this book about so many great thinkers of their time, but it is submerged into the period of the day and becomes easily relatable to a multitude of well known historical events. Because the time period stretches 110 years it can often become the 'stock in the soup' and put into perspective well know events such as the French or American Revolutions, terrible poverty in the time of industrialization, Colonization and war, the emancipation of women, and slavery.
For a novice such as myself this book's scope is so broad but also deep, and there are so many clear inspirations for further exploration and understanding, it becomes a start of a journey rather than any type of completion. One temptation is to just pick this book up and start again at the beginning. That is how prolific the stimulus on knowledge and thought it contains.
During this time there was a quest for truth and reason. There is not a person, famous or otherwise, mentioned and discussed in this book who is beyond some kind of criticism. But the point is their direction and honest desire was to discover truth. Before we start to pull down any statues and replace reason with dogma, we have to remember it is a very false notion to compare their times to today. Liberty and freedom of expression is something extremely precious, never guaranteed, and can very easily disappear especially when we are most comfortable.
We should never shut down discussions, think using too much emotion, or try to exclude opinions or burn books. The well known Voltaire notion of not believing, but still defending to the death the right of free speech is self evident if we examine events such as the French Revolution or any such period of mob rule or dictatorship.
The beauty is that not only is this book about so many great thinkers of their time, but it is submerged into the period of the day and becomes easily relatable to a multitude of well known historical events. Because the time period stretches 110 years it can often become the 'stock in the soup' and put into perspective well know events such as the French or American Revolutions, terrible poverty in the time of industrialization, Colonization and war, the emancipation of women, and slavery.
For a novice such as myself this book's scope is so broad but also deep, and there are so many clear inspirations for further exploration and understanding, it becomes a start of a journey rather than any type of completion. One temptation is to just pick this book up and start again at the beginning. That is how prolific the stimulus on knowledge and thought it contains.
December 5, 2021
If you want a thorough examination of the enlightenment, and you are not intimidated by a 1000 page volume, this is a reasonable choice.
Having listened to the audiobook version, I have to say that a narrator of a book containing frequent German (and other European) extracts owes it to his listeners to gain a basic familiarity with pronunciation. I cringed with every citation.
Having listened to the audiobook version, I have to say that a narrator of a book containing frequent German (and other European) extracts owes it to his listeners to gain a basic familiarity with pronunciation. I cringed with every citation.
June 11, 2022
A fairly comprehensive overview of the Enlightenment but one does realize that the term may not mean as much as we think it means. I mean, is it a time period or a specific intellectual attitude or movement? I think the former makes more sense. So anyhow, I learned a lot but I would have preferred more argument about the age and less classification. And I think I prefer Jonathon Israel’s books on the subject.
September 23, 2021
While dry at times, this book is a must read for anyone interested in Western philosophy.
July 15, 2022
This was a long read, and this is a long review. I start by engaging with three ways Robertson frames the Enlightenment, then proceed topically by bolded topic.
The Enlightenment as a pursuit of happiness, as opposed to a hatred of the world. Robertson portrays the Enlightenment’s concern for happiness as a rejection of the Augustinian claim that we cannot obtain true happiness in this life. But how true is this, given that even Robertson admits that many Enlightenment thinkers were also skeptical of the endeavor? Additionally, rejecting Augustine and the medievals’ Christianizing of classical Eudaemonian ethics is rejecting a moral philosophy intimately concerned with human flourishing. The original impulse to study happiness is inherited from the tradition, and not a development away from it. It’s better to say that they rejected to orienting happiness in an otherworldly manner. An interesting thing to note is that as Enlightenment thinkers became more and more skeptical of achieving happiness in this life, they also became more and more irreligious.
The Enlightenment as an age of reason, as opposed to fear. Robertson is clear to say that it is not opposed to feeling (see next paragraph), but opposed to fear cultivated from religion. But even here to say the Enlightenment is an age of reason is backwards, for it is only an age of reason due to the age of feeling afterwards. There’s not a single other era of Western history before Romanticism that doesn’t place reason in the driving seat—that’s inherited by Plato and Aristotle. So even in the “age of fear” in the medieval era, it was still the age of reason. It’s more sensible to posit that the Enlightenment made Romanticism possible by rejecting the traditional way of looking at humanity through the lens of the primacy of reason. Though this might not have taken place at the start of the Enlightenment, the Enlightenment’s rejection of Aristotle effectively made possible Romanticism.
The Enlightenment as concerned with sympathy, as opposed to a cold rationalism. Thus, one main point of the book is to show how the Enlightenment thinkers actually cared very much about different emotions, especially sympathy. This was surprising and very informative for me. It was really the Enlightenment philosophers Shaftesbury, and then Hume that introduced this, even before Rousseau. (And it seems that Scottish common-sense realism was also in on this.) Thus, by the end of the eighteenth century, the Enlightenment was concerned more with emotions than with reason. Robertson also recounts a great episode when Hume basically adopted Rousseau, but Rousseau was paranoid that Hume was mistreating him. (Rousseau does give off Van Gogh vibes.) This also matched their public disagreement about whether humanity is improving, and whether society is good.
Erudition and practicality. What is very interesting is that many thinkers were polymaths. This was perhaps the last age of polymaths, before everything became specialized. In fact, we find many thinkers rejecting the amassing of theoretical knowledge; instead, one ought to do something practical. Thus, the chapter on “Practical Enlightenment,” where not only citizens, but also enlightened monarchs sought to practically improve the welfare of the people in their states.
Empiricism. It is incredible to see how influential Newton was to every single discipline. Although Newton’s principles were only originally applied to a limited set of natural experiments, Newton changed the way people viewed the world, and many other thinkers tried to put together empirical “closed systems” in their respective fields; thus, we get Newtonian economics, aesthetics, politics, etc. Yet Newton himself, it is revealed, took pains to prove his theories not only by empirical methods, but also by historical methods, trying to show that the ancient Egyptians and Moses knew about his findings (and then notably spending much time doing alchemy). It is also really interesting to see how different societies responded to first Cartesianism and then Newtonianism.
Religion. When it comes to religion, it seems that there is much that Robertson and I don’t see eye to eye. I want to just skip writing about this in the review, but the three or four chapters relating to different aspects of religion is part of the reason why I ended up enjoying this less than I would’ve. Instead of writing 10 pages about this, I’ll just list all the questions that I would disagree with Robertson on: Is religion based on fear? Is toleration in all of its varied forms a given? How much error is too much error (and thus requires no toleration)? And on what basis can you present human rights, if it is not founded on some religious basis? Is irreligiosity actually better than religiosity? Is making the Bible a “cultural object” instead of a “religious text” better for the Bible? Can Voltaire’s anti-Semitism seriously be defended and contextualized, but Luther’s not? Isn’t a neo-Stoic attitude toward death dehumanizing? I will let the reader answer these questions.
Kant. It is here that I want to turn to my new favorite guy: Immanuel Kant. At the end of almost every section in the book, Robertson tells about what Kant thought about the subject. It is usually in some ways counter what the Enlightenment was doing, but he always said in a brilliant way. Kant’s thoughts on religion, conservative sexual ethics, aesthetics, world peace, government, the improvement of society, etc. is all brilliant (even if I might disagree), leading me to really want to read Kant (except I probably won’t, because he is harder to read than even Aristotle).
Aesthetics. I want to dedicate a couple paragraphs on aesthetics. The split between an earlier Cartesian aesthetics in Neoclassical “ideal”ism and a later Newtonian aesthetics in empirical “consensus”ism, seems somewhat arbitrary, given that there is no evidence of Descartes or Newton influencing either side. Perhaps Neoclassicism’s interest in mimesis is more Plato than Descartes. Their logic is simple: imitate universals. Unfortunately, universals are found through particulars (Aristotle), so the Neoclassical aesthetes are wrong here. (But that doesn’t discount the existence of ideals). Thus, the section on taste goes from there to consensus theory, where beauty is just consensus—this is obviously an oversimplification. Then we have Hume’s objective subjectivism and Voltaire’s terrible theory, and then Kant, who just puts it so well: taste is universally subjective. Universal in that we all share the same faculty of judgment, and subjective in that everyone still has different judgments.
I learned, under “Genius” and then “Imitation,” that Tolkien’s idea of sub-creator is predated at least by Shaftesbury and Lessing, but has its true roots in Plotinus—this makes a lot of sense. By placing “genius” externally in the deity, we can “participate” in it, and call it genius, without calling ourselves God, like the Romantics ended up doing. “Beauty consists not in material objects but in the forming power that descends from divinity itself.” Of course, I’d rather be more Aristotelian and Pauline than Neo-Platonic, so I’d adopt Aristotle’s language of mimesis=poiesis (imitation is making), with the addition of the Pauline category of union with Christ. Kinda like how we imitate Christ as we are in Christ. This would need to be fleshed out more; someone has already done this probably. The “Art and Morality” section was also surprisingly good.
The discussion of genres is really thought-provoking. The section spoke about how the Enlightenment was the first time that all the fine arts (dancing, music, painting, sculpture, poetry, etc.) were put into one category and considered together. I want to argue that perhaps, this is not actually helpful. It’s more helpful to distinguish how they are different and accomplish different things, imo. Here a great quote though: “The object of painting is bodies existing alongside one another in space. The object of poetry is actions which succeed one another in time” (496). Novels particularizes time and space, and thus requires new events, new plots to tell, instead of the retelling of the same story (as done previously). Lyric poetry is expressive instead of imitative, and drama… what does drama do?
There is a whole lot more that the book talked about, but I don’t really have many great thoughts on them, because I never considered them in the first place: political theory, history-telling, sociology, revolutions, etc. But I do want to talk about one more thing: luxury. There was this ongoing debate over whether luxury was good or bad, because it was the first time in society where a large middle-class was forming and attaining luxuries. Some thinkers argued that luxuries made people slothful and lazy, causing the downfall of societies (like the Roman Empire), while others thought that there’s nothing wrong with luxury—in fact, it improved human standards of living and was good for people. I think this should still be an ongoing debate, at least for the Christian world. How comfortable should we be? How much luxury is too much luxury? At the end of the day, we are arguing over a gray area, but it is good for us to think critically about the way we live our lives. Perhaps a bit of discomfort might actually be beneficial for us.
The last thing I want to say is that the book does a good job considering high-level theoretical philosophy on its own terms, without determining historical progression and actions through the lens of theoretical philosophy. The French Revolution really was not that much influenced by the Enlightenment. And the political and social changes that happened during the era came from many people who did not care about the philosophes in Paris. I appreciate this mode of history-telling.
The Enlightenment as a pursuit of happiness, as opposed to a hatred of the world. Robertson portrays the Enlightenment’s concern for happiness as a rejection of the Augustinian claim that we cannot obtain true happiness in this life. But how true is this, given that even Robertson admits that many Enlightenment thinkers were also skeptical of the endeavor? Additionally, rejecting Augustine and the medievals’ Christianizing of classical Eudaemonian ethics is rejecting a moral philosophy intimately concerned with human flourishing. The original impulse to study happiness is inherited from the tradition, and not a development away from it. It’s better to say that they rejected to orienting happiness in an otherworldly manner. An interesting thing to note is that as Enlightenment thinkers became more and more skeptical of achieving happiness in this life, they also became more and more irreligious.
The Enlightenment as an age of reason, as opposed to fear. Robertson is clear to say that it is not opposed to feeling (see next paragraph), but opposed to fear cultivated from religion. But even here to say the Enlightenment is an age of reason is backwards, for it is only an age of reason due to the age of feeling afterwards. There’s not a single other era of Western history before Romanticism that doesn’t place reason in the driving seat—that’s inherited by Plato and Aristotle. So even in the “age of fear” in the medieval era, it was still the age of reason. It’s more sensible to posit that the Enlightenment made Romanticism possible by rejecting the traditional way of looking at humanity through the lens of the primacy of reason. Though this might not have taken place at the start of the Enlightenment, the Enlightenment’s rejection of Aristotle effectively made possible Romanticism.
The Enlightenment as concerned with sympathy, as opposed to a cold rationalism. Thus, one main point of the book is to show how the Enlightenment thinkers actually cared very much about different emotions, especially sympathy. This was surprising and very informative for me. It was really the Enlightenment philosophers Shaftesbury, and then Hume that introduced this, even before Rousseau. (And it seems that Scottish common-sense realism was also in on this.) Thus, by the end of the eighteenth century, the Enlightenment was concerned more with emotions than with reason. Robertson also recounts a great episode when Hume basically adopted Rousseau, but Rousseau was paranoid that Hume was mistreating him. (Rousseau does give off Van Gogh vibes.) This also matched their public disagreement about whether humanity is improving, and whether society is good.
Erudition and practicality. What is very interesting is that many thinkers were polymaths. This was perhaps the last age of polymaths, before everything became specialized. In fact, we find many thinkers rejecting the amassing of theoretical knowledge; instead, one ought to do something practical. Thus, the chapter on “Practical Enlightenment,” where not only citizens, but also enlightened monarchs sought to practically improve the welfare of the people in their states.
Empiricism. It is incredible to see how influential Newton was to every single discipline. Although Newton’s principles were only originally applied to a limited set of natural experiments, Newton changed the way people viewed the world, and many other thinkers tried to put together empirical “closed systems” in their respective fields; thus, we get Newtonian economics, aesthetics, politics, etc. Yet Newton himself, it is revealed, took pains to prove his theories not only by empirical methods, but also by historical methods, trying to show that the ancient Egyptians and Moses knew about his findings (and then notably spending much time doing alchemy). It is also really interesting to see how different societies responded to first Cartesianism and then Newtonianism.
Religion. When it comes to religion, it seems that there is much that Robertson and I don’t see eye to eye. I want to just skip writing about this in the review, but the three or four chapters relating to different aspects of religion is part of the reason why I ended up enjoying this less than I would’ve. Instead of writing 10 pages about this, I’ll just list all the questions that I would disagree with Robertson on: Is religion based on fear? Is toleration in all of its varied forms a given? How much error is too much error (and thus requires no toleration)? And on what basis can you present human rights, if it is not founded on some religious basis? Is irreligiosity actually better than religiosity? Is making the Bible a “cultural object” instead of a “religious text” better for the Bible? Can Voltaire’s anti-Semitism seriously be defended and contextualized, but Luther’s not? Isn’t a neo-Stoic attitude toward death dehumanizing? I will let the reader answer these questions.
Kant. It is here that I want to turn to my new favorite guy: Immanuel Kant. At the end of almost every section in the book, Robertson tells about what Kant thought about the subject. It is usually in some ways counter what the Enlightenment was doing, but he always said in a brilliant way. Kant’s thoughts on religion, conservative sexual ethics, aesthetics, world peace, government, the improvement of society, etc. is all brilliant (even if I might disagree), leading me to really want to read Kant (except I probably won’t, because he is harder to read than even Aristotle).
Aesthetics. I want to dedicate a couple paragraphs on aesthetics. The split between an earlier Cartesian aesthetics in Neoclassical “ideal”ism and a later Newtonian aesthetics in empirical “consensus”ism, seems somewhat arbitrary, given that there is no evidence of Descartes or Newton influencing either side. Perhaps Neoclassicism’s interest in mimesis is more Plato than Descartes. Their logic is simple: imitate universals. Unfortunately, universals are found through particulars (Aristotle), so the Neoclassical aesthetes are wrong here. (But that doesn’t discount the existence of ideals). Thus, the section on taste goes from there to consensus theory, where beauty is just consensus—this is obviously an oversimplification. Then we have Hume’s objective subjectivism and Voltaire’s terrible theory, and then Kant, who just puts it so well: taste is universally subjective. Universal in that we all share the same faculty of judgment, and subjective in that everyone still has different judgments.
I learned, under “Genius” and then “Imitation,” that Tolkien’s idea of sub-creator is predated at least by Shaftesbury and Lessing, but has its true roots in Plotinus—this makes a lot of sense. By placing “genius” externally in the deity, we can “participate” in it, and call it genius, without calling ourselves God, like the Romantics ended up doing. “Beauty consists not in material objects but in the forming power that descends from divinity itself.” Of course, I’d rather be more Aristotelian and Pauline than Neo-Platonic, so I’d adopt Aristotle’s language of mimesis=poiesis (imitation is making), with the addition of the Pauline category of union with Christ. Kinda like how we imitate Christ as we are in Christ. This would need to be fleshed out more; someone has already done this probably. The “Art and Morality” section was also surprisingly good.
The discussion of genres is really thought-provoking. The section spoke about how the Enlightenment was the first time that all the fine arts (dancing, music, painting, sculpture, poetry, etc.) were put into one category and considered together. I want to argue that perhaps, this is not actually helpful. It’s more helpful to distinguish how they are different and accomplish different things, imo. Here a great quote though: “The object of painting is bodies existing alongside one another in space. The object of poetry is actions which succeed one another in time” (496). Novels particularizes time and space, and thus requires new events, new plots to tell, instead of the retelling of the same story (as done previously). Lyric poetry is expressive instead of imitative, and drama… what does drama do?
There is a whole lot more that the book talked about, but I don’t really have many great thoughts on them, because I never considered them in the first place: political theory, history-telling, sociology, revolutions, etc. But I do want to talk about one more thing: luxury. There was this ongoing debate over whether luxury was good or bad, because it was the first time in society where a large middle-class was forming and attaining luxuries. Some thinkers argued that luxuries made people slothful and lazy, causing the downfall of societies (like the Roman Empire), while others thought that there’s nothing wrong with luxury—in fact, it improved human standards of living and was good for people. I think this should still be an ongoing debate, at least for the Christian world. How comfortable should we be? How much luxury is too much luxury? At the end of the day, we are arguing over a gray area, but it is good for us to think critically about the way we live our lives. Perhaps a bit of discomfort might actually be beneficial for us.
The last thing I want to say is that the book does a good job considering high-level theoretical philosophy on its own terms, without determining historical progression and actions through the lens of theoretical philosophy. The French Revolution really was not that much influenced by the Enlightenment. And the political and social changes that happened during the era came from many people who did not care about the philosophes in Paris. I appreciate this mode of history-telling.
January 11, 2023
A fact-based, dispassionate account of a controversial period in the history of Western civilisation. In this remarkably well-documented discussion of the intellectual, social, cultural, political, and economic dimensions of the Enlightenment, Robertson seeks to be as objective as possible, avoiding the two extremes in which many Enlightenment scholars are all too prone to fall: that of blaming the age for sowing the seeds of later evils (e.g., the violence erupting in the immediate aftermath of the French Revolution), and that of viewing the Enlightenment as a glorious feat of progress without parallel in human history. To give just one example of Robertson's ambition of presenting an unbiased picture of the age, he gives due credit to the achievements of Enlightenment's great thinkers, but, at the same time, he does not neglect some of the darker pages associated with the Enlightenment, like the continuation of questionable colonial policies. To be precise, Robertson argues that violent attempts to change the structure of society were never directly advocated for by the likes of Rousseau, Voltaire, Smith, Hume, Montesquieu, and others. These thinkers were moderates, not radicals, and Robertson sees it as an injustice to attribute the failed political enterprises of subsequent centuries to the ideas expressed by Enlightenment intellectuals.
Read
August 26, 2025In this book, Robertson elaborates on the idea that the Enlightenment was, mostly, a movement that changed how people conceived of the possibility of happiness. Before the Enlightenment, Robertson says, people conceived of happiness as a future state, possible only in heaven. However, even in this other realm, happiness would be almost unattainable due to obstacles imposed by "original sin," personal faults, and the whims of a superior being.
The standard belief was that life was supposed to be hard, dry, and painful.
With the Enlightenment, scientific advances, technological progress, new ways of appreciating the arts, and criticism of religion and absolutism all served the goal of enabling people to believe in and enjoy happiness on earth.
The author does a pretty good job at presenting different views among the major figures of the enlightenment. if the Enlightenment was a 'project', it was only in a sense that these 'philosophes' felt that it was possible to live in a world were we could have some choice over who we want to be and enjoy the process. How this was going to be realized was open to criticism, and as Robertson tries to show, they knew that was the case.
The book could be less scattered and more focused on some sections, but it is engaging enough to make you want to read it through.
The standard belief was that life was supposed to be hard, dry, and painful.
With the Enlightenment, scientific advances, technological progress, new ways of appreciating the arts, and criticism of religion and absolutism all served the goal of enabling people to believe in and enjoy happiness on earth.
The author does a pretty good job at presenting different views among the major figures of the enlightenment. if the Enlightenment was a 'project', it was only in a sense that these 'philosophes' felt that it was possible to live in a world were we could have some choice over who we want to be and enjoy the process. How this was going to be realized was open to criticism, and as Robertson tries to show, they knew that was the case.
The book could be less scattered and more focused on some sections, but it is engaging enough to make you want to read it through.
July 3, 2023
This book is a challenge and a tough one. If you are not really familiar with the main writers and philosophers of the 18th century, you will find yourself lost or fooled by comparisons and quotes. Although Ritchie does not imply that his reader should obtain a degree before taking the book and generously provides context, his extreme scope of knowledge is still not an easy thing to handle. But the beauty of this book is equally far-reaching, as it's free of presentism — e.g. explaining things from the modern standpoint — and is cleverly structured. Unlike many modern non-fiction works, Ritchie does not want to plant a singular thought or opinion about the Enlightenment. No, he shows its variety, shortcomings and battles myths about its influence. From childcare to slavery and defining modern political systems, this is a book fool of insights. As I ended it with a giant amount of notes and index stickers, I can not recommend it enough — and hope to take some time in the future for a proper revision and study.
February 2, 2023
At around 800 pages, this is a comprehensive topical (and non-chronological) coverage of the Enlightenment. Focused on the Enlightenment as not only an age of reason but one of feeling and sensibility, Robertson paraphrases the Enlightenment authors extensively, showing how the Enlightenment was a conversation, not a monolith, about subjects ranging from religious toleration to human nature to forms of government and much else besides. One of the best books of intellectual scholarship I have read in recent years and highly recommended for anyone wanting to understand the modern world today.
Read
August 14, 2023Had this on Audible and just had to go out now and order it so I have it on the book shelf. What a listen.
Robertson is someone I will be coming back too again after this fantastic book. Like other great books, it will span another 1000 hours and more of other ideas that he opens you up to. Voltaire, Burke, Paine the list is endless. The Enlightenment must be understood now more than ever and its critics faced full on and debated for as he says in his closing conclusion, these critics actually help with their critiques as we look to refine and make it better, even now.
Robertson is someone I will be coming back too again after this fantastic book. Like other great books, it will span another 1000 hours and more of other ideas that he opens you up to. Voltaire, Burke, Paine the list is endless. The Enlightenment must be understood now more than ever and its critics faced full on and debated for as he says in his closing conclusion, these critics actually help with their critiques as we look to refine and make it better, even now.
May 24, 2022
Absolutely stunning and enlightening. Whatever terrible year 2020 was, but together with Hankins - Virtue Politics and Capital And Ideology of Piketty, was this one of the better books I read in a long long time.
Deserved to be help on par with Cassirer, Gay and Israel as the best books on the Enlightenment.
Deserved to be help on par with Cassirer, Gay and Israel as the best books on the Enlightenment.
May 1, 2023
Quite a feat to listen to more than 40 h of non-fiction, but it is worth it. I learned tons about the diverse ideas of enlightenment in a easy to follow style that nevertheless does not assume the reader is an idiot. The narrator has a pleasant voice, even though he is plagued by the many German and French names and titles in the text. 🤣
February 8, 2022
full of great detail and worthy of study but not a place to start. I would recommend Will Durant first.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 134 reviews