PHILOSOPHICALTRADITIONS GeneralEditor AmelieOksenberg Rorty I.John M.Rist(editor),7heStoics 2.AmelieOksenberg Rorty (editor),EssaysonAristotle'sEthics 3.MylesBurnyeat (editor),7heSkepticalTradition 4.AmelieOksenberg Rorty (editor),EssaysonDescartes'sMeditations 5.RichardSchacht (editor),Nietzsche,Genealogy,Morality:EssaysonNietzsche's Genealogy of Morals 6.AmelieOksenberg Rorty (editor),EssaysonAristotle'sRhetoric 7.JamesSchmidt (editor),WhatIsEnlightenment?Eighteenth-CenturyAnswersand Twentieth-CenturyQuestions What IsEnlightenment? Eighteenth-Century Answersand Twentieth-Century Questions EDITEDBY JamesSchmidt UNIVERSITYOFCALIFORNIAPRESS BerkeleyLosAngelesLondon University of California Press Berkeley and LosAngeles,California University of CaliforniaPress London,England Copyright1996 by The Regents of theUniversity of California Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data What isEnlightenment? : eighteenth-century answersandtwentieth-century questions/ edited by James Schmidt. p.em.- (Philosophicaltraditions; 7) Includesbibliographical referencesand index. ISBN 0-520-20225-2(alk.paper).- ISBN0-520-20226-0(pbk.: alk.paper) I. Enlightenment.I. Schmidt,James.II.Series. B802.W471996 190-dc20 Printed intheUnitedStates of America 2345689 95-46975 CIP Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirementsof AmericanNational StandardforInformationSciences-PermanenceofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials, ANSIZ39.48-1984 i CONTENTS PREFACEIIX Introduction:What IsEnlightenment? AQuestion,ItsContext,and SomeConsequencesII JamesSchmidt Part I.THEEIGHTEENTH-CENTURYDEBATEI45 1.The Question andSome AnswersI47 What IstoBeDone towardtheEnlightenment of theCitizenry?(1783)I49 JohannKarl Miihsen On theQuestion:What IsEnlightenment?(1784)I53 MosesMendelssohn AnAnswertotheQuestion:What IsEnlightenment?(1784)I58 ImmanuelKant Thoughts on Enlightenment (1784)I65 KarlLeonhard Reinhold ACoupleof GoldNuggets,fromthe ... Wastepaper, or Six AnswerstoSix Questions (1789)I78 ChristophMartinWieland 2.The PublicUseof ReasonI85 On Freedom of Thought and of thePress:ForPrinces, Ministers,and Writers (1784)I87 ErnstFerdinandKlein v V! CONTENTS On Freedom of thePress and ItsLimits:For Consideration by Rulers, Censors,and Writers (1787)I97 CarlFriedrichBahrdt Publicity(I 792)I114 FriedrichKarlvonMoser Reclamation of theFreedom of Thought fromthePrincesof Europe, Who Have Oppressed It UntilNow (1793)I119 JohannGottliebFichte 3.Faith and EnlightenmentI143 Letter toChristian Jacob Kraus (18December1784)I145 JohannGeorgHamann MetacritiqueonthePurism of Reason(1784)I154 JohannGeorgHamann On Enlightenment:IsIt and Could It BeDangerous totheState, toReligion,or Dangerous inGeneral? A Word toBeHeeded by Princes, Statesmen, and Clergy (I 7 88)I168 AndreasRiem 4.The Politicsof EnlightenmentI189 Something LessingSaid:ACommentary on Journeys ofthePopes(!782)I191 FriedrichHeinrich Jacobi True and FalsePolitical Enlightenment (I 792)I212 FriedrichKarlvonMoser On theInfluenceof Enlightenment on Revolutions(1794)I217 JohannHeinrichTiiftrunk DoesEnlightenment Cause Revolutions?(1795)I225 JohannAdam Bergk Part II.HISTORICALREFLECTIONSI233 TheBerlin Wednesday SocietyI235 GunterBirtsch The SubversiveKant:The Vocabulary of "Public" and "Publicity"I253 JohnChristianLaursen On Enlightenment fortheCommon ManI270 JonathanB.Knudsen Modern Culture Comes of Age:Hamann versusKant on theRoot Metaphor of EnlightenmentI291 GarrettGreen CONTENTS Jacobi's Critique of theEnlightenmentI306 DaleE.Snow Early Romanticism and the AujkldrungI317 FrederickC.Beiser Progress:Ideas,Skepticism,and The Heritage of theEnlightenmentI330 RudolphVierhaus Part III.TWENTIETH-CENTURYQUESTIONSI343 What IsEnlightenment?I345 Rudiger Bittner Reason Against Itself:SomeRemarks on EnlightenmentI359 MaxHorkheimer What IsEnlightened Thinking?I368 GeorgPicht What IsCritique?I382 Michel Foucault The Unity of ReasonintheDiversity of ItsVoicesI399 JurgenHabermas The Battleof Reason with theImaginationI426 HartmutBO"hmeandGernotBiihme TheFailureof Kant's ImaginationI453 JaneKneller TheGender of EnlightenmentI4 71 RobinMaySchott Autonomy,Individuality,and Self-DeterminationI488 LewisHinchman Enlightened Cosmopolitanism:The PoliticalPerspective of theKantian "Sublime"I517 KevinPaulGeiman CONTRIBUTORSTOPARTSIIANDIIII533 SELECTBIBLIOGRAPHYI537 INDEXI555 V!! PREFACE Latein1783anarticlethatappearedinaBerlin journalasked,almostin passing,"What isenlightenment?"Forthenextdecadeadebateon thena-tureandlimitsofenlightenmentragedinpamphletsand journals.Inthe process,theideals and aspirationsof theEnlightenment weresubjected toa scrutinysothoroughitisonlyaslightexaggerationtosuggestthatsubse-quentcriticshaveraisedfewpointsthat werenotalready consideredinthe 1780s. Onlyoneoftheseessays-ImmanuelKant's"AnAnswertotheQues-tion:WhatIsEnlightenment?" -iswellknownintheEnglish-speaking world.Thisbook beginsthelong-overduetaskof acquaintingreaderswith some of the others. Part I provides aselection of some of the more important contributionstotheeighteenth-centuryGermandiscussionof thequestion "Whatisenlightenment?"PartIIbringstogetheranumberofrecent essaysonthehistoricalcontextinwhichthisdiscussiontookplaceandon thosewho participated inthedebate.The essaysgathered in Part III reflect onthesignificanceoftheseeighteenth-centuryanswersforourowntime. Inthisprefatorynote,Iwouldliketosketchthegeneralrationalebehind theselection,editing,andtranslationof theessaysthatconstitutethisvol-umeandtooffersomethankstothosewhoaidedinbringingthisbookto completion. WhiletheEnlightenment wasaEuropean event,thedebateon thequestion "What isenlightenment?" wasuniquely German.For reasons that defy easy explanation,neitherFrenchphilosophesnorScottishmoralists(toname only thetwomostlikelyparties)wereasconcernedastheirGerman-speak-ingcolleagueswiththequestionofwhatenlightenmentwas.Inselecting essaysfromtheGerman discussionof thequestion,Ihavebeen guided both lX XPREFACE by myownsenseof whatthedebatewasabout(asubjectIdiscussatsome lengthintheintroduction)andbythechoicesofthosewhohavegone beforeme.NorbertHinskeandMichaelAlbrecht'sWasistAujklarung?Bei-trageausderBerlinischenMonatsschrift(Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchge-sellschaft,1973)reprintedawide-rangingselectionofarticlesfromthe journalthat firstlaunchedthediscussionof thequestion"Whatisenlight-enment?"It wasquicklyfollowedbyEhrard Bahr'sWasist Aujklarung?The-senundDifmitionen(Stuttgart:Reclam,1974),whichbroughttogetherafew of themoreimportantcontributionsfromother journals,andbyZwiBat-scha'sselectionofessaysonthesubsequentdiscussionoffreedomofthe press,AujklarungundGedankenfreiheit(Frankfurt:Suhrkamp,1977).Mention shouldalsobemadeofFrenchandSpanishtranslationsofsomeofthese essays-Jean Mondot,Qy'est-cequelesLumieres?(Saint-Etienne:Publications del'UniversitedeSaint-Etienne,1991)andAgapitoMaestreandJose Romagosa,c"QyeesIlustraci6n?(Madrid:Technos,1988).Whilethesecollec-tionsdifferintheirchoicesandfocus,thereareafewcommonpointsof contact. SincemanyoftheleadingintellectualsinGermanyparticipatedinthe discussionofthequestion"Whatisenlightenment?"itisdifficultforany collection toignore thecontributionsof Kant,MosesMendelssohn, Johann GeorgHamann,FriedrichHeinrichJacobi,andChristophMartinWie-land.ThedebatewasalsojoinedbywriterssuchasFriedrichKarlvon MosP-r,CarlBahrdt,andKarlLeonhardReinholdwho,whilewellknown ineighteenth-centuryGermany,maynotbefamiliartopresent-dayread-ers.AndreasRiempresentsauniquecase:thenotorietyhegainedinthe lateeighteenthcentury restslargely onhispamphletUberAujklarung,oneof themost widely read contributions tothedebate.Other contributions merit inclusionbecauseof theirhistoricalimportance;forexample, JohannKarl Mohsen'slecturewasinstrumentalinlaunchingthedebateinthefirst place.Certainessaysbyobscureauthorswhoremainedobscure(suchas JohannHeinrichTieftrunkandAdamBergk)areincludedbecausethey developlinesof argumentthathelpustoseethebroaderimplicationsof the question.Finally, Johann Gottlieb Fichte's essay on freedomof thought, whilenotdirectlyaddressingthequestion"Whatisenlightenment?"isa major contribution to discussion of freedom of the press towhich the debate on enlightenment led. Despite the labors of German historians over the last several decades,the GermanEnlightenmentremains,atbest,arumorinmuchof theEnglish-speakingworld.ItisworthrememberingthatBerlinwasoneofthemore importantintellectualcentersineighteenth-centuryEuropeandthatthe debateon thenatureof enlightenment wasborn out of thesensethat it was timetotakestockof whathadbeenaccomplishedintheway of enlighten-mentinPrussiaandwhattheprospectsmightbeforafurtherenlighten-PREFACE Xl ment,bothinbeyond.Theessaysinthesecondpartofthis bookexplorethehistoncalcontextthatgaverisetothisstocktakin Gunter Birtschprovidesanaccountof theBerlinWednesdaySociety groupof .civilservantsandmenof letterswhoinaugurated dis- ofthequestwn;JonathanKnudsenexaminesdiscussionsofthe of"popularenlightenment";FrederickC.Beisertracestherela-tiOnshipbetweentheEnlightenmentandromanticism;andRudolphVier-haus analyzestheEnlightenment's faithinand skepti.cismabot ..,u,progress. JohnChnshanLaursen'saccountofKant'snotionofpublitD1 S 'd".,CIy,ae sIscusswnof Jacobi s political thought,andGarrett Green's exami-nationofHamann's :ritiqueof theEnlightenmentreflectonthepositions of someof themoreImportant participants in thedebate. Theanswersthattheeighteenthcenturygavetothequestion"Wht rh?"aIS en Igtenment.arenot,however,of historicalinterestonly.TheEnlight-enment stands at thethreshold of themodernageandthese ,answersInevi-tablytell agooddealabouthowwemakesenseofourownsituation. essays .mthe partof thisbookattempt,fromavarietyof perspec-tives,toraisequestiOnsabouttheeighteenthcentury'sanswers.Emphasis here beenonthat areeither unpublished,untranslated,or otherwisenotreadilyavailable.RudigerBittner,MaxHorkheimer,Michel Foucault,andJurgenHabermasposesomegeneralquestionsaboutthe current. status the ."projectof .enlightenment."GeorgPichtexploresthe theologicalramificatwnsofenlightenedthinking.HartmutandGt B .. herno o. me .andKneller investigatethetensionbetween reason and imagi-m sthought.RobinMaySchottandLewisHinchmanscruti-mzetheEnlightenment's ideal of "autonomy." Finally,Kevin Paul Geiman offerssomereflectionsonthecosmopolitanhopesthatinformedKt' ....ans wntmgson politics. Theproblemof relation.shipof historicaltextstopresent-day concerns totheforemaparticularlyforcefulwayintheactoftranslation. This.Isnottheplaceforanextendedconsiderationofthehermeneutic that surround every attempt tomovetexts fromone language and one .agemtoan?ther.Itmaysufficetolay out afewof thegeneralconsid- thatgmdedthiswork.Ideally(and,of course,intranslationmore thanmanyotherhumanendeavor,thingswillnever beideal)thereshould beaway o: theseeighteenth-century German textsthat respects boththehistoncaldistancethatseparatesusfromtheEnlightenmtd hf..enan tetiesoand usage stillbind ustoit.Instriking thisbalance betweenanachromsmandarchaism,ithelpstorememberthatthewriters of. theGerm.anEnlightenmentreadEnglishbooksand shared acertainter-mmologywiththeircounterpartsinotherpartsofEuropeHen ...ce,on encountenngthetermmoralzscheGifiihleitmightbeworthremembering XII PREFACE thatthewriter waslikelythinkingof whatScottishmoralistscalled"moral sentiments"-not"moralfeelings"-orthat,intheeighteenthcentury, aMenschenrechtwasa"RightofMan,"nota"humanright."Butother termsthateighteenth-centuryGermanandEnglishoncesharedarenow losttotranslators.Atthecloseoftheeighteenthcentury,whenJohn RichardsontranslatedKant'sfamousdefinitionofEnlightenment-"der AusgangdesMenschenausseinerselbstverschuldetenUnmiindigkeit"-theEnglish"nonage"providedhimwiththeperfecttermforcapturing whatKantmeantbyUnmiindigkeit.Whilewehavekept"dotage,"weno longerhave"nonage,"sothetranslatormustbeataretreatto"imma-turity."Butother,lessopaquearchaismsareworthpreserving,ifonlyto drivehomethat thesearenot textsfromour own time.Thus ineighteenth-century Englishasineighteenth-century German,onecould render asupe-rior"eyeservice"aswellas"lipservice,"andthereisawholelexiconof now-forgottentermsforinsultingclergythatfreethinkingEnglishshared withfreethinkingGermans.It isprobably worthafewfootnotestoremind readers of what our languageonce could do. Eighteenth-centuryGermanwasstill,inmanyways,influx,andphilo-sophicalandpoliticalterminologywasbynomeanssettled.Vocabularies differradicallyfromauthortoauthor.Bergk,Tieftrunk,andFichtemade extensiveuseoftheterminologyofKant'scriticalphilosophy,andcon-ventionsfortranslatingthatterminologyarereasonablywellestablished. ButMendelssohnandReinholddrewheavilyonthevocabularyofChris-tianWolff,andsincesolittleWolffhasbeentranslatedintoEnglishthe translatormusttakeadetourfromWolff'sGermanwritingstohisLatin writingsandfromtheretrytofindawaybacktoEnglish.Indealingwith Hamann,whooncewrotethat"tospeakistotranslate-fromthetongue ofangelsintothetongueofmen,"itisneverclearwhatlanguageheis speaking.Writers'stylesdiffer,asdotheirintendedaudiences.Wieland tried tobe witty (and,at times,naughty),Bahrdt's discussionof freedomof thepressdrewonthevocabularyofnaturallawtheories,theessaysby RiemandJacobiseethewithanger,andErnstFerdinandKlein'sessay takestheformof an extended impersonation of Frederick theGreat.These differencesinterminologyandstyleareworthpreservingsincetheydrive homerather powerfully thedifferencesin voicesthat wereacentral part of that great cosmopolitanargument that wastheEnlightenment. Sincetheeditorandtranslatorsworkedfromeighteenth-centuryorigi-nals,thereareafewcaseswhereerrorsthathavecreptintosubsequent Germanreprintshavebeen corrected.Theseare,forthemostpart,minor, but at least now readers willknow that theofficer who quipped that limiting freedomofthepressinordertopromotepoliticalstabilitywouldbelike paving thecountrysidetoprevent molesfromharming thefieldswasnot-asZwiBatscha'sreprinthasit-General vonRyanbutratherGeneralvon PREFACEXIII Kyau.Efforts havealsobeenmadetolet readers know who people likeGen-eral vonKyau wereandtoclarify someof thereferencesandallusionsthat arelikelytostymiepresent-day readers.Inthecaseof thatnotoriously her-meticwriter Hamann,thishasresulted in arather extensivebody of notes. Allthatremainsistoofferthanksformoney,advice,andassistance.The NationalEndowment fortheHumanities(NEH)hasbeenexceedingly gen-erousinitssupport of thisproject.Ifirstcametoappreciatethecomplexity oftheeighteenth-centuryGermandiscussionofthequestion"Whatis enlightenment?" asaresult of an NEH Fellowship forUniversity Teachers. AsthedirectorofthreeNEHSummerSeminarsforCollegeTeachers,I wasabletoexploretheseessayswith scholarswhoshared my sensethatthe questionsaskedintheeighteenthcenturystillmatter.Agrantfromthe NEHDivisionof TextsandTranslationsprovidedthefundsnecessaryto beginworkonthetranslation.IamgratefultoStephenRossof theNEH andDavidBerndtoftheOfficeofSponsoredProgramsatBostonUni-versityfortheirencouragementandadviceintheprocessof applyingfor fundingandtoSusanTomassettioftheUniversityProfessorsProgramat Boston University forher aid inadministering thesegrants. Boththetranslatorsandtheeditorhavespentthelastseveralyears annoyingfriends,colleagues,and,sometimes,totalstrangerswithpleasfor helpintranslatingopaquepassagesandinidentifyingobscureallusions. ParticularthanksgotoKarlAmeriks,JamesBernauer,DanielBreazeale, WalterFelscher,AnkeFinger,JohnGagliardo,GeorgediGiovanni,Gail Hueting,JohnS.King,RamonaNaddaff,KristinPfefferkorn-Forbath, SabineRoehr,AlexandervonSchoenborn,StevenScully,andW.Daniel Wilson.FrederickBeiser,RudigerBittner,KennethHaynes,Dorothy Rogers, JonathanKnudsen,andGittaSchmidtwereofenormoushelpin reviewingthetranslations and suggesting revisions. IamgreatlyindebtedtoKevinGeiman,GarrettGreen,LewisHinch-man,ArthurHirsch,KennethHaynes,JaneKneller,JonathanKnudsen, John Christian Laursen,Dale Snow,and Thomas Wartenberg fortheeffort they put intotheirworkonthisbook and fortheir friendship.It hasbeen a joy towork withthem. Finally,itisunlikelythatIwouldhaveembarkedonthisprojecthadit not been for Amelie Rorty's enthusiasm, and inconceivable that I would have finisheditwithout her continued encouragement,her constant counsel,and her ever-increasing threats. Introduction What IsEnlightenment?AQuestion, ItsContext,andSomeConsequences JamesSchmidt TheEnlightenmenthasbeenblamedformany things.Ithasbeenheldre-sponsiblefortheFrenchRevolution,fortotalitarianism,andfortheview thatnatureissimplyanobjecttobedominated,manipulated,andex-ploited.IthasalsobeenimplicatedinonewayoranotherinEuropean imperialism and themost aggressiveaspectsof capitalism.Whilesomehave insisted that itsskepticismabout "absolute values"infects our culture witha "nihilisticsluggishness,"othershavesuggestedthatliberalsocietiesshould divest themselves of the Enlightenment's obsession with "philosophical foun-dations." 1 Itissaidthatitspassionforrightsandlibertiesunleashedade-structiveindividualismthatunderminesanysenseofcommunity.2 Yetit hasalsobeenarguedthatitsassumptionthathumannaturewasinfinitely malleablehasprovidedtheintellectualinspirationforattemptsbytotal-itarianstatestoeradicatealltracesof individualityfromtheirsubjects.3It hasbeencriticizedforitsinsensitivitytothetragiccharacterof moralcon-flictsandforitsnaiveassumptionthatalldilemmashavesimplesolutions.' It hasbeenarguedthatitsattempttoconstructamoralphilosophyended infailure,leavinguswitheitheranimpoverishedmoralvisionthatsup-pressesallvaluesthatcannotbereducedtoinstrumentalefficiencyora corruptedmoraldiscourseinwhichethicalevaluationsarenothingmore thanamaskforindividualpreferences. 5 Ithasbeencastigatedforitsaffec-tionfor"mastermetanarratives"anditshostilitytoward"otherness. "6 Its racismand itssexismhavenot passed unnoticed. 7 Lookingoverthislistofcharges,onewondershowoneperiodcould havebeenresponsibleforsomuchandsomanydifferentkindsofharm. Puzzledbythemultitudeof accusationsleveledagainstit-and astonished atthediversity of itscritics-one might wellask,"What isenlightenment?" It turnsout that thequestionisnotanewone. 1 2INTRODUCTION EIGHTEENTH-CENTURYANSWERS InDecember1783,theBerlinischeMonatsschriflpublishedanarticlebythe theologianandeducationalreformer JohannFriedrichZollnerquestioning theadvisabilityof purely civilmarriageceremonies.Observingthatalltoo often"under thenameof enlightenmenttheheartsandmindsof menare bewildered,"heaskedinafootnote,"Whatisenlightenment?Thisques-tion,whichisalmostasimportantaswhatistruth,shouldindeedbe answeredbeforeonebeginsenlightening!AndstillIhaveneverfoundit answered!"8 Hedidnot havetowait long forananswer.Withinayear,the BerlinischeMonatsschriflpublishedresponsesfromMosesMendelssohnand ImmanuelKant.9 Other authorsentered thefray,andthedebatespreadto other journals. 10Bytheendofthedecade,thediscussionhadbecomeso pervasivethat whenChristophMartin Wieland,aloneinhisprivy,glanced at thepieceof wastepaperhehad picked uptocompletehistask,hefound himselfstaringatalistof sixquestionsthatbeganwith"WhatisEnlight-enment?"11 Theseattemptsatdefiningenlightenmentdidlittletodispelthecon-fusionthat had grown uparound theterm.Looking back over the literature Zollner'squestionhadspawned,theauthorof ananonymous1790article intheDeutscheMonatsschriflarguedthatthetermhadbecomesodivorced fromanyclearconventionsof usagethatdiscussionsof ithaddegenerated into"awarofallagainstall,"betweencombatantswhomarshaledtheir ownidiosyncraticdefinitions. 12Thelackofacleardefinitionoftheterm can in part beattributed tothe way the grounds of the debateshifted in the courseofthediscussion.Atfirst,thequestion"Whatisenlightenment?" centeredontheissueof howmuchenlightenment of thecitizenry waspos-sibleor desirableand,moreconcretely,on whetherafurtherliberalization ofcensorshipregulationswasadvisable. 13Thesequestionstookonanew urgency inthesecond phaseof thedebate,whichcommenced with Johann ChristophWoellner'sReligionandCensorshipedictsof1788.Thedebate on censorshipwasnowintimately intertwined withthequestionof thepos-sibletensionsbetweenenlightenmentand faith.14 Finally,withtheoutbreak of theFrench Revolution-and especially after theexecutionof LouisXVI in January1793-the discussionwasextendedtoencompassthequestion of whetherenlightenmentnecessarilyunderminedpublicauthority and led topoliticalturmoil. 15Thusbythecloseof theeighteenthcentury,answer-ingthequestion"Whatisenlightenment?"meantexploringtherelation-shipbetween public discussion,religiousfaith,and political authority. ThePublicUseof Reason ItisdoubtfulthatZollnerwasasconfusedaboutthemeaningofAujkliir-ungashisarticleimplied.LikeMendelssohn,Zollnerwasamemberof the INTRODUCTION3 Mittwochsgesellschaft,asecretsocietyof"Friendsof theEnlightenment" closelylinkedtotheBerlinischeMonatsschrifl. 16 On17December1783-the monthof Zollner'srequestforadefinition-J. K. W.Mohsenreadapaper tothesocietyonthequestion"Whatistobedonetowardstheenlighten-mentof fellowcitizens?"whichurgedmemberstodetermine"what isen-lightenment." 17Discussionofthetopiccontinuedoverthenextseveral months,withMendelssohndeliveringalectureinMay1784thatservedas thebasisof hissubsequentarticleintheBerlinischeMonatsschrifl. 18Zollner's footnotewasthuslessatestimonytohisignoranceof thetermthantothe intenseinterestinthequestionwithinthesmall group of influentialmenof letters, jurists,and civilservants whomadeup theMittwochsgesellschaft. TheMittwochsgesellschaftwasarecentadditiontothehostofsecret societiesthatflourishedinPrussiaandtheotherGermanstatesinthelast half of theeighteenth century. 19Such societiessatisfiedanumber of needs. In an agein which many individuals no longer foundmeaning intherituals of orthodox religion,theceremonies associatedwithsomeof thesesocieties maywellhaveprovidedanappealingandpowerfulsubstitute.20 Inapo-liticalsystemthatofferedfewopportunitiesfortheexerciseofpolitical agency outside of thebureaucratic structureof the monarchical state, many ofthesesocietiesfurnishedanarenainwhichpoliticalopinionscouldbe debatedandprogramsforreformarticulated.21Andfinally,inasociety withastrictly definedsocialhierarchy,secretsocietiesprovided asetting in which members of differentreligions,professional groups,and socialclasses could come into contact with one another and find a fellowship and solidarity that wasnotavailableinthepublicrealm. 22 AsMohsennotedattheclose of histalk,themembersof theMittwochsgesellschaftcouldcarry outtheir responsibilitiesas"well-intentionedpatriots"onlybecause"thesealof se-crecy"protectedthemfromboththefearofoffendingpatronsandthe "thirst forhonor or praise."23 InhislecturetotheMittwochsgesellschaft,Mohsenwasfarfromsan-guineaboutthefutureprospectsforenlightenmentinPrussia.Whilehe began by hailingthetriumphof enlightenmentinBerlin,herather quickly suggested that one of themost crucial tasksfacingthe Mittwochsgesellschaft wastodetermine whytheidealsof theEnlightenment had beenresistedby muchofthepublic.Behindthequestion"Whatisenlightenment?"stood the more troubling question of "why enlightenment hasnot progressed very farwithourpublic,despitemorethanfortyyearsof freedomtothink,to speak,andalsotopublish."24 The"fortyyears"of whichMohsenspeaks referstothereignof Frederick theGreat,whohad begunhisreignwith an easingofcensorshiplawsandatolerationof divergentviewsonreligious questions.Politicaldissent,however,waslesswelcomeandasGotthold EphraimLessingbitterlyobserved,allthatFrederick's' r e f o r ~ sultimately amountedtowasthefreedom"tomakeasmanyidioticremarksagainst 4 INTRODUCTION religionasonewants."ContrastingwhatcouldbesaidinPrussiaabout politicalissueswithwhatwasbeingwritteninVienna,France,andDen-mark,Lessingconcluded that Frederick ruledover"the mostenslavedland in Europe."25 By the1780s,calls foraloosening of censorship had begun to appearinthepress,includingananonymousessay(subsequentlydeter-mined tohavebeen written by the jurist and Mittwochsgesellschaftmember ErnstFriedrichKlein)publishedintheBerlinischeMonatsschriftinwhichthe author,speakinginwordstakenfromthewritingsof theyoungFrederick, implicitlycriticizedFrederick'scurrentpoliciesbysubtlyurgingtheaging monarch to followtheexampleof his younger self. 26 Mi:ihsen'slecturelaunched adebatewithintheMittwochsgesellschafton howfartheremovalofrestrictionsonthefreedomofpressshouldpro-ceed. 27 Atissuewastheconcernthatafreeandunrestricteddiscussionof religious,moral,andpoliticalconcernsmightunderminetheconventional moresand beliefson which society rested.Somemembers feltthat thedan-gersassociatedwithtoorapidan"enlightenment"of thepublic wereover-stated.Mendelssohnremindedthefaintheartedthat"whenweighingthe advantagesanddisadvantagesbroughtaboutbyenlightenmentandthe revolutionswhichhavearisenfromit,oneshoulddifferentiatebetweenthe firstyearsof acrisisand thetimeswhich follow.Theformeraresometimes only seemingly dangerous and are the grounds for improvement." Even if one concededthat"certain prejudices,heldbythenation,mustonaccountof circumstances be spared by all judicious men," Mendelssohn askedwhether thisdeferencetoprejudicesshould"besetthroughlawandcensors"or whether,like"thelimitsof prosperity,gratitude,andsincerity,"itshould be"lefttothediscretionofeveryindividual."Heclosedhisrejoinderby notingthatrecentlytheMontgolfierbrothershadmadethefirstsuccessful hot-airballoonflight.Eventhoughitwasuncertainwhetherthe"great upheaval"causedbytheirachievementwouldleadto"thebettermentof humansociety,"Mendelssohnaskedthemembership,"Wouldoneon accountof thishesitatetopromoteprogress?"Answeringhisownquestion heconcluded,"Thediscoveryofeternaltruthsisinandforitselfgood; their controlisamatter forProvidence. "28 WhileMendelssohn's arguments wereseconded by many in thesociety/9 others weremore wary: The jurist Klein was willing toconcede that, in gen-eral,"everytruthisusefulandeveryerrorharmful."Buthealsoinsisted thatitwasnecessarytoconsiderthepracticalimpactof enlightenmenton different groups within society.Because it issometimes difficult toassimilate individual,isolatedtruths,thesetruthswillremainunconvincingandwith-out effect.It isthus possiblethat "for acertain classof men,acertain error canservetobringthemtoahigherconceptof thingswhichareworthyof greaterattention."Insuchcases,a"useful error"willdomoretopromote thepublicgoodthanthetruth. 3oCarlGottliebSvarez,Klein'scolleaguein INTRODUCTION5 theMinistryofJustice,agreed,notingthatthemoralityofthegeneral publicrestsonbeliefsthatare"uncertain,doubtful,or completely wrong," andsuggestedthatenlightenmentisdangerouswhenit"takesfromthe peoplethesemotivesof ethicallygoodbehaviorandsubstitutesnoother." Insuchcases,"oneadvancesnotenlightenmentbut ratheracorruptionof morality. "31 Thetensionbetweentheagendaof enlightenmentandtheexigenciesof societyliesattheheartof theessaysMendelssohnandKantwroteinre-sponsetoZollner'squestion.WhileMendelssohn'sinitialresponsetoMi:ih-sen'slecturebetrayed fewreservationsabout theconsequencesof increased enlightenment,hisessay intheBerlinischeMonatsschriftwas lessconfident.He distinguished"civilenlightenment"(Biirgeraujkliirung),whichmustadjustit-self accordingtotheranksof society itaddresses,from"human enlighten-ment"(Menschenazifkliirung),which,addressing"man asman"andnot"man ascitizen,"paidheedneithertosocialdistinctionsnortothemaintenance of socialorder.Nothingensuresthatthesetwotypesof enlightenmentwill complement oneanother."Certain truths,"henoted,"whichareusefulto man,asman,can at timesbeharmful to himascitizen."32 In ashort article publishedayear later in theBerlinischeMonatsschrift,hewaseven moreleery oftheabusivetoneofsomeof hiscontemporaries'commentsonreligion. "Nothingismoreopposedtothetruegoodofmankind,"hecautioned, "thanthisshamenlightenment,whereeveryonemouthsahackneyedwis-dom,fromwhichthespirithasalready long vanished,whereeveryonerid-iculesprejudices,withoutdistinguishingwhatistrueinthemfromwhat isfalse. "33 Inhisresponsetothequestion,Kant soughttobalancethedemandsof enlightenedreasonandcivilorderby distinguishingbetween"public"and "private"usesof reason-a distinctionthat has puzzledreaders forthe last two centuries. 34 By "public" use,Kant meant that "use which anyone makes of itasa scholar[Gelehrter]beforetheentire publicof thereadingworld."Itis contrastedtothat"private"usewhichindividualsmakeof theirreasonin thosespecificcivilpostsorofficesthathavebeenentrustedtothem. 35 In one'sprivateuseof reason,onebehaves"passively,"boundbyan"artifi-cialunanimity"toadvanceortodefendcertain"publicends."Onefunc-tionsas"part of amachine,"and"one iscertainlynotallowedtoargue." Incontrast,inone'spublicuseofreason,oneactsas"amemberofthe entirecommonwealth[ganzesgemeinenWesen],indeedevenofacosmopoli-tan society[ Weltbiirgergesellschajt]."Here anindividual"can certainly argue, withouttherebyharmingtheaffairsinwhichheisengagedinpartasa passivemember."Restrictionsontheprivateuseof reasoninnoway con-tradict thegoal of enlightenment,but thepublic useof reason must remain free,since"it alonecan bring aboutenlightenmentamong men."36 WhileMendelssohnwaswillingtoconcedethattheremightbecertain 6 INTRODUCTION unhappycircumstancesinwhichphilosophymustremainsilentlestitpose athreattopublicorder,Kantwasuncompromisinginhisinsistencethat thepublicexerciseofreasonshouldneverberestricted.Examiningthe questionofwhetheritmightbepossiblefora"societyofclergymen"to commititselfbyoathtoanunalterablesetofdoctrines,Kantanswered decisively: Isaythatthisiscompletelyimpossible.Suchacontract,concludedforthe purposeof closingoff foreverallfurtherenlightenment of thehumanrace,is utterlynullandvoidevenif itshouldbeconfirmedbythehighestpower,by Imperial Diets,and bythemostsolemnpeacetreaties." Anattempttorequireconformity toafixedsetof doctrinesisvoidbecause itfailsthetestthatanyproposedlegislationmustpassifitistobelegit-imate.Invoking hisreformulation of social contract theory,Kant explained, "The touchstoneof everything thatcanbeconcludedasalaw forapeople liesinthequestion:couldapeoplehaveimposedsuchalawuponitself?" When weapplythistesttotheproposal torestrictreligiousbelief toafixed setofdoctrines,wefindthatwhileitmightbepossibleforapeopleto agreetosuchrestrictionsonfreeinquiryforashortperiodoftime,"in ordertointroduceacertainorder,asitwere,inexpectationof something better"eveninthiscaseindividuals-"asscholars"-wouldstillretaina righttoputforwardalternativeviewsinwriting. 38 Thuswhileindividual religiousconfessionsmightrequiretheirmemberstoconformtoafixedset ofdoctrines,itwouldbeabsolutelyimpermissibleforthestatetouseits coercivepowertopreventthecriticismofthesedoctrinesinbooksand articles. Faithand Reason Thesediscussionsof thequestionof thelimitsof enlightenmentwereonly thepreludetotheimpassioneddebateoncensorshipsparkedbyan abrupt changeinPrussianpolicyregardingfreedomofexpression.FrederickII diedinAugust1786andwassucceededbyhisnephew,FrederickWilliam II,whoseascenttothethronepromptedconsiderableanxietywithinthe BerlinEnlightenment.39 Intheearly1780s,FrederickWilliamhadbeen drawn toChristian mysticismand wasincreasingly influenced by opponents oftheEnlightenmentsuchashismosttrustedadviser,JohannChristoph Woellner.40 The year beforeFrederick Williambecameking,Woellnersent himatreatiseon religionthat stressedtheimportanceof Christian faithfor supportingthePrussianstate,denouncedthemalevolentinfluenceof such "apostlesofunbelief"asFriedrichGedikeand JohannErichBiester,the publishersof theBerlinischeMonatsschrijt,andcalledforthereplacementof K. A.Zedlitz,theenlightenedheadofthePrussianEcclesiasticalDepart-ment.'1Woellner did not shrink fromcriticizing Frederick himself,charging INTRODUCTION7 thatFrederick'spublicdisplayofhislackofreligiousfaithwasthechief causeof theirreligionand unbelief that wasrifeinBerlin.42 ThefirstSunday afterhisascenttothethrone,FrederickWilliammade itclearthatheintendedtosetadifferentexamplefromthatof hisprede-cessor.Heattended servicesat theMarienkirche, fromwhosepulpit Zollner deliveredoneofhistypicallyunorthodoxandenlightenedsermons.Itis unlikelythatFrederickWilliamwaspleasedbywhatheheard,norcould subsequent visitstothechurches where Johann Joachim Spalding and Frie-drichSamuelGottfriedSackpreachedhavemadehimanymorecomfort-ablewiththereligiousteachingthathadflourishedduringFrederick's reign.43 Zollner, Spalding, Sack, and other enlightened members of the Berlin clergyembracedanapproachtoChristiandoctrineknownas"neology" thatcombinedhistoricalandcriticalapproachestotheinterpretationof Scripturewithanemphasisontheprimacyofthemoralandpractical dimensionsofChristianteaching. 44 Whiletheycontinuedtomaintainthe importanceof revelationasthebasisforChristian faith,theyassumedthat thedoctrinalcontentof thisrevelationcontainednothingbeyondthefun-damentaltenetsof "naturalreligion"andhencewascompletelyaccessible tonaturalhumanreason.Anypartof theScripturesthatpresentedprob-lemsforthem-for example,suchdoctrinesasoriginalsin,eternal punish-ment,orpredestination-wasshownthroughhistoricalandphilological criticismtobeof dubiousauthenticityandwastypicallyavoidedasasub-jectforsermons.45 Theysawnoconflictbetweenenlightenedreasonand Christianfaith:enlightenmentbattledsuperstition,fanaticism,andpreju-dice-and, properly understood,Christianity had nothing todo with super-stition,fanaticism,orprejudice.Thegoaloftheirpreachingandwriting wastopurgesuchmisconceptionsfromthemindsof thefaithfulandinstill asenseofmoralrectitudeandsocialresponsibilitythatoftenextendedto such political mattersastheloyalty of subjectstotheCrown.46 Whileneologistsmayhaveseennoconflictbetweenenlightenedreason andChristianfaith,whenpushedfarenough,theirattemptto"purify" Christianfaithcouldleadtoconclusionsthatwereantitheticaltoconven-tional Christian teaching.Few pushed harder than Hermann Samuel Reima-rusandCarlFriedrichBahrdt.Reimarus'smassiveApology fortheRational Worshipersif God,fragments of which were published by Lessing after Reima-rus'sdeath,arguedthatrevelationcouldaddnothingtowhatwasalready knownthroughnaturalhumanreasonYHecalledintoquestionthehistor-icalveracityofthebiblicalnarrativeandexploredtheinternalcontra-dictionsintheaccountofChrist'sresurrection.Jesus'teachingwasdis-tinguishedfromthatof hisdisciples,whoinReimarus'sviewtransformed whathadbeenanattempttorevitalizeJudaismintoanewreligioncen-teredontheimageof Jesusassaviorof theentirehumanrace.Theresult ofReimarus'scritique,inHenryE.Allison'spithysummary,wasthat 8 INTRODUCTION ''Jesusbecomesregardedasawellmeaning,butdeluded fanatic,theapos-tlescleverandself-seekingdeceivers,andtheChristianreligionacolossal fraud."48 Inmuchthesamespirit,between1782and1785Bahrdtpublisheda seriesofwidelyreadarticlesrecountingthelifeof Jesusinathoroughly rationalizedfashion.49 ConvincedbyJohannAugustEberhardthatthere wasnothinginChrist'steachingthatwasnotalreadypresentinSocrates andpersuadedthataprocessofmythologizationsimilartowhatGedike foundinstoriessurroundingSocrates'birthmustbeatworkintheNew Testament,BahrdtpresentedaJesuswhoseintentionswereconfinedto removing superstition andprejudicefrom Judaism.Hespeculatedthat asa boy Jesushad been instructedinSocrates'teachingsby agroupof Alexan-drianJews,fromwhomhealsolearnedtousemedicationscapableof awakeningindividualsindeathlikecomas-hencetheexplanationforthe "miracles"heallegedlyperformed.Bahrdt'sChristfoundedasecretsoci-ety,whichliketheMasonicmovementwasdedicatedtothespreadof rationalfaithandbrotherhood.Itsmembersnursedhimbacktohealth afterhisnear-fatalencounterwiththecross.Afterafewsubsequentap-pearancesbeforehisfollowers,hewithdrewtospendtherestof hislifein asecret lodge,where fromtimetotimeheadvisedSaint Paul. 5 Inthefaceofwritingssuchasthese,itislittlewonderthatW oellner regarded enlightenment asathreat to thereligiousfabricthat held Prussian societytogether.ButoppositiontoBahrdtcouldalsobefoundamongless reactionary thinkers.For example,the moderateFriedrichKarl von Moser, appalledbyBahrdt'sNewTestamenttranslationof1773,succeededin havinghimremovedfromhisteachingpositionatGiessen. 51 Moserwas wellknownasan advocateof enlightenedabsolutism and constitutionalism, andinhiswritingshesoughttostrikeamiddlecoursebetweenenlighten-mentandorthodoxy.Atpainstodistinguish"trueenlightenment"from "falseenlightenment,"heinsistedthat"allenlightenmentthatisnot groundedinandsupportedbyreligion ... isnotonlythewaytodestruc-tion,immorality,anddepravity,butalsotothedissolutionandruinof all civilsociety,andtoawarof thehumanracewithinitself,thatbeginswith philosophyandendswithscalpingandcannibalism."52 Moserarguedthat whenenlightenment"takesfrommanwhatherequiresforcomfort,light, support,and peace"or"wishestogivehimmorethanhecan use,employ, andmanageaccordingtohispowersofintellectandunderstanding,"it turnsintotheveryenemiesitsoughttothwart.Itbecomes"deception, fraud,fanaticism[Schwiirmerei],treachery against man. "53 DespiteWoellner'srevulsionagainsttheEnlightenment,thefirsttwo yearsof Frederick William'sreignweredifficulttodistinguishfromthatof hisuncle.54 Thebreak cameonlyafter Woellnerhadconsolidatedhisposi-tionwithinthecourt,eventuallyreplacingZedlitzasministerof justiceon INTRODUCTION9 3 July1788 and assuming responsibility over the EcclesiasticalDepartment. SixdayslaterheissuedhisReligionEdict,whichcriticizedProtestant clergyforreviving"themiserable,long-refutederrorsoftheSocinians, deists,naturalists,andother sectarians"anddisseminating them among the peopleinthenameof''Aujkliirung."Whileallowingclergytobelievepri-vatelywhatevertheywished,theedictrequiredadherencetotheBible andthe"symbolicbooks"intheirteaching.Those"so-calledenlighteners [Aujkliirer]"whorefusedtoconformwerethreatenedwithdismissal,and futurecandidatesforpastoralandteachingpositionsweretobecarefully scrutinized sothat there would benodoubts astotheir "internal adherence to thecreed they areemployed toteach. "55 ThereactiontoWoellner'sedict wasimmediateand intense.Prominent membersoftheBerlinclergyincludingWilliamAbrahamTeller,Sack, Spalding, and Zollner requested that their preaching responsibilitiesbeter-minated,andinSeptember1789fiveofthesixclericalmembersofthe Lutheran UpperConsistory resignedtheir positionsinprotest.56 Afloodof pamphletsdenouncedtheedict. 57 In oneof themostwidelyread polemics, AndreasRiem,co-editorof theBerlinischesJournalderAujkliirungandpastor at theFriedrichshospital,launchedapassionateattackonthecentral assump-tion behind the edict-that restrictions on the spread of enlightenment were necessaryinordertopreventanunderminingofthecustomaryreligious faiththatsecurespublicorder. 58 Listingtheatrocitiesspawnedbyreligious fanaticism,Riemarguedthatitwasenlightenmentratherthanreligious orthodoxy that provided themost secure foundation forpolitical rule.Riem publishedhispamphlet anonymously but wassoonidentifiedastheauthor. StatingthathecouldnotabidebytheprovisionsofWoellner'sReligion Edict because they would forcehim toteach doctrines that-since they con-tradicted what could beknownonthebasisof pure reason-were contrary tohisown convictions,heresigned hisposition at theFriedrichshospital. Tosilencecritics,WoellnerissuedtheCensorshipEdictinDecember 1788,whichstipulatedthatwritingsonreligiousmattershadtobesub-mittedtoacommissionforapproval. 59 Whilethismeasuredidforcethe BerlinischeMonatsschriftandFriedrich Nicolai's AllgemeineDeutscheBibliothekto leaveBerlin,prosecutionsundertheedictproveddifficult,sincemostcen-sorsweredrawnfromthesameenlightenedgroupof councillorswhohad opposed W oellner' s ReligionEdict in the firstplace. 60 Inthehopeof secur-ingamoreenergeticenforcementoftheReligionandCensorshipedicts, Woellner establishedthe Summary Commission of Inquiry (lmmediat-Exami-nations-Kommission)inMay1791,entrustedwiththetaskof examiningthe fitnessof clergy and teachersaswellaswith theresponsibility forcensoring theologicalbooks.But heretoohisactionsmet withconsiderableand often successfulopposition,andwhateverhopehemighthavehadforadecisive victory over thepartisans of enlightenment remained frustrated. 61 AsMoser 10 INTRODUCTION observed fouryears later,enlightenment had advanced too fartobeturned back."The timeshavepassed,anditistoolatetotry toshutoutthelight. Thelongeritgoeson,themoreitcomestothis:whetherthislightshould only illuminate and enlighten[leuchtenund erleuchten]or ignite and inflame?"62 Attemptstopreservepublicorder by restraining thefreedomof expression madeasmuchsenseastryingto"pavethemeadows,sothatmolescould not harm them. "63 Nevertheless,Woellner'seffortswerenotentirelywithoutconsequence. Bahrdt wasbrieflyimprisonedinthefortressatMagdeburg forhissatirical farce,DasReligions-Edikt;RiemwasexiledfromPrussiain1793forhispo-liticalcriticismsoftheregime;and,inprobablythemostfamouscase, afterthepublicationofReligionwithintheLimitsof ReasonAlone,Frederick WilliamthreatenedKantwithfuture"unpleasantmeasures"shouldhe continueto"misuse"hisphilosophyto"distort and disparagemanyof the cardinalandbasicteachingsof theHolyScripturesandof Christianity. "64 NorshoulditbeassumedthatWoellner'seffortsmetwithuniversalcon-demnation,evenamongenlightenedintelligentsia.ShortlybeforeJohann GottliebFichtewrotehis"ReclamationoftheFreedomofThoughtfrom thePrincesofEurope"-animpassioneddefenseofthefreedomofthe press-hedraftedashortdefenseof Woellner'sedicts,arguingthatthey wereaimedonlyatabusesof freedomofexpressionthatunderminedthe faithof thecommonpeople.65 ItwasonlyafterhisownCritiqueof All Reve-lationwascensoredinHallethatFichterevisedhisviewsand,drawingon argumentsfromsocialcontracttheory,mountedoneofthemostt ~ e o r e t ically ambitious of eighteenth-century defensesof freedom of expressiOn. Fichte's vacillationislesspuzzling thanitmay initially appear.It should berememberedthattheinstitutionofcensorshipwasbynomeansanath-ematoallpartisansof enlightenment.There wasawidespreadrecognition thattheenlightenmentofthecitizenrymustbesensitivetotheparticular requirementsofthedifferingestateswithinsociety. 66 Inhiscommentson Mohsen'slecturetotheMittwochsgesellschaft,Gedikestressedthaten-lightenmentwasa"relative"conceptdifferentiatedaccordingtosuchcri-teriaas"place,time,rank,sex.""Thoroughgoingequalityofenlighten-ment,"heassuredhisfellowmembers,"isaslittledesirableasfullequality ofranks,andfortunatelyjustasimpossible."67 Becauseenlightenmentis differentiatedaccordingtothedifferingranksinsociety,itfallstothecen-sor to determine, in Svarez's words,"the degree of enlightenment of powers ofcomprehension,ofcapacitiesofthoughtandaction,andof expressive capabilities"appropriatetoeachclass.68 HencewhileSvarezexpressedan admiration forthe efforts of his colleaguestorefineand rationalize morality andreligion,heneverthelesshopedthattheywould"notseektoexplain away anddefineaway hellandthedevil,intheusualsenseof thesewords, fromtheheartofthecommonman."69 ThemembersoftheMittwochs-INTRODUCTION11 gesellschaftand W oellneragreedon at leastthismuch:customary religious beliefswereanindispensablemeansofmaintainingthecoherenceof civil society. 7he Politicsif Enlightenment After1789,anewelemententeredintothediscussionofthequestion "Whatisenlightenment?" -the problemoftherelationshipbetweenen-lightenmentandrevolution.TheFrenchRevolutionmarkedtheculmina-tionofacenturyofpoliticalupheavalsthatbeganinEnglandwiththe "GloriousRevolution"of1688andcontinuedwithuprisingsinHolland (1747andagainin1787),Corsica(1755and1793),Geneva(1768and 1781-1782),theAmericancolonies(1775-1783),London(1780),Ireland (1780-1785),Bohemia(1783),theAustrianNetherlands(1788-1790),and Poland(1791).Writingin1794,Kant'sdisciple,JohannHeinrichTief-trunk,observed,"Wenowliveinacenturyof enlightenment.Shouldthis be said tobean honor or adisgraceforour century?Wealsoliveinacen-turyofrevolutions.Isitenlightenmentwhichcurrentlyunderminesthe peace of states?"70 Thepossibilitythat toomuchor toorapidanenlighten-mentofthecitizenrymightrendthesocialfabrichadhauntedconsid-erationsofthequestion"Whatisenlightenment?"fromtheoutset.But after thesummer of1792,asthenews fromFrancebecamemoreand more disturbing and with French armiesadvancing intotheRhineland,it seemed asif theworst fearsabout enlightenment werebeing confirmed daily. Between1792and1793,theRevolutionentereditsmostradicalphase. InAugust1792,LouisXVIwasdeposedandarevolutionaryrepublices-tablished.Massarrestsofroyalistsympathizersfollowed,manyofwhom wereamongthehundredsof prisonersslaughtered whenmobsenteredthe prisons during the"September Massacres."The newly established National ConventioninitiatedtreasonproceedingsagainstLouis,andhewasexe-cutedin January1793.Bythesummerof1793,the Jacobinshadcrushed theGirondistopposition,andtheCommitteeonPublicSafety inaugurated theReignofTerroragainstsuspectedopponents.AnoticeinanAugust l 793issueof theOberdeutscheAllgemeineLiteraturzeitung,themostprominent journaloftheCatholicenlightenmentinAustria,suggestshowdisturbing thisturnofeventsmusthavebeenforthosewhosupportedthecauseof enlightenment. Theempireofignoranceandsuperstitionwasmovingcloserandcloserto-wardsitscollapse,thelightof theAujkliirungmademoreandmoreprogress, and the convulsive gestures with which thecreatures of the night howled at the dawning day showedclearly enough that they themselvesdespaired of victory andwereonlysummoninguptheirreservesforonefinaldementedcounter-attack.ThenthedisordersinFranceerupted:andnowtheyrearedagain theiremptyheadsandscreechedatthetopsof theirvoices:"Lookthereat 12INTRODUCTION theshockingresultsoftheAujkliirung!Lookthereatthephilosophers,the preachersof sedition!"Everyoneseizedthismagnificentopportunity tospray their poisonat thesupporters of the Aujkliirung.11Asrevolutionturnedtoterror,conservativecriticsofenlightenmentwere transformed,inT. C. W.Blanning'swords,"fromoutmodedalarmistsinto farsightedprophets. "72 TheideathatthereisaconnectionbetweentheEnlightenmentandthe FrenchRevolutionisbynowsofamiliarthatitisdifficulttoimaginehow troublingtherelationmusthaveseemedintheearly1790s.73 Becausewe tendtoassumeanaturalaffinitybetweentheEnlightenmentandliberal politics,weforgetthatmanyAujklii.rerswerenotliberals,thatsomeofthe moreardent liberalswereby nomeans welldisposedtoward theEnlighten-ment,andthatitwasbynomeansassumedthat politicalrevolutionwasa means foradvancing thecauseof enlightened political reforms.In the years immediately following1789,agood deal needed to besorted out. If liberalismisdefinedasaconceptionof politicsthatgivespriorityto "rights"overthe"good"andholdsthatthechiefendofthestateisto secureindividual liberty ratherthantoattain publichappiness,then fewof theleadingfiguresintheBerlinEnlightenmentcouldbeclassifiedaslib-erals.74TheyacceptedChristianWolff'sviewthatitwasthedutyofthe statetoundertakemeasuresthatwouldfurtherthecommonwell-beingof itscitizensandviewedaslegitimatethepolicepowersthatthestateexer-cisedoverthematerialandspirituallivesofitscitizensinpursuitofthis goal. 75Kantinsisted,inanessaypublishedintheBerlinischeMonatsschrifiin September1793,thata"paternalgovernment,"establishedontheprin-cipleof"benevolence"towarditspeople,represented"thegreatestcon-ceivabledespotism"andcalledinsteadfora"patrioticgovernment"inwhich each citizen waspledged todefendtheindividual's right toliberty. 76 But his rejectionof "public well-being"asthepropergoalof politicswasasnovel ashisrejectionof happinessasthefoundationof moralphilosophy.Men-delssohnwasclosertothenorm.SolidlybasedonWolffandhearkening back toAristotle,hesawtheultimate purposeof political lifeasresiding in thegreatestpossibleexpansionofthecapacitiesofitscitizenry.Sucha conception of politics waswilling toaccept adegreeof stateintervention in the livesof itscitizenry that Kant wouldhaverejected as"paternalistic. "77 Justasitwaspossibleineighteenth-centuryPrussiatoembraceenlight-enmentbut eschewliberalism,sotooitwaspossibletoadvocateliberalism whileattackingenlightenment.Nothinkerdemonstratedthisbetterthan FriedrichHeinrich Jacobi.Hisreadingof DavidHumeandThomasReid convincedhimthatreasoncannotattaincertaintyabouttheexistenceof externalobjects.Our experienceof suchobjects,heargued,takestheform of arevelationthatiscompletelybeyondargument,whichhedescribedas INTRODUCTION13 "faith. "78 Carryingthisdichotomy betweenthespheresof faithand knowl-edgeintothedomain of theology,herejected theneological project of rec-oncilingfaithandreason,insistingthatreasonalonecanneverleadusto certaintyofGod'sexistence.InhisfamousdiscussionswithLessingthat sparkedthe"PantheismDispute,"hearguedthatSpinoza'sphilosophy demonstratedthatanyattempttoproceedonthebasisofreasonalone inevitablyresultedinacompletelydeterministicandfatalisticsystemthat deniedboththepossibilityof humanfreedomandtheexistenceofaper-sonal divinity. 79Jacobi'sdisgustwiththeBerlinEnlightenment-whichhedubbedthe "morgueberlinoise"andwhosemembers'"magisterial,self-satisfieddemean-our"hedespised80-extended toitspolitics.Appalledby"thestupidityof peoplewhoinour centuryregardsuperstitionasmoredangerousthanthe growingpowerof unrestrainedautocracy,"hewasoneof theearliestand most vigorous advocates of liberalism in Germany.81His1782essay "Some-thingLessingSaid"arguedthatcivilsocietywas"amechanismofcoer-cion"whosefunctionshouldbesimply"tosecureforeverymemberhis inviolableproperty in hisperson,thefreeuseof allhispowers,and thefull enjoymentof thefruitsof theiremployment. "82 Attemptsto justify amore extensivestateinterventioninthelivesof itscitizens-whether justifiedby appealsto"interestsof state"orthe"welfareof thewhole"-led onlyto "theadvancementof self-interest,money-grubbing,indolence;ofastupid admirationof wealth,of rank,and of power;ablindunsavorysubmissive-ness;andananxietyandfearwhichallowsnozealandtendstowardthe most servileobedience. "83 TheresponseofGermanthinkerstotheFrenchRevolutiontendedto traceacoursethatranfromearlyenthusiasmtosubsequentdisillusion-ment,althoughthereareenoughexceptionstomakethisagrossgeneral-izationatbest.Itwaspossibleforasupporterofenlightenedabsolutism suchasEwaldFriedrich vonHertzberg,whoservedintheforeignministry ofbothFrederickandhissuccessorinadditiontopursuingacareerasa manoflettersinhisroleascuratoroftheBerlinAcademy,towelcome theFrenchRevolution whiledefending thePrussianmonarchy.Heinsisted thatwhiletheFrenchmonarchywasdespoticandruledwithoutrestraint, Prussianmonarchswererestrainedbyancientrightsandcorporativepriv-ileges.84AslongastherevolutioninFranceappearedtobenothingmore than an attempt toset constitutional limitations on themonarch,it could be viewedaslittlemorethanan efforttobring about astateof affairsthat had long existedin Prussia.It wasonly when it became clear that theinstitution of themonarchy itself wasunder attackthattheRevolutionbecamesome-thing moretroubling. Foratleastsomesupportersof theEnlightenment,theideaofrevolu-tionitself wassuspect.WritingayearbeforetheRevolution,Riemviewed 14INTRODUCTION the"PatriotRebellion"inHollandastheworkof"unenlighteneddem-agogues"andheldthattheAmericanRevolutionwasamisfortunethat couldhavebeenavoidedhadtherebeenmoreenlightenedleadershipin England and thecolonies. 85Tieftrunk cametomuch thesameconclusionin his1794essay,"OntheInfluenceofEnlightenmentonRevolutions."Far frompromotingviolentrevolutions,heargued,"trueenlightenment ... is ... theonlywaytoworkagainstthemsuccessfully."Enlightenmentin-structscitizenstoobeytheirprincesandteachesprinceshowtoimprove theirnations.Thethreattopublicordercomesfroma"pseudoenlighten-ment"that"mocks,doubts,andspeakswitharrogantself-assuranceabout everythingothersholdsacredandvenerable."Itisthis"pseudoenlighten-ment"thatmustbeartheblameforeventsinFrance.ForifFrancehad been"truly enlightened,"it"wouldeitherneverhavebegunitsrevolution or elsecertainly havecarried itout better."86 JohannAdamBergk,ayoungerandmorepoliticallyradicalfollowerof Kant than Tieftrunk,cametodifferentconclusions inhisI 795essay,"Does EnlightenmentCauseRevolutions?"ForBergk,revolutions-which hedis-tinguishedfrom"insurrections"byisolatedindividualsandfrom"rebel-lions"byamajority-couldoccuronlyif the"moralenlightenment"of a peoplehadevolvedtothepointwheretheywerecapableofrecogniz-ingrightsandduties.Mere"speculativeenlightenment"wouldproduce,at best,a"cunning,clever,refined,selfish,and stillcowardly"nation that,out offearofviolence,"quietlyenduresallinsultstoitsinalienablerights." This,Bergkargued,wasthestateof EuropebeforetheFrenchRevolution. In theFrenchRevolution-and,equally important,inKant's moral philos-ophy-Bergk sawevidenceof atransitiontoanew levelof moraldevelop-ment.87Now it waspossibleforpeoplestodemandthat materialconditions "correspondwiththepronouncementsof conscience,"and"ifthenation recognizesorsensestheinjusticesthatburdenitandmockitshumanity, thenarevolutionisunavoidable."Enlightenmentthusstands"justlyac-cusedasthecauseofrevolutions."Buttherecanbenoquestionofre-strainingenlightenment,since"onceenlightenmentspreadsitsrootsina nation,itiseasiertoexterminatemankindthantoexterminateenlighten-ment."""Hisadvicetorulerswhosoughttoavoidrevolutionswassimple enough:"Donotworryaboutthewelfareoftheworld;youdonotknow whatyouwant.Onethingisdemandedof you:todowhatisright."89 For Bergk,theageofrevolutionsandtheageofenlightenmentledtoacom-mongoal:astatethatrejectedthepaternalisticconcernwithimprovingits citizenry and instead dedicated itself tothepreservation of liberty. Kant'sparadoxicalstancetowardtheFrenchRevolutioniswellknown: heopposed revolutionson principlebut regardedtheFrench Revolutionas evidenceofthemoralimprovementofthehumanrace.90 His1793essay, "On theCommonSaying:'ThisMayBeTrueinTheory,butItDoesNot INTRODUCTION15 ApplyinPractice,'"rejectedthenotionof a"righttorevolution"largely onthegroundsthatsucharightistypicallyestablishedbyinvokingthe principleof happiness astheend forwhich civilsocietyisfounded. 91Yet in hismostextendedtreatmentof theFrenchRevolution-the second part of TheConflictof theFaculties- Kant argued that the"wishful participationthat bordersalmostonenthusiasm"thatgreetedtheFrenchRevolutioncon-stitutesa"sign"withinhistorythatdemonstratesthepresenceof aprinci-pleat work that wouldallowustohavehopeforthefutureprogressof the species.92 WhatisnotablehereisthatKanthasshiftedthegroundsof the debatefromaconsiderationofthecourseoftheRevolutiontoaconsid-erationof thereactionof spectatorstotheevent.Withthismove,thesuc-cessorfailureoftheRevolutionbecomesirrelevanttothequestionof moralprogress.ForKant,theRevolutionmarkedthemomentinhistory whentherewasanactualefforttoputintopracticethegoalthatnature haddictatedtothespecies:theachievementofarepublicanformof con-stitution.Whatmatteredwasnottheultimatesuccessorfailureofthat attempt but rather the factthatitspokesopowerfully tothehopesof those who firstbeheld it. WiththeFrenchRevolution,discussionofthequestion"Whatisen-lightenment?"cametoaclose.HowoneunderstoodtheEnlightenment cametobedeterminedbythestanceonetooktowardtheRevolution.For criticsof theRevolution,enlightenment wasaprocessthat underminedthe traditionalpatternsofbeliefonwhichpoliticalauthorityrestedandthus reducedpoliticstoabrutalbattlebetweendespotismandanarchy.For thosewhoremained loyaltowhatthey sawastheidealsof theRevolution, enlightenmentembodiedthevisionofasocietygovernedbylawandrea-son.Asthenewcenturydawned,thelinesofengagementwereclearly drawn.FortheRight,enlightenment wasasynonymforapoliticalnai"vete withmurderousconsequences. 93 FortheLeft,itexpressedtheunfulfilled dreamof ajust andrationalsociety.94 Withbothsidessurethatthey knew theanswer,thequestion"What isenlightenment?"nolongerneededtobe asked. TWENTIETH-CENTURYQUESTIONS It isonlyinthelastfiftyyearsthatthequestionof enlightenmenthasbeen reopenedin earnest.Both"theEnlightenment"(spelledwithacapital"E" and preceded by thedefinitearticle)and "enlightenment"(withneither the capitalnorthedefinitearticle)haveonceagainintruded intoscholarly and politicaldiscussions.Historians,sociologists,andpoliticaltheoristshave probedthesocialrootsoftheEnlightenment,stresseditsrelationtoeigh-teenth-centurypoliticalandsocialmovements,andcontrasteditsdevelop-mentindifferingnationalcontexts.At thesametimeothershavecriticized, 16INTRODUCTION fromavarietyofphilosophicalandpoliticalperspectives,theblindness, naivete,andinconsistenciesofwhattheyterm"theprojectofenlighten-ment."Wearethusinthecuriouspositionofhavinggainedagreater appreciationof thediversityof opinionsandintentions withintheEnlight-enmentwhilebecomingincreasinglysuspiciousof manyofthethingsthat weonceassumedtheEnlightenmentrepresented."What happened," Jean Amery askedayear beforehisdeath, thattheEnlightenmentbecamearelicof intellectualhistory,goodenoughat best forthediligentbutsterileexertionsof scholars?What sadaberrationhas broughtustothepointwheremodernthinkersdonotdaretoemploycon-ceptssuchasprogress,humanization,andreasonexcept withindamning quo-tation marks?95 What happened can best be understood by tracing how threebroad linesof argument,originating in differingresponsestotherelationshipbetweenthe EnlightenmentandtheFrenchRevolution,havecometodominaterecent accounts of thenature and viability of "the project of enlightenment." The first,whichisconcernedwiththerelationshipbetweenreason,authority, andtradition,takestheformof adeepening of Edmund Burke's misgivings abouttheRevolution.Thesecond,whichfocusesonthedisturbingaffin-itybetweenreason,terror,anddomination,continuesalineofargument inauguratedbyG. W. F.Hegel'sPhenomenologyofSpirit.Thethird,which seekstoliberatetheidealofenlightenmentfromallassociationwiththe FrenchRevolution,findsitsoriginsinthewritingsofFriedrichNietzsche. Whileallthreeof theselinesof criticismsometimesresembleoneanother, thereareimportantdifferencesthatjustifytheirbeingtreatedseparately. And,conversely,whilethesecriticismsdivergeinimportantways,they shareoneimportantfeature.Sincetheyoriginateafterthedebateonthe question"Whatisenlightenment?"hadbeendisplacedbyotherconcerns, thesecriticismsof"enlightenment"shareanignoranceoftheEnlighten-ment's own effortsat self-definition. Reason,Authoriry,andTradition InI 781,at thestart of theCritiqueof PureReason,Kant announced, Our ageis,in especialdegree,theageof criticism,and tocriticismeverything mustsubmit.Religionthroughitssanctityand law-givingthroughitsmajesty mayseektoexemptthemselvesfromit.Buttheythenawaken just suspicion, and cannot claimthesincererespectwhichreasonaccordsonlytothatwhich hasbeenabletosustain thetestof freeand openexamination. 96 Incharacterizinghisageas"anageofcriticism,"Kantanticipatedthe answerhewouldgivethreeyearslatertothequestionof whetherhiswas "anenlightenedage.""No,"heresponded,"butwedoliveinanageof enlightenment."97 Churchand statehavebeen putonnoticethatthey canno INTRODUCTION 17 longer count onthedeferencetraditionally accordedthem.Nor canthein-dividualsimply accept passively whatevertraditionteachesor whatauthor-itydictates.Enlightenmentdemandsthatwe"thinkforourselves" -that is,onemustalways"look withinoneself ... forthesupremetouchstoneof truth. "98 ForBurke,thenotionthattraditioncouldsimplybesetasideasanun-foundedprejudicewasadangerousillusion.In hisReflectionsontheRevolution inFrance,hewrote, In thisenlightened ageI am bold enough toconfessthat wearegenerally men of untaughtfeelings,that,insteadof castingawayallouroldprejudices,we cherishthemtoaconsiderabledegree,and,totakemoreshameuponour-selves,wecherishthem becausetheyareprejudices;and thelongertheyhave lastedand themoregenerally they haveprevailed,themore wecherishthem. Weareafraidtoputmentoliveandtradeeachonhisownprivatestockof reason;becausewesuspectthatthestockineachmanissmall,andthatthe individualswoulddobetter toavailthemselvesof thegeneralbank and capi-talof nations and of ages.99 ContrastingtheattitudesofEnglish"menofspeculation"toFrench"lit-erarymenandpoliticians,"heobservedthatwhiletheFrench"haveno respectforthewisdomofothers,"thoseEnglishwhoarenotpartofthe "clan of theenlightened," insteadof exploding generalprejudices,employtheirsagacity todiscoverthe latentwisdomwhichprevailsinthem.If theyfindwhattheyseek,andthey seldomfail,they think itmorewisetocontinuetheprejudice,withthereason involved,thantocastawaythecoatofprejudiceandleavenothingbutthe nakedreason;becauseprejudice,withitsreason,hasamotivetogiveaction tothat reason,and anaffection whichwillgiveit permanence.'00 The"nakedreason"ofenlightenmentwaspoliticallydangerousbecause itwasincapableofturningvirtuesintohabitsorofmakingone'sduty becomeapartofanindividual'snature.Prejudice'sreasons,incontrast, could movemen toaction. Thereis,however,atleastoneproblemwithBurke'sargument.He writesthatwe"cherish"ourprejudices"becausetheyareprejudices"- becausetheyarefamiliarandwellestablished-butimmediatelyoffersa ratherdifferentreasonforrespectingprejudices:theyhaveserveduswell and thus are,in asense,"reasonable." SinceBurke's central concern was to insistthat our familiarand well-established prejudicesserveusmuch better thananyoftheutopianschemesofthepartisansofenlightenment,he avoidedboth thedifficultquestionof whether wewouldstillcherishaprej-udiceshouldwenotbesuccessfulinfindingthat"latentwisdom"weare seekingandtheevenmoredifficultquestionof whoexactlycomposesthe "we"thatfindssuchwisdominthesewell-establishedprejudices.Certain 18INTRODUCTION prejudicesthat areundoubtedly "cherished" by onegroupinsociety might strikeothersasabhorrent.Adefenseof enlightenmentneednotinsistthat allprejudices berejected simply becausetheyare prejudices.Voltaire,forexam-ple,acknowledgedthat thereare"universal andnecessary prejudices"that, on reflection, provetobe sound and useful:our idea of virtue,hesuggested, ismadeupof suchprejudices. 101 Allitneedstosuggestisthatbeforewe availourselves yet again of "the general bank and capital of nationsandof ages,"wemakesurethat theaccount isnot bankrupt.102 Againstthis lineof criticismBurkeisfacedwiththeunpleasantalternativeof defending preju-dicessimply becausethey are prejudices or of conceding theEnlightenment's positionandgrantingthatweoughttocherishprejudicesonlyinsofaras theyhaveproventobereasonableandthusdeservingof our affection. Amoresuccessfuldefenseoftraditionagainstenlightenmentwouldin-volveraisingthequestionofwhether"reason"itselfdoesnotitselfulti-mately reston prejudices.It isthislineof argument that liesattheheart of Hans-GeorgGadamer'scritiqueoftheEnlightenment.103 Hearguesthat theEnlightenmentitself restsona"fundamental prejudice" -a "prejudice against prejudice itself."104 The Enlightenment's tendency to equate "preju-dice"with"false,""hasty,"or"unfounded"judgmentsrestsonthepre-suppositionthatreason,nottradition,constitutestheultimategroundof authority.But what isthisif not aprejudicein favorof reason? AgainsttheEnlightenment'soverlyhastyidentificationof"prejudice" with"false judgment"Gadamer appealstotheliteralmeaningof theGer-manVorurteil,"prejudgment."Hearguesthatalloureffortstomakesense of theworldnecessarilybeginwithanticipationsandprojectionsof mean-ingthatarerootedintheparticular,historicalsituationof theinterpreter. These preliminary judgments arenotbarriersthat must beremovedbefore trueunderstanding begins;they areinstead theindispensableconditions for anyunderstanding.Becauseofitsmisunderstandingoftheroleofpreju-dices,theEnlightenmentoverlookedwhatforGadameriscentraltoau-thority,properlyunderstood:"authority hastodonotwithobediencebut ratherwithknowledge."105 Itinvolvesarecognitionthatone'sownknowl-edge islimited and that others may well haveabetter understanding.Nor is tradition,asGadamerunderstandsit,opposedtoreason.Traditiondoes notpersistsimplythroughinertia;itmustbe"affirmed,embraced,culti-vated."It must be preserved,and"preservation isan actof reason,though an inconspicuous one.''106 The critiqueof prejudice preventedtheEnlightenment fromrecognizing thatindividualscanneverfreethemselvescompletelyfromthehistorical tradition inwhichthey aresituated. 107 Infact,historydoesnotbelongtous;webelongtoit.Longbeforeweunder-standourselvesthroughtheprocessof self-examination,weunderstandour-selvesinaself-evidentwayinthefamily,society,andstateinwhichwelive. INTRODUCTION Thefocusof subjectivityisadistortingmirror.Theself-awarenessofthein-dividualisonlyaflickeringintheclosedcircuitsof historicallife.Thatiswhy the prejudicesof theindividual, farmorethanhis judgments,constitutethehistoricalreality of hisbeing. 108 19 Thus,forGadamer,Kant'simperativeto"thinkforoneself"isabstract, empty,and ultimately impossihle.Allthinking isgrounded intraditionsand prejudicesthat can neverbeentirely eliminated. Gadamerdoesnotdenythepossibilityof reflectionandcritique.While Burkeattributedtotraditionsa"wisdomwithoutreflection,"Gadamer recognizesthataproperlyfunctioningtraditioniscapableofreflectingon and,toacertainextent,criticizingthepresuppositionsonwhichitrests. 109 But thoughGadamer recognizesthat wearenever sobound by aparticular historicalsituationastobeunabletoengageindialogueswithothertradi-tions,heneverthelessinsiststhattheattempttoilluminateourownhistor-icalsituation willalwaysremain incomplete. Wealwaysfindourselveswithinasituation,andthrowinglightonitisatask thatisneverentirelyfinished .... Allself-knowledgearisesfromwhatishis-toricallypregiven,whatwithHegelwecall"substance,"becauseitunderlies allsubjectiveintentionsandactionsandhencebothprescribesandlimits everypossibilityofunderstandinganytraditionwhatsoeverinitshistorical alterity. 110 ThetaskGadamer assignstophilosophical hermeneutics isthus"to retrace thepath of Hegel'sphenomenology of spirituntilwediscoverinallthatis subjectivethesubstantialitythatdeterminesit."111 Reflectioncanmakeus awareof thetradition weinherit,but it can neverreleaseusfromit. In his critique of Gadamer's rehabilitation of tradition, Jiirgen Habermas hasquestionedGadamer's assumption that what hasbeen givenhistorically "doesnotremainuntouchedbythefactthatitistakenupintoreflec-tion. "112 HesuggeststhatGadamer's"undialecticalconceptofEnlighten-ment"hasunderestimated theability of reflectiontocriticizeauthority and tobreak theholdof dogma.Intheprocessof questioning tradition,weare forcedtotakeastandonnormsandbeliefsthathadpreviouslybeensim-plyaccepted.Byreflectingonthereasonsthatsupporttheclaimstradition makesonus,blindacquiescenceistransformedintoconsciousagreement. Viewedthisway,enlightenmentisopposed,nottoauthorityperse,but rathertothoseformsof authoritythataremaintainedby forceand decep-tionratherthanbyrecognitionandconsent. 113 Gadamerthusoverlooks what Albrecht Wellmer takestobetheEnlightenment's centralinsight: Theenlightenmentprincipleof reasoncanbeinterpretedasthedemandfor theabrogationofallrepressiveconditionsthatcouldclaimnolegitimacy otherthantheirsheerexistence .... [T)he"dialogue"whichwe,according to 20INTRODUCTION Gadamer,"are,"isalsoacontextofdominationandassuchpreciselyno dialogue. ForHabermas,itistheemancipatorypromiseof reflection,whichliesat theheartof Kant'snotionofenlightenment,thatrepresents"theperma-nentlegacybequeathedtousbyGermanIdealismfromthespiritofthe eighteenth century." 115 WhatisultimatelyatissueinthedisputebetweenHabermasand Gadameristhenatureof theclaimthislegacyhasonustoday.Gadamer arguesthatbecauseHabermashasbeenmisledbytheEnlightenment's "abstractantithesis"betweenan"ongoing,naturaltradition"andthe"re-flectiveappropriation"of thistradition,hefailstoseethat"reflection"is itselfapartofaparticularhistoricaltradition. 116 Farfromconstitutinga breakwithalltradition,theEnlightenmentrepresentedanelaborationof particularelementswithinonetradition.Theimperative"thinkforyour-self"makessense,then,onlybecausethosewhoheedKant'scallarenot thinkingbythemselves.Theyareratherthinkingwithothers,asmembers of aparticulartraditionin whichactivitieslike"critique"and"reflection" haveameaning.But if reflectionhasmeaning only withinaparticulartra-dition,therewillbelimitsonitsabilitytocallthistraditionintoquestion. Tosupposethatitispossibletoplaceourselvesinapositionwherewe couldreflecton thevalidity of thetradition weinhabitisonapar withthe assumptionthat wecould somehow stepoutsideof our languageand certify thatitindeedgivesusatrueaccountoftheworld.Forreasontoaccom-plisheither,itwouldbenecessaryforittoseveritstiestotraditionorto language.FromJohannGeorgHamannthroughGadamertoAlasdair MacintyreandRichardRorty,themorepersuasiveof theEnlightenment's criticshavestressedtheimpossibility of doing this.117 Enlightenment,Disenchantment,and Domination Whilethequestionoftherelationshipofreasonandtraditionoriginated amongcriticsof thegeneralprogramof theEnlightenment,morerecently thosewhoshareitsidealshavebeenplaguedbythesensethatsomething hasgoneterribly awry.The Enlightenment's attempt to freetheworld from thedomination of mythology and superstition hasfallenprey toafataldia-lecticinwhichenlightenmentitselfrevertsintomythologyandfostersnew formsof dominationthatareallthemoreinsidioussincetheyclaimtobe vindicatedbyreasonitself.ThisistheargumentofMaxHorkheimerand TheodorAdorno'sDialecticof Enlightenment.Writtenin1944astheSecond WorldWargroundtoaclose,itsoughttounderstandwhathadbrought reasontoturnagainst itself. 118 Muchof theforceof thebook lay initspro-foundambivalence.Attheoutset,HorkheimerandAdornoaffirmedtheir allegiancetotheprogressivehopesoftheEnlightenment.Theysawtheir INTRODUCTION21 task as"not theconservation of the past, but theredemption of past hopes" andinsistedthat"freedom ... isinseparablefromenlightenedthought." 119 Yet at the heart of their argument lay abitter paradox:"Enlightenment has always aimed at liberating men from fearand establishing their sovereignty. Yetthefullyenlightenedearthradiatesdisastertriumphant." 120 Enlighten-ment itself,they argued,"already containstheseedof theregressionappa-rent everywhere today." 121 In thisaccount of the self-destruction of enlightenment,Horkheimer and Adornowereresumingananalysisof theEnlightenmentthat,likeGada-mer's critique, can be traced to the discussion of the relationship between the EnlightenmentandtheFrenchRevolution.Their model,however,wasnot Burke'sRiflectionsantheRevolutioninFrancebut rather Hegel's Phenomenologyof Spirit.Hegel'saccountof theworldof the"self-alienatedspirit" -a world that,perhapsironically,hedubs"culture"(Bildung)-culminatesinasec-tionentitled"AbsoluteFreedomandTerror."122 ItarguesthattheEn-lightenment'seffortstoemancipatemankindresultonlyin"death"-a death"whichhasnoinnersignificanceorfeeling,"adeaththatis"the coldestandmeanestofalldeaths,withnomoresignificancethancutting off ahead of cabbage or swallowing amouthful ofwater."123 The Enlighten-ment, which sought tocreateanew world in which reason would ascend the throne and in which allinstitutions would be measured against thestandard of utility,turns out to be incapable of building anything.The universal free-dom that the Enlightenment brought into the world culminates in a"fury of destruction. "124 Whilemuchof Hegel'slanguageresemblesBurke's,hisaccountis,ina fundamentalsense,opposedtothat of RifiectionsontheRevolutioninFrance. 125 ForBurke,theRevolutionwasamistake,theconsequenceofaterrible foolishnessthat. ought,and perhaps could,havebeen avoided.If theFrench aristocracyandclergy-onwhomBurkelavisheswhathasstrucksome latercommentatorsasexcessivepraise-hadsomehowbeenabletohold out,ifthelegionsof politicallynaivewritersandphilosophershadsome-howbeenkeptoutoftheNationalAssembly,perhapsdisastercouldhave beenavoided."Rageandfrenzywillpulldownmoreinhalfanhour,"he observedsadly,"than prudence,deliberation,and foresightcan build upin ahundred years."126 Hegel,however,doubted whether thesurvival of an institution over time testifiedtoitsreasonableness.Writingin1817of thedemandbytheWur-tembergEstatesthattheirkingrestoretherightsguaranteedtothemby their"ancestral constitution,"heobserved, One mightsayof theWurtemberg Estateswhathasbeen saidof thereturned Frenchemigres:theyhaveforgottennothingandlearntnothing.They seemto havesleptthroughthelasttwenty-fiveyears,possiblytherichestthatworld historyhashad,and forusthemostinstructive,becauseitistothemthat our 22INTRODUCTION worldandourideasbelong.Therecouldhardlyhavebeenamorefrightful pestleforpulverizing falseconcepts of law and prejudices about politicalcon-stitutionsthanthesetwenty-fiveyears,buttheseEstateshaveemergedun-scathed and unaltered.127 ForHegel,theFrenchRevolutioninaugurated anewagein which,in Joa-chimRitter'swords,"thefuturehasnorelationtotradition."128 While Burkesawthedisasterof theRevolutiontolieinitsforgettingof theles-sonsofthepast,forHegel,itsdisasterlayinitsfailuretofindaninstitu-tional formadequatetotheprinciples on which the present rests. AsHegelsawit,thetaskwastocreatepoliticalinstitutionsthatcould bereconciledwiththeprinciplethat,forhim,representedtheirrevocable achievementofthemodernage:thefreedomoftheindividual.Thisre-quiredsomewayof mediatingbetweentheparticularityoftheindividual andtheuniversalityof laws.Theanalysisof "culture"inthePhenomenology of Spirittracesanumber of failedattemptsat findingsuchareconciliation. TheFrenchRevolutionwasbutthelastandgreatestofthesefailures,in whichanattempt tomeasureallthingsagainstthestandardof thegoodof thewholeultimately expresseditself inarageagainsttheindividual. Jean-JacquesRousseau's"GeneralWill"thusleadstoRobespierre'sTerror, not-asBurkewouldhaveargued-becauseRousseauhadturnedhis back on thelessons of the past, but rather because the ancient models of de-mocracythatRousseauinvokedwerenolongeradequatetothemodern age. But what sortof political organization would beadequate?In thePhilos-ophyof Right,Hegelthoughthefoundasolutionwiththedevelopmentof thatuniquelymoderndomainthathedenotedwiththevenerableterm "civil society"(biirgerlicheGesellschajt).In civil society individuals meet asfree andindependentcreaturesofneedandcarriersofrights.Heretheygive freeplaytotheiruniquenessand peculiarity while,behindtheirbacks,the universalhasitsway with them through the systemof lawsthat itisthetask of politicaleconomytomap.Civilsocietyisthedomaininwhich"partic-ularityiseducateduptosubjectivity."129 Itisherethatthebourgeois-the individualwhocaresonlyforhisowninterests-learnstobecomeacit-oyen-anindividualwhoiscapableofwillingthegeneralgood. 130 Orso Hegel argued in1820. Adecade later,in the wakeof the July Revolution in Paris,heobserved in letters tofriendsthat everything that had onceseemed so"solid andsecure"had begunto"totter."131 Ashismostfamousdisciple would later observe,allthat wassolid was melting into air. AcenturyafterHegel'sdeath,Horkheimerassumedthedirectorshipof theInstituteforSocialResearchattheUniversityof Frankfurt.Thework ofHorkheimerandhiscolleaguesintheFrankfurtSchoolrepresenteda concentratedeffortatseeinghowtherelationshipbetweenthefamily,the market,andthestatehadbeentransformedinadvancedcapitalism. 132 INTRODUCTION23 WhileHegelhadarguedthattherelativeindependenceofthesethree spheresallowedforadifferentiatedarticulationof freedominwhichone founddifferentsortsofsatisfactionsinone'srolesasfamilymember,as bourgeois,andascitizen,theresearchof theFrankfurtSchoolarguedthat theboundariesbetweenthesesphereshadbeeneffaced.Stateandmarket hadbecomeintertwined,whilethesocializationofchildrenwithinthe structureof family-whichhadallowedforthedevelopmentof individual autonomy-hadbeenoverwhelmedbypowerfulsocialforces. 133 Hitler's Germany and Stalin'sRussiaseemedtothemtoprefigureahorrifyingnew worldin whichalltracesof individuality wouldbeextinguished. 134 Against thisgrimbackgroundtheDialecticof Enlightenment,thatbleakestofbooks, waswritten. Hegelprefacedhisaccountofthedialecticofculturewithhisfamous analysisof Sophocles'Antigone.Horkheimer and Adornowent back further, toHomer's Odysseus.Here they found,in oneand thesame figure,thefirst Aufklarerand thefirstbourgeois. 135 The mythicpowersOdysseusconfronts arelockedinacycleofendlessrepetition;likeblindnature,theydothe samethingoverandover.Heisabletoovercomethembymasteringthe artofappearingtoyieldtothembutalwayssomehowfindinganescape clausein the contract."The formula forthecunning of Odysseus isthat the redeemedand instrumental spirit,by resigning itself to yield to nature,ren-derstonaturewhatisnature'sandyetbetraysitintheveryprocess."136 ThusOdysseus,boundtothemast,canlistentothesongofthesirens, whilehismen,theirearsstopped,rowgrimly onward.Inthis,Horkheimer andAdornofoundanaptimagefortheroleofartinmodernsociety: strippedof itsmythic powers,it becomesapastimeforthosewhoarefreed fromlabor. Thisapparenttriumphofenlightenmentovermythology,likethetri-umphof enlightenmentoverfaithinHegel'sPhenomenology,turnsouttobe onlyastruggleof enlightenment withitself. 137 Mythology,astheauthors of the Dialecticof Enlightenment understood it,wasalready astep in the direction of enlightenment. Mythologyitself setoff theunending processof enlightenmentinwhichever andagain,withtheinescapablenecessity,everyspecifictheoreticviewsuc-cumbstothedestructivecriticismthatitisonlyabelief-untiltheveryno-tionsofspirit,oftruthand,indeed,enlightenmentitself,havebecomeani-misticmagic. 1e Enlightenment,asHegel recognized,demands thateverything bemeasured againstthestandardof utility.Reasondoesnotexemptitself fromthisde-mand and henceisnow defined solely in instrumental terms. Themoreideashavebecomeautomatic,instrumentalized,thelessdoesany-body seeinthemthoughtswithameaning of theirown.They areconsidered 24INTRODUCTION things,machines.Languagehasbeenreducedtojustanothertoolinthe giganticapparatusofproductioninmodernsociety .... []Justice,equality, happiness,tolerance,alltheconceptsthat ... wereinpreceding centuries sup-posedtobeinherentinorsanctionedbyreason,havelosttheirintellectual roots. 139 Enlightenmentroutssuperstitionandobscurity,butintheprocessitcor-rodesthesubstantiveprinciplesthathadonceservedasincentivestoprog-ressor-attheveryleast-aschecksonbarbarism.Oncereasonhas becomeamereinstrument,itserveswhateverpowerdeploysit.Hegel's accountof theself-destructionof theEnlightenmentendedwiththeimage of theguillotine,amachinethatsorationalizedpunishmentthatitneeded onlytotouchthebodyforamomenttodeliveritssentence.Horkheimer andAdorno'sDialecticof Enlightenmentkeptpacewithadvancementsinthe technologyofrationalizedcruelty:itclosedwithanexaminationofthat rageagainstallthatisdifferentthatculminatedinthedeathcampsof the Third Reich. Thelastsentenceofthediscussionofanti-SemitismintheDialecticof Enlightenment-added,theprefacetellsus,threeyearsafter theinitial"pub-lication"ofthebookinmimeographedform(theinitialformofpub-lication,perhaps,canbeviewedasexemplary of thebook'sthesis,sinceif itsaccountoftheeradicationofindividualityiscorrect,thisshouldbea bookwithveryfewreaders)140-strikes astrangelyhopefulnote:"Enlight-enment,inpossessionof itself andcoming topower,can break through the limitsof enlightenment."141 But how? InaletterHorkheimerwrotetoHerbert Marcuseshortly afterthecom-pletionof thefirstchapterof theDialecticof Enlightenment-whichhechar-acterized,accuratelyenough,as"themostdifficulttextIeverwrote" -he admitted that the work "sounds somewhat negativistic." While promising to dosomething toremedy this,heconfessed, Iamreluctant,however,tosimplyaddamorepositiveparagraphwiththe melody,"Butafterallrationalismandpragmatismarenotsobad."The intransigentanalysisasaccomplishedinthisfirstchapterseemsinitselftobe abetterassertionofthepositivefunctionofrationalintelligencethanany-thing onecould sayinorder toplay down theattack. 142 BythetimeHorkheimerhadcompletedtheexcursusentitled'juliette,or EnlightenmentandMorality,"hemusthaveconcludedthatitwasonly throughamercilessly"negativistic"critiqueofwhatenlightenmenthad becomethatthe"pasthopes"oftheEnlightenmentmightberedeemed. Heappeared tohave foundamodel forhisown work inthose"dark writers ofthebourgeoisie"-suchasMandeville,deSade,andNietzsche-who "havenottriedtowardofftheconsequencesofenlightenmentwithhar-monizingdoctrines."Itwasthefailuretorecognizethetiesbetweenfor-INTRODUCTION25 malizedmoralityandevil,betweenreasonandcrime,andbetweencivil societyanddominationthatboundenlightenmenttothatwhichsoughtto negateit.Incontrast,thedark writers'mercilessrevelationof theEnlight-enment'scomplicitywithdomination"freesfromitsshelltheutopiathat inheresintheKantianconceptionofreasonaswellasineverygreatphi-losophy:thatahumanitythatnolongerdistorteditself,wouldnolonger needtodistort."143 Thus,paradoxically,itwasonlybytakinguptheargu-mentsof theEnlightenment'smostvehementcriticsthatthehopesofen-lightenment might be kept alive. Nietzsche'sNewEnlightenment Amongthe"darkwriters"towhomHorkheimerturnedforinspiration, nonehadamorecomplexrelationshipwiththeEnlightenmentthanNietz-sche.Attimes,Nietzschespokeasif hisgoalwasthatof disentanglingthe eighteenth-centuryEnlightenment fromitscomplicity withdemocraticrev-olutions.ThushelaboredtofinishMenschliches,Allzumenschlichessothat itmightappearm1878,thehundredthanniversaryofthedeathof Vol-taire. 144 ItisnotVoltaire'smoderatenature,butRousseau'spassionatefolliesandhalf-liesthatcalledforththeoptimisticspiritofRevolutionagainstwhichIcry: "Ecrasezl'infame!" It isthisspiritthathasforalongtimebanishedthespiritof theEnlightenmentandof progressiveevolution:letussee-each ofuswithinhim-self-whether it ispossibletocallit back!'" Enlightenment,asNietzscheunderstoodit,"addressed itself only tothein-dividual."Itsassociation with revolutionary politicswasnot theleast of the damagedone by Rousseau. Hewhograspsthiswillalsoknowoutof ... whatimpurityithastobe cleansed:soasthen tocontinuethework of theEnlightenment inhimself,and to strangletheRevolutionat birth. 146 TheenlightenmentNietzschedemandedmustbeclear-sightedenoughto seetheshallownessandthecommonnessoftheegalitariandreamsofthe French Revolution. 147 OnewayoffurtheringthegoalsoftheEnlightenmentwastocallon theveryforcesthathadopposedit.Inasectionof Menschliches,Allzumens-chlichesentitled"ReactionasProgress"hearguedthatapparentlyreac-tionary responsesto"blunt and forcefulspirits"often only prepare theway forfurtherprogress.ThusArthurSchopenhauerhadadeeperhistorical understanding of Christianity than theEnlightenment,but once"themode ofhistoricalinterpretationintroducedbytheAgeofEnlightenment"had been corrected, "we may bear the banner of the Enlightenment-the banner bearingthethreenamesPetrarch,Erasmus,Voltaire-further onward." 148 26INTRODUCTION ThesameargumentismadeevenmoreforcefullyinMorgenrotewhenNietz-schesuggestedthateventhoughGermanresistancetotheEnlightenment had takentheformof apiety towardtraditionandacult of feeling, afterappearingforatimeasancillariesofthespiritofobscurantismand reaction,thestudy of history,understanding of originsandevolutions,empa-thyforthepast,newlyarousedpassionforfeelingandknowledgeoneday assumedanewnatureandnowflyonthebroadestwingsaboveandbeyond theirformerconjurersasnewandstrongergeniiofthatveryEnlightenment againstwhichtheywerefirstconjuredup.ThisEnlightenmentwemustnow carryforward:letusnotworryaboutthe"greatrevolution"andthe"great reaction"againstitwhichhavetakenplace-theyarenomorethanthe sportingofwavesincomparisonwiththetrulygreatfloodwhichbearsus along!149Insuchpassages,Nietzsche-likeKarlLeonhardReinholdbeforehim-outlineswhatmightbecharacterizedas"a dialecticof thecounterenlight-enment":allattempts toresistenlightenment paradoxically turn out only to servethecauseof further enlightenment. 150 Whatistroublingaboutthissecretcomplicitybetweenenlightenment andcounterenlightenmentisthattherelationshipcaneasilybereversed: whilecounterenlightenment may servethecauseof enlightenment,it is just aspossiblethatenlightenment willleadtoanew obscurantism.Inacryptic notefrom1885Nietzscheobserved,"When IbelievethatIamafewcen-turiesaheadinenlightenmentnotonlyofVoltairebutevenofGaliani, whowasfarprofounder-how farmustIhavegotintheincreaseof dark-ness[ Verdusterung]. "151TheideathataprogressinAufklarungwassimulta-neouslyanadvanceinVerdiisterungfindsitsmostpowerfulexpressionin Nietzsche'sfamousparableofthemadmanwhoannouncesthedeathof God.Even in"the bright morning hours"hemust carry alantern and asks, "Isnotnightcontinuallyclosinginonus?Do wenotneedtolight lanterns in themorning?"152 Thisse.nsethateveryadvanceof enlightenmentmay wellbeonlyafur-therstepmtothedarknesspermeatestheworkof Nietzsche'smostfaithful twentieth-centurydisciple,MichelFoucault.Fromhisveryfirstbook-whichhedescribedasapart of that "great Nietzscheaninquiry"that seeks toconfront"thedialecticofhistory"withthe"immobilestructuresof td"153 hhd.. rageY- esougttoemonstratehow every victory of enlightenment wasalsoatriumphof anewandinsidiousformof domination.Tukeand Pinelarrivedineighteenth-centuryprisonstoseparatecriminalsfromthe insane-andforcedtheinsane"toenterakindofendlesstrialforwhich theasylumfurnishedsimultaneouslypolice,magistrates,andtorturers."'H Freudshatteredthesilencesurroundingsexuality-andinauguratedthe "nearlyinfinitetaskoftelling-tellingoneselfandanotherasoftenas possible"anythingthatmightbelinkedintheremotestway' tothebody INTRODUCTION27 anditspleasures. 155 InBirthof theClinic,thelightthatpenetratesthedark interior of the body insearchof life findsonly death, just asin Discipline and Punishtheprisoners whohavebeen freedfromthedarknessof thedungeon arecaptured allthemoresecurely inthelightthat floodsthroughthePan-opticon.156Likethe"dark writers of thebourgeoisie,"everywhereFoucault looked hefoundacomplicity between enlightenment and domination. But-once againlikeNietzsche-attimesFoucaulttookupthebanner of theEnlightenment.Inthelastdecadeof hislife,hereflectedagainand againonKant's1784essay,"WhatIsEnlightenment?"andintheend announcedthathewouldliketoseehisown workunderstoodasapartof the"criticalontologyof ourselves"thatKant's work hadopened. 157Inthe verylastof hisdiscussionsofKant'sessay,enlightenmentmarchesunder abanneronwhichanevenmoreunlikelysetofnamesisinscribedthan Nietzsche'strinityPetrarch,Erasmus,andVoltaire.Theenlightenmentto whichFoucaultdeclaredhisloyaltysomehowmanagestoembraceboth ImmanuelKant and Charles Baudelaire.158 Foucault'speculiarcouplingofKantandBaudelairesuggestshewas concerned neither withthecontent of Kant'saccount of enlightenment nor with itsconnection toKant's moral philosophy.His emphasis instead fellon whatheunderstoodKanttobedoinginposingthequestion"Whatis enlightenment?"inthefirstplace.JustasConstantinGuys-thepainter whoseworkBaudelaireexaminesinhisessay"ThePainterofModern Life"-soughttocapturewhatwaseternalin"theephemeral,thefugi-tive,thecontingent,"soKant-as Foucault read him-attempted tofinda philosophical significancein the passing controversies of hisage.LikeGuys, Kant sought "to distil theeternal fromthetransitory." 159 Foucault thuscame to seein Kant's essay away of doing philosophy that couldserveasamodel forhisownefforts.Kant issaidtoheralda"critical ontology of ourselves"in which"the critiqueof what weareisatoneand thesametimethehistoricalanalysisof thelimitsthatareimposedonus andanexperimentwiththepossibilityofgoingbeyondthem."16Kant foundthe"mottoofenlightenment"inHorace'sSapereAude!-whichhe glossedas"Havethecouragetouseyourownunderstanding!"Foucault kept themotto but changed theexegesis:forFoucaultlikeNietzschebefore him,enlightenmentmeantaboveallelsehavingt h ~couragetoreinvent oneself. ReopeningtheQuestionof Enlightenment ~ h . eEnlightenment's criticsareinagreement,then,that thereissomething Sinisterabout thelightitcasts.Burkecomplained that allthepleasingillusionswhichmadepowergentleandobedienceliberal, whichharmonizedthedifferentshadesof life,andwhich,byablandassim-28INTRODUCTION ilation,incorporatedintopoliticsthesentimentswhichbeautifyandsoften privatesociety,aretobe dissolvedby thisnew conquering empire of light and reason.161 HamanndismissedtheEnlightenmentas"a merenorthernlight,"a"cold, moonlight"thatservedonlyasacloakforself-appointedguard-Ianswhosoughttoruleoverothers. 162 AsheexplainedinalettertoMen-delssohn,"I avoidthelight,my dear Moses,perhapsmoreout of fearthan maliciousness."163 AndHorkheimerandAdorno'sfearshavebeenechoed inFoucault'sfamousdiscussionofthatmostunsettlingofallenlighten-mentschemes,JeremyBentham'sPanopticon.164 Anuntroubledpartisanof enlightenment,Benthamsoughttoreplacethedarkdungeonsoftheold regimewithbuildingscomposedofcellsopenontwosidestothelight whichtogetherwouldformalargeringof asmanystoriesof cellsaswere necessary tohousethepopulation at hand.In thecenter of thering hepro-posedtheconstructionofawatchtower,fromwhoseshieldedwindows theactivitiesof theresidentsof thesunlitcellscouldbeobserved.Thisar-rangementgavethoseinthetowerapower farbeyond whattheynormally possessed:sincethoseinthetower seebut cannot beseen,itreally doesnot matterwhoisinthetower(Benthamnotedthatchildrenmightfinduseful employment here)or even whether,at any given moment, there wasanyone init at all.It wasenough that thetower serveasareminder tothe prisoners intheirsunlitcellsthattheycanalwaysbewatched.Thosewhowatchare hiddenand henceomnipresent.Thosewhoarewatched areisolatedatom-ized,andalwaysvisible-releasedfromdungeonsbutheldallmore securelybythelightthatbathesthem. 165 Hereisavisionworthyof Hork-heimerandAdorno'sdarkestmoments:thefullyenlightenedworldhas becomeamassiveprison. It isworth asking,however,whether this portrait of theEnlightenment is atallfaithfultoitssubject.Reservationscanberegisteredonatleasttwo fronts.First,theimages of theEnlightenment wehaveconsidered hereare atbest,caricaturesthathighlightcertainfeaturesbutmissothers.Second: what thesecaricatures missmay very wellbe what isof greatest importance inunderstandingthecontinuingviabilityof someversionofthehopesof theEnlightenment. What isstriking ishow rarely thecritiqueof "enlightenment" ever both-erstoengagethinkerswhowerepartof "theEnlightenment."Burkegoes afterDr.PricebutnevertroubleshimselfwithaskingwhetherFrench thinkersmightnotactuallyhavegivensomethoughttothequestionof whether"prejudices"couldeverbecompletelyeradicated. 166 Gadamer,as usual,does better.Heacknowledgesthat the"prejudiceagainst prejudices" neverwentasfarinGermany asitisallegedtohavegoneinEnglandand FranceandsuggeststhattheGermanwillingnesstorecognize"the'true prejudices'oftheChristianreligion"inpartbroughtaboutthat"mod-INTRODUCTION29 ificationandmoderationof Enlightenment"thatlaidthegroundworkfor theromanticmovement."But,"hequicklyassuresus,"noneof thisalters the fundamentalfact." 167 True prejudices stillmust be confirmed by reason, evenif someAufklarerwerelessconfidentthantheirFrenchcounterparts thatreasonwasuptothetask.Butmorerecentandmoreextendeddis-cussionsof thehistory of theconceptof prejudiceprovideamorecomplex picturein whichreasonisnot quitesoimperiousand prejudicenot quiteso