The Rise of Natural Philosophy, Scientific Revolution, and the Enlightenment (^) ‹ 115
of the community, and he argued that a lawful government must be continually responsible
to the general will of the people. Toward the end of the century, as the ruling regimes of
continental Europe mobilized to protect their power and privilege, it would be Rousseau’s
version of the Enlightenment that resonated with an increasingly discontented population.
To be clear, though Rousseau was concerned about issues of equality and the educa-
tion of man, these concerns did not extend to the equality and education of women. For
Rousseau, women were clearly the weaker sex. While men desired women, they did not need
women in the same way he believed women were dependent on men. Women’s education,
therefore, was to support their primary purpose, as wife and mother. Interestingly, though
he perceived women as incapable of reason, in Rousseau’s Émile, women serve as educators.
The Other Enlightenment
The Enlightenment of the philosophes, with their salons and lodges, was primarily a cultural
movement experienced by aristocrats and upper middle-class people. But further down the
social hierarchy, a version of the Enlightenment reached an increasingly literate population
in the following ways:
• Excerpted versions of the Encyclopedia
• Popular almanacs, which incorporated much of the new scientific and rational knowledge
• “Philosophical texts,” the underground book trade’s code name for banned books, which
included some versions of philosophical treatises, and bawdy, popularized versions of the
philosophes’ critique of the Church and the ruling classes
In these texts the most radical of Enlightenment ideals—particularly those of Rousseau
and d’Holbach—together with satirical lampooning of the clergy and the ruling class,
reached a broad audience and helped to undermine respect for and the legitimacy of the
ruling regimes.Review Questions
Multiple Choice
Questions 1–3 refer to the following passage:
The political liberty of the subject is a tranquility of mind, arising from the opinion each
person has of his safety. In order to have this liberty, it is requisite the government be so con-
stituted as one man need not be afraid of another.
When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same
body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same
monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
Again, there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and
executive powers. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would
be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator. Were it joined to
the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor....
The executive power ought to be in the hands of a monarch; because this branch of gov-
ernment, which has always need of expedition, is better administered by one than by many:
Whereas, whatever depends on the legislative power, is oftentimes better regulated by many
than by a single person.
The Baron Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, 174815_Bartolini_Ch15_099-118.indd 115 27/04/18 1:54 PM