This paper examines the relationship between the Enlightenment and the French Revolution, arguing that the revolution did not arise from a sudden spark but from decades of evolving Enlightenment thought. It traces the intellectual origins of the Enlightenment from Thomas Aquinas and the Scientific Revolution through the major contributions of Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau. The paper analyzes pressing social conditions in 18th-century France, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the way Enlightenment language permeated revolutionary discourse. Drawing on historians such as Roger Chartier and Lynn Avery Hunt, the paper concludes that Enlightenment ideals remain relevant today.
This study guide is drawn from PaperDue's library of 130,000+ paper examples across 47 subjects.
The paper uses source synthesis effectively: rather than quoting sources in isolation, it weaves together historians (Chartier, Hunt), philosophers (Brians), and primary documents (the Declaration of the Rights of Man) to build a layered argument. This technique shows students how to move beyond summary toward interpretive analysis supported by multiple perspectives.
The paper opens with a thesis-driven introduction that frames the Enlightenment as the intellectual precondition for the revolution. It then surveys social conditions in France, traces the Enlightenment's intellectual roots, profiles key thinkers, analyzes the Declaration of the Rights of Man article by article, and closes with a reflection on the Enlightenment's contemporary relevance. Each section builds logically on the previous one, moving from context to cause to consequence.
Revolutionary changes in the leadership of 18th-century France did not occur overnight or with some sudden spark of defiance by citizens. The events and ideals that led to the French Revolution were part of a gradual yet dramatic trend toward individualism, freedom, liberty, self-determination, and self-reliance that had been evolving over years in Europe — a movement that would come to be called the Enlightenment. This paper examines and analyzes the dynamics of the Enlightenment — and also those individuals who contributed to its growth and to the ultimate demise of the monarchy — in terms of the effect it had on the French Revolution.
When the question is raised as to what role, if any, the Enlightenment played in the French Revolution, the best evidence from credible historical sources is that the Enlightenment did indeed play an important role in the transformation of key social and political dynamics leading up to and through the revolution. Trends in the early to middle 18th century indicate that Europeans were in the midst of dramatic social change. For one, secularization was taking place: the Church was losing its once-powerful position, and people were no longer total believers in the Church's dogma that citizens would be damned if they strayed outside the boundaries of its influence. For another, the powerful authority of the French monarchy was being challenged by the middle class, also known as the bourgeoisie; this large body of citizens grew increasingly weary of supporting the lavish lifestyles of the monarchy through outrageous taxes. Moreover, the poverty-stricken classes were becoming allies of the bourgeoisie, and the great bulk of ordinary citizens were hungry for freedom from brutal authority, for individualism over mindless tradition, and for ideology over dogma.
The Enlightenment was an ongoing struggle for self-determination and for the fulfillment of basic inherent freedoms in a society where, according to Professor Paul Brians (Brians 2000), "the twin fortresses of monarchy and Church opposed almost everything [that philosophes Montesquieu, Voltaire, Rousseau, and their allies] stood for." And quite beyond its key effects on the French Revolution, the Enlightenment's impact and its tenets are very much felt today in the United States, Europe, and other Western cultures.
There were numerous pertinent and pressing social issues building within the populace prior to the French Revolution, according to the joint history web pages of the American Social History Project (ASHP), a production of the City University of New York, and the Center for History and New Media (CHNM), a project of George Mason University, published as Liberty, Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution (hereafter LEF:EFR). One issue at the top of the list of contributing factors was the large and growing population of France. At the dawn of the 18th century, France had 20 million residents, but that number had ballooned by nearly 10 million by the end of the century. Importantly, most of these people were located "in the rural countryside: of the nearly 30 million French under Louis XVI, about 80% lived in villages of 2,000 or less, with nearly all the rest in fairly small cities (with fewer than 50,000 inhabitants)" (LEF:EFR, 2003). The exceptions were Paris (population 600,000) and the cities of Lyons, Bordeaux, and Marseilles, each with more than 100,000 inhabitants. Tensions rose on small farms and in rural villages because an estimated 90% of peasants were living either below poverty levels or at the level of bare subsistence. Further tensions arose from the fact that a small number of farmers were wealthy landowners who were indifferent to, and wielded power over, the poor farmer.
Cities in France were "unsavory places to live" (LEF:EFR 2003) because of dirty air and water, because conditions of employment were strictly regulated, and because "masterships" in any particular industry were handed down within families rather than awarded based on skill. In those same cities, when the price of bread suddenly rose dramatically, loud protests erupted, causing still more tension and an unsettled sense of existence.
The three stratified divisions of society in France at the time of the revolution were the clergy (dominated by nobles), the nobility, and the common people. Privileges were largely the domain of nobles and were passed down through families, as masterships were. Tension had been building because of the bias against commoners and the stratified social divisions — partly also because the two privileged orders (clergy and nobles) made up the great majority of the estates' representatives, even though they constituted only 5% of the population. Reformers believed that commoners (the Third Estate), especially the more educated of the middle class, should have an equal vote with nobles and clergy, and they made their points public through the distribution of numerous pamphlets. Following the fall of the Bastille on July 14, 1789, peasants living in rural France began to engage in acts of rebellion, such as attacking the manors of lords and destroying symbols of noble privilege like weather vanes, protective walls, and deeds to nobles' property.
The Enlightenment did not suddenly emerge in 18th-century Europe; rather, it had its origins and development over several centuries. In the 13th century, for example, Thomas Aquinas attempted to combine the tenets of logic with those of Christianity, in the tradition of the Greek philosopher Aristotle, offering a fivefold proof of the existence of God — in effect, a moral law of nature. In the years that followed, "other thinkers pursued these goals...[and they were called] schoolmen, or scholastics" (Brians 2000). Thinkers in the 14th and 15th centuries were called "humanists," and they pursued a philosophy of religion that celebrated the human race and its fullness. Their argument against the Church was that worshippers were asked to listen to "gloomy priests and monks who harped on original sin and continuously called upon people to confess and humble themselves" before God. The Church, they insisted, should celebrate humanity, since some humans were quite like God — notably the creative geniuses who painted, the brilliant musicians, architects, scholars, and other talents.
Michel de Montaigne, Charles Montesquieu, and René Descartes each made important contributions to the evolving tradition of Enlightenment thought. Montaigne repeatedly posed the question "What do I know?" in his Essays, asking: "Who are Europeans to insist that Brazilian cannibals who merely consume dead human flesh instead of wasting it are morally inferior to Europeans who persecute and oppress those of whom they disapprove?" (Brians 2000). If we are not certain that all our values are God-given, Montaigne insisted, we have no right to impose them by force on others.
A nobleman and judge named Charles Montesquieu, in 1721, made an extremely important and lasting contribution to Enlightened thinking by satirizing the despotism of the French monarchy. Montesquieu published an anonymous novel called The Persian Letters, consisting of fictitious letters between Persians visiting France; it was widely discussed and certainly had an impact on the citizen demand for change. Later, in 1748, Montesquieu published Spirit of Laws, which presented a "comparative political analysis of the conditions most favorable to liberty," according to LEF:EFR's research.
Yet another major 17th-century contributor to what was later called the Enlightenment was René Descartes, who made famous the phrase "I think, therefore I am." Descartes, however, while he attempted to use reason in defense of Christianity, "committed so many logical faults that his successors over the centuries were to slowly disintegrate his gains," as Brians asserts.
By 1672, Sir Isaac Newton emerged as another intellectual who advanced the early evolution of the Enlightenment. Newton insisted that human reason could uncover the immutable laws of nature — and by implication, his efforts showed that if humans could discover the laws of nature, they could also discover the laws best suited to human society (O'Connor 2003). His research led to the explanation of a wide range of previously unrelated phenomena: the orbits of comets; the gravitational motion of tides as connected to the motion of the Moon and the gravity of the Sun; and the precision of the Earth's axis. Perhaps Newton's greatest work was the Principia, which explained centripetal forces: "The results were applied to orbiting bodies, projectiles, pendulums, and free-fall near the Earth." Newton's contribution to the Enlightenment also includes, according to O'Connor, the discovery that "the planets were attracted toward the Sun by a force varying as the inverse square of the distance, and generalized that all heavenly bodies mutually attract one another."
As the 17th century evolved into the 18th, philosophers like Voltaire emerged. While taking the position that tyranny and dogma were bad for civilization, and that educated and sophisticated people could help bring dramatic change and improve the conditions of the world, Voltaire nonetheless dined with and blended into the existing aristocracy — the social group most responsible for championing tyranny and dogma.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, on the other hand, did not trust aristocrats, believing they betrayed decent human values, and instead argued for changes in line with a democratic revolution. While Voltaire argued that equality was not possible, Rousseau's argument was that inequality was unnatural and made good government an impossibility. While Voltaire was a charming personality who insisted on the "supremacy of the intellect," according to Brians, Rousseau was said to be quite a "ponderous" person who emphasized the emotional aspects of the human condition. Rousseau was also a man who "reacted against the artificiality and corruption of the social customs and institutions of the times" (Fieser 2001, 2). Further, Rousseau "was a keen thinker, equipped with the weapons of the philosophical century and with an inspiring eloquence." Notwithstanding his shining qualities, however, Rousseau, according to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, displayed "a pronounced egotism," was "self-seeking" and "arrogant," which "led to bitter antagonism against his revolutionary views and sensitive personality" (Fieser 2001, 2).
Rousseau's well-known Social Contract of 1762 — alluded to as the "textbook" of the French Revolution — took the ideas of Montesquieu a step further and argued that government was by nature obliged to ensure that "the assembled people" determined their own destinies. The notion that divine rights, clergy, or tradition should guide government was foreign to Rousseau, although he said very little about "rights" in his writings. In fact, his Social Contract, surprisingly, did not guarantee rights for French citizens — an omission for which he was roundly criticized over the years — though Rousseau did champion the right of a community to steer its own course. Voltaire, on the other hand, made his reputation by defending individuals who had been persecuted for their opinions on religion.
Our society today tends to look back at the Enlightenment as a few moments in history — a time when some extremely bright minds were attempting to fashion a better world based on reason, common sense, tolerance, and a belief that humanity was to be celebrated more fervently than the dogma of the Church. As the conventional thinking continues, those ideals espoused by philosophers and other great thinkers of the 18th century were crushed amidst the Terror of the French Revolution, leading many historically minded observers to conclude that the Enlightenment is dead. That assumption is patently wrong, according to Professor Paul Brians. "The notions of human rights [the Enlightenment] developed are powerfully attractive to oppressed peoples everywhere," he argues. In today's world, when religious conflicts break out — such as the ancient clash between Protestants and Catholics in Ireland — "mutual religious tolerance is counseled as a solution." And Rousseau's concepts of self-rule "are so universal that the worst tyrant has to disguise his tyrannies by claiming to be acting on their behalf."
You’re 61% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.