The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment, or Age of Reason) is an era from the 1650s to

the 1780s in which cultural and intellectual forces in Western Europe emphasized reason, analysis, and
individualism rather than traditional lines of authority. It was promoted by philosophes and local thinkers
in urban coffee houses, salons, and Masonic lodges. It challenged the authority of institutions that were
deeply rooted in society, especially the Catholic Church; there was much talk of ways to reform society
with toleration, science and skepticism.
Philosophers including Francis Bacon (15621626), Ren Descartes (15961650), John Locke (1632
1704), Baruch Spinoza (16321677), Pierre Bayle (16471706), Voltaire (16941778), David
Hume (17111776),Cesare Beccaria (17381794), Immanuel Kant (17241804), and Sir Isaac
Newton (16421727)[1] influenced society by publishing widely read works. Upon learning about
enlightened views, some rulers met with intellectuals and tried to apply their reforms, such as allowing
for toleration, or accepting multiple religions, in what became known as enlightened absolutism.
Coinciding with the Age of Enlightenment was the Scientific revolution, spearheaded by Newton.
New ideas and beliefs spread around the continent and were fostered by an increase in literacy due to a
departure from solely religious texts. Publications include Encyclopdie (175172) that was edited
by Denis Diderotand (until 1759) Jean le Rond d'Alembert. Some 25,000 copies of the 35 volume
encyclopedia were sold, half of them outside France. The Dictionnaire philosophique (Philosophical
Dictionary, 1764) and Letters on the English (1733) written by Voltaire (16941778) were revolutionary
texts that spread the ideals of the Enlightenment. Some of these ideals proved influential and decisive in
the course of the French Revolution, which began in 1789. After the Revolution, the Enlightenment was
followed by an opposing intellectual movement known as Romanticism.
The term "Republic of Letters" was coined by Pierre Bayle in 1664, in his journal Nouvelles de la
Republique des Lettres. Towards the end of the 18th century, the editor of Histoire de la Rpublique des
Lettres en France, a literary survey, described the Republic of Letters as being:
In the midst of all the governments that decide the fate of men; in the bosom of so many states, the
majority of them despotic ... there exists a certain realm which holds sway only over the mind ... that we
honour with the name Republic, because it preserves a measure of independence, and because it is almost
its essence to be free. It is the realm of talent and of thought. [141]
The ideal of the Republic of Letters was the sum of a number of Enlightenment ideals: an egalitarian
realm governed by knowledge that could act across political boundaries and rival state power.[141] It was a
forum that supported "free public examination of questions regarding religion or legislation".
[142]

Immanuel Kant considered written communication essential to his conception of the public sphere;

once everyone was a part of the "reading public", then society could be said to be enlightened. [143] The

people who participated in the Republic of Letters, such as Diderot and Voltaire, are frequently known
today as important Enlightenment figures. Indeed, the men who wrote Diderot'sEncyclopdie arguably
formed a microcosm of the larger "republic". [144]
Dena Goodman has argued that women played a major role in French salons salonnires to complement
the male philosophes. Discursively, she bases the Republic of Letters in polite conversation and letter
writing; its principal social institution was the salon. [145]
Robert Darnton's The Literary Underground of the Old Regime was the first major historical work to
critique this ideal model.[146] He argues that, by the mid-18th century, the established men of letters (gens
de lettres) had fused with the elites (les grands) of French society. Consider the definition of "Got"
(taste) as written by Voltaire in the Dictionnaire philosophique (taken from Darnton): "Taste is like
philosophy. It belongs to a very small number of privileged souls ... It is unknown in bourgeois families,
where one is constantly occupied with the care of one's fortune". In the words of Darnton, Voltaire
"thought that the Enlightenment should begin with the grands".[147] The historian cites similar opinions
from d'Alembert and Louis Sbastien Mercier.[148]
A genre that greatly rose in importance was that of scientific literature. Natural history in particular
became increasingly popular among the upper classes. Works of natural history include Ren-Antoine
Ferchault de Raumur's Histoire naturelle des insectes and Jacques Gautier d'Agoty's La Myologie
complte, ou description de tous les muscles du corps humain (1746). However, as Franois-Alexandre
Aubert de La Chesnaye des Bois's Dictionnaire de la Noblesse(1770) indicates, natural history was very
often a political affair. As E. C. Spary writes, the classifications used by naturalists "slipped between the
natural world and the social ... to establish not only the expertise of the naturalists over the natural, but
also the dominance of the natural over the social". [167] From this basis, naturalists could then develop their
own social ideals based on their scientific works. [168]
The target audience of natural history was French polite society, evidenced more by the specific discourse
of the genre than by the generally high prices of its works. Naturalists catered to polite society's desire for
erudition many texts had an explicit instructive purpose. But the idea of taste (le got) was the real
social indicator: to truly be able to categorize nature, one had to have the proper taste, an ability of
discretion shared by all members of polite society. In this way natural history spread many of the
scientific developments of the time, but also provided a new source of legitimacy for the dominant class.
[169]

Outside ancien rgime France, natural history was an important part of medicine and industry,
encompassing the fields of botany, zoology, meteorology, hydrology and mineralogy. Students in
Enlightenment universities and academies were taught these subjects to prepare them for careers as
diverse as medicine and theology. As shown by M D Eddy, natural history in this context was a very

middle class pursuit and operated as a fertile trading zone for the interdisciplinary exchange of diverse
scientific ideas.[44]

American Revolution
Background to 1763
The British began colonizing North America in the 17th century. The colonies established along the Atlantic
coast were governed by charters granted by the King, each permitting a substantial amount of self-governance.
Crown colonies (Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, North Carolina, South
Carolina and Georgia) imitated the "mixed monarchy" constitutional structure of Great Britain. Each had an
elected assembly which constituted the lower house of the legislature, a council appointed (except in
Massachusetts) by the crown constituting the upper house, and an appointed governor with executive powers
representing the King. All laws had to be submitted to the home government for approval, but otherwise there
was little interference. Proprietary colonies (Pennsylvania,Delaware, and Maryland) also had elected
assemblies but the proprietors, not the crown, appointed the governors. Charter colonies
(Connecticut and Rhode island) elected both houses of the legislature and the governor and did not have to
submit their laws for approval.[9]
Parliament legislated regarding matters of an imperial concern. As early as 1621 London introduced legislation
to levy duties on shipments of Virginian tobacco that passed into English ports, though in return the planters
enjoyed protection and a guaranteed market. English growers were prohibited by law to raise tobacco crops,
and producers of rice and indigo (a blue plant dye) in South Carolina received similar privileges. In common
with all European nations which had colonies, the English Navigation Acts of the late 17th century restricted
colonial trade for the benefit of the mother country in accordance with mercantilist theory. To ensure adequate
auxiliary vessels were available in wartime, the Acts also encouraged the colonists to invest in shipping, but
particularly in New England, an unintentional outcome was a flourishing and very hard to control, smuggling
industry. The sheer scale of the problem of patrolling 3000 miles of American coastline with a tiny number of
English customs and revenue cutters meant that colonial shippers could evade duties with comparative ease.
[10]

Because the Acts did not apply to inter-colonial trade, colonial shippers were afforded plenty of

opportunities for bypassing the meagre British customs controls, using a mixture of convoluted routes, bribery
and false paperwork which misrepresented or under-declared their cargoes so that very little duty was paid at
all.[11] The close proximity of the European island plantations in the Caribbean provided easy transit points for
colonial shippers, who made regular round trips south to with livestock, timber, grain and tobacco which they
bartered for slaves, fine cloth, linens, soap, sugar and molasses, used in the production of rum.

The French and Indian War ended in 1763 with the conquest of French Canada and the expulsion of France
from mainland North America by British and provincial forces. The war left Britain in considerable debt, and it
therefore made plans to ensure a more productive collection of existing duties from the colonists. In addition,
following the Pontiac Rebellion, which led to considerable loss of life and territory by Native Americans, the
British Crown issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which set a boundary running along the foot of the
Appalachian Mountains from Florida and Georgia to the Gulf of the St. Lawrence beyond which colonists
were not to settle. The purpose was to save money from having to administer any new lands and prevent
additional war with the inhabitants.

17641766: Taxes imposed and withdrawn

Main articles: Sugar Act, Currency Act, Quartering Acts, Stamp Act 1765 and Declaratory Act
Further information: No taxation without representation and Virtual representation
In 1764 Parliament passed the Currency Act to restrain the use of paper money that British merchants saw as a
means to evade debt payments. Parliament also passed the Sugar Act imposing customsduties on a number of
articles. That same year Prime Minister George Grenville proposed to impose direct taxes on the colonies to
raise revenue, but delayed action to see if the colonies would propose some way to raise the revenue
themselves.[citation needed] None did, and in March 1765 Parliament passed the Stamp Act which imposed direct taxes
on the colonies for the first time. All official documents, newspapers, almanacs and pamphletseven decks of
playing cardswere required to have the stamps.
The colonists objected chiefly on the grounds not that the taxes were high (they were low), [12] but because they
had no representation in the Parliament. Benjamin Franklin testified in Parliament in 1766 that Americans
already contributed heavily to the defense of the Empire. He said local governments had raised, outfitted and
paid 25,000 soldiers to fight Franceas many as Britain itself sentand spent many millions from American
treasuries doing so in the French and Indian War alone.[13][14] Stationing a standing army in Great Britain during
peacetime was politically unacceptable. London had to deal with 1,500 politically well-connected British
officers who became redundant; it would have to discharge them or station them in North America.[15]
In 1765 the Sons of Liberty formed. They used public demonstrations, boycott, violence and threats of
violence to ensure that the British tax laws were unenforceable. While openly hostile to what they considered
an oppressive Parliament acting illegally, colonists persisted in sending numerous petitions and pleas for
intervention from a monarch to whom they still claimed loyalty. In Boston, the Sons of Liberty burned the
records of the vice-admiralty court and looted the home of the chief justice, Thomas Hutchinson. Several
legislatures called for united action, and nine colonies sent delegates to the Stamp Act Congress in New York
City in October 1765. Moderates led byJohn Dickinson drew up a "Declaration of Rights and Grievances"
stating that taxes passed without representation violated their rights as Englishmen. At the same time, however,
they rejected the idea of being provided with representation in Parliament, declaring it impossible due to the
distance involved.[citation needed] Colonists emphasized their determination by boycotting imports of British
merchandise.[16]

The Parliament at Westminster saw itself as the supreme lawmaking authority throughout all British
possessions and thus entitled to levy any tax without colonial approval. [17] They argued that the colonies were
legally British corporations that were completely subordinate to the British parliament and pointed to
numerous instances where Parliament had made laws binding on the colonies in the past. [18] They did not see
anything in the unwritten British constitution that made taxes special [19] and noted that Parliament had taxed
American trade for decades. Parliament insisted that the colonies effectively enjoyed a "virtual representation"
like most British people did, as only a small minority of the British population elected representatives to
Parliament.[20] Americans such as James Otis maintained the Americans were not in fact virtually represented.[21]
In London, the Rockingham government came to power (July 1765) and Parliament debated whether to repeal
the stamp tax or to send an army to enforce it. Benjamin Franklin made the case for repeal, explaining the
colonies had spent heavily in manpower, money, and blood in defense of the empire in a series of wars against
the French and Indians, and that further taxes to pay for those wars were unjust and might bring about a
rebellion. Parliament agreed and repealed the tax (February 21, 1766), but in the Declaratory Act of March
1766 insisted that parliament retained full power to make laws for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever". [22] The
repeal nonetheless caused widespread celebrations in the colonies.

17671773: Townshend Acts and the Tea Act

Main articles: Townshend Acts and Tea Act
Further information: Massachusetts Circular Letter, Boston Massacre and Boston Tea Party
In 1767 the Parliament passed the Townshend Acts, which placed duties on a number of essential goods
including paper, glass, and tea and established a Board of Customs in Boston to more rigorously execute trade
regulations. The new taxes were enacted on the belief that Americans only objected to internal taxes and not
external taxes like custom duties. The Americans, however, argued against the constitutionality of the act
because its purpose was to raise revenue and not regulate trade. Colonists responded by organizing new
boycotts of British goods. These boycotts were less effective, however, as the Townshend goods were widely
used.
In February 1768 the Assembly of Massachusetts Bay issued a circular letter to the other colonies urging them
to coordinate resistance. The governor dissolved the assembly when it refused to rescind the letter. Meanwhile,
in June 1768 a riot broke out in Boston over the seizure of the sloop Liberty, owned by John Hancock, for
alleged smuggling. Custom officials were forced to flee, prompting the British to deploy troops to Boston. A
Boston town meeting declared no obedience was due to parliamentary laws and called for the convening of a
convention. A convention assembled but only issued a mild protest before dissolving itself. In January 1769
Parliament responded to the unrest by reactivating the Treason Act 1543 which permitted subjects outside the
realm to face trials for treason in England. The governor of Massachusetts was instructed to collect evidence of
said treason, and although the threat was not carried out it caused widespread outrage.
On March 5, 1770 a large mob gathered around a group of British soldiers. The mob grew more and more
threatening, throwing snowballs, rocks and debris at the soldiers. One soldier was clubbed and fell. [23] There

was no order to fire but the soldiers fired into the crowd anyway. They hit 11 people; three civilians died at the
scene of the shooting, and two died after the incident. The event quickly came to be called the Boston
Massacre. Although the soldiers were tried and acquitted (defended by John Adams), the widespread
descriptions soon became propaganda to turn colonial sentiment against the British. This in turn began a
downward spiral in the relationship between Britain and the Province of Massachusetts. [23]
A new ministry under Lord North came to power in 1770 and Parliament withdrew all taxes except the tax on
tea, giving up its efforts to raise revenue while maintaining the right to tax. This temporarily resolved the crisis
and the boycott of British goods largely ceased, with only the more radical patriots such as Samuel
Adams continuing to agitate.
In June 1772, in what became known as the Gaspee Affair, American patriots including John Brown burned a
British warship that had been vigorously enforcing unpopular trade regulations. The affair was investigated for
possible treason, but no action was taken.
In 1772 it became known that the Crown intended to pay fixed salaries to the governors and judges in
Massachusetts. Samuel Adams in Boston set about creating new Committees of Correspondence, which linked
Patriots in all 13 colonies and eventually provided the framework for a rebel government. In early 1773
Virginia, the largest colony, set up its Committee of Correspondence, on which Patrick Henry and Thomas
Jefferson served.[25]
A total of about 7000 to 8000 Patriots served on "Committees of Correspondence" at the colonial and local
levels, comprising most of the leadership in their communities Loyalists were excluded. The committees
became the leaders of the American resistance to British actions, and largely determined the war effort at the
state and local level. When the First Continental Congress decided to boycott British products, the colonial and
local Committees took charge, examining merchant records and publishing the names of merchants who
attempted to defy the boycott by importing British goods.[26]
In 1773 private letters were published where Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson claimed the
colonists could not enjoy all English liberties, and Lieutenant Governor Andrew Oliver called for the direct
payment of colonial officials. The letters, whose contents were used as evidence of a systematic plot against
American rights, discredited Hutchinson in the eyes of the people the Assembly petitioned for his
recall. Benjamin Franklin, post-master general for the colonies, acknowledged that he leaked the letters which
led to him being berated by British officials and fired from his job.
Meanwhile, Parliament passed the Tea Act to lower the price of taxed tea exported to the colonies in order to
help the East India Company undersell smuggled Dutch tea. Special consignees were appointed to sell the tea
in order to bypass colonial merchants. The act was opposed not only by those who resisted the taxes but also
by smugglers who stood to lose business. In most instances the consignees were forced to resign and the tea
was turned back, but Massachusetts governor Hutchinson refused to allow Boston merchants to give into
pressure. A town meeting in Boston determined that the tea would not be landed, and ignored a demand from
the governor to disperse. On December 16, 1773 a group of men, led by Samuel Adams and dressed to evoke

American Indians, boarded the ships of the British East India Company and dumped 10,000 worth of tea from
their holds (approximately 636,000 in 2008) into Boston Harbor. Decades later this event became known as
the Boston Tea Party and remains a significant part of American patriotic lore.[27]

17741775: Intolerable Acts and the Quebec Act

The British government responded by passing four new laws, the Coercive Acts which the Patriots called
the Intolerable Acts.[28] The first, the Massachusetts Government Act, altered the Massachusetts charter and
restricted town meetings. The second Act, the Administration of Justice Act, ordered that all British soldiers to
be tried were to be arraigned in Britain, not in the colonies. The third Act was the Boston Port Act, which
closed the port of Boston until the British had been compensated for the tea lost in the Boston Tea Party. The
fourth Act was the Quartering Act of 1774, which Patriots claimed allowed royal governors to house British
troops in the homes of citizens without requiring permission of the owner. The 1774 Quartering Act was
actually a clarification of previous legislation from 1765 which made no mention of troops intruding in private
homes. Only the original 1765 act included taverns, alehouses, and inns among the locations that officials
could commandeer for the regulars if necessary. Even then, provinces were to pay innkeepers and tavern
owners for the use of their property.[29]
In response, Massachusetts patriots issued the Suffolk Resolves and formed an alternative shadow government
known as the "Provincial Congress" which began training militia outside British-occupied Boston. [30] In
September 1774, the First Continental Congress convened, consisting of representatives from each of the
colonies, to serve as a vehicle for deliberation and collective action. During secret debates conservative Joseph
Galloway proposed the creation of a colonial Parliament that would be able to approve or disapprove of acts of
the British Parliament but his idea was not accepted. The Congress instead endorsed the proposal of John
Adams that Americans would obey Parliament voluntarily but would resist all taxes in disguise. Congress
called for a boycott beginning on 1 December 1774 of all British goods; it was enforced by new committees
authorized by the Congress.[31]
The Quebec Act of 1774 extended Quebec's boundaries to the Ohio River, shutting out the claims of the 13
colonies. By then, however, the Americans had little regard for new laws from London; they were drilling
militia and organizing for war.
The British retaliated by confining all trade of the New England colonies to Britain and excluding them from
the Newfoundland fisheries. Lord North advanced a compromise proposal in which Parliament would not tax
so long as the colonies made fixed contributions for defense and to support civil government. This would also
be rejected.