THE ENLIGHTENMENT:

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Eighteenth century Europe witnessed very wide sweeping changes in all spheres of life. Although these
changes did not occur at the same time or at the same pace in all countries, they structured a distinct
historical era – one that laid the foundations of the modern age. The Enlightenment or the Age of
Reason, as it came to be known subsequently, marked a sharp break from the past. Even though its anti-
clericalism echoed the sentiments of the Renaissance and the Reformation it neither endorsed the
paganism of the former nor did it share the faith of the latter. It clearly identified two enemies: religion
and hierarchy, and attempted to displace the centrality accorded to both in social and political life. The
Enlightenment men were not irreligious or atheists but they were bitterly opposed to and intolerant of
the institutions of Christianity and they sought to challenge them by articulating a conception of man,
history and nature that relied heavily upon the world-view expressed by the new discoveries in the
natural sciences. At the most general level, the Enlightenment used the scientific method of enquiry to
launch a systematic attack on tradition per se. They questioned blind obedience to authority, whether
that of the priest or the ruler. Nothing was any longer sacred and beyond critical scrutiny. The new
social and political order that the Enlightenment thinkers aspired for expressed the optimism that came
with the advancement of material and scientific knowledge. They strongly believed that human beings
were in a position to create a world in which freedom, liberty and happiness .

will prevail over all else. Even though this vision was very widely shared it was most clearly evident in
the writings of Voltaire, Diderot, d’Alembert and Condorcet in France, Adam Ferguson, Adam Smith and
David Hume in Scotland, Christian Wolff and Immanuel Kant in Germany and marchese di Baccaria in
Italy. The writings of these theorists best express the spirit of the Enlightenment and its influence upon
the modern age. In this Unit we are going to discuss some of the essential features of the
enlightenment.

2.2 THE IDEA OF PROGRESS

The idea that is constitutive of the Enlightenment and central to this historical epoch is the idea of
progress. Through it the Enlightenment expressed the twin belief that – a) the present was better and
more advanced than the past, and b) this advancement has resulted in the happiness of man. Both these
claims about progress in history were based on the assessment of the changes that were taking place
around them. The scientific discoveries of Copernicus, Kepler and Newton and their applications by
Galileo led them to believe that human beings could fully understand the functioning

20 of the universe and gain an unprecedented degree of control over their natural and

physical environment. This sentiment was further reinforced by the changes that were taking place in
the traditional organization of life. The incorporation of new technologies in the field of agriculture and
in the manufacturing of goods had meant significant increase in the sphere of production. Coupled with
improved communications, development of roads, canals, and the growth in internal and foreign trade,
they believed they were standing on the threshold of a new era: an era that would be marked by
abundance, perfectibility of man and the institutions of society. At the most general level there was a
feeling that we are now moving towards a condition in which, to quote Gibbons, ‘all inhabitants of the
planet would enjoy a perfectly happy existence’.

Theorists of the Enlightenment were convinced of the achievements and superiority of their age. They
saw in history a movement from the dark ages to the civilized present. This did not mean that human
history was slowly but steadily moving in one direction or that every stage marked an improvement over
the previous one. While pointing to progress in history they were primarily saying that there was a
marked improvement in the quality of life in the present era. More specifically, the Philosophes
(philosophers who espoused this vision in France) were claiming that there has been a tangible and
undeniable advancement in every sphere of life since the Reformation. For Chastellux, flourishing
agriculture, trade and industry, the rise in population and the growth in knowledge were all indicators of
the increase in felicity. The latter meant that their age was a much happier one. It was marked by peace,
liberty and abundance. It was, to use Kant’s words, the best of all possible worlds.

Unlike many of his contemporaries Kant was however of the view that happiness was not the main
issue. It was not simply a question of increase or decrease in the levels of happiness because civilization,
even in its most perfect form, could not bring about the happiness of men. Hence it was not to be
judged in those terms. Civilization, according to Kant, provided a setting in which men can test and
prove their freedom. The present merited a special place in so far as it had created conditions in which
men can encounter the most important category of reason, namely, freedom.

The belief that man had advanced from the ‘barbarous rusticity’ to the

‘politeness of our age’ was characteristic of the Enlightenment. Indeed, this reading of the past and the
present marked a sharp break from the earlier conceptions of history. The Greeks, for instance, saw
history as a cyclical process comprising of periods of glory followed by periods of decline and
degeneration. The Middle Ages, under the influence of Christianity, had little place for mundane history.
Nothing in real history mattered because hope and happiness lay in the other-world. Man’s fall from
grace had meant the loss of idyllic existence. Consequently, for them, it was only through redemption
that men could hope to improve their present condition. The Renaissance broke away from this
Christian reading of history but it had a pessimistic view of human nature. The Renaissance men
believed that the achievements of antiquity, in particular, of Greek and Roman civilization, were
unreachable. They embodied the highest achievements of humankind that could not be surpassed. The
Enlightenment, in sharp contrast to all this, focused on the ‘here’ and ‘now’ and saw in it unprecedented
growth, accompanied by moral and intellectual liberation of man. Johnson is reported to have said, “I
am always angry when I hear ancient times being praised at the expense of modern times. There is now
a great deal more learning in the world than there was formerly; for it is un iversally diffused”. The
Scottish philosopher Dugald Stewart was even more unequivocal in affirming the progress in the present
world. He argued that the increase in commerce had “led to the diffusion of wealth and ‘a more equal
diffusion of freedom and happiness’, than had ever existed before”. Technological innovations that
accompanied capitalism

PEACE OF WESTPHALIA / TREATY OF WEST PHALIA’’’’’’’

Peace of Westphalia/Treaty of Westphalia

This article shall examine the Peace of Westphalia, or the Treaty of Westphalia (that was agreed upon in
1648) within the context of international relations. Many have argued that the Peace of Westphalia
(Treaty of Westphalia) is one of the most important events with regards to state sovereignty. In this
article, we shall examine key historical events such as the Thirty Years War, the negotiations of various
powers in attempts to end the conflicts in Europe, the contents of the treaty of Westphalia that resulted
from these discussions, and the implications of the Peace of Westphalia/Treaty of Westphalia on ideas
of the state, sovereignty, and related issues international relations.

The Thirty Years War

In order to understand the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, it is critical that one has an understanding of the
events that led to the establishment of the Peace of Westphalia. And one of the key historical events
prior to the Treaty of Westphalia was the Thirty Years War. Some have suggested that “[t]he Thirty
Years’ War was one of the greatest and longest armed contests of the early modern period” (Asch
2014). In terms of its origins, “The Thirty Years’ War (1618-48) began when Holy Roman Emperor
Ferdinand II of Bohemia attempted to curtail the religious activities of his subjects, sparking rebellion
among Protestants. The war came to involve the major powers of Europe, with Sweden, France, Spain
and Austria all waging campaigns primarily on German soil” (History.com, 1996). Furthermore, “This
conflict, which redrew the religious and political map of central Europe, began in the Holy Roman
Empire, a vast complex of some one thousand separate, semiautonomous political units under the loose
suzerainty of the Austrian Hapsburgs. Over the previous two centuries, a balance of power had emerged
among the leading states, but during the sixteenth century, the Reformation and the Counter
Reformation had divided Germany into hostile Protestant and Catholic camps, each prepared to seek
foreign support to guarantee its integrity if need arose” (History.com, 1996).

As mentioned, the factors that led to the Thirty Years War varied. Many see the conflict as starting due
to religious tensions between the Bohemian state and the citizens. In 1618, Ferdinand II started to
restrict religious freedoms in Bohemia. As a result, citizens in Bohemia turned to other Protestant
entities in the region such as England, Denmark, and The Dutch Republic (History.com, 1996), following
their uprising against Ferdinand II (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). Ferdinand II responded to this by
approaching various Catholic allies in Europe. For example, he attempted to shore up his alliance with
the papacy, along with other Catholic rulers. This led to the beginning of a conflict within Bohemia. In
1619, for example,

“Ferdinand (elected Holy Roman Emperor in 1619) and his allies won a major victory at White Mountain
(1620) outside Prague that allowed the extirpation of Protestantism in most of the Hapsburg lands.
Encouraged by this success, Ferdinand turned in 1621 against Bohemia’s Protestant supporters in
Germany. Despite aid from Britain, Denmark, and the Dutch Republic, they too lost, and by 1629
imperial armies commanded by Albrecht von Wallenstein overran most of Protestant Germany and
much of Denmark. Ferdinand then issued the Edict of Restitution, reclaiming lands in the empire
belonging to the Catholic Church that had been acquired and secularized by Protestant rulers”
(History.com, 1996).

Furthermore, Asch (2014) writes that during this time, there was

“an almost unbroken series of Catholic victories in central Europe. The Palatinate was occupied by
Bavarian and Spanish troops in 1622, the palatine electoral dignity was transferred to Maximilian of
Bavaria, and the army of the Catholic League led by Count Johann Tserclaes of Tilly threatened to
dismantle the remaining Protestant strongholds in northern Germany. The troops of the Dutch Republic
were too busy defending their own country to intervene in Germany. In fact, the important Dutch
fortress of Breda had to surrender in 1625 to Spanish troops, a victory immortalized by Velázquez in his
famous painting, La rendición de Breda (1634–1635; The surrender of Breda). However, King Christian IV
of Denmark, who was also, as duke of Holstein, a prince of the empire and who hoped to acquire various
prince-bishoprics in northern Germany for mem bers of his family, decided to stop Tilly’s advance in
1625. Hoping for financial and military support from the Netherlands and England—Charles I of England
was the exiled elector palatine’s brother-in-law—he mobilized the Imperial Circle (Reichskreis) of Lower
Saxony for the Protestant cause. However, he had not anticipated that the emperor would raise an army
of his own (counting initially 30,000 soldiers and growing fast), commanded by Albrecht von
Wallenstein, a Bohemian nobleman and the greatest military entrepreneur of his age. Christian’s troops
were routed at Lutter am Barenberge (1626). Christian’s ally Charles I of England was equally
unsuccessful in his fight at sea against Spain, and France, which might have given support to the
opponents of the Habsburgs, was paralyzed by a Protestant revolt during the years 1625–1628, in which
England became involved in 1627. Thus Ferdinand II was able to crush his enemies. Christian had to
withdraw from the conflict and signed the Peace of Lübeck in 1629, giving up his claims to several
prince-bishoprics in northern Germany but retaining Holstein and Schleswig.”

ese actions by the various Catholic militaries attracted a response by other Protestants such as Gustavus
Adolphus, who beat the Imperialists and drove many of them out of Germany following his Battle at
Breitenfeld in 1931. (History.com, 1996). He was also able to win over “many German princes to his anti-
Roman Catholic, anti-imperial cause” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014) (In fact, some viewed these
actions more about power in Europe compared to the Habsburgs (Osiander, 2001). Others victories by
different Protestant forces against Catholic forces “continued until in 1634 a Spanish army intervened
and at Nordlingen defeated the main Swedish field army and forced the Protestants out of southern
Germany. This new Hapsburg success, however, provoked France-which feared encirclement-to declare
war first on Spain (1635) and then on the emperor (1636)” (History.com, 1996). This war brought in a
number of other actors during this time. For example, Poland led a military invasion in Russia in 1634
(Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). Thus,

“The war, which in the 1620s had been fought principally by German states with foreign assistance, now
became a struggle among the great powers (Sweden, France, Spain, and Austria) fought largely on
German soil, and for twelve more years armies maneuvered while garrisons-over five hundred in all-
carried out a “dirty war” designed both to support themselves and to destroy anything of possible use to
the enemy. Atrocities (such as those recorded in the novel Simplicissimus by Hans von Grimmelshausen)
abounded as troops struggled to locate and appropriate resources. Eventually, France’s victory over the
Spaniards at Rocroi (1643) and Sweden’s defeat of the Imperialists at Jankau (1645) forced the
Hapsburgs to make concessions that led, in 1648, to the Peace of Westphalia, which settled most of the
outstanding issues” (History.com, 1996).

The makeup of Europe was altered following the Thirty Years War and the Peace of Westphalia/Treaty
of Westphalia. It has been written that

“When the contending powers finally met in the German province of Westphalia to end the bloodshed,
the balance of power in Europe had been radically changed. Spain had lost not only the Netherlands but
its dominant position in western Europe. France was now the chief Western power. Sweden had control
of the Baltic” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). The Peace of Westphalia (Treaty of Westphalia) put an
end to the Eighty Years War that pitted Dutch and Spanish forces against one another (Hawtin, 3).
Furthermore, “The United Netherlands was recognized as an independent republic. The member states
of the Holy Roman Empire were granted full sovereignty. The ancient notion of a Roman Catholic empire
of Europe, headed spiritually by a pope and temporally by an emperor, was permanently abandoned,
and the essential structure of modern Europe as a community of sovereign states was established”
(Encyclopedia Brittanica, 2014). Furthermore, there were other outcomes of the Peace of Westphalia.

The Peace of Westphalia and State Sovereignty

The reason that the Peace of Westphalia/Treaty of Westphalia is discussed so frequently in the studies
of international relations has to do with the implications of the Treaty of Westphalia on the
international system, namely with regards to the notion of state sovereignty. The reason that there is so
much attention to the Peace of Westphalia was because it altered that way that political power
structures existed. For example, before the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, there was a feudal system in
existence throughout much of Europe (Hassan, 2006). And while sovereignty did exist, it was not
universally respected across all states the same way. For example, while there were some cases of
complete sovereign states, there also existed some entities that were not fully sovereign (Hassan, 2006).
However, the Peace of Westphalia/Treaty of Westphalia changed all that, as “[i]t emphased the
separation of States. Therefore Christendom was ivided into sovereign secular States with a thick line
between them and the government were the absolute authority inside that line. This change brought a
new image in every sovereign territorial limit, that is, all Governments are the exclusive authority and
their decisions and arguments are exclusively carried out within their territorial limit, as the concept of
Westphalian sovereignty is tied to State territory. According to territorial sovereignty, within a territory
there is only one absolute temporal power, the Government of that territorial State” (Hassan, 2006).

And because of the Treaty of Westphalia’s ability to place state sovereignty at the forefront of
international relations, Hassan (2006) argues that “It recognised the hornogenial system and
acknowledged all Princes or States as equally sovereign. It removed temporal power from the church. It
was therefore a fundamental charter in nature. As a fundamental and comprehensive charter it
established many rules and principles of the new society of states. Some of the general ideas clearly
expressed by this charter have been echoed in the following international settlements and in the
permanent congress of the League of Nations and United Nations” (65). Thus, the idea of the state
leaders to govern themselves without outside interference was the primary contribution and legacy of
the Peace of Westphalia/Treaty of Westphalia. However, others have also argued that the Peace of
Westphalia (Treaty of Westphalia) also established principles of secularism as a political state structure
(Straumann, 2007).

It will be interested to see how the Peace of Westphalia/Treaty of Westphalia continues to influence
international relations and the international system. Not only are issues of sovereignty debated,
particularly as states commit human rights violations, but additional globalization has also led some to
re-examine the ideas of sovereignty set forth by the Peace of Westphalia Okhonmina (2010), since
sovereignty has continued to evolve in international relations, even shortly after the Peace of
Westphalia was established (Kelleh, 2012), with different approaches to sovereignty, and more
attention to non-state actors such as individuals, as well as multinational corporations (Cutler, 2001).

TREATY OF WESTPHALIA:

PEACE