Pencerahan Telawi

Salons (3)

2007-02-13T03:17:00.000-08:00

Yang menarik, antaranya, kenyataan ini: In short, the salon emerged in the eighteenth century as one of the institutions of the "public sphere" that prepared a new kind of political participation for an expanded elite.

(Terjemahan: Ringkasnya salon muncul pada abad ke-18 sebagai satu daripada beberapa institusi 'ruang awam' yang menyediakan asas baru penyertaan politik di kalangan elit yang kian berkembang.)

>>> Tentang ruang awam, atau public sphere, rujuk di sini (3 bab).

Rujuk: Sumber asal (History 1450-1789)

The salon was a venue for intellectual sociability that took form in the seventeenth century and flourished in the eighteenth but only acquired its name in the nineteenth, after it had been supplanted at the heart of the world of letters and ideas by more democratic, masculine, and politically oriented institutions. In the seventeenth century the gatherings later classified as salons were called ruelles (after the corridor beside the bed on which the hostess received her guests) or réduits (alcoves) or, as would be most common in the eighteenth century, were referred to simply by the day of the week on which they took place: Mademoiselle de Scudéry had her "Saturdays," Madame Geoffrin her "Mondays," and so on.

Those assemblies recognized in retrospect as "salons" differed from other forms of social and intellectual exchange in well-recognized ways: by gathering intellectuals and socially prominent men and women on a regular basis in a woman's home for conversational exchanges on issues of mutual interest. But the fact that this venue for intellectual sociability lacked a name during the period when its importance was most evident and its influence strongest suggests some of the ambiguities attached to this unofficial social form.

Which among the assemblies that aspired to offer both pleasure and instruction should be considered salons? At what point did an assembly veer so far toward gaiety in one direction or high-mindedness in the other as to blur the boundaries with parties at one extreme or professional meetings at the other? How widespread was the phenomenon? Relatively few of these assemblies managed enough longevity and appeal to be truly important, but how many other salons or would-be salons met briefly or in obscurity, and to what effect? A salon was easy to establish—there being no formal prerequisites to meet or permissions to acquire—yet difficult to pull off. What blend of ingredients—the intangibles of the hostess's personality and the participants' chemistry, the tangible patronage available to be dispensed there—made for success? Though it was by definition hosted by a woman in her private quarters, how central or marginal was the salonnière (another term of nineteenth-century invention) to its intellectual pursuits? As in any leisure entertainment, the hostess was understood to direct her guests' activities, yet the serious business of the evening turned, as did the meetings of academies and male coteries, on the attending men of letters who were her guests. It might even turn on the husband in the late eighteenth century, when several salons were led by a married couple (Condorcet, Helvétius, Suard), though the fact that the masculine construction salonnier was never coined implies the continuing identification of the venue with its female host.

Salons flourished in France, especially in Paris, but they could also be found in the French provinces and elsewhere in Europe, notably in Berlin. For antecedents one can point in the sixteenth century to intellectual coteries surrounding Marguerite de Navarre and other learned women at the French court as well as to occasional urban literary circles such as the one held in Poitiers by Madeleine and Catherine des Roches. But the first fully developed salon is generally held to be that founded by Catherine de Vivonne, marquise de Rambouillet, in the 1630s at her home, the Hôtel de Rambouillet, in Paris. In her chambre bleue she orchestrated light entertainments, poetry readings, serious discussions, even dramatic productions.

Later in the seventeenth century, influential venues that likewise centered their sociability on literary pursuits were established by such talented women as Mademoiselle de Scudéry, Madame de La Fayette, Mademoiselle de Montpensier, Madame de La Suze, Madame de Sablé, and Ninon de Lenclos. Writers including La Rochefoucauld, Paul Pellisson, Gilles Ménage, Charles Perrault, and Charles de Saint-Évremond offered up their own works in these salons, and amateurs among the gens de bonne compagnie, men and women alike, tried their hand at composing literary pieces, often as a collective activity. Several original genres emerged in the salon to shape the development of French literature generally: the word portrait that was so influential in creating a new language of emotions and character psychology, précieuses verses and allegories (such as Mademoiselle de Scudéry's Carte de Tendre) that enriched the French language with new concepts and purged it of old usages, neochivalric romances, and other brief fictional narratives that evolved into the modern novel.

The participation of women in these early salons reflected the vast expansion of the literary field effected by the new print capitalism. Women probably accounted for at least an equal proportion of the increase in readers and writers over the course of the century. As a cultural venue sharply divergent from the masculine world of humanist erudition, the salon seemed to promise that men and women would advance side by side as creators and interpreters of modern literature. Late in the century, however, as the literary field coalesced once again in a hierarchical and masculine structure, women were increasingly steered into minor genres (occasional poems, fairy tales) and into marginal roles as consumers rather than producers of culture, inspirations to creativity rather than the inspired.

The prominence of literary pursuits in the early salons has led some to see them, quite incorrectly, as apolitical and as distinguishable on those grounds from the overtly politically oriented salons of the eighteenth century. These early salons were deeply, though subtly, political in original ways. Intertwined with the new literary genres they pioneered, seventeenth-century salons incubated a discourse of innovative ideas—honnêteté, meritocracy, and feminism—that acknowledged and celebrated the distinctive kind of community they constituted and the transformations in social practice being effected by the dynamics of salon society. Both this discourse and those dynamics would have far-reaching consequences on social organization in the longer term. This tripartite discourse was political in the sense not of formal politics but of asserting claims about power relationships in the salons where they were articulated and, by extension, in the world of absolutist authority in which salons dwelt.

The ideal of honnêteté, 'politesse', prescribed a model of sociable behavior (moeurs) that was refined, orderly, moderated, lofty in spirit but (unlike family, state, and corporate society) nonhierarchical. Its quintessential discursive practice was reciprocal conversation among equals rather than disquisition or prescription by superiors. In the case of the honnête homme or the honnête femme, disciplined behavior emanated from inward character rather than being imposed by external constraint.

Within salons ruled by honnêteté, character and manners were said to count more than the criteria of social status operative in Old Regime corporate society. The person of whatever rank or lineage whose personal and intellectual qualities (his or her "merit") were pleasing in company was preferred to the person of even the loftiest birth but rough manners. This evocation of meritocracy expressed a reality of salon life. The women who hosted salons, as well as the men and women who attended them, might come from traditionally dominant noble families, but just as often they were recently ennobled or non-nobles who were distinguished for their wealth or wit. By mixing individuals of varied statuses, salons fostered a new pattern of egalitarian relations within the very heart of hierarchical society. Salons, then, provided a way for aristocratic society to absorb newly powerful individuals and families into the Old Regime elite without over-turning established hierarchy.

A third discourse emerging from the very nature of the salon reimagined gender difference in ways that contested received notions of hierarchy between women and men, feminine and masculine. Some salon writings claimed that observable differences between men's and women's behavior were not innate or "essential" but merely socially prescribed, the effect of "custom." Others accepted gender differences as "natural" but deemed them complementary in ways that advantaged women. Either way, women were seen as suited for spheres of activity broader than household and family.

Again, this discourse expressed a reality of salon life, for the salon was the one intellectual space to which women were admitted and in which they might exercise informal cultural authority. There, they read and wrote, voiced their judgments, granted or refused patronage to men and women of letters, contributed orally and through letter writing to networks of opinion. Women's authority in salons was most commonly grounded in a gendered sense that feminine qualities—sensibility, delicacy, and intuition—grasped the rules of polite conversation and reciprocity better than masculine reason and so could insulate intellectual sociability from practices of contestation that structured male domains (intellectual and military).

The prominence of women in salons, however, generated tension within the world of letters and sociability about the part women should play in society and culture. It made women vulnerable to insult or mockery, wrath or scorn from those who decried the three revisionary salon discourses and their revisionary social underpinnings. From Molière's Les précieuses ridicules (1659) through Nicolas Boileau's "Satire on Women" (1694) to Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Émile (1762), commentators denounced women who aspired to cultural authority as agents of corruption in the literary world, in society, and in their neglected families.

The renowned salons of the eighteenth century adapted the main structuring features of the early salons to evolving intellectual, social and political contexts. There were still salons, such as Madame de La Ferté-Imbault's, that played rhetorical and chivalric games. But as Enlightenment thought developed its critical edge, as the philosophes set out (in the words of the Encyclopédie) "to change the common way of thinking," discussions in salons turned critical as well. The marquise de Lambert, Madame Geoffrin, Julie de Lespinasse, Madame Du Deffand, Madame Necker, and Madame d'Epinay hosted centers where disparate philosophes could form an intellectual community with one another as well as a community of discourse and manners with persons of education and power. In salon conversations, reformist ideas were introduced, reshaped, and disseminated to those who might enhance them in theory or apply them in practice.

The ties between the Enlightenment and salons far transcended the mere presence of philosophes in them: new visions of society diffused by the Enlightenment bore the imprint of the sociable norms and social dynamics that lay at the heart of salon society from its beginnings. The salon norm of honnêteté and moderated exchanges of views broadened into a claim that civil society ought to conform to the practices and norms of sociability and that societies should be judged by the refinement of their moeurs, their "civilization." The meritocratic and universalistic rhetoric of the salons ripened into a new vision of social relations as egalitarian rather than hierarchical or corporate. In the privacy of the salon, outside the political space defined by absolutism, a reconfigured "public" learned to form and express opinions on political matters.

In short, the salon emerged in the eighteenth century as one of the institutions of the "public sphere" that prepared a new kind of political participation for an expanded elite.

Enlightenment salons continued to serve as places where women could educate themselves, participate in literary and intellectual life, and form networks of friendship and correspondence. The character of salons as women's networks became particularly salient in the salonnière-protégée networks that abounded there. Madame de Tencin initiated Madame Geoffrin, who trained both her own daughter, Madame de la Ferté-Imbault, and Madame Necker; the last apprenticed her own daughter, Germaine Necker, later to gain fame as the Romantic writer Madame de Staël. Yet one of the puzzles about salons as women's institutions is the fact that whereas the ideals of sociability ("fraternity") and social egalitarianism would be enshrined by the Revolution, neither gender equality nor the participation of women in the public political sphere would accompany those other major features of salons into the new social order.

The need to explain why women's roles in salons did not translate into rights of citizenship in the modern liberal state continues to prompt reexaminations of salon history: the extent to which the roles women played in salons were integral to the formation of opinion; how notions of gender difference, upon which women's authority in salons had rested, came to justify exclusion of women from modern politics; whether salons, despite their independence from absolutism's political space and despite their egalitarian rhetoric, were yet institutions bred by and limited to aristocratic forms of society that, like salons, fell to the margins as the eighteenth century came to an end. Such issues make the history of salons important for understanding both the Old Regime and the origins of modernity.

Bibliography

Bodek, Evelyn Gordon. "Salonières and Bluestockings: Educated Obsolescence and Germinating Feminism." Feminist Studies 3 (1976): 185–199.
Chartier, Roger. The Cultural Origins of the French Revolution. Translated by Lydia G. Cochrane. Durham, N.C., 1991.
De Jean, Joan. Tender Geographies: Women and the Origins of the Novel in France. New York, 1991.
Goldsmith, Elizabeth C., and Dena Goodman, eds. Going Public: Women and Publishing in Early Modern France. Ithaca, N.Y., and London, 1995.
Goodman, Dena. The Republic of Letters: A Cultural History of the French Enlightenment. Ithaca, N.Y., 1994.
Gordon, Daniel. Citizens without Sovereignty: Equality and Sociability in French Thought, 1670–1789. Princeton, 1994.
Hertz, Deborah. Jewish High Society in Old Regime Berlin. New Haven, 1988.
Kale, Steven D. "Women, the Public Sphere, and the Persistence of Salons." French Historical Studies 25 (2002): 115–148.
Lougee, Carolyn C. Le paradis des femmes: Women, Salons, and Social Stratification in Seventeenth-Century France. Princeton, 1976.
Melton, James Van Horn. The Rise of the Public in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge, U.K., and New York, 2001.

Salons (2)

2007-02-10T03:07:00.000-08:00

Maklumat menarik di bawah ini, antaranya: Because of the salons, the French tradition, alone among national traditions, has treated conversation as a fine art. Conversely, the conversational style—the blend of wit, elegance, and oral brilliance first concocted in the salons—has often been considered the essence of the French style.

Rujuk: Sumber asal (French literature companion)

[For artistic Salone see Art Criticism.] The literary salon was not invented in 17th-c. France. A tradition of such gatherings had existed in Renaissance France and Italy. However, in Paris between 1610 and 1650 this tradition was redefined. The new assemblies multiplied and became so influential that, until shortly after the Revolution, the salons rivalled the official literary society, the Académie Française, for control over the Republic of Letters.

The first true salon was created at the Hôtel de Rambouillet by the woman known as ‘la divine Arthénice’. The marquise de Rambouillet received her guests lying in bed; she seated them in the ruelle, the space between the bed and the wall. This term came to designate any salon assembly. (Salons were also referred to by the day of the week on which they met; ‘the Saturday’, for example, meant the weekly meeting presided over by Madeleine de Scudéry.) In the marquise's bedroom, the chambre bleue, a group whose membership remained remarkably stable over long periods of time met regularly to discuss matters of literary and social taste. The Hôtel de Rambouillet is often credited with having invented the obsession with social refinement that became associated with the French court only much later, under Louis XIV. The original ruelle also gave birth to a literary style, preciosity, and to a type of literary woman, the précieuse, the principal model for women writers of the ancien régime.

The chambre bleue defined the French salon tradition in two important ways. First, these assemblies were always presided over by women, providing a rare example of a literary sphere under female control. Secondly, they gave conversation extraordinary new prominence. Because of the salons, the French tradition, alone among national traditions, has treated conversation as a fine art. Conversely, the conversational style—the blend of wit, elegance, and oral brilliance first concocted in the salons—has often been considered the essence of the French style. Historians have stressed that the salons were intrinsic to the definition and diffusion of French culture during what is often considered its golden age. Some contend that, without them, the period 1650-1789 would never have witnessed such glory. However, the salons' relation to French culture was always double: they were also influential critics of the society they nurtured and perfected.

The first wave of salon activity was abruptly ended by the outbreak of the Fronde. During the Fronde, many noted salon figures became politically prominent by leading the opposition to the monarchy. After the uprising had been crushed the salons reopened and entered their most brilliant period, the decade before the reign of classicism, during which France seemed totally captivated by the style they were promoting. But appearances were deceiving, for the salons would never again be the same: political agitation had become part of their mission. Not all salons were overtly political; in some cases the political content of their agitation is easily overlooked. However, their apparently parochial concerns often produced more significant results than did the traditional forms of opposition to France's social structure under the absolute monarchy.

Influential contemporary thinkers, notably Vauban, promoted, to little avail, the notion that French society should be revitalized by introducing the notion of a meritocracy. The salons made possible the only important modifications in this direction. From the beginning, salon debate took up what are thought of today as women's issues—from a woman's right to refuse marriage to her freedom to limit the number of children she bore. In particular, salon women, although they were almost always aristocrats, nevertheless consistently maintained that merit rather than birth should determine the choice of a husband. When important numbers of them put this belief into practice, members of the bourgeoisie gained legitimate entry into the aristocracy and a new type of self-made noble was created. The salons were widely attacked for having thus undermined social purity.

After the Fronde the salon tradition continued uninterrupted until the Revolution. Throughout its existence it remained remarkably faithful to the blend of wit and subversion created by the early salon women. This continuity is logical: the salons that functioned until the end of the 17th c. were organized by women, notably Sablé and La Sablière, who had come of intellectual age in the original assemblies. By the time they disappeared, those who would define the 18th c. salon tradition, in particular Lambert and Tencin, had already begun to hold court—and their inheritors, such as Du Deffande waiting in the wings.

Following the model of the 17th-c. Cartesian salons, certain 18th-c. assemblies were dominated by philosophical discussion; others were principally concerned with scientific debate, a phenomenon already present in some ruelles. However, in the age of Enlightenment all debate—whether political, philosophical, or scientific—became increasingly bold, as the philosophes who frequented salons, and in particular Geoffrin's assembly, made their intellectual activity virtually synonymous with political ferment. The assemblies presided over by Lespinasse and Suzanne Necker Curchod are typical of the final incarnation of true French salons, in which the assemblies became centres of political unrest.

The salons declined in importance once the Revolution had eliminated the ancien régime, with which they had consistently entertained a relation simultaneously complicitous and subversive. Literary assemblies continued to function in the 19th and 20th c., but even their founders, Sophie Gay for example, admitted that they never recreated the flavour of their pre-Revolutionary forerunners. In particular, women, even those who led salons, played secondary roles in post-Revolutionary assemblies: they no longer dictated the essence of French style.

Commentators have too often based their eulogies as well as their mockeries on the superficial aspects of salon activity such as linguistic affectation or fashion fads. However, unless we also remember how dramatically the salons brought about political, social, and literary change, we will never understand why powerful men found them threatening, or why powerful women first kept them going and then tried for generations to bring them back to life. [See Feminism; Women Writers.]

[Joan Dejean]

Bibliography
R. Picard, Les Salons littéraires et la société française (1943)
C. Lougee, Le Paradis des Femmes: Women, Salons, and Social Stratification in 17th-Century France (1976)

Enlightenment Salons (1)

2007-02-07T16:22:00.000-08:00

Kepada mereka yang kesuntukan masa, kurang faham atau malas, berikan fokus pada ayat atau perenggan yang telah digariskan. Selamat menikmatinya!

Sumber asal: Enlightenment Salons: The Convergence of Female and Philosophic Ambitions
DENA GOODMAN

1. The Enlightenment Republic of Letters

A republic of letters in any age is a community of discourse and in discourse. The Republic of Letters of the French Enlightenment was a highly developed community of discourse based on a network of intellectual exchanges centered in the salons of Paris. In the 1760s, the cosmopolitan Republic of Letters that went back as far as the Respublica Litterarum of Erasmus and his contemporaries was taking shape in Paris as a community of discourse that took itself seriously in new ways. For the philosophes of the French Enlightenment, both the political and the literary dimensions of their citizenship in this republic were crucial to their self-conception. This new sense of community and of collective purpose was shaped by the collective experience of making an Encyclopedia whose purpose, according to its editor, was "to change the common way of thinking." 1 The success of the Enlightenment as a project to change the common way of thinking depended upon the expansion of the Republic of Letters beyond a small elite. It required a more permanent institutional base than the Encyclopedia, as a single project, could afford, one that would continue to promote and support an expanding Republic of Letters. This meant a social base and network of communications that was broader, deeper, and more institutionalized than the Encyclopedia; one that was regular and which could expand as the Republic of Letters itself expanded with the spread of Enlightenment. The philosophes found their institutional base in the Parisian salon. 2

The Enlightenment salon was the very heart of the philosophic community of discourse that reinvigorated and gave new meaning to the old Republic of Letters. And just as that Republic of Letters was no longer the same polity as it had been in the seventeenth century, when it was peopled and defined by scholars with protestant, emigré and academic identities,3 the salons the philosophes frequented were different, too. Mme Geoffrin, Mlle de Lespinasse, and Mmme Necker, the salonnières of the Enlightenment, were not précieuses, and their salons were not schools of civilité. They challenged the leisure ideal upon which those salons as noble institutions were based.4 Like seventeenth-century salons, those of the Enlightenment served purposes of social mobility, but the world into which men now sought entry was not that of the old aristocracy, but the new Republic of Letters. Entry into and education in one of these salons did not integrate one into the nobility, but into a Republic of Letters that was asserting itself as a public space from which the monarchy could be criticized as a partner in dialogue.5 In this sense, the philosophes who were the citizens of this refined Republic of Letters were attempting to take over the role of the frondeur nobility in the contestation with the monarchy over French society, and the Parisian salons became the institutional base from which such an independent position could be asserted and established.6

The cosmopolitan basis and higher ideals of the old Republic of Letters gave this new, French one, the independent ground from which to criticize the monarchy; a republic in name, it was already a formal challenge to both the monarchy and the aristocracy that supported it socially. What it needed was a continuing, regular, institutional base in order to establish itself in the real, social, and political world. For the Republic of Letters to become the place from which France would be transformed socially and politically, it had to be more than an ideal republic, more than the conceptual space in which to live the life of the mind. It also had to be independent in a way that the old Republic of Letters, based in royal academies, could not be.

By the 1760s, the Parisian salons, already at the center of Parisian social and intellectual life, had become centers of Enlightenment. Seventeenth-century women had created the salon as an undifferentiated social space that valued ideas and fostered discussion of them.7 The seventeenth-century salon was the very symbol of urbanity that challenged the closed court and courtly ideals as they were being glorified and exploited by Louis XIV at Versailles.8 The challenge was not to nobility itself or even to the monarchy's cooptation of it, but to birth as the basis of nobility. These salons and the women who led them actively asserted the idea that nobility could be acquired, and that the salonnières were instrumental in helping the initiate to do so.9

In the eighteenth century, under the guidance of Mme Geoffrin, Mlle de Pespinasse, and Mme Necker, the salon was transformed from a noble, leisure institution into an institution of Enlightenment. In the salons, nobles and non-nobles were brought together on a footing of equality. "The politesse of an equality founded on the value of the person was imposed little by little against the ritual of hierarchies," writes Jürgen Habermas.10 The salon became an institution of Enlightenment not only by embodying a new set of values, but by using those values to shape a serious working space for the women who led them and for the men who frequented them, engaged together in the project of Enlightenment.

The women who led the major Enlightenment salons did not see themselves and their world in the same ways as the précieuses had. They saw their needs as women coinciding with those of the expanding group of intellectuals who were now calling themselves "philosophes," rather than with those seeking entry into the nobility and the court. Thus, while men of letters had always been part of the social matrix of the salon, by the 1760s the salon itself, as the extension of individual salonnières, had changed to make their position central. It was thus a newly redefined social and intellectual space that was exploited by the men of the Enlightenment who saw themselves as engaged in a collective endeavour on the model of their Encyclopedia: a collective endeavour that needed a regular, institutional, social base. To understand their project of Enlightenment requires an understanding of how eighteenth-century salon women transformed a noble, leisure form of social gathering into a serious working space, and in so doing created the ground on which such a collective project could be carried out.

2. The Salon in the Eighteenth Century

Why did women form salons? Not, I think, because they sought fame and power through their association with brilliant and powerful men. This is the sort of explanation that assumes the centrality of men in understanding the actions of women. It is what the men who frequented the salons thought and what historians of the salons have continued to write. It is embedded in all the books on the salons that are little more than collections of anecdotes and bon mots of these same brilliant and powerful men. Abbé Morellet, for example, in his praise of Mme Geoffrin, wrote that her purpose in forming a salon was to achieve celebrity by "procuring the means to serve men of letters and artists, to whom her ambition was to be useful in bringing them together with men of power and position."11 While Mme Geoffrin did aim to be useful, just as it is clear that she did achieve celebrity through doing so, the noble "service ideal," so often attributed to women, does not provide a satisfactory explanation of her actions. Fame and glory were dubious goals for a woman such as Mme Geoffrin, who would have had a hard time aspiring to these virtues of the old male nobility. Fame and glory were the by-products of more complex and individual ambitions at a time when, according to Elizabeth Badinter, ambition itself was a dubious quality in a woman.12 Rather than social climbers, the salonnières of the Enlightenment must be viewed as intelligent, self-educated, and educating women who reshaped the social forms of their day to their own social , intellectual, and educational needs. The intial and primary purpose behind salons was to satisfy the self-determined educational needs of the women who started them.

IN an age when women did not have or aspire to careers, the salon was just that: a career based on a long apprenticeship and careful study, resulting in the independence of a mastership. It was a career open to talents, but also one which required significant capital both to launch and support it. Unlike the men who shaped themselves and made their mark in the world through careers, the salonnière reaped no material rewards from her labor. Hers was a career, but it provided no income and its economic side was pure outlay.

The women who led the Parisian salons always apprenticed in an established salon before breaking out on their own. The primary relationship that underlay the salon as a continuing social institution was thus between female mentors and students, rather than between a single woman and a group of men. Such is the case of Mme du Deffand who, in her youth, according to one observer, practically lived at the private court of Sceaux dominated by the Duchesse de Maine. Mme Geoffrin, the most important of eighteenth-century salonnières, frequented the salon of Mme de Tencin for almost twenty years. Only at the older woman's death in 1749 did she formalize her own salon. Mme Necker, in turn, "studied" under Mme Geoffrin, and Julie de Lespinasse, who served as Mme du Deffand's companion for twelve years, also dined regularly at Mme Geoffrin's.13

I can only suggest here the variety and complexity of motivations that might explain why particular women in the eighteenth century established salons. Mme de Lambert, for example, sought to provide for herself a social space and time free from gambling, which had taken on epidemic proportions by the early years of the century. As an alternative to this form of social life, she regularly invited a wide assortment of men and women to her home, where they enjoined to "speak to one another reasonably and even wittily, when the occasion merited."14

A different sort of motivation must be ascribed to Mme Geoffrin, who was moving in the opposite direction when she attended Mme de Tencin's salon and eventually established her own. Whereas Mme de Lambert was trying to upgrade a social life characterized by dissipation, Mme Geoffrin made a daring step for a devout girl when, at the age of eighteen, but already a wife and mother, she began to frequent the afternoon gatherings at the home of Mme de Tencin.15 For Mme de Tencin's reputation featured a youthful escape from a convent and forced vows, and the production of an illegitimate child who grew up to be the philosophe, d'Alembert. By the time she moved into Mme Geoffrin's neighbourhood in 1730, Mme de Tencin was considerably more sober, but still dazzling to a young girl who had been raised by her grandmother and married off at fourteen to a man literally five times her age. However, the enticement of Mme de Tencin's salon for this girl was not the titillation of the older woman's past, but the stimulation of her present intellectual company: men such as Fontenelle, Marivaux, and Montesquieu. For Mme Geoffrin was not only young and devout, she was also ignorant. As she wrote later to Catherine the Great of the grandmother who had raised her: "She was so happy with her lot that she regarded knowledge as superfluous for a woman. She said: 'I've gotten along so well that I've never felt the need for it,'"16 Following these principles, Mme Chemineau taught her granddaughter to read but not to write, trusted her to neither a convent nor a tutor, and personally gave her an education that was for the most part religious.

Two years after her grandmother's death, Mme Geoffrin began her own course of studies with the men who gathered at the home of Mme de Tencin, a course which she continued for the rest of her life. For Mme Goeffrin, the salon was a socially acceptable substitute for a formal education denied her not just by her grandmother, but more generally by a society that agreed with Mme Chemineau's position. Years later, Mme de Genlis wrote that as a child she had had the opportunity to attend regularly her brother's Latin lessons for seven months, but when he went back to school she asked to continue the lessons herself, her mother said no.17 The problem was not simply that parents did not want ot educate their female children, but that there were not even institutions available in which to do so. The convents to which young girls were often sent performed a social and moral function, and only secondarily a pedagogical one.18 Mme du Châtelet's father had had to provide her with a battery of tutors in the early years of the century, and fifty years later Diderot was struggling to do the same on a much more limited budget for his daughter, Angélique.19

Mme de Genlis educated herself haphazardly, reading whatever books she could find, learning from anyone who would teach her. After her marriage she devoured her husband's library. "I had a great desire to educate myself," she writes in her memoirs;

the library at Genlis was quite considerable. The late marquis de Genlis, a very serious and pious man, had made one half of it, and my brother-in-law had made the other, entirely composed of novels. . . . I should have statred with ancient history, but lacking a guide, I gave no order to my readings which, at the beginning of a course fo studies, lost me a lot of time.20

Mme de Genlis did not grow up to be a salonnière. The disorderliness which she attacked the problem of her education perhaps explains why. It was a talent for and dedication to organization that not only made salonnière successful at what they did, but made of their joint creation a structured institution of Enlightenment. Abbé Morellet wrote of Mme Geoffrin that the regularity of her life contributed signficantly to her ability to attract guests.21 Like Mme du Deffand and Julie de Lespinasse, she was always at home at the hours set aside for regular social gatherings and she travelled rarely, in contrast to the almost frenetic movement that characterized her contemporaries, of whom Mme de Genlis was more typical. But this regularity was part of a greater sense of organization that defined all aspects of Mme Geoffrin's life and every hour of her day, from a 5 a.m. rising, through a morning of domestic duties, letter-writing, and errands, to the afternoons she devoted twice a week to her salon.22 For twelve years, Julie de Lespinasse was home every evening from five until none o'clock to receive.23

Mme Necker has left evidence of her preparations for the gatherings she planned. The Chevalier de Chastellux is said to have once leafed through a note-book in which she had written: "Preparation for today's dinner: I will speak to the Chevalier de Chastellux about [his books] Félicité publique and Agathe, to Mme d'Angiviller about love." She had also noted her intention to start a literary discussion between Marmontel and the Comte de Guibert.24 The development of such an agenda is not surprising in woman who wrote in her journal: "One must take care of one's cleaning, one's toilette, and above all the maintenance of order in one's domestic interior before going into society; but once one is in the world, one must not think about all these little things, nor let them penetrate that which occupies one."25 And in contrast to Mme Geoffrin's grandmother, who believed that conversation could be a substitute for learning in a world where women could and should get along on wit rather than knowledge,26 Mme Necker prepared herself thoroughly for her weekly performances. "One is most ready for conversation when one has written and thought about things before going into society," she wrote in her journal.27

IN case there can be any doubt as to the seriousness with which these women took themselves, here again is Mme Necker: "[Catherine the Great] never had a taste for pleasure, and this characteristic was one of the causes of her greatness; it is for pleasure which undermines the consideration of all women."28 In one way or another, all these women, from Mme de Lambert to Mme Necker, were trying to establish centers of seriousness in a society and an age generally characterized, then and now, as frivolous and licentious. Furthermore, it was a society characterized in this way because of the perceived dominance if salon women. Jacques-Joseph Duguet wrote of women in the seventeenth century:

Gradually, the court, where they have power, as serious as it may have been originally, degenerates into a court full of amusements, pleasures, frivolous occupations. Luxury, revelry, gambling, love, and all the consequences of these passions reign there. The city soon imitates the court; and the province soon follows these pernicious examples. Thus, the entire nation, formerly full of courage, grows soft and becomes effeminate, and the love of pleasure and money succeeds that of virtue.29

And in the eighteenth century Jean-Jacques Rousseau expressed the same fears in his Letter to d'Alembert on the Theatre. Again, it is pleasure and its identification with salon women that Rousseau sees as the basis of corruption in society. In the salons, men try to please women, and in doing so they become womanish, effeminate, "Unable to make themselves into men, the women make us into women," Rousseau conplained.30 The result was a corrupt society that contrasted with the serious, virtuous, male societies of Sparta and Geneva.

But Rousseau, whose views were echoed by his admirers, was wrong. Seventeenth-century salonnières, according to Carolyn Lougee, did promote a leisure ideal (although it was not contrasted with utility and was meant as the basis of a regeneration, not a degeneration of society).31 The women who formed Enlightenment salons, the women about whon Rousseau claimed to be speaking, did not. Whereas Duguet's anti-feminism may have had some basis in fact, Rousseau's was based on mere prejudice. Salons were changing, and philosophes were spending more and more time in them to their advantage. Far from promoting leisure at the expense of work or pleasure at the expense of greatness, the salons were still trying to regenerate society, but this time as the basis of the philosophes' Republic of Letters, rather than in the service of a declining nobility and those who sought entry into it. Rousseau, who was increasingly alienated from the philosophes, remained out of step here as well. It is not coincidental that his most violent attack on salons and salonnières appears in a public letter to d'Alembert, editor of the Encyclopedia and leading citizen of the Republic of Letters that was developing in the salons.

Each for her own reasons, Mme Geoffrin, Mlle de Lespinasse, and Mme Necker gathered around them people willing and eager to socialize in a serious fashion, and set up regular, structuerd occasions for doing so. It was seriousness and regularity of these salons that distinguished them from seventeenth-century salons and other social gatherings of their own time, not their lightness. Abbé Galiani thought often about the difference between these Parisian salons and the gatherings available to him in Naples. In 1771 he wrote to Mme d'Epinay, thanking her for a manuscript she had sent him and noting that he would present ot on one of the "Fridays" when he met with friends who were trying to recreate their Parisian experience. "But our Fridays are becoming Neopolitan Fridays," he wrote, "and are getting farther away from the character and tone of those of France, despite all [our] efforts. . . . There is no way to make Naples resemble Paris unless we find a woman to guide us, organize us, Geffrinise us."32

3. From Education to Enlightenment: Enter the Philosophes

In using the social gathering and transforming it to meet their own needs, Mme Geoffrin and salonnières like her created a certain kind of social and intellectual space that could be exploited by the expanding group of intellectuals who were beginning to call themselves "philosophes." As Raymond Picard has written:

These was forming, little by little in France, a 'Republic of Letters,' which had its own laws and unwritten customs, its loyal citizens and its international alliances . . . It was in the salons, the circles, and also the cafés where the vogue began, that this Republic held its sessions, where its members met in order to unite or at times to oppose one another, but to create, above their quarrels or their differences, passing or durable, a true esprit de corps and to assure the dominance of thought in society.33

The salon offered the philosophes a social space that valued ideas and fostered discussion of them. Whereas other social gatherings were organized around the goal of passing time, Enlightenment salons were never conceived of as a means simply to while away the hours. They were to be useful to those who directed and attended them, and, eventually, to the society at large beyond them. Like the philosophes they gathered around them, the salonnières were practical people who kept busy at tasks they considered productive and useful. Pleasant as salon gatherings certainly were, they were not mere leisure activities created to while away the hours or as relaxation from serious work or business. The relationship between work and leisure which marks our twentieth-century existence cannot be written back into this eighteenth-century world without misrepresenting it. Under the Old Regime, work and leisure were dominant activities of distinct social groups.34

What the eighteenth-century salonnières did was to transform a noble and thus leisure form of social gathering into a serious working space. They did this by regularizing such gatherings, and by encouraging and organizing the intellectual activity that took place in them. Most importantly, they redefined such activity from pastime to work. They no longer conceived of intellectual activity as games to amuse them, but as work to instruct them.

In addition to sponsoring serious and productive intellectual activity, the salons were also crucial in establishing an undifferentiated social space in which such activity could take place. What distinguished salons from courts and the dominant society they represented was not only their conception of intellectual activity as useful work, but also the mixing of ranks and orders, the absence of hierarchy and marks of social distinction that took place in them.35 The kind of conversation fostered in the salons depended upon a recognized equality among the speakers which allowed for the very activity of criticism and judgement that characterized their speech. This breaking down of social barriers for the facilitation of discourse was conducive both to the expansion of Parisian intellectual life and to the development of an ideology reflecting it. As Habermas writes of the new institutions of the café in England and the salon in France between the Regency and the Revolution: "They were centers where criticism developed, first of a literary order, then of a political order later on, and which started to promote a sort of equality among cultivated people, putting on the same footing aristocratic society and certain bourgeois intellectuals."36

The philosophes' understanding both of intellectual activity and of progress as the collective action of equals, evident in their adoption of a Baconian scientific method and in their creation of the Encyclopedia based on it, found a social base in these salons. For they provided a regular meeting place and center of intellectual exchanges upon which such collective activity could grow. A significant development in epistemology and in intellectual history more generally here intersects the social and institutional development of the salon. Each strengthened the other as they became two complementary aspects of the project of Enlightenment that gained strength through this union in the 1760s and '70s.

The philosophes captured the salons from the aristocracy, "liberating themselves from the authority of their noble hosts," according to Habermas, "and teaching that autonomy which would transform conversation into criticism and bon mots into arguments."37

With this capture of the salons in a period of grosing collaboration, the philosophes created for themselves a social base which facilitated their work and made possible its expansion. This development was in no way extrinsic to the intellectual activity of the Enlightenment when it is understood as a collective project, rather than as a collection of texts. For a collective project of Enlightenment, the salons were not simply diversions; nor were the women who ran them simply an audience whose social demands undermined the seriousness of male work. What the salons provided the philosophes was a serious social environment that established a structure for their discourse: a structure that, although it did have limits, was highly elastic and allowed for the growth of speakers and of speech. And because intrinsic to the project of Enlightenment was the expansion of the audience, the creation of an enlightened public, the composition of salon society, and especially the inclusion of women in it, made it a model for that general public that was to be enlightened even as it was created. As Habermas argues, the public constituted itself in the eighteenth century from these circles of interlocutors, considering itself simply as an extension of that core which set the tone for the public at large.38

By the 1760s, the philosophes not only dominated the guest lists of the major salons, but had even begun their own, In 1764, d'Alembert and his friends took advantage of a break Mme de Duffand and Julie de Lespinasse to start their own salon.39 Here it was not the philosophes who served the ends of the salonnière, but the salonnière who was selected to fulfill a necessary function for the philosophes. Viewed in this way, Julie de Lespinasse's salon was a parody of a Parisian salon, and she a parody of a salonnière, a woman formed by men. As she herself wrote: "Look at what an education I've received;" and as she named the regular guests of Mme du Deffand she added: "Violà the men who have taught me to speak, to think, and who have designed to think of me as somebody."40 Formed entirely in the salon, Julie de Lespinasse was a philosophic by-product of other woman's aspirations, perfectly suited to serve the men who now realized the need for female direction, as a previous generation of women had realized an equally important need for male learning. The salon of Julie de Lespinasse met all the formal requirements of that new institution, but it did so with the even newer collective aims and purposes of the philosophes, rather than with the older individual ones of the salonnières. Perhaps this is why Julie de Lespinasse, whose life had never been happy, did not find happiness or fulfillment even in her own salon. As her letters to the Comte de Guibert reveal, she led a double life: a public life in the salon that was empty, and a private one in her love letters that was meant to but could not fill this emotional void.41

IN setting up Julie de Lespinasse's salon, the philosophes were both acknowledging the salon itself as an important institution of Enlightenment and identifying the functions of the salon that could be put into the service of Enlightenment. Even as new salons were opened by women to serve their own needs, they became additional centers of the growing Enlightenment Republic of Letters. The activities carried out in salons merged with the social and intellectual activity of Enlightenment. The ambitions of female salonnières and male philosophes came together in the daily life of the Parisian salons. To complete our understanding of Enlightenment salons, I would now like to turn from the aims of the salonnières to the functions the salon came to serve for the Republic of Letters and the project of Enlightenment in which its members were engaged.

>>> First, the salon served as a central clearing house for news, information, ideas, discourse broadly understood; as a communications center, into and out of which discourse (and thus Enlightenment, as a function of discourse) flowed.

>>> Secondly, it was a space for people to make contact, to meet each other, to come to know one another; where they could join together for common purposes, conceive and collaborate on common projects; a space where new people could be introduced, brought in; an expanding space for an expanding Republic.

>>> Third, it provided a model for French society as a whole, a model on the basis of which that greater society could be transformed. The common thread which runs through all these functions, which weaves together salonnières, philosophes, and the public they sought to shape and serve, is the epistolary exchange. If salons were the heart of the Enlightenment, letters circulated through them like its life blood.

4. Letters and the Republic of Letters

While conversation has always been the primary activity of salons, it was another form of discourse which made the Parisian salons of the eighteenth century centers of Enlightenment. If conversation shaped the discursive space within the salon, the letter moved the Enlightenment out of the private world of the salon into the public world beyond it. Letters, which were the dominant form of writing in the eighteenth century, were increasingly and creatively used by the philosophes to bridge the gap between the private circles in which they gathered and the public arena that they sought and conquer.42 From Montesquieu's Persian Letters to Diderot's Letter on the Blind and Rousseau's Letter to d'Alembert on the Theatre, the letter form was already prevalent by 1760 as the form of writing that brought writers and readers together to interact on a footing of equality. By the end of the century, the copied and circulated letter, the open letter, the published letter, and the letter to the editor, were uniting a vast web of readers into a network of intellectual exchanges that began often in the salons of Paris, but spread outward from then to the four corners of Europe and the New World. This vibrant epistolary network was a two-way street, as readers responded to writers, becoming writers themselves in pamphlets and in the columns of an emerging periodical press that was itself an institutional extension of the epistolary network. Thus was established a reciprocity of exchange that was crucial to the definition and expansion of this Republic of Letters.43

Correspondence and conversation were complementary aspects of the salon and were actually important to it. Horace Walpole was a corresponding member of Mme du Deffand's salon, and Abbé Galiani, who had been a major figure in all the Parisian salons during his ten years as secretary to the Neapolitan ambassador, kept up a weekly correspondence with Mme d'Epinay for fifteen years after his departure. Catherine the Great and Frederick the Great also maintained lines of communication with important salonnières.

Letter writing was a responsibility and necessity for the successful salonnière; it was not simply an outlet for a frustrated writer. Eighteenth-century women who had literary talents and aspirations wrote much besides letters, even though they did not always publish their works under their own names. And maintaining a correspondence was not a casual activity. "We have established a correspondence, the Prince of Gotha and I," wrote Abbé Galiani to Mme d'Epinay in 1772, in a letter that forms part of their regular, weekly, numbered, correspondence.44 After some hesitation, resulting from the too-wide circulation and eventual publication of her first letter, Catherine the Great entered into what one historian has aptly called "epistolary commerce" with Mme Geoffrin.45 The entering into correspondence was a formal engagement implying reciprocal responsibilities, the breaking of which generally ended, as in the contemporary epistolary novel, with either the returning or the burning of the letters already exchanged.

Neither were letters simply a substitute for conversation, an absence made present, as theorists of the epistolary genre often argue.46 For the salonnières, who were constantly engaged in conversation, who never lacked the presence for which letters are supposed to compensate, put as much care and effort into their correspondences as they did into their conversation. Correspondence both maintained a broader membership in the salon than conversation allowed, and supplied substance for the conversation that did go on. Incoming mail was quarried for news, gossip, information, ideas; letters were also shared, read aloud, passed arounf, and generally inserted in the discourse of the salon. From examples too numerous to cite, here is one, a letter from Mme Geoffrin to Marmontel: "Your letter will be, today, Wednesday, a very agreeable reading at dinner and at supper." And here is another, from Galiani to Suard: "My letters are like those of Saint Paul, Ecclesiae quoe est Parisiis. Read them, then, to my friends."47

Outgoing mail, too, was central to salon life. It spread manuscripts, news, gossip, information, and ideas beyond the Parisian center; it also reported on happenings in the salon itself. The Correspondence litt&233;raire, edited by Grimm and then by Meister, was the product of fruitful salon collaborations that formalized these functions of outgoing mail, as it connected Paris with European subscribers for almost forty years.

A literary correspondence is, in a sense, a redundancy, for both words derive from the letter. From the Correpondence llittéraire we can learn the dual purpose of the letter in the salon-based Republic of Letters.48 First, as part of a correspondence, the letter was a form of communication, a link between people, a means of exchanging representations and interpretations of the world. Secondly, however, it was also "literary," what we in the twentieth century would call a piece of writing. Since the letter was a formal genre of writing, to write a letter was not simply to communicate, but to create as well. A good letter both communicated and was a work of art. It was also part of the larger whole that was the correspondence. What distinguished the literary correspondences such as Grimm's from true correspondences such as that between Mme Goeffrin and Catherin the Great, was not their formality, but their lack of reciprocity: literary correspondents only sent letters, they did not receive them. The two-way correspondence provided a model of discourse for the Republic of Letters, which, as a Republic was based on the reciprocal communication that defined it as a community: and as a Republic of Letters took the higher aims of literary or artistic creativity as its own.49 The extension of the private correspondence into the public forms of pamphlet and periodical was the hallmark of the Enlightenment Republic of Letters which reached out beyond itself to become the center of a growing public.

Newsletter such as Grimm's were as closely tied to the salons as the more private correspondences of the salonnières and their guests. As a phenomenon, the newsletter originated in the salons of the early part of the eighteenth century, as one kind of project in which salon members participated. There were certain salons that were known as newsbureaus.50 By the latter half of the eighteenth century, newsletters had become autonomous, but those who wrote them still could not be distinguished from salon participants: these were not outsiders who were admitted in as reporters, but insiders who sent news out. Indeed, it was because they were insiders in the salons that such men as La Harpe and Suard wer sought as reporters on the intellectual scene.51 And newsletters such as Grimm's still betrayed their salon origins in that they were collective rather than individual productions. They were projects carried out by salon members, and like the project of Enlightenment itself, they were directed by male guests, rather than female salonnières. Women both provided and structures the space - social and discursive - that was the salon, but men filled that space with their projects of Enlightenment that would change the world through changing the common way of thinking. Mme d'Epinay's many anonymous contributions to the Correspondence littéraire show this joint endeavour of salon women and philosophes to have been in the form of nested boxes.52

Besides letters and newsletters, manuscripts of other sorts went in and out of the salons in a number of ways. Some, such as poems, were enclosed with letters, or were letters themselves: epîtres or epistles in verse. Other works, such as Abbé Raynal's Historie des duex Indes, were composed collectively in the salon, generated by it.53 And it may have emerged from an earlier, uncompleted project, conceived by Raynal, Suard, and two or three other young men newly arrived in Paris in the 1750s, of writing collectively a general history of voyages.54 Helvétius is said to have composed all his works in company.55 His wife's salon provided the social base for his writing and, incidentally, supported and generated that of others. Her importance to the Republic of Letters in general is indicated by the fact that her salon continued even after the death of her husband in 1772. It was her salon, not his.56

The salon also provided a place for manuscripts to be read. Here a young author could find an audience of established and influential writers and sympathetic amateurs who, if they were impressed with his work, might back him and it. With this aim in mind, young writers go to more than one salon with poem or play in hand. The poet, Delille, for example, read parts of his translation of the Georgics in salons for nine years before publishing it.57 Such activity not only could advance the career of the writer and the hopes for publication or production of his work, but could also serve as an introduction into the Republic of Letters. And the philosophes already established there, who saw virtue in numbers, could only encourage the entry of new people who were not only talented, but sympathetic to their aims. The opportunity to read manuscripts aloud in the salons served the second function of the salon, that of meeting ground, of the expanding space for the expanding Republic.

There were also manuscripts that were read in salons and never published, such as Gentil-Bernard's Art d'Aimer, which went the rounds for years, and Guibert's Eloge du Chancelier de l'Hospital.58 The reading aloud of manuscripts in salons could be either an alternative to publication or as a stepping-stone to it. Habermas sees such readings rightly as a crucial forum for the philosophes. "The distinction made by Diderot between les écrits and les discours shows clearly the role played by these new meeting grounds," he writes. "Scarely any of the great writers of the eighteenth century would have submitted to discussion his essential reflections without having first presented them in the form of such discourse, that is, in the form of lectures given before the academies, and above all, before the Salons. The Salon held in a way the monopoly of first 'publication': a new work, even a musical one, had first to receive the assent of this forum."59

Salon readings were not merely a second-best alternative mandated by strict censorship, nor do these private readings simply reflect the elitism of intellectual life in the eighteenth century. Although publication could certainly get one into trouble, and it was more dangerous than these "private" readings or the "private" circulation of manuscripts, there was nothing clandestine about the salons, and one could get into trouble even with unpublished work. Even speech could be dangerous. In fact, one historian has found that the police in this period benefitted from the services of a woman who, according to Lieutenant of Police Lenoir, "was received into the best homes in Paris," and who, in turn,

entertained at her own home, several times a week, courtiers, men of letters, socialites, and these idle persons one sees everywhere and who meddle in everything. She served, on days she entertained, a tea the cost of which the police paid. Her house, where gathered persons of all conditions and of good and bad company, was not regarded as completely open; only a few women attended; there were no games; people spoke there with complete freedom.60

Through the establishment of this phony salon, Lenoir claimed to have learned more of importance than he did through his inspectors and other contacts. One therefore cannot make a simple distinction between "safe" salon activity and "unsafe" publication.

However, even granting a distinction between the elite world of the salon and what was permitted there, and the non-elite world of general publication, there is still the public itself to be considered. This public could learn about what went on in the salons through newsletters and periodicals; they could acquire or borrow illegally printed books. And they were meant to do so. They were not the masses, but they were also not the small (if growing) group of people who met frquently in the salons. They were enlightenable.

A manuscript given to one person in a salon or through a contact made in a salon would then go farther, as it entered complex and extensive networks of intellectual exchange. And it was these networks, through which manuscript materials circulated beyond the Parisian salons in which they were centered, that the philosophes developed in order to carry out their work of Enlightenment. Without them, "Enlightenment," as the process of enlightening articulated by Kant in 1784, would be a meaningless term.61

One way these networks were formalized, strengthened, and expanded was through periodicals. the editors of the major French journals were well established in the Parisian salons.62 And the periodicals they edited devoted much of their space to the publication of letters and of pieces in the form of letters. Indeed, subscription in the eighteenth century implied much more than mere passive consumption of periodical works. Readers were expected and encouraged to contribute to the journals to which they subscribed. In 1766, for example, Marmontel wrote to Voltaire: "In regards to Monauban, M. Ribote has written you a report on the disasters of that city; he has sent me a copy of his letter and has asked me to have it inserted in the public papers."63 Marmontel, who was editor of the Mercure de France at the time, was in a good position to oblige. Voltaire often took advantage of the practice of printing letters in journals to further his numerous political campaigns, of which the Calais Affair is the most famous. Editors obliged because they were grateful for contributions from one whose celebrity could help boost circulation.

But it was not only famous writers whose contributions were encouraged. As early as 1731, Samuel Johnson of Connecticut achieved the distinction of making the first American contribution to one of these journals.64 And in her memoirs, Mme de Genlis recalls her pleasure in reading in the Mercure de France a poem addressed to her by her husband. He and a couple of friends had written verses in honor of her birthday. Her husband had sent his to friends in Paris who had liked it enough that they in turn sent it along to the Mercure.65 Periodicals, which reached a much broader public than did the private newsletters, and which could turn personal correspondence into public writing, opened up the Parisian salon world, making it the center of a Republic of Letters that streched from Edinburgh to Naples, and from Petersburg to Philadelphia. As readers became contributors, they established themselves as active citizens of the Republic.66

Periodicals also served to spread the news of works by authors considerably less known than Voltaire. A major feature of all the journals was the book review of extract. A favourable review would be helpful especialy for diffusion beyond Paris and beyond France, where people depended on periodicals to let them know what had been published and if it was worth ordering. Norman Fiering has written of the dependence of eighteenth-century Americans on the learned European journals to which they subscribed. One James Logan of Philadelphia, for example, subscribed to two of these periodicals, the New Memoirs of Literature and the Republick of Letters. Fiering writes of Logan:

[He] was determined to be a full citizen of the international republic of letters even though an ocean separated him from its capitals. His impatience with [the] editing [of the New Memoirs] was surely an indication of his desperate sense of dependency upon [it]. The man of letters in eighteenth-century America had to struggle hard to overcome mere provincial status.67

Americans, however, were not alone in needing to overcome provincial status in a world of slow communication, unsure and expensive postal service, and difficult transportation. Daniel Roche has reminded us that travel was still very much an elite phenomenon in eighteenth-century Europe.68 Arthur Young's account of his travels through France in the 1780s is on one level a detailed account of these difficulties. In his letters to Mme d'Epinay, too, Abbé Galiani is forever complaining about the post and trying to figure out ways to avoid the high cost that keeping in touch entailed. He also never managed even one trip back to Paris after his hasty departure in 1769. Indeed, he never again managed to get farther from Naples than Rome.

Subscriptions to periodicals or memberships in reading clubs that subscribed to them performed an essential function for the Republic of Letters in keeping its members connected with each other and the intellectual activity that united them. Indeed, because subscription to periodicals meant actively participating in the Republic of Letters, it implied membership or citizenry in that Republic as well. In the eighteenth century, periodical reading, subscription, and membership came together in various ways, such as the "Project for a Society for all the Literary Papers," proposed in Lyon in 1759, but whose author thought it could be profitably imitated throughout the provinces. The idea was for fifteen people to pay a certain sum each and jointly subscribe to about a dozen periodicals. By a round robin system, all the members would be able to read all the papers. "The advantages of these societies are based on two maxims," the author writes: "1) I give so that you may give to me Do ut des . . . 2) In leaving the first hand, pass along to the next, Da Sequenti."69 Subscribing, like reading, itself in the eighteenth century, was no solitary activity.70 Just as writers saw themselves as engaged in a collective project of Enlightenment, so did readers read and subscribe collectively, and thus enagage actively with the philosophes, joining through their subscriptions and reading clubs the Republic of Letters whose center was in the distant Parisian salons.

Even Abbé Galiani, who could count on personal correspondence to keep him in touch with Paris, read the gazettes and journals and enjoined Mme d'Epinay to fill her letters only with news that he would not already have found in these public sources.71 And the journal editors were no mere servants of the citizenry; they were actively trying to shape the Republic of Letters to which they too belonged.72 Garat writes of two such editors, Suard and Arnaud, that they

conceived and executed under two successive titles, the Journal étranger and the Gazette littéraire, the project of making know to France, either by analytical extracts or by complete translations, all that would appear in Europe in the arts, in the sciences, in letters, no matter what their success, their éclat, simply the noise they made . . .

Everyone with an enlightened spirit in Europe was called to the execution of this project and entered into it; what the foreigners did for France, they did also for their own country: never had there been a correspondence so widespread, so varied, and so well maintained solely by the interests, everywhere [else] neglected, in reason, taste, and the enlightenment of peoples.73

Garat goes on to compare this French effort with its Italian counterpart. "Two periodical works," he writes,

contributed powerfully to the opening of new literary and philosophical communications between these two . . . countries: the Journal étranger . . . and le Cafè, edited in Milan with no less success by the marquis de Beccaria, the marquis de Véry, and . . . their collaborators. Articles from the Journal étranger often went into le Cafè, those of le Cafè into the Journal étranger. Never have new ideas has such rapid circulation at long distance.74

The network of communications that kept the Republic of Letters going, however, depended upon the communications apparatus of the state, just as editors of controlled journals and other men of letters were themselves dependent upon sinecures paid them by the state. Letters and journals only circulated by means of the postal system. This became increasingly true over the course of the eighteenth century, not only as the Republic of Letters expanded beyond the Parisian center, but as the French government's control over correspondence was extended as well with the elimination of competing courier services throughout France and the implementation of local postal service in Paris.75

In July of 1789, at the height of the Revolution in Paris, Arthur Young, travelling in the provinces, vented his frustration with the inadequacy of the network of communications in France, especially as compared to England. "The backwardness of France," he writes

is beyond credibility in everything that pertains to intelligence. From Strasbourg hither [Besançon], I have not been able to see a newspaper . . . The whole town of Besancon has not been able to afford me a sight of the Journal de Paris, nor of any paper that gives a detail of the transactions of the state; yet it is the capital of a province, large as half a dozen English counties, and containing 25,000 souls, - with strange to say! the post coming in but three times a week. . . . For what the country knows to the contrary, their deputies are in the Bastile, instead of the Bastile being raized; so the mob plunder, burn, and destroy in complete ignorance: and yet, with all these shades of darkness, these clouds of tenebrity, this universal mass of ignorance, there are men every day in the states, who are puffing themselves off for the FIRST NATION IN EUROPE! the GREATEST PEOPLE IN THE UNIVERSE! as if the political juntos, or literary circles of a capital constitute a people; instead of the universal illumination of knowledge, acting by rapid intelligence on minds prepared by habitual energy of reasoning to receive, combine, and comprehend it.76

Despite their grand schemes and infinite projects, the Republic of Letters that the philosophes had been constructing for forty years was limited and fragile, too much so to support a revolution of the magnitude of 1789. Nor, it turned out, were they able to control even the networks of communication they had contributed so much to shape. Just as the women who started salons found themselves mistresses of an institution that could be exploited by the philosophes for their own purposes; so too did the philosophes, who had taken over the salons, find themselves the creators of networks of intellectual exchange which they could not control. Feeble and inadequate as they were from Arthur Young's point of view, potentially powerful and social structures and structures of communication were in place and growing, but they were also growing autonomous, to be used by anyone who could tap into them. The institutions developed for purposes of Enlightenment could be and were used by others who were opposed to those who had developed them. The philosophes had never controlled the periodical press, both because of competition from the frondeur and French-language foreign presses, and because of the monarchy's control over the post and the official press.77 They did not control the salons permanently, either, even if they established themselves and their Republic of Letters in them, for the salon continued into the nineteenth century as a social institution that was the extension and expression of woman's needs and interests.

To the degree that these structures became institutionalized they became autonomous, which is of the nature of institutions. And though this certainly caused the philosophes grief and frustration, because these institutions were structured around and for the purpose of debate and critical judgement, they were fundamentally institutions of Enlightenment. In the end, what made the salons and the epistolary networks that passed through them institutions of Enlightenment was not the people who sought to control them, but the principles of reciprocity, equality, debate, and exchange. And these were the principles of the Republic of Letters, the salon, the epistolary exchange, and the periodical that developed found them.

In closing, I would like to suggest that the Parisian salons, the Republic of Letters based in them, and the epistolary networks that ran through them, served also as an implicit model on the basis of which both salonnières and philosophes hoped to transform society. Although the Enlightenment Republic of Letters based in the Parisian salons was drawn from the elite of the Old Regime, it was hierarchical in its internal operations nor closed or self-perpetuating as an elite. Rather, it was egalitarian in form and democratic in aspiration. The Parisian salon was the seed from which an enlightened public could develop, its character becoming progressively less elite as it grew. This Republic of Letters, centered in the salons of Paris, and reaching beyond all borders political, goegraphical, and temporal, through its networks of correspondence and personal intellectual exchanges, provided both a model of a new kind of polity and the means that were to achieve it. The project of Enlightenment, which brought together the ambitions and aspirations of salonnières and philosophes, was to transform society in the image of that Republic. Only further study of the Enlightenment as this collaborative effort will reveal the impact of their work in the shape that history since then has taken.

Louisiana State University

Enlightenment timeline

2007-02-02T16:25:00.000-08:00

Untuk bacaan lengkap, sila klik pautan (link) yang disediakan.

Kepada mereka yang ingin ringkasan mudah, tetapi padat, tentang Zaman Pencerahan, sila klik garis sejarah ringkas bersama riwayat tokoh-tokoh era tersebut.

Untuk mengenali teori "ruang awam" Jurgen Habermas dengan Zaman Pencerahan, disediakan di sini ringkasan pendek tiga bab awal bukunya.

Bab 1
Bab 2
Bab 3 buku The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.

Dan, selain dua sumber di atas, sumber di bawah ini tidak kurang cemerlang meringkaskan, sekali gus memberi intipati, Zaman Pencerahan.

Enlightenment: Context

The effects of Enlightenment thought soon permeated both European and American life, from improved women’s rights to more efficient steam engines, from fairer judicial systems to increased educational opportunities, from revolutionary economic theories to a rich array of literature and music.

These ideas, works, and principles of the Enlightenment would continue to affect Europe and the rest of the Western world for decades and even centuries to come. Nearly every theory or fact that is held in modern science has a foundation in the Enlightenment; in fact, many remain just as they were established.

Yet it is not simply the knowledge attained during the Enlightenment that makes the era so pivotal—it’s also the era’s groundbreaking and tenacious new approaches to investigation, reasoning, and problem solving that make it so important.

Never before had people been so vocal about making a difference in the world; although some may have been persecuted for their new ideas, it nevertheless became indisputable that thought had the power to incite real change. Just like calculus or free trade, the very concept of freedom of expression had to come from somewhere, and it too had firm roots in the Enlightenment.

Enlightenment: Summary of events

On the surface, the most apparent cause of the Enlightenment was the Thirty Years’ War. This horribly destructive war, which lasted from 1618 to 1648, compelled German writers to pen harsh criticisms regarding the ideas of nationalism and warfare. These authors, such as Hugo Grotius and John Comenius, were some of the first Enlightenment minds to go against tradition and propose better solutions.

At the same time, European thinkers’ interest in the tangible world developed into scientific study, while greater exploration of the world exposed Europe to other cultures and philosophies. Finally, centuries of mistreatment at the hands of monarchies and the church brought average citizens in Europe to a breaking point, and the most intelligent and vocal finally decided to speak out.

Enlightenment: Key people and terms

The Roots of the Enlightenment

Ultimately, from this slew of scientific, cultural, social, and political developments in Europe during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries emerged three fundamental ideas that encompassed everything the Enlightenment would stand for.

>>> First among these was individualism, which emphasized the importance of the individual and his inborn rights.

>>> The second, relativism, was the concept that different cultures, beliefs, ideas, and value systems had equal merit.

>>> Finally, rationalism was the conviction that with the power of reason, humans could arrive at truth and improve the world.

These three ideas reveal the fundamental concepts that would pervade the Enlightenment—man’s ability to reason, to look past the traditions and conventions that had dominated Europe in the past, and to make decisions for himself.

The English Enlightenment

The French Enlightenment

The German Enlightenment

Other Arenas of the Enlightenment

The Legacy of the Enlightenment

The Enlightenment had an indisputably positive effect on the Western world. Scientific advances laid an indestructible foundation for modern thought, while political and other philosophies questioned and ultimately undermined oppressive, centuries-old traditions in Europe.

After several transitional decades of instability in Europe, nearly everyone in Europe—along with an entire population in the United States—walked away from the Enlightenment in a better position.

The movement resulted in greater freedom, greater opportunity, and generally more humane treatment for all individuals. Although the world still had a long way to go, and indeed still does, the Enlightenment arguably marked the first time that Western civilization truly started to become civilized.

Public sphere (1)

2006-12-11T17:00:00.000-08:00

Introduction
Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

Jurgen Habermas sets out to define the term "public sphere." The terms "public" and "public sphere" have a variety of meanings. However, ordinary and scientific language cannot replace these terms with more precise ones. Despite the disintegration of public opinion, society still studies it.

Public means open to all, but also relates to the state. The public is a critical judge. The public sphere is a specific public domain, set against the private. The German word "Offentlichkeit" comes from the French adjective meaning "Public". There is no seventeenth-century word for the public sphere because it did not exist before the eighteenth century. In Germany, the public sphere emerged as part of civil society, the realm of commodity exchange and labor governed by its own laws.

Notions of public and private go back further than that, however. They are Greek categories with Roman additions. In ancient Greece, the polis-oikos division existed. Political life took place in the polis; the public sphere existed as a realm of discussion and common action. Citizens were free of productive labor, but their status depended on their role as the head of the oikos, or household. The Greek public sphere was the sphere of freedom and permanence, where distinction and excellence were possible.

Since the Renaissance, this Greek model was important and influential. Medieval categories of public and private came from Roman law. But they developed only with the rise of civil society and the modern state. For more than 100 years, the foundations of this sphere have been decomposing. Publicity is still important. By understanding it, we can understand a key category of our society.

In the middle ages, the public-private contrast from Roman law was familiar, but had no standard usage. The attempt to apply this distinction to the feudal system shows that ancient and modern public and private spheres did not exist. Various higher and lower powers existed, but there was no definite way for private people to enter the public sphere. The tradition of ancient German law did have a contrast comparable to the Roman tradition: that of common and particular. This was exactly reversed in feudalism; the common man is private, exemplified by the private soldier. One cannot show sociologically that the public sphere existed in the middle ages, but a publicity of representation did exist. This was a status attribute and not a social realm. The holder of office or power represented or displayed himself. The lord and master had an "aura" that he displayed before his subjects. Lordship was represented before the people. Representation was not about political communication but about social status.

Only after modern states had destroyed feudal power, helped by the development of a capitalist economy, could court sociability develop into the eighteenth century idea of a "good" society. For the first time, public and private spheres became separate in the modern sense. Bureaucracy, the church, and the army also became public institutions, separate from the increasingly private sphere of the court.

A new social order developed with the emergence of early finance and trade capitalism. Capitalism stabilized the power structure of the society of estates and worked toward their dissolution. The instruments of this dissolution were the traffic in commodities and news created by capitalist trade. Long-distance trade led to the development of trade fairs that required horizontal economic relationships at odds with the vertical estates system. The traffic in news also developed. This traffic became public in the seventeenth century, and became revolutionary only in the mercantilist phase, which was a new stage of capitalism. Merchant companies opened up new markets and required political guarantees; the modern state developed in time with mercantilism. Increasingly sophisticated tax systems developed, along with permanent armies and administration. The public now referred to a state apparatus with a monopoly over legitimate coercion. The opening of foreign markets served the development of domestic economies. Trade in commodities causes a revolution in production.

Civil society was born as the corollary of the depersonalized state authority. Activities formerly confined to the household framework emerged into the public sphere. Economic activity became private but was oriented towards the public commodity market. The very idea of economics also changed; it ceased to relate to the household/oikos, and took its modern form.

The press took on an important role; political journals developed. The traffic in news was related to commercial need; news became a commodity. Also, new states began to use the press for state administration and intelligence. A new stratum of the bourgeois developed within the public, which included officials, doctors and lawyers. Craftsmen and shopkeepers fell in social status. The bourgeois reading public became the real carrier of the public. Their important status in civil society led to tension between town and court. States encouraged an awareness of publicness and the public sphere of civil society. The interplay between state regulation and private initiative was important in early capitalism. Broad strata of the population were affected by the regulations of mercantilist policy. Official interest in private households constituted the development of a critical sphere; administrative contact between domestic and public authority provoked the critical judgment of the public making use of its reason. The public could assume this function, as all it needed was a change in the function of the press, which had turned society into a public affair. As early as the seventeenth century, periodicals existed that mixed criticism with news. Critical reasoning made its way into the press in the eighteenth century. Private people prepared to compel public authority to legitimate itself before public opinion.

Public sphere (2)

2006-12-10T17:08:00.000-08:00

Social Structures of the Public Sphere

The bourgeois public sphere was the sphere of private people who have come together as a public. It claimed the public sphere against public authorities, and engaged in debate over general rules in a privatized but public sphere of commodity exchange and social labor. The medium of this political confrontation was the public use of reason. Traditionally, power was balanced and regulated between the estates and the prince, or through a parliamentary system. This division was not possible in a commercial economy because control over private property was apolitical. The bourgeois did not rule. Their claims to power undercut existing rule. Public understanding of the public use of reason grew out of the subjectivity of the conjugal family's domestic life, the traditional source of privacy. Commodity exchange burst out of the family domain and the conjugal family was separated from the sphere of social reproduction. The polarization of state and society was repeated within society itself. A private man was head of a family and the owner of commodities; he was both property owner and human being.

The subjectivity of the conjugal family created its own public before the public assumed political functions. A precursor of the public sphere operating in the public domain emerged. It acted as a training ground for critical public reflection. The public sphere in the world of letters was similar to representative publicity; the court was an important influence. Towns were also important. Institutions such as salons and coffee houses shaped the literary public sphere. The literary public sphere was a bridge between representative and bourgeois public spheres. The state-society divide separated the public sphere from the private realm. The public sphere contained the state and court; the private sphere contained civil society as the realm of commodity exchange, and the family. The public sphere in the political realm evolved from the literary public sphere. It put the state in touch with the needs of society through public opinion.

As towns took over the functions of the medieval court, the public sphere was transformed. The institutions of the coffee house and salon strengthened the role of towns. They were centers of literary and political criticism. Coffee houses emerged in seventeenth century England, and were very popular in the eighteenth century. Writers patronized various coffee houses, but the coffee house also brought culture to the middle classes. In French salons, aristocrats, bourgeois and intellectuals met on an equal basis. Writers first had to legitimate themselves in the salon before publishing their work. German literary and "table" societies were institutions of the public sphere; people of unequal social status met there. Masonic lodges represented the secret use of enlightenment and reason. These movements needed to be kept secret because they threatened the relations of domination. Reason had to become public slowly. Secret societies eventually developed into exclusive associations that separated themselves from the public sphere. All these types of society had certain institutional criteria in common. 1)They ignored status in their social relations; all that mattered was the authority of the better argument. This idea was important despite never being realized. 2) They discussed previously unquestioned areas. 3) The public became in principle inclusive. Everyone had to be able to participate. The composition of the public changed, however.

People became able to express their opinion about art for the first time. The profession of art critic developed. Critical writing about art and literature emerged, as did critical periodical journals. Coffee houses continued the discussion begun in their pages.

The "great" public that formed in concerts and theaters was bourgeois. The concerns of the public sphere stemmed from the subjectivity of the conjugal patriarchal family. This type of family emerged from capitalist economic transformations. The family was dependent on labor and exchange, but people had autonomy as economic agents and property owners. The conjugal family's self- image collided with the real functions of the bourgeois family. It played a key role in the reproduction of both capital and social norms. The householder had autonomy in the market and authority in his house.

Ideas of conjugal freedom and love sometimes conflicted with economic realities, but they did have some objective reality. Privatized individuals saw themselves as capable of interacting in a purely human, non-economic way. This interaction occurred through letters. Letters, diaries and first person narratives were all experiments with subjectivity, oriented towards and audience. The relationship between author, work and public became intimate.

The press now supported the public that grew out of coffee houses and salons. This was the public sphere of rational-critical debate. Private people using their reason appropriated the state-governed public sphere. This process occurred through the conversion of the literary public sphere. The ideas of the privatised section of the market economy were represented with the aid of ideas developed within the private family. The public sphere began to debate critically, rather than discuss common political tasks. Questioning absolute sovereignty and state secrecy was the beginning of criticism.

A political consciousness developed in civil society that articulated the demand for general laws and eventually asserted itself as the only legitimate source of these laws. This was public opinion. Bourgeois debate occurred according to universal rules; the results of this debate claimed moral authority, because according to reason they were right. The intimate sphere was in fact caught up in market operations. As a privatised individual, the bourgeois was bourgeois and man, human being and property owner. The people making up the two types of public were different; women and dependents were excluded from the political public sphere but participated in the literary one. But in its self- understanding, the public sphere was one and indivisible. The fully developed bourgeois public sphere was based on a fictitious link between the roles of property owners and human beings. The interest of property owners could converge with that of the individual in general.

Public Sphere (3)

2006-12-09T17:13:00.000-08:00

The Political Functions of the Public Sphere

The political public sphere first arose in Britain at the turn of the eighteenth century, when an assembly of estates turned into a modern parliament. Why this occurred earlier in Britain is uncertain. The literary public sphere became political on the continent only when the capitalist stage of production advanced more. Conflict emerged in Britain between the expansive interests of manufacturing and the restrictive interests of finance capital. In post-revolutionary Britain, this conflict involved wider strata because the capitalist mode of production extended further. The founding of the Bank of England in 1694, the elimination of censorship and the first cabinet government were important to this development. They increased the importance of capital, allowed rational-critical debate to thrive, and increased the role of parliament in state authority. The English press developed. The Tory and Whig parties were very adept at forming public opinion. Comment and criticism about the Crown and Parliament became an institution called the Fourth Estate. It transformed a public authority that was now called before the public. Parliament's response to this criticism was to make its votes and discussions secret. The first reform bill of 1834 made Parliament an organ of public opinion, not a target of its comment. English constitutional development made the continental revolutions superfluous.

Critical public opinion followed events at Westminster, regardless of whether people could vote. The minority that did not get its way in Parliament could appeal to public opinion outside it. From the eighteenth century onwards, people distinguished between the "sense of the people" and election results. By the nineteenth century, public involvement in the critical debate of political issues broke the exclusivity of Parliament.

A public arose in France, but not until the mid eighteenth century. Before the revolution, censorship, underdeveloped political journalism and a lack of estates assemblies prevented it becoming institutionalised. The revolution enshrined the right to free communication and created what had taken 100 years of slow development in Britain. In Germany, something like parliamentary life emerged only briefly after the July Revolution.

The actual function of the public sphere can be understood only in relation to a specific phase in the development of civil society, where exchange and labor were largely freed from government control. The public sphere as an element in the political realm was given the status of an organ for the self- articulation of civil society according to its needs. Its preconditions were a liberalized market and the complete privatization of civil society. It was a domain separate from public authority, but subject to mercantilist regulation. Commodity owners gained private autonomy from the expansion of this sphere. The concept of the private developed from the concept of free control over capitalist property, and is evident in the history of private law. The Continental process of codification developed a system of norms to secure an entirely private sphere. But private law remained part of state authority; it took a while for the freedom of labor and property to come in to effect.

According to civil society's idea of itself, the system of free competition was self-regulating. There could be no external intervention in the market if it were to secure everyone's well being. A society governed by the free market presented itself as free from all coercion. The free market was protected from the state by legal safeguards; intervention was dangerous and unpredictable. The bourgeois constitutional state established the political public sphere as an organ of state to ensure a link between public opinion and law. But there was a contradiction, because the law involved both will (and therefore power and violence) and reason. The rule of law aimed to abolish all domination.

The bourgeois idea of a law-governed state aimed to abolish the idea of the state as a dominating instrument. Because critical public debate is noncoercive inquiry, a legislator who listened to public opinion could claim not to be coercive. But legislative power had elements of domination in it. Public opinion wanted to be neither a check on power nor power itself. The domination of the public attempted to dissolve domination. Public debate was supposed to transform will into a reason that was a public consensus about the common interest.

The functions of the public sphere were often spelled out in legislation. Basic rights were established; they concerned critical debate, individual freedom and property transactions. Basic rights guaranteed the public and private spheres, the institutions of the public sphere (press and parties) and the foundations of autonomy (family, property). The order that "all power comes from the people" shows the character of the constitutional establishment of the political public sphere as an order of domination. Generally, constitutional states pretended to ensure the subordination of public power to a private sphere free from domination.

The public sphere of civil society depended on the principle of universal access. No group could be excluded; but the public assumed a specific form - the bourgeois reading public of the eighteenth century. Education and property were the two key criteria for entry. Restriction of the franchise did not imply a restriction of the public sphere; it could be seen as the legal ratification of status acquired in the private sphere. Universal accessibility must be determined by the structure of civil society. The public sphere was safeguarded when economic criteria gave everyone an equal chance of admission. Classical political economy laid out these conditions, which were not fulfilled in the nineteenth century.

No break between man and citizen existed for the private person as long as man was the owner of property that he protected as a citizen. Class interest was the basis of public opinion, but public opinion was still close to general opinion. If it had not been, it would have become power. The dominant class developed political institutions that embodied their own abolition. The public believed itself to have an ideology. Ideology perhaps only exists from this period on. The origin of ideology was the identification of the property owner with a human being as such, and the identification of the political public sphere with the literary public sphere. The developed public sphere of civil society was bound up with complicated social preconditions. But they changed, and the contradiction of a public sphere institutionalized in a constitutional state applied. A political order was founded in order to make domination superfluous.