You are on page 1of 5

842

BOOK REVIEWS

cific problems. Two deal with the complex issue of land. Michael PercevalMaxwell offers a historiographical overview of the attempts by historians to deal with the thorny question of the Restoration land settlement, while Kevin McKenny attempts to bring statistical precision to the problem by atomizing Irish landholding as portrayed in the Books of Survey and Distribution. One essay, by Coleman Dennehy, deals with the Restoration parliament of 166166, which tried to give shape to the land settlement. John Cronin delves into the little-explored relation between history and literature with an examination of the plays of Roger Boyle, first earl of Orrery, and reads Boyles play The generall (c. 166264) as a piece of political lobbying using innovative literary forms. Perspectives on the native Irish are offered in Ted McCormicks essay on that Restoration polymath, Sir William Petty, and his plans to engineer Ireland socially, transforming it into a civilized and profitable country. However, the largest group of essays, some four, confront the problem of religion in Restoration Ireland. Only one, that by Sandra Hynes on the Quaker response to the new world, deals with Protestantism. It is regrettable that there is no attempt to tackle the problem of the established Church, which was so central to the religious and social agenda of the years after 1660.The other three (by Eoin Kinsella, Jason McHugh, and Anne Creighton) deal with Catholics and land, the response of Catholic clergy to the Restoration (using the example of the radical Nicholas French), and Catholics and politics in the 1660s. Taken together, these three essays provide an important new starting point for the examination of the political dilemma of balancing loyalty with salvation that brought turmoil to many lives in Restoration Ireland. There is much in this book that is both new and interesting, and it deserves a place on the bookshelf of anyone interested in the early-modern British Isles. National University of Ireland, Maynooth RAYMOND GILLESPIE

The Religious Enlightenment: Protestants, Jews, and Catholics from London to Vienna. By David Sorkin. [Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World.] (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 2008. Pp. xviii, 339. $35.00. ISBN 978-0-691-13502-1.) On the basis of six influential thinkers of the eighteenth century, the author shows how, in contrast to a secularist interpretation, the Enlightenment contributed toward a renewal and purgation of religion both in theory and in practice.The Anglican theologian William Warburton was, above all, an apologist of religious tolerance in a country that had been torn apart by religious strife. In following the Enlightenments ideal of toleration, he unquestionably promoted the well-being of religion. The Calvinist theologian Jacob Vernet found strong support in the Enlightenment for the Arminian position as it was struggling with the strict predestinarian one. At the same time he tried to reconcile the opposing parties by insisting on the essentially practical nature of Christianity and by arguing that natural religion was an essential part of its doctrine.

BOOK REVIEWS

843

The two intellectually most impressive figures in this collection are Siegmund Baumgarten and Moses Mendelssohn. Raised in Pietist theology, Baumgarten eventually came to teach at the University of Halle, where the dominating Pietists were at odds with the Enlightenment philosophy of Wolff and Thomasius on one side and orthodox Lutheran theology on the other. Impressed by Wolffs ideas, Baumgarten concluded that Enlightenment philosophy posed no doctrinal obstacle to Pietist theology, of which the essence consisted in the union of the soul with God. Building his own theology on Wolffian principles, he succeeded in reconciling the Pietists with moderate Enlightenment philosophers and theologians. Mendelssohn, influenced by Wolff, Baumgarten, and Lessing, attempted an even more perfect union between religion and the philosophy of the Enlightenment. According to him, the Mosaic revelation had added no theoretical truth to the natural religion of the philosophers. But the Judaic law had been a strong force in preserving the moral truths of reason. It thereby occupied a favorable position for reconciling religions with one other. It also implied that Jews were entitled to the same rights as others. Joseph Eybels impact was primarily political. A former seminarian in Austria, he became a teacher of canon law and a close collaborator with the Empress Maria-Theresa and later with her son Joseph II in their attempts to reform Catholicism according to the principles of the Enlightenment. He assisted them in breaking down those prohibitions of the CounterReformation that obstructed the Enlightenment concept of public policy. In his Introduction to Church Law (1777) and in a number of pamphlets he argued for restoring the original authority of the bishops and replacing the virtual monarchy of the bishop of Rome. Not surprisingly, his theories were condemned by the Vatican. Adrien Lamourette, a French priest who eventually became a seminary teacher and a bishop, was trained in Jesuit theology, but gradually moved over to a more Jansenist position. Lamourette strongly supported the French Revolution as being essential to a purified Christianity: it would lead to a more equitable distribution of goods and free France from an unchristian despotism of clergy, nobility, and king.Together with Mirabeau, he tried to overcome the polarization caused by the Revolution. But few Catholics followed him, particularly after he became a state- appointed bishop of Lyon. In the Terreur of 1794 he was executed. Sorkins study presents a valuable contribution to the ongoing reassessment of the Enlightenment.There unquestionably was a strong religious element in it, and in some cases the Enlightenment proved to be a stimulus for a religious awakening, or at least for a tolerant religious attitude.The beautifully written essays display an uncommon fairness to each faith and are supported by an admirable historical erudition. Yet I am not altogether clear about the authors precise intention. Does he want to show that a vigorous religious life continued to exist all through the Enlightenment that, at least in

844

BOOK REVIEWS

some cases, the new ideology strengthened? Or, that religion supported the Enlightenment agenda on such essential goals as tolerance and intellectual liberation? In the case of Mendelssohn the answer would probably be both. In the case of Eybel only the second is evident.The Austrian politician seems to have used religion as the only effective means to advance a politicalcultural goal.What was the religious merit of politically implementing socialcultural structures favored by the enlightened but condemned by the Church and overwhelmingly rejected by the people. (In the Austrian Netherlands they caused a revolution). Baumgarten mainly continued the traditional work of a theologian; namely, to reconcile conflicting tendencies in the theology of his time. He used all available sources, including those of the Enlightenment. But the discussion on the status of a natural religion had started well before the eighteenth century. The case of Lamourette is particularly precarious. To favor the Jansenist party over that of the Jesuits was neither a progressively religious act nor an enlightened one. Jansenism, as it became combined with Gallicanism in eighteenth-century France, was far from the intellectual force it had been in the days of Port-Royal. Nor was it religiously judicious to persist in ones support of the Revolution, when both Catholic clergy and laity strongly opposed it. So the question remains:What does one really prove by presenting six men so deeply different in intentions and methods? That religion was touched by the Enlightenment and in some instances very positively is true enough. But the author wants more than that. He refers to the religious Enlightenment as a search for a middle way between extremes (p. 11) and claims that it was distinguished by its commitment to toleration (p. 14). I agree with the author that the Enlightenment had religious sources among others and that many continued to be inspired by them. So I was extremely surprised to find my study The Enlightenment and the Intellectual Foundations of Modern Culture (New Haven, 2004) dismissed in the first footnote, as a reworking of Peter Gays quintessentially secular interpretation of the Enlightenment (p. 1). In my search for the philosophical principles underlying what was in the first place a philosophical movement, I reached a conclusion that explicitly contradicts the secularist reading. Indeed, some reviewers of the book thought to discover a pro-religious bias in it. Nor is the religious interpretation entirely new. Jules Michelet defended it in his famous Histoire de la Rvolution Franaise (1846). So did La Mennais and the entire wing of the Catholic party in nineteenth-century France. But to show why this was and whether it profited religion, or was merely part of a hidden reaction against religion, requires digging to the philosophical roots of what was to a major extent a philosophical event. The author, committed to a more fact-oriented conception of history, has taken a different approach. Such is his right.Without concrete examples the idea of a religious Enlightenment would remain abstract. But ought one,

BOOK REVIEWS

845

therefore, neglect the philosophical context within which the issues developed? It is praiseworthy to stay only with the facts, but in intellectual history the principal facts are ideas. Yale University LOUIS DUPR

Medicine and Religion in Enlightenment Europe. Edited by Ole Peter Grell and Andrew Cunningham. [The History of Medicine in Context.] (Burlington,VT:Ashgate Publishing Co. 2007. Pp. x, 267. $99.95. ISBN 9780-754-65638-8.) The thirteen essays in this volume challenge and complicate the old perception of the Enlightenment as an antireligious movement and the even older convention that linked the medical profession with unbelief. The lead essay, by Jonathan Israel, the prominent historian of the radical Enlightenmentwhich he distinguishes from a dominant moderate Enlightenment argues that a group of physicians influenced by Spinozas materialism did, indeed, contribute to a medical revolution in the late-seventeenth and earlyeighteenth centuries, rooted in science and philosophy (p. 28). The rest of the contributions, however, point in other directions. Peter Elmer shows how religiously nonconformist physicians who left England for the Netherlands after the Restoration of 1660 failed to internalize the message of philosophical radicalism, in large part, he suggests, because of their religious conservatism. Spinozism was inconsistent with their belief in the real existence of spirits, demons, and witches. A close analysis by Laurence Brockliss of the books owned by five eighteenth-century French physicians reveals only one (a Huguenot) with a taste for the more provocative works of the philosophes. Not that the others were necessarily anti-Enlightenment; Brockliss points to the role of a humanist Catholic Enlightenment, devoted to progress in this world as well as to Christianity. Several contributions underscore the importance of religious belief for physicians and philosophers and the ways in which it interacted with their views on questions about medicine and the human body and mind. Rina Knoeff compares the anatomical atlases of Govard Bidloo and Bernard Siegfried Albinus, seeing Mennonite tendencies in the formers harsh depiction of cadavers and the influence of a Dutch Enlightenment blend of Calvinism and humanism in the latters more positive images of the human body. Claudia Stein recounts the seemingly paradoxical story of an encounter between the enlightened Bavarian court physician Johann Anton von Wolter and the celebrated exorcist Johann Joseph Ganer.Von Wolter sought help for his own daughter, who was suffering from convulsions. He emerged from the session with Ganer convinced that the priest had worked a miraculous cure. Medical science could not explain it, and the results effectively refuted materialism. In contrast, Ferdinand Sterzinger, a priest of the Theatine order who accompanied von Wolter on his visit, argued that Ganers actions were

You might also like