The essay begins
I have made a start.
Despite over two centuries of intense historical scrutiny of the relationship between Enlightenment and revolution, the debate that began with the polemic conspiracy theories of Barruel and Burke in the eighteenth century, remains no closer to resolution. Indeed, two centuries of debate have produced a wealthy abundance of historiographical opinion, a modest cross-section of which shall be examined in this essay. To clarify: I will take ‘revolution’ as an all-encompassing term for the various revolutions that transpired around the time of the Enlightenment, for the primary purpose of critiquing the tendency of much Enlightenment historiography towards what Roger Chartier calls ‘the chimera of origins’; that is, to assume the ‘absolute linearity’ of history in identifying, ex post facto, simple cause and effect in complex historical events.1 To accurately address the question of whether Enlightenment implied revolution, however, it is also important to consider exactly how the term ‘imply’ is to be taken. The American Heritage dictionary defines ‘imply’ as a ‘logically necessary consequence’ of a causal event, while Webster propounds a less explicit definition - ‘to involve in substance or essence’.2 The difference is crucial: was revolution a logical consequence of the Enlightenment, or were Enlightenment values merely ‘involved in essence’ in the revolutions of the eighteenth century?
Only another 1800 words to go by tonight. No worries.