“The sovereign represents the state; he and his people form but one body, which can only be happy as far as united by concord. The prince is to the nation he governs as the head is to the man; it is his duty to see, think, and act for the whole community, that he may procure it every advantage of which it is capable.” (Excerpt from “Benevolent Despotism”, an essay by Frederick the Great, 1777)
In his 1784 essay, What is the Enlightenment? Immanuel Kant summarised the Age of Enlightenment with the Latin phrase sapere aude (“dare to know”). The 17th to 18th-century philosophical movement, known simply as the Enlightenment, popularised the application of reason to all things, famously questioning the authority of the church and absolute monarchs across Europe. Curiously, however, although the movement’s underlying ideas became widely accepted, only proponents of the Radical Enlightenment called for democracy. Instead, the movement, in conjunction with the absolutist tradition of Western Europe, gave rise to the so-called ‘enlightened despot’ which served as an idealistic example for supposedly benevolent monarchs to follow. Nonetheless, in practice, the Enlightenment arguably acted as little more than a tool to enhance despots’ power.
The idea of the enlightened despot traces its roots to the hypothetical ‘Philosopher King’ discussed in Plato’s Republic. As part of this proposed system of government, a ruling class of philosophers leads a city-state out of a sense of duty, utilising its knowledge to the benefit of the entire citizen body. Although enlightened despots often viewed themselves with this in mind, they prioritised enlightenment ideas of reason and the free pursuit of knowledge over Plato’s aim of absolute knowledge. As such, enlightened despotism combined pre-existing ideas of a benevolent dictatorship with contemporary philosophical developments.
Despite its origins tracing back to antiquity, enlightened despotism would only make its appearance through the letters of correspondence between a Prussian Crown Prince and a French writer in the 18th century. As a young man, Prince Frederick, heir to the Prussian throne, was told to study Machiavelli’s The Prince, which was considered the foundational text for any future European monarch, advocating for the ruthless pursuit of power. Machiavelli’s Realpolitik, a political approach that prioritised practicality over ideology, shocked the young prince and he began to write a rebuttal, titled Anti-Machiavel. Towards the end of 1739, Frederick sent the first twelve chapters of his rebuttal to the French writer Voltaire, whose writings on pacifism and tolerance were admired greatly by the Prussian prince. Over the next few months, Voltaire worked towards helping Frederick publish his essay.
On 31 May 1740, Frederick’s father, King Wilhelm I of Prussia, died. Once Frederick had inherited the Kingdom of Prussia, he reinstituted the previously closed Prussian Academy of Sciences, inviting Voltaire to be a part of it. Although Voltaire ultimately turned down this offer, their relationship remained strong and the philosopher continued to write to the Prussian King, meeting with him on occasion.
In October 1740, Frederick disputed Maria Theresa’s succession of Hapsburg lands, invading and conquering Silesia on the pretext of a dynastic claim. In reality, Frederick orchestrated the annexation to support Prussia’s dire economic situation since Silesia was able to contribute a considerable amount of manpower and taxes. The subsequent three Silesian wars were resounding successes for King Frederick, despite heavy financial costs for Prussia.
Subsequently named ‘Frederick the Great’ for his military achievements, the Prussian king was still greatly influenced by contemporary philosophy, even if he was selective at times in its implementation. Indeed, Frederick modernised Prussia’s administrative system, promoted religious tolerance and began work on a new Prussian legal code, which incorporated key enlightenment ideas whilst also protecting the absolutist system. He also became a great patron, sponsoring numerous artists, scientists and philosophers. Through these reforms along with numerous others such as freedom of the press, Prussian society began to reflect the enlightened ideals its king espoused.
In 1749, Frederick appointed Voltaire as his chamberlain. However, their relationship soon soured, as Voltaire became disillusioned with Frederick’s supposedly pacifist and humanitarian intentions, prompting him to resign on 1 January 1752 merely three years after he was hired to Frederick’s court. To Voltaire, Frederick no longer met the idealistic expectations of how a king should rule, commenting that Frederick the Great’s Prussia “was Sparta in the morning, Athens in the afternoon.” For example, Voltaire criticised Frederick’s new legal code, questioning whether it went far enough to protect human rights. Furthermore, Voltaire believed that Frederick’s foreign policy increasingly reflected Machiavelli’s Realpolitik as he plotted to acquire Polish provinces during the First Partition of Poland in 1772.
Despite his personal feud with Voltaire, for many at the time, Frederick’s approach exemplified the integration of enlightenment ideas into an absolutist system, serving as a model for other contemporary rulers to follow. As for whether this characterisation is justified, he contributed greatly towards Berlin becoming one of the most advanced cultural hubs in Europe. Moreover, despite some of Voltaire’s objections, Frederick’s rule was undoubtedly more enlightened than that of his Prussian predecessors and European contemporaries. A great admirer of his, Immanuel Kant attributed Frederick’s rule to the progress towards “universal enlightenment” in Prussia.
The most successful ruler attempting to imitate Frederick’s approach was arguably Catherine the Great of Russia, who, playing an integral role in Russia’s Enlightenment, helped bring about a cultural and scientific renaissance in the country. However, as with many enlightened despots, her implementation of enlightenment ideas was selective since it was principally limited to those who did not have the potential to harm the security of her rule. For example, although she gave serfs the ability to file complaints against nobles, serfdom in Russia would only be abolished in earnest in 1861, 65 years after her death.
Furthermore, when adopting enlightened ideas, enlightened despots were aware of treading a fine line between achieving an evolution of the absolutist system in line with Europe’s changing culture and risking its abolition brought about by revolution. For example, King Ferdinand I (1751-1825) of Sicily and Naples only claimed to adopt enlightenment ideas when a military revolt broke out in July 1820. Ferdinand then signed a new liberal constitution under which he would become a constitutional monarch, claiming that he wished to maintain his vow. Nevertheless, the moment he left Naples, he waited for an Austrian army to retake the region and promptly resumed his absolutist rule.
It was commonplace for enlightened despots to easily concede when internal or external powers resisted their progressive policies. For instance, Joseph II, the Holy Roman Emperor from 1765 to 1790, attempted to implement a series of reforms that would remodel Austrian society into what he believed to be an ideal state. However, many of these reforms were vastly unpopular with the powerful institutions of Austrian society. For example, his plan for religious tolerance which extended to Protestants and Orthodox Christians was met with anger by Catholic clergy. Additionally, the nobility despised the Serfdom Patent of 1781 which gave serfs civil liberties. By the time of his death, Joseph II had reversed most of his reforms out of fear of a revolt, showing how his security of power took priority over his supposedly enlightened beliefs.
In the words of historian Fritz Hartung, enlightened absolutism was “not the climax of absolute monarchy” but “a waning, last phase.” Despite the progressive reforms of monarchs such as Frederick the Great, the rule of an enlightened despot was marked by contradiction. At the core of this argument is the fact that a despot cannot convincingly champion the equality of all peoples while holding absolute power, despite claiming to be given such power through a social contract. One must only consider the revolutions spanning the period from 1789 to 1848 to understand the end result of the Enlightenment’s cultural influence. The Age of Enlightened Despots was merely the middle ground between outdated absolutist monarchies and modern representative governments.
–
Kramnick, Isaac (1995). The Portable Enlightenment Reader. New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Griffith, Tom (2000). Plato: The Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pearson, Roger (2005). Voltaire Almighty: A life in pursuit of freedom. New York, NY: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Hartung, Fritz (1957). Enlightened Despotism. London: The Historical Association.