“I write to you, dear colleague, at a moment when all Europe seems seized by a fever for reason. The new philosophers insist that the motions of the heavens, the circulation of the blood, even the passions of men may be explained by laws as fixed as those governing the fall of a stone. I confess that their instruments and experiments have revealed wonders I once thought impossible. Yet I cannot abandon the conviction—shared by many in our learned societies—that the ancient arts of alchemy and astrology still hold truths about the hidden sympathies of nature. If the universe is indeed governed by orderly principles, why should it be folly to seek the transmutation of metals or to discern celestial influences upon human affairs?

Still, the more boldly these new thinkers proclaim the empire of reason, the more fiercely others cling to the belief that unseen spirits shape the world. In the villages surrounding Leipzig, the people speak of charms, portents, and the malice of witches with as much certainty as the mathematicians speak of their proofs. Even among the nobility, I find those who consult astrologers before embarking on journeys or arranging marriages. Thus our age stands divided: some trust only in what can be weighed and measured, while others insist that no calculation can banish the spiritual forces that have governed the cosmos since time immemorial. I fear that Europe will not soon reconcile these competing visions of the world.”

—Johann Friedrich Altdorfer, the Early Enlightenment

“I write to you, dear colleague, at a moment when all Europe seems seized by a fever for reason. The new philosophers insist that the motions of the heavens, the circulation of the blood, even the passions of men may be explained by laws as fixed as those governing the fall of a stone. I confess that their instruments and experiments have revealed wonders I once thought impossible. Yet I cannot abandon the conviction—shared by many in our learned societies—that the ancient arts of alchemy and astrology still hold truths about the hidden sympathies of nature. If the universe is indeed governed by orderly principles, why should it be folly to seek the transmutation of metals or to discern celestial influences upon human affairs?

Still, the more boldly these new thinkers proclaim the empire of reason, the more fiercely others cling to the belief that unseen spirits shape the world. In the villages surrounding Leipzig, the people speak of charms, portents, and the malice of witches with as much certainty as the mathematicians speak of their proofs. Even among the nobility, I find those who consult astrologers before embarking on journeys or arranging marriages. Thus our age stands divided: some trust only in what can be weighed and measured, while others insist that no calculation can banish the spiritual forces that have governed the cosmos since time immemorial. I fear that Europe will not soon reconcile these competing visions of the world.”

—Johann Friedrich Altdorfer, the Early Enlightenment

“I write to you, dear colleague, at a moment when all Europe seems seized by a fever for reason. The new philosophers insist that the motions of the heavens, the circulation of the blood, even the passions of men may be explained by laws as fixed as those governing the fall of a stone. I confess that their instruments and experiments have revealed wonders I once thought impossible. Yet I cannot abandon the conviction—shared by many in our learned societies—that the ancient arts of alchemy and astrology still hold truths about the hidden sympathies of nature. If the universe is indeed governed by orderly principles, why should it be folly to seek the transmutation of metals or to discern celestial influences upon human affairs?

Still, the more boldly these new thinkers proclaim the empire of reason, the more fiercely others cling to the belief that unseen spirits shape the world. In the villages surrounding Leipzig, the people speak of charms, portents, and the malice of witches with as much certainty as the mathematicians speak of their proofs. Even among the nobility, I find those who consult astrologers before embarking on journeys or arranging marriages. Thus our age stands divided: some trust only in what can be weighed and measured, while others insist that no calculation can banish the spiritual forces that have governed the cosmos since time immemorial. I fear that Europe will not soon reconcile these competing visions of the world.”

—Johann Friedrich Altdorfer, the Early Enlightenment

“Let the government leave trade free, for the regulation of commerce is not the business of the government. The sovereign should confine himself to maintaining order and justice, and protecting the liberty of the citizens.

You recognize but one rule of commerce; that is (to avail myself of your own terms) to allow free passage and freedom of action to all buyers and sellers whoever they may be.”

—François Quesnay, Maximes générales du gouvernement économique d’un royaume agricole and Dialogue sur le commerce, 1860

“Let the government leave trade free, for the regulation of commerce is not the business of the government. The sovereign should confine himself to maintaining order and justice, and protecting the liberty of the citizens.

You recognize but one rule of commerce; that is (to avail myself of your own terms) to allow free passage and freedom of action to all buyers and sellers whoever they may be.”

—François Quesnay, Maximes générales du gouvernement économique d’un royaume agricole and Dialogue sur le commerce, 1860

“Let the government leave trade free, for the regulation of commerce is not the business of the government. The sovereign should confine himself to maintaining order and justice, and protecting the liberty of the citizens.

You recognize but one rule of commerce; that is (to avail myself of your own terms) to allow free passage and freedom of action to all buyers and sellers whoever they may be.”

—François Quesnay, Maximes générales du gouvernement économique d’un royaume agricole and Dialogue sur le commerce, 1860

“I am fully persuaded that we should hear of none of these infantine airs, if girls were allowed to take sufficient exercise, and not confined in close rooms till their muscles are relaxed, and their powers of digestion destroyed. To carry the remark still further, if fear in girls, instead of being cherished, perhaps, created, were treated in the same manner as cowardice in boys, we should quickly see women with more dignified aspects. It is true, they could not then with equal propriety be termed the sweet flowers that smile in the walk of man, but they would be more respectable members of society, and discharge the important duties of life by the light of their own reason. “Educate women like men,” says Rousseau, “and the more they resemble our sex the less power will they have over us.” This is the very point I aim at. I do not wish them to have power over men; but over themselves.

In the same strain have I heard men argue against instructing the poor; for many are the forms that aristocracy assumes. “Teach them to read and write,” say they, “and you take them out of the station assigned them by nature.” An eloquent Frenchman has answered them, I will borrow his sentiments. But they know not, when they make man a brute, that they may expect every instant to see him transformed into a ferocious beast. Without knowledge there can be no morality!”

—Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, 1792

“I am fully persuaded that we should hear of none of these infantine airs, if girls were allowed to take sufficient exercise, and not confined in close rooms till their muscles are relaxed, and their powers of digestion destroyed. To carry the remark still further, if fear in girls, instead of being cherished, perhaps, created, were treated in the same manner as cowardice in boys, we should quickly see women with more dignified aspects. It is true, they could not then with equal propriety be termed the sweet flowers that smile in the walk of man, but they would be more respectable members of society, and discharge the important duties of life by the light of their own reason. “Educate women like men,” says Rousseau, “and the more they resemble our sex the less power will they have over us.” This is the very point I aim at. I do not wish them to have power over men; but over themselves.

In the same strain have I heard men argue against instructing the poor; for many are the forms that aristocracy assumes. “Teach them to read and write,” say they, “and you take them out of the station assigned them by nature.” An eloquent Frenchman has answered them, I will borrow his sentiments. But they know not, when they make man a brute, that they may expect every instant to see him transformed into a ferocious beast. Without knowledge there can be no morality!”

—Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, 1792

“I am fully persuaded that we should hear of none of these infantine airs, if girls were allowed to take sufficient exercise, and not confined in close rooms till their muscles are relaxed, and their powers of digestion destroyed. To carry the remark still further, if fear in girls, instead of being cherished, perhaps, created, were treated in the same manner as cowardice in boys, we should quickly see women with more dignified aspects. It is true, they could not then with equal propriety be termed the sweet flowers that smile in the walk of man, but they would be more respectable members of society, and discharge the important duties of life by the light of their own reason. “Educate women like men,” says Rousseau, “and the more they resemble our sex the less power will they have over us.” This is the very point I aim at. I do not wish them to have power over men; but over themselves.

In the same strain have I heard men argue against instructing the poor; for many are the forms that aristocracy assumes. “Teach them to read and write,” say they, “and you take them out of the station assigned them by nature.” An eloquent Frenchman has answered them, I will borrow his sentiments. But they know not, when they make man a brute, that they may expect every instant to see him transformed into a ferocious beast. Without knowledge there can be no morality!”

—Mary Wollstonecraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, 1792

“The whole education of women ought to be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to make themselves loved and honored by them… these are the duties of women at all times, and what should be taught them from their infancy.

Women do wrong to complain of the inequality of man‑made laws; this inequality is in the order of nature, and if women attempted to usurp our rights, they would be ill‑fitted to exercise them.”

—Jean‑Jacques Rousseau, On Education, 1762

“The whole education of women ought to be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to make themselves loved and honored by them… these are the duties of women at all times, and what should be taught them from their infancy.

Women do wrong to complain of the inequality of man‑made laws; this inequality is in the order of nature, and if women attempted to usurp our rights, they would be ill‑fitted to exercise them.”

—Jean‑Jacques Rousseau, On Education, 1762

“The whole education of women ought to be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to make themselves loved and honored by them… these are the duties of women at all times, and what should be taught them from their infancy.

Women do wrong to complain of the inequality of man‑made laws; this inequality is in the order of nature, and if women attempted to usurp our rights, they would be ill‑fitted to exercise them.”

—Jean‑Jacques Rousseau, On Education, 1762

“Deism emerged in the eighteenth century as a radical departure from traditional Christian orthodoxy. Whereas earlier European thought assumed a God who intervened directly in human affairs through miracles, revelation, and ecclesiastical authority, deists argued that the universe operated according to rational and observable natural laws. God, they claimed, was a distant architect rather than an active governor.

This shift reflected the broader Enlightenment confidence in reason and empirical inquiry. Thinkers such as Voltaire and Diderot embraced deism because it allowed them to criticize clerical power and religious superstition without rejecting the idea of a divine creator altogether. In doing so, they helped open intellectual space for more radical forms of skepticism and even atheism, which challenged not only the authority of the church but the entire framework of revealed religion.”

—Elise Marquant, Reason and the Sacred in the Enlightenment, 2022

“Deism emerged in the eighteenth century as a radical departure from traditional Christian orthodoxy. Whereas earlier European thought assumed a God who intervened directly in human affairs through miracles, revelation, and ecclesiastical authority, deists argued that the universe operated according to rational and observable natural laws. God, they claimed, was a distant architect rather than an active governor.

This shift reflected the broader Enlightenment confidence in reason and empirical inquiry. Thinkers such as Voltaire and Diderot embraced deism because it allowed them to criticize clerical power and religious superstition without rejecting the idea of a divine creator altogether. In doing so, they helped open intellectual space for more radical forms of skepticism and even atheism, which challenged not only the authority of the church but the entire framework of revealed religion.”

—Elise Marquant, Reason and the Sacred in the Enlightenment, 2022

“Deism emerged in the eighteenth century as a radical departure from traditional Christian orthodoxy. Whereas earlier European thought assumed a God who intervened directly in human affairs through miracles, revelation, and ecclesiastical authority, deists argued that the universe operated according to rational and observable natural laws. God, they claimed, was a distant architect rather than an active governor.

This shift reflected the broader Enlightenment confidence in reason and empirical inquiry. Thinkers such as Voltaire and Diderot embraced deism because it allowed them to criticize clerical power and religious superstition without rejecting the idea of a divine creator altogether. In doing so, they helped open intellectual space for more radical forms of skepticism and even atheism, which challenged not only the authority of the church but the entire framework of revealed religion.”

—Elise Marquant, Reason and the Sacred in the Enlightenment, 2022

“I am going to tell you a thing that will make you wish yourself here. The smallpox, so fatal and so general among us, is here entirely harmless by the invention of engrafting. There is a set of old women who make it their business to perform the operation. The children or young patients play together all the rest of the day and are in perfect health during the whole time of the operation. There is no example of anyone that has died of it, and you may believe I am well satisfied of the safety of this experiment, since I intend to try it on my dear little son.”

—Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, 1717

“I am going to tell you a thing that will make you wish yourself here. The smallpox, so fatal and so general among us, is here entirely harmless by the invention of engrafting. There is a set of old women who make it their business to perform the operation. The children or young patients play together all the rest of the day and are in perfect health during the whole time of the operation. There is no example of anyone that has died of it, and you may believe I am well satisfied of the safety of this experiment, since I intend to try it on my dear little son.”

—Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, 1717

“I am going to tell you a thing that will make you wish yourself here. The smallpox, so fatal and so general among us, is here entirely harmless by the invention of engrafting. There is a set of old women who make it their business to perform the operation. The children or young patients play together all the rest of the day and are in perfect health during the whole time of the operation. There is no example of anyone that has died of it, and you may believe I am well satisfied of the safety of this experiment, since I intend to try it on my dear little son.”

—Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, 1717

—William Hoare of Bath, Portrait of Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, 1733

—William Hoare of Bath, Portrait of Ayuba Suleiman Diallo, 1733