Historians use the term “Enlightened Despot,” to describe some of the men and women who ruled European states during part of the eighteenth century. Monarchs, inspired by the ideals of the Enlightenment, pursued reformations described as Enlightened Despotism. Yet by examining the term and the policies of the rulers named by this term, Enlightened Despotism displays more about the prejudices and values of the historians who use it than the rulers of this time.
The word “enlightened” expresses the moral value judgment of moral superiority, and rationality, a statement of reality. On the other hand, the connotation of the word “despot” is negative, as it is defined as tyrannical and oppressive. Therefore, the historians depict a contradiction …show more content…
For example, the Holy Roman Emperors, the Hapsburgs, “produced an ‘Enlightened Despot’ who decided that he was going to confront the nobility and change society” (Reader 25). However, the Hohenzollerns, Kings of Prussia, also produced an Enlightened Despot who worked with the nobility rather than challenging them (Reader 25). Each ruler, deciding to work with or against the nobility, improved the status of their country through the reformations they chose, although taking different strategies to do so. On the other hand, historians do not consider Louis the XVI, ruler of France, an Enlightened Despot because although his policies are not much different than those of other rulers of the time, his rule ended with the French Revolution. Therefore, rather than improving the status of the country with his reformations, he instead caused an outcry that eventually led to the overthrow of the French monarchy. Historians call someone an Enlightened Despot if their actions and policies improve the status of their own country, not based on the policies
The word “enlightened” expresses the moral value judgment of moral superiority, and rationality, a statement of reality. On the other hand, the connotation of the word “despot” is negative, as it is defined as tyrannical and oppressive. Therefore, the historians depict a contradiction …show more content…
For example, the Holy Roman Emperors, the Hapsburgs, “produced an ‘Enlightened Despot’ who decided that he was going to confront the nobility and change society” (Reader 25). However, the Hohenzollerns, Kings of Prussia, also produced an Enlightened Despot who worked with the nobility rather than challenging them (Reader 25). Each ruler, deciding to work with or against the nobility, improved the status of their country through the reformations they chose, although taking different strategies to do so. On the other hand, historians do not consider Louis the XVI, ruler of France, an Enlightened Despot because although his policies are not much different than those of other rulers of the time, his rule ended with the French Revolution. Therefore, rather than improving the status of the country with his reformations, he instead caused an outcry that eventually led to the overthrow of the French monarchy. Historians call someone an Enlightened Despot if their actions and policies improve the status of their own country, not based on the policies