which represents the apex of human progress, but the places that assumption under View stress, by investigating the relationship between economic liberty and political improvement. Its desire to fold the achievement of a measure of economic liberty into a narrative of improvement is achieved in the face of the seeming collapse of the very possibility of reading the Revolution in such terms. Indeed, Wollstonecraft is often prompted, in her role as a historian, to reflect why, despite the advances of enlightened thinking, the Revolution has produced such frequently shocking and chaotic events; the inadequacies of is one of her answers. current “manners” Her determination to read the French Revolution optimistically thus comes under significant pressure. Clearly, enlightened thinking itself is not enough to secure improvement: it must encounter, and negotiate, hostile circumstances, and preserve itself even in the face of opposing historical forces; such self-preservation might, it seems, involve a change in form. Some indication of this is given when Wollstonecraft remarks on how the Physiocrats the dangerous vigilance of by in the “eluded absolute ministers” disseminating “truths economy of the of the (225). In hostile times, finance” within “abstract work” Encyclopédie enlightened knowledge finds cover in alien forms. Elsewhere in the meanwhile, View, Wollstonecraft considers how reforms are achieved even in the absence of enlightened knowledge in an episode which takes to its limit her faith in knowledge as the basis for – historical change. How far does a sense of generic or formal disguise apply too to own Wollstonecraft’s work a historical and account of the French Revolution, in the conventions of – “moral” enlightenment philosophical history, which nevertheless engages, perhaps unexpectedly, with detailed matters of the of As Jane Rendall has shown, Wollstonecraft was “science finance”? familiar with the progressive histories of improvement written by John Millar, William Robertson, and others in the 1770s and 1780s. Philosophical or history narrated “conjectural”
which represents the apex of human progress, but the View places that assumption under stress, by investigating the relationship between economic liberty and political improvement. Its desire to fold the achievement of a measure of economic liberty into a narrative of improvement is achieved in the face of the seeming collapse of the very possibility of reading the Revolution in such terms. Indeed, Wollstonecraft is often prompted, in her role as a historian, to reflect why, despite the advances of enlightened thinking, the Revolution has produced such frequently shocking and chaotic events; the inadequacies of current “manners” is one of her answers. Her determination to read the French Revolution optimistically thus comes under significant pressure. Clearly, enlightened thinking itself is not enough to secure improvement: it must encounter, and negotiate, hostile circumstances, and preserve itself even in the face of opposing historical forces; such self-preservation might, it seems, involve a change in form. Some indication of this is given when Wollstonecraft remarks on how the Physiocrats “eluded the dangerous vigilance of absolute ministers” by disseminating “truths in the economy of finance” within the “abstract work” of the Encyclopédie (225). In hostile times, enlightened knowledge finds cover in alien forms. Elsewhere in the View, meanwhile, Wollstonecraft considers how reforms are achieved even in the absence of enlightened knowledge – in an episode which takes to its limit her faith in knowledge as the basis for historical change. How far does a sense of generic or formal disguise apply too to Wollstonecraft’s own work – a historical and “moral” account of the French Revolution, in the conventions of enlightenment philosophical history, which nevertheless engages, perhaps unexpectedly, with detailed matters of the “science of finance”? As Jane Rendall has shown, Wollstonecraft was familiar with the progressive histories of improvement written by John Millar, William Robertson, and others in the 1770s and 1780s. Philosophical or “conjectural” history narrated
ERR256_Packham%20Editing%20in%20Progress.docx