<
p
>
Enlightenment
is
man
'
s
emergence
from
his
self
-
imposed
nonage
.
Nonage
is
the
inability
to
use
one
'
s
own
understanding
without
another
'
s
guidance
.
This
nonage
is
self
-
imposed
if
its
cause
lies
not
in
lack
of
understanding
but
in
indecision
and
lack
of
courage
to
use
one
'
s
own
mind
without
another
'
s
guidance
.
<
em
>
Dare
to
know
!
em
>
(<
em
>
Sapere
aude
.
em
>)
"
Have
the
courage
to
use
your
own
understanding
,"
is
therefore
the
motto
of
the
enlightenment
.
p
> <
p
>
Laziness
and
cowardice
are
the
reasons
why
such
a
large
part
of
mankind
gladly
remain
minors
all
their
lives
,
long
after
nature
has
freed
them
from
external
guidance
.
They
are
the
reasons
why
it
is
so
easy
for
others
to
set
themselves
up
as
guardians
.
It
is
so
comfortable
to
be
a
minor
.
If
I
have
a
book
that
thinks
for
me
,
a
pastor
who
acts
as
my
conscience
,
a
physician
who
prescribes
my
diet
,
and
so
on
--
then
I
have
no
need
to
exert
myself
.
I
have
no
need
to
think
,
if
only
I
can
pay
;
others
will
take
care
of
that
disagreeable
business
for
me
.
Those
guardians
who
have
kindly
taken
supervision
upon
themselves
see
to
it
that
the
overwhelming
majority
of
mankind
--
among
them
the
entire
fair
sex
--
should
consider
the
step
to
maturity
,
not
only
as
hard
,
but
as
extremely
dangerous
.
First
,
these
guardians
make
their
domestic
cattle
stupid
and
carefully
prevent
the
docile
creatures
from
taking
a
single
step
without
the
leading
-
strings
to
which
they
have
fastened
them
.
Then
they
show
them
the
danger
that
would
threaten
them
if
they
should
try
to
walk
by
themselves
.
Now
this
danger
is
really
not
very
great
;
after
stumbling
a
few
times
they
would
,
at
last
,
learn
to
walk
.
However
,
examples
of
such
failures
intimidate
and
generally
discourage
all
further
attempts
.
p
> <
p
>
Thus
it
is
very
difficult
for
the
individual
to
work
himself
out
of
the
nonage
which
has
become
almost
second
nature
to
him
.
He
has
even
grown
to
like
it
,
and
is
at
first
really
incapable
of
using
his
own
understanding
because
he
has
never
been
permitted
to
try
it
.
Dogmas
and
formulas
,
these
mechanical
tools
designed
for
reasonable
use
--
or
rather
abuse
--
of
his
natural
gifts
,
are
the
fetters
of
an
everlasting
nonage
.
The
man
who
casts
them
off
would
make
an
uncertain
leap
over
the
narrowest
ditch
,
because
he
is
not
used
to
such
free
movement
.
That
is
why
there
are
only
a
few
men
who
walk
firmly
,
and
who
have
emerged
from
nonage
by
cultivating
their
own
minds
.
p
> <
br
><
p
>
It
is
more
nearly
possible
,
however
,
for
the
public
to
enlighten
itself
;
indeed
,
if
it
is
only
given
freedom
,
enlightenment
is
almost
inevitable
.
There
will
always
be
a
few
independent
thinkers
,
even
among
the
self
-
appointed
guardians
of
the
multitude
.
Once
such
men
have
thrown
off
the
yoke
of
nonage
,
they
will
spread
about
them
the
spirit
of
a
reasonable
appreciation
of
man
'
s
value
and
of
his
duty
to
think
for
himself
.
It
is
especially
to
be
noted
that
the
public
which
was
earlier
brought
under
the
yoke
by
these
men
afterwards
forces
these
very
guardians
to
remain
in
submission
,
if
it
is
so
incited
by
some
of
its
guardians
who
are
themselves
incapable
of
any
enlightenment
.
That
shows
how
pernicious
it
is
to
implant
prejudices
:
they
will
eventually
revenge
themselves
upon
their
authors
or
their
authors
'
descendants
.
Therefore
,
a
public
can
achieve
enlightenment
only
slowly
.
A
revolution
may
bring
about
the
end
of
a
personal
despotism
or
of
avaricious
tyrannical
oppression
,
but
never
a
true
reform
of
modes
of
thought
.
New
prejudices
will
serve
,
in
place
of
the
old
,
as
guide
lines
for
the
unthinking
multitude
.
p
> <
p
>
This
enlightenment
requires
nothing
but
<
em
>
freedom
em
>--
and
the
most
innocent
of
all
that
may
be
called
"
freedom
":
freedom
to
make
public
use
of
one
'
s
reason
in
all
matters
.
Now
I
hear
the
cry
from
all
sides
:
"
Do
not
argue
!"
The
officer
says
:
"
Do
not
argue
--
drill
!"
The
tax
collector
:
"
Do
not
argue
--
pay
!"
The
pastor
:
"
Do
not
argue
--
believe
!"
Only
one
ruler
in
the
world
says
:
"
Argue
as
much
as
you
please
,
but
obey
!"
We
find
restrictions
on
freedom
everywhere
.
But
which
restriction
is
harmful
to
enlightenment
?
Which
restriction
is
innocent
,
and
which
advances
enlightenment
?
I
reply
:
the
public
use
of
one
'
s
reason
must
be
free
at
all
times
,
and
this
alone
can
bring
enlightenment
to
mankind
.
p
> <
p
>
On
the
other
hand
,
the
private
use
of
reason
may
frequently
be
narrowly
restricted
without
especially
hindering
the
progress
of
enlightenment
.
By
"
public
use
of
one
'
s
reason
"
I
mean
that
use
which
a
man
,
as
<
em
>
scholar
em
>,
makes
of
it
before
the
reading
public
.
I
call
"
private
use
"
that
use
which
a
man
makes
of
his
reason
in
a
civic
post
that
has
been
entrusted
to
him
.
In
some
affairs
affecting
the
interest
of
the
community
a
certain
[
governmental
]
mechanism
is
necessary
in
which
some
members
of
the
community
remain
passive
.
This
creates
an
artificial
unanimity
which
will
serve
the
fulfillment
of
public
objectives
,
or
at
least
keep
these
objectives
from
being
destroyed
.
Here
arguing
is
not
permitted
:
one
must
obey
.
Insofar
as
a
part
of
this
machine
considers
himself
at
the
same
time
a
member
of
a
universal
community
--
a
world
society
of
citizens
--(
let
us
say
that
he
thinks
of
himself
as
a
scholar
rationally
addressing
his
public
through
his
writings
)
he
may
indeed
argue
,
and
the
affairs
with
which
he
is
associated
in
part
as
a
passive
member
will
not
suffer
.
Thus
it
would
be
very
unfortunate
if
an
officer
on
duty
and
under
orders
from
his
superiors
should
want
to
criticize
the
appropriateness
or
utility
of
his
orders
.
He
must
obey
.
But
as
a
scholar
he
could
not
rightfully
be
prevented
from
taking
notice
of
the
mistakes
in
the
military
service
and
from
submitting
his
views
to
his
public
for
its
judgment
.
The
citizen
cannot
refuse
to
pay
the
taxes
levied
upon
him
;
indeed
,
impertinent
censure
of
such
taxes
could
be
punished
as
a
scandal
that
might
cause
general
disobedience
.
Nevertheless
,
this
man
does
not
violate
the
duties
of
a
citizen
if
,
as
a
scholar
,
he
publicly
expresses
his
objections
to
the
impropriety
or
possible
injustice
of
such
levies
.
A
pastor
,
too
,
is
bound
to
preach
to
his
congregation
in
accord
with
the
doctrines
of
the
church
which
he
serves
,
for
he
was
ordained
on
that
condition
.
But
as
a
scholar
he
has
full
freedom
,
indeed
the
obligation
,
to
communicate
to
his
public
all
his
carefully
examined
and
constructive
thoughts
concerning
errors
in
that
doctrine
and
his
proposals
concerning
improvement
of
religious
dogma
and
church
institutions
.
This
is
nothing
that
could
burden
his
conscience
.
For
what
he
teaches
in
pursuance
of
his
office
as
representative
of
the
church
,
he
represents
as
something
which
he
is
not
free
to
teach
as
he
sees
it
.
He
speaks
as
one
who
is
employed
to
speak
in
the
name
and
under
the
orders
of
another
.
He
will
say
:
"
Our
church
teaches
this
or
that
;
these
are
the
proofs
which
it
employs
."
Thus
he
will
benefit
his
congregation
as
much
as
possible
by
presenting
doctrines
to
which
he
may
not
subscribe
with
full
conviction
.
He
can
commit
himself
to
teach
them
because
it
is
not
completely
impossible
that
they
may
contain
hidden
truth
.
In
any
event
,
he
has
found
nothing
in
the
doctrines
that
contradicts
the
heart
of
religion
.
For
if
he
believed
that
such
contradictions
existed
he
would
not
be
able
to
administer
his
office
with
a
clear
conscience
.
He
would
have
to
resign
it
.
Therefore
the
use
which
a
scholar
makes
of
his
reason
before
the
congregation
that
employs
him
is
only
a
private
use
,
for
no
matter
how
sizable
,
this
is
only
a
domestic
audience
.
In
view
of
this
he
,
as
preacher
,
is
not
free
and
ought
not
to
be
free
,
since
he
is
carrying
out
the
orders
of
others
.
On
the
other
hand
,
as
the
scholar
who
speaks
to
his
own
public
(
the
world
)
through
his
writings
,
the
minister
in
the
public
use
of
his
reason
enjoys
unlimited
freedom
to
use
his
own
reason
and
to
speak
for
himself
.
That
the
spiritual
guardians
of
the
people
should
themselves
be
treated
as
minors
is
an
absurdity
which
would
result
in
perpetuating
absurdities
.
p
> <
br
><
p
>
But
should
a
society
of
ministers
,
say
a
Church
Council
,
.
.
.
have
the
right
to
commit
itself
by
oath
to
a
certain
unalterable
doctrine
,
in
order
to
secure
perpetual
guardianship
over
all
its
members
and
through
them
over
the
people
?
I
say
that
this
is
quite
impossible
.
Such
a
contract
,
concluded
to
keep
all
further
enlightenment
from
humanity
,
is
simply
null
and
void
even
if
it
should
be
confirmed
by
the
sovereign
power
,
by
parliaments
,
and
the
most
solemn
treaties
.
An
epoch
cannot
conclude
a
pact
that
will
commit
succeeding
ages
,
prevent
them
from
increasing
their
significant
insights
,
purging
themselves
of
errors
,
and
generally
progressing
in
enlightenment
.
That
would
be
a
crime
against
human
nature
whose
proper
destiny
lies
precisely
in
such
progress
.
Therefore
,
succeeding
ages
are
fully
entitled
to
repudiate
such
decisions
as
unauthorized
and
outrageous
.
The
touchstone
of
all
those
decisions
that
may
be
made
into
law
for
a
people
lies
in
this
question
:
Could
a
people
impose
such
a
law
upon
itself
?
Now
it
might
be
possible
to
introduce
a
certain
order
for
a
definite
short
period
of
time
in
expectation
of
better
order
.
But
,
while
this
provisional
order
continues
,
each
citizen
(
above
all
,
each
pastor
acting
as
a
scholar
)
should
be
left
free
to
publish
his
criticisms
of
the
faults
of
existing
institutions
.
This
should
continue
until
public
understanding
of
these
matters
has
gone
so
far
that
,
by
uniting
the
voices
of
many
(
although
not
necessarily
all
)
scholars
,
reform
proposals
could
be
brought
before
the
sovereign
to
protect
those
congregations
which
had
decided
according
to
their
best
lights
upon
an
altered
religious
order
,
without
,
however
,
hindering
those
who
want
to
remain
true
to
the
old
institutions
.
But
to
agree
to
a
perpetual
religious
constitution
which
is
not
publicly
questioned
by
anyone
would
be
,
as
it
were
,
to
annihilate
a
period
of
time
in
the
progress
of
man
'
s
improvement
.
This
must
be
absolutely
forbidden
.
p
> <
br
><
p
>
A
man
may
postpone
his
own
enlightenment
,
but
only
for
a
limited
period
of
time
.
And
to
give
up
enlightenment
altogether
,
either
for
oneself
or
one
'
s
descendants
,
is
to
violate
and
to
trample
upon
the
sacred
rights
of
man
.
What
a
people
may
not
decide
for
itself
may
even
less
be
decided
for
it
by
a
monarch
,
for
his
reputation
as
a
ruler
consists
precisely
in
the
way
in
which
he
unites
the
will
of
the
whole
people
within
his
own
.
If
he
only
sees
to
it
that
all
true
or
supposed
[
religious
]
improvement
remains
in
step
with
the
civic
order
,
he
can
for
the
rest
leave
his
subjects
alone
to
do
what
they
find
necessary
for
the
salvation
of
their
souls
.
Salvation
is
none
of
his
business
;
it
<
em
>
is
em
>
his
business
to
prevent
one
man
from
forcibly
keeping
another
from
determining
and
promoting
his
salvation
to
the
best
of
his
ability
.
Indeed
,
it
would
be
prejudicial
to
his
majesty
if
he
meddled
in
these
matters
and
supervised
the
writings
in
which
his
subjects
seek
to
bring
their
[
religious
]
views
into
the
open
,
even
when
he
does
this
from
his
own
highest
insight
,
because
then
he
exposes
himself
to
the
reproach
:
<
em
>
Caesar
non
est
supra
grammaticos
.
em
>
<
a
href
="
http
://
www
.
columbia
.
edu
/
acis
/
ets
/
CCREAD
/
etscc
/
kant
.
html
#
note2
">
2
a
>   
It
is
worse
when
he
debases
his
sovereign
power
so
far
as
to
support
the
spiritual
despotism
of
a
few
tyrants
in
his
state
over
the
rest
of
his
subjects
.
p
> <
br
><
p
>
When
we
ask
,
Are
we
now
living
in
an
enlightened
age
?
the
answer
is
,
No
,
but
we
live
in
an
age
of
enlightenment
.
As
matters
now
stand
it
is
still
far
from
true
that
men
are
already
capable
of
using
their
own
reason
in
religious
matters
confidently
and
correctly
without
external
guidance
.
Still
,
we
have
some
obvious
indications
that
the
field
of
working
toward
the
goal
[
of
religious
truth
]
is
now
opened
.
What
is
more
,
the
hindrances
against
general
enlightenment
or
the
emergence
from
self
-
imposed
nonage
are
gradually
diminishing
.
In
this
respect
this
is
the
age
of
the
enlightenment
and
the
century
of
Frederick
[
the
Great
].
p
> <
br
><
p
>
A
prince
ought
not
to
deem
it
beneath
his
dignity
to
state
that
he
considers
it
his
duty
not
to
dictate
anything
to
his
subjects
in
religious
matters
,
but
to
leave
them
complete
freedom
.
If
he
repudiates
the
arrogant
word
"
tolerant
",
he
is
himself
enlightened
;
he
deserves
to
be
praised
by
a
grateful
world
and
posterity
as
that
man
who
was
the
first
to
liberate
mankind
from
dependence
,
at
least
on
the
government
,
and
let
everybody
use
his
own
reason
in
matters
of
conscience
.
Under
his
reign
,
honorable
pastors
,
acting
as
scholars
and
regardless
of
the
duties
of
their
office
,
can
freely
and
openly
publish
their
ideas
to
the
world
for
inspection
,
although
they
deviate
here
and
there
from
accepted
doctrine
.
This
is
even
more
true
of
every
person
not
restrained
by
any
oath
of
office
.
This
spirit
of
freedom
is
spreading
beyond
the
boundaries
[
of
Prussia
]
even
where
it
has
to
struggle
against
the
external
hindrances
established
by
a
government
that
fails
to
grasp
its
true
interest
.
[
Frederick
'
s
Prussia
]
is
a
shining
example
that
freedom
need
not
cause
the
least
worry
concerning
public
order
or
the
unity
of
the
community
.
When
one
does
not
deliberately
attempt
to
keep
men
in
barbarism
,
they
will
gradually
work
out
of
that
condition
by
themselves
.
p
> <
br
><
p
>
I
have
emphasized
the
main
point
of
the
enlightenment
--
man
'
s
emergence
from
his
self
-
imposed
nonage
--
primarily
in
religious
matters
,
because
our
rulers
have
no
interest
in
playing
the
guardian
to
their
subjects
in
the
arts
and
sciences
.
Above
all
,
nonage
in
religion
is
not
only
the
most
harmful
but
the
most
dishonorable
.
But
the
disposition
of
a
sovereign
ruler
who
favors
freedom
in
the
arts
and
sciences
goes
even
further
:
he
knows
that
there
is
no
danger
in
permitting
his
subjects
to
make
public
use
of
their
reason
and
to
publish
their
ideas
concerning
a
better
constitution
,
as
well
as
candid
criticism
of
existing
basic
laws
.
We
already
have
a
striking
example
[
of
such
freedom
],
and
no
monarch
can
match
the
one
whom
we
venerate
.
p
> <
br
><
p
>
But
only
the
man
who
is
himself
enlightened
,
who
is
not
afraid
of
shadows
,
and
who
commands
at
the
same
time
a
well
disciplined
and
numerous
army
as
guarantor
of
public
peace
--
only
he
can
say
what
[
the
sovereign
of
]
a
free
state
cannot
dare
to
say
:
"
Argue
as
much
as
you
like
,
and
about
what
you
like
,
but
obey
!"
Thus
we
observe
here
as
elsewhere
in
human
affairs
,
in
which
almost
everything
is
paradoxical
,
a
surprising
and
unexpected
course
of
events
:
a
large
degree
of
civic
freedom
appears
to
be
of
advantage
to
the
intellectual
freedom
of
the
people
,
yet
at
the
same
time
it
establishes
insurmountable
barriers
.
A
lesser
degree
of
civic
freedom
,
however
,
creates
room
to
let
that
free
spirit
expand
to
the
limits
of
its
capacity
.
Nature
,
then
,
has
carefully
cultivated
the
seed
within
the
hard
core
--
namely
the
urge
for
and
the
vocation
of
free
thought
.
And
this
free
thought
gradually
reacts
back
on
the
modes
of
thought
of
the
people
,
and
men
become
more
and
more
capable
of
acting
in
freedom
.
At
last
free
thought
acts
even
on
the
fundamentals
of
government
and
the
state
finds
it
agreeable
to
treat
man
,
who
is
now
more
than
a
machine
,
in
accord
with
his
dignity
.
<
br
><
br
>
p
> <
br
><
center
><
strong
>
Notes
strong
>
center
><
br
><
a
name
="
note1
">
a
><
span
style
="">
1
.
Translated
by
Mary
C
.
Smith
.
span
>
<
br
><
br
><
a
name
="
note2
">
a
>
2
.
[
Caesar
is
not
above
grammarians
.]