Enlightenment Contested: Philosophy, Modernity, and the Emancipation of Man 1670-1752
This is the second volume of Israel's planned three-volume intellectual history of the Enlightenment. It follows his Radical Enlightenment (2001). These are works aimed primarily at specialists and will hold the attention of lay readers only if they have a strong interest in the subject matter plus hearty endurance.
It doesn't help that Israel is not a good stylist and that the editors apparently were lenient. Lengthy sentences composed of murky subordinate clauses populate nearly every page. Those who do not read French, Latin, Dutch, or German will have to guess the meaning of substantial paragraph-length (or longer) quotations that are not translated from the source language.
Nevertheless, Enlightenment Contested, like its predecessor volume, is rich both in its thesis and in its impressive offering of expansive, indeed overwhelming, supporting detail. The bibliography of this volume alone covers 180 small-print pages.
Israel proposes that a set of "radical" core ideas drove the intellectual conversation in Europe in this period, with Spinoza as the central figure and with Bayle, Diderot, and others later assuming key roles. Against the radicals stood the "moderates," notably including Locke, Newton, Hume, Montesquieu, Turgot, and Kant. These are just a few of the major players in Israel's cast of dozens (even hundreds) of thinkers engaged in the contest of European ideas in this period.
Israel concludes that the radical party ultimately won out. Their core ideas, nearly all of which can be traced to Spinoza in some form, included, for example, one-substance materialism (versus Cartesian mind-body dualism); the adoption of philosophical reason as the exclusive criterion of what is true; a rejection of the supernatural, tending toward atheism (as opposed to Deism or theism); secular "universalism" in ethics; religious and political tolerance; and democratic republicanism in politics.
One of Israel's most important contributions is his exhaustive documentation of who read whom when, and of how they reacted. He convincingly demonstrates how ideas were disseminated and why certain ideas either did or did not take hold. This is how good intellectual history should work.