「啟蒙運動」（the Enlightenment）最早由思想史研究提出，用以指稱西方文明史自「文藝復興」之人文主義的再現與世俗化、「宗教改革」之個人主義思想的促進與對教會權威的挑戰，以及「科學革命」之重視理性作為人類獲取知識來源以來的進一步發展。近年來，隨著歷史學分工與專業化發展，「啟蒙運動」也被廣泛運用至諸如社會史與文化史的論述中，成為社會文化運動或十八世紀之代稱，後進學者常習而不察。

為此，本文從思想史研究取徑，藉著分析環繞「日耳曼啟蒙運動」的種種現象，包括其高等學術如何在科學革命潮流的影響下突破中古知識體系的框架與突破後的發展，以及當時神聖羅馬帝國內外社會、政治、經濟與文化環境對日耳曼啟蒙運動思想之發展與傳播的影響，試圖論證「日耳曼啟蒙運動」是否具有相異於其前後時代的獨特性質，以及此「日耳曼啟蒙運動」特質和「啟蒙運動」之間的關係。

本文的結論是，在思想史取徑的分析下，「日耳曼啟蒙運動」在思想史脈絡上並無獨特表現，甚有違背啟蒙運動精神之處。它的公共活動現象雖然符合「啟蒙運動」的世俗性意義，卻往往理性化不足（而「獨重理性精神」應乃啟蒙運動的最重要特徵）；它的理性學術與新宗教論述雖肯定理性，卻堅持理性能與信仰調和一致，強調發揚理性應以不違信仰為前提；而所謂的「開明專制」，既以妥協通融、依附君王與政權為旨，自然不符合康德為「啟蒙」所下之定義：「啟蒙是人超脫於他自身所招致的未成年狀態。未成年狀態是無他人指導即無法使用理性的那種無能。」但若不以「日耳曼啟蒙運動」作為思想史名目，而僅觀察十八世紀日耳曼地區以「日耳曼啟蒙運動」(Aufklärung)為號召的社會文化變遷情況，則此段時期的歷史對日耳曼地區的整體文明進展，仍是具有其意義。

參考書
1. Edward Craig ed., Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, New York: Routledge, 1998.
(1) Charles A. Corr, “Wolff Christian, 1679-1754,” Vol. 9, 776-786.
(2) Daniel Garber, “Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm, 1646-1716,” Vol. 5, 541-562.
(3) Knud Haakonssen, “Thomasius (Thomas), Christian, 1655-1728,” Vol. 9, 376-380.
2. Michel Delon ed., Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment, London: Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, 2001.
(1) Jean Mondot, “Germany,” Vol.1, 598-606.
3. Alan Charles Kors ed., Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment, New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
(1) Hans Erick Bödeker, “Journals, Newspapers, and Gazettes: Germany,” Vol. 2, 313-315.
(2) Laurence Brockliss, “Universities,” Vol. 4, 205-207.
(3) François Duchesneau, “Leibniz, Gottfried Wilhelm von (1646-1716),” Vol. 2, 380-384.
(4) Ian Hunter, “Natural Law,” Vol. 3, 130-134.
(5) Manfred Kuehn, “Wolff, Christian (1679-1754),” Vol. 4, 263-266.
(6) Fania Oz-Salzberger, “Aufklärung,” Vol. 1, 100-103.
(7) Michael J. Seidler, “Pufendorf, Sanuel,” Vol. 3, 378-381.
(8) Simone Zurbuchen, “Thomasius, Christian,” Vol. 4, 161-162.

資料集
1. James Schmidt ed., What is Enlightenment?: Eighteenth-century Answers and Twentieth-century Questions, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996.
(1) Carl Friedrich Bahrdt (translated by John Chrisyian Laursen), “On Freedom of the Press and Its Limits: For Consideration by Rulers, censors and Writers” (1787), 97-113.
(2) Johann Gottlieb Fiche (translated by Thomas E. Wartenberg), “Reclamation of the Freedom of Thought from the Princes of Europe, who Have Oppressed It until Now,” (1793), 119-142.
(3) Immanuel Kant (translated by James Schmidt), “An answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?”(1784), 58-64.
(4) Ernst Ferdinand Klein (translated by John Christian Laursen), “On Freedom of thought and of the Press: For Princes, Ministers, and Writers” (1784), 87-96.
(5) Friedrich Karl von Moser (translated by John Christian Laursen), “True and False Political Enlightenment,”(1792), 212-216.
(6) J. K. W. Möhsen (translated by James Schmidt), “What Is to be Done Toward the Enlightenment of the Citizenry,”(1783), 49-52.
(7) Andreas Riem (translated by Jane Kneller), “On Enlightenment: Is It and Could It Be Dangerous to the State, to Region, or Dangerous in General? A Word to Be Heeded by Princes, Statesmen, and Clergy” (1788), 168-188.
(8) Johann Heinrich Tieftrunk (translated by Arthur Hirsh), “On the Influence of Enlightenment on Revolutions,”(1794), 217-224.
(9) Christoph Martin Wieland (translated by Kevin Paul Geiman and James Schmidt), “A Couple of Gold Nuggets, from the… Watepaper, or Six Amswers to Six Questions,” (1789), 78-84.
(10) Moses Mendelssohn (translated by James Schmidt), “On the Question: What Is Enlightenment?”(1784), 53-57.
2. Paul Hyland ed., The Enlightenment: A sourcebook and reader,New York: Routledge, 2003.
(1) Frederick II, “Essay on the forms of Government,” (1777), 173-175.

專書
1. Derek Beales, Joseph II: In the Shadow of Maria Theresa 1741-1780, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
2. Richard van Dülmen, The Society of the Enlightenment, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1992.
3. Klaus Epstein, The Genesis of German Conservatism, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1975.
4. John G. Gagliardo, Germany under the Old Regime, London: Longman, 1991, 177-180.
5. John G. Gagliardo, Reich and Nation: The Holy Roman Empire as Idea and Reality, 1763-1806, London: Bloomington, 1980.
6. Peter Gay, The Enlightenment: An Interpretation, The Rise of Modern Paganism, New York: Alfred. A. Knopf, 1967.
7. Dorinda Outram, The Enlightenment, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
8. Thomas P. Saine, The Problem of Being Modern, or, The German Pursuit of Enlightenment from Leibniz to the French Revolution, Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1997.
9. Rudolf Vierhaus (translated by Jonathan B. Knudsen), Germany in the Age of Absolutism, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

專文
1. Derek Beales, “Love and the Empire: Maria Theresa and her co-regents,” in Robert Oresko, G. C. Gibbs, and H.M. Scott ed., Royal and Republican Sovereignty in Early Modern Europe: Essays in Memory of Ragnhild Hatton, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 479-499.
2. Günter Birtsch (translated by Arthur Hirsh), “The Berlin Wednesday Society,” in James Schmidt ed., What is Enlightenment?: Eighteenth-century Answers and Twentieth-century Questions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 235-252.
3. T. C. W. Blanning, “The Enlightenment in Catholic Germany,” in Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich ed., The Enlightenment in National Context (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 118-126.
4. T. C. W. Blanning, “Frederick the Great and Enlightened Absolutism,” in H. M. Scott ed., Enlightened Absolutism: Reform and Reformers in Later Eighteenth-century Europe, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990), 265-288.
5. Charles Ingrao, “The Problem of ‘Enlightened Absolutism’ and the German States,” Journal of Modern History 58, suppl. (1986), S161-180.
6. Charles Ingrao, “The Smaller German States,” in H. M. Scott ed., Enlightened Absolutism: Reform and Reformers in Later Eighteenth-century Europe, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990), 221-243.
7. H. B. Nisbet, “‘Was ist Aufklärung?’: The Concept of Enlightenment in Eighteenth-Century Germany,” in Journal of European Studies 12.2 (1982): 77-95.
8. Marc Raeff, “The Well-Ordered Police State and the Development of Modernity in Seventeenth-and Eighteenth-Century Europe: An attempt at a Comparative Perspective,” American Historical Review 80 (1975):1221-1243.
9. James Schmidt, “Introduction: What Is Enlightenment? A Question, Its Context, and Some Consequences,” in James Schmidt ed., What is Enlightenment?: Eighteenth-century Answers and Twentieth-century Questions (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), 1-44.
10. H. M. Scott, “Introduction: The Problem of Enlightened Absolutism,” in H. M. Scott ed., Enlightened Absolutism: Reform and Reformers in Later Eighteenth-century Europe, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990), 1-35.
11. H. M. Scott, “Reform in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1740-90, in H. M. Scott ed., Enlightened Absolutism: Reform and Reformers in Later Eighteenth-century Europe, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1990),145-187.
12. Richard Tuck, “The ‘Modern’ Theory of Natural Law,” in Anthony Pagden, The Languages of Political Theory in Early-Modern Europe (New York : Cambridge University Press, 1987), 99-119.
13. James Tully, “Editor’s Introduction,” in Samuel Pufendorf’s On the Duty of Man and Citizen, edited by Michael Silverthrorne (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), xiv-xxxvii.
14. Joachim Whaley, “The Protestant Enlightenment in Germany,” in Roy Porter and Mikulas Teich ed., The Enlightenment in National Context (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 106-117.
15. Eberhard Weis, “Enlightenment and Absolutism in the Holy Roman Empire: Thoughts on Enlightened Absolutism in Germany,” Journal of Modern History 58, suppl. (1986), S181-197.

中文書目
1. 王世宗，《現代世界的形成：文明終極意義的探求》，台北：三民，2003。
2. 王曾才，《西洋近世史》，台北：正中書局，1976。
3. 楊豫，《西洋史學史》，台北：雲龍出版社，1998。
4. Ernst Cassirer著，李日章譯，《啟蒙運動的哲學》，台北：聯經，1984。
5. Peter Burke著，賈士蘅譯，《知識社會史》，台北：麥田，2003。
6. Peter Hanns Reill, “Science” in Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment, New York: Facts On File, 1996. 劉北成、王皖強編譯，《啟蒙運動百科全書》，上海：上海人民，2004。