We still ask the question ‘What is Enlightenment?’ Every generation seems to offer new and contradictory answers to the question. In the last thirty or so years, the most interesting characterisations of Enlightenment have been by historians. They have told us that there is one Enlightenment, that there are two Enlightenments, that there are many Enlightenments. This has thrown up a second question, ‘How Many Enlightenments?’ In the spirit of collaboration and criticism, I answer both questions by arguing in this article that there are in fact three Enlightenments: Radical, Sceptical and Liberal. These are abstracted from the rival theories of Enlightenment found in the writings of the historians Jonathan Israel, John Robertson and J.G.A. Pocock. Each form of Enlightenment is political; each involves an attitude to history; each takes a view of religion. They are arranged in a sequence of increasing sensitivity to history, as it is this which makes it possible to relate them to each other and indeed propose a composite definition of Enlightenment. The argument should be of interest to anyone concerned with ‘the Enlightenment’ as a historical phenomenon or with ‘Enlightenment’ as a philosophical abstraction.

我们仍然会问“启蒙是什么？”这个问题。每一代人似乎都为这个问题提供了新的矛盾的答案。在过去三十年左右的时间里，启蒙运动最有趣的特征是历史学家。他们告诉我们，有一个启蒙运动，有两个启蒙运动，有很多启蒙运动。这引发了第二个问题，“多少个启示？” 本着合作与批评的精神，我通过在本文中论证实际上存在三个启蒙来回答两个问题：激进的，怀疑的和自由的。这些是从历史学家乔纳森·以色列，约翰·罗伯逊和约翰·波科克（JGA Pocock）的著作中发现的对立的启蒙理论中抽象出来的。每种形式的启蒙运动都是政治性的。每个都涉及对历史的态度；每个人都对宗教有看法。它们以对历史越来越敏感的顺序排列，因为这使得将它们彼此关联成为可能，并确实提出了启蒙运动的综合定义。任何以“启蒙”为历史现象或以“启蒙”为哲学抽象的人都应该对此感兴趣。