The subject of this thesis is the by now traditional grouping of certain innovative works of historiography produced in eighteenth-century Britain and France; namely the historical works of Voltaire, and the historical writings of the philosophes; and, in Britain, the histories of Hume, Robertson, and Gibbon. This thesis gives a historical and expository analysis of the individual strategies of literary self-fashioning and generic appropriation which underlie this impression of resemblance. It particularly demonstrates that the major characteristics of the contemporary vision of philosophic historiography – the idea of a European history of manners or l’esprit humain, and the insistence on the rejection of the practices of the érudits – which have become incorporated within scholarly definitions of ‘Enlightenment historiography’, are well-established generic tropes, adapted and affected in France as in Britain, by authors of diverse ambitions. The invitation to assume inauthentic connections contained within the practice of philosophic historiography is shown to be embraced by Gibbon, in a notable literary challenge to the paradigms of intellectual history. This study contrasts the textual evidence of these authors’ experience of literary, personal, and political challenges regarding the definition of their role as public, intellectual writers, to the acquired image of an ideal of ‘Enlightenment writing’. It considers the Frenchness of philosophie, and the potential Britishness of Hume, Robertson, and Gibbon. As part of its wider analysis of the practice of intellectual writing with a historical focus, its scope includes the writings of British clerics and writers on religion; of French academicians; and of the late philosophe Volney, and Shelley his interpreter. The major conclusion of this thesis is that eighteenth-century British and French history writing does not support any synthesis of an Enlightenment historical philosophy, narrative, or method; while it is suggested that one of the costs of the construct of ‘Enlightenment’, has been the illusion of familiarity with eighteenth-century intellectual culture, in France as well as Britain.

Beaumarchais n’est pas seulement un dramaturge célèbre du XVIIIe siècle, c’est avant tout le père de Figaro, cette figure familière qui s’invite dans le débat public dès qu’il est question de liberté d’expression ou de lutte contre l’injustice. Récusant le concept de mythe, dont les études de réception sont friandes, cette étude s’interroge sur la manière dont l’usage systématique de Figaro dans des domaines extra-littéraires détermine l’ensemble du discours critique sur Beaumarchais. Aux origines de la figaromania, il y a un parcours de la subversion à l’institutionnalisation, qui s’opère à la fin du XIXe siècle, lorsque la Révolution « entre au port », avec l’avènement des républicains. Cette enquête propose donc une histoire de la réception qui puisse montrer la convergence entre les significations d’une œuvre appartenant au patrimoine national et les multiples usages et appropriations dont elle fait l’objet, envisagés dans leur diversité à l’échelle européenne. / Beaumarchais is not only a famous 18th century playwright, but first and foremost the architect of Figaro; the well-known character who slides his way into the public debate as soon as liberty of expression or the fight against injustice is evoked. Challenging the idea of a myth, endorsed by other reception studies, this study analyses how the systematic use of Figaro outside the literary domain shapes the entire critical discourse on Beaumarchais. At the origins of figaromania, there is a transition from subversion to ‘institutionalisation’ at the end of the 19th century as the French Revolution came to an end, with the arrival of the Republicans. Therefore, this study proposes a historical context of the reception of Beaumarchais’ work, at the European level, that shows the convergence between the meaning of an oeuvre that belongs to the national cultural heritage and the many different roles and appropriations that this oeuvre assumes.

This study addresses eighteenth-century English-speaking evangelicals' understandings of church history, through the lens of published attempts to represent preceding Christian centuries panoramically or comprehensively. Sources entail several short reflections on history emerging in the early years of the transatlantic Revival (1730s-1740s) and subsequent, more substantial efforts by evangelical leaders John Gillies, Jonathan Edwards, John Wesley, Joseph and Isaac Milner, and Thomas Haweis. Little scholarly analysis exists on these sources, aside from the renaissance of interest in recent decades in Edwards. This is surprising, considering the acknowledged prominence of history-writing in the eighteenth century and the influence attributed, then and now, to the works of authors such as Gibbon, Hume, and Robertson. The aim is, first, to elucidate each of the above evangelicals' interpretations of the Christian past, both in overview and according to what they said on a roster of particular historical events, people and movements, and then to consider shared and divergent aspects. These aspects range from points of detail to paradigmatic theological convictions. Secondarily, evangelical church histories are analyzed in relation to earlier Protestant as well as eighteenth-century 'enlightened' historiography, in part through attention to evangelical authors' explicit engagement with these currents. This contextualization assists in determining the unique qualities of evangelical interpretations. Is there, then, evidence of a characteristically 'evangelical' perspective on church history? An examination of this neglected area illumines patterns and particulars of evangelicals' historical thought, and these in turn communicate the self-perceptions and the defining features of evangelicalism itself. Findings support the primary contention that evangelical leaders made use of a dynamic pattern of revival and declension as a means of accounting for the full history of Christianity. Beyond displaying the central place of 'revival' for evangelicals, these church histories demonstrate evangelicalism‘s complex relationship—involving both receptivity and critique—with Protestant and Enlightenment currents of historical inquiry.