    (c) 1991 Bureau Development, Inc.

    File: \DP\0219\02198.TXT         Tue Nov 28 22:22:23 1995
Database: Monarch Notes By Author


$Unique_ID{MON02198}
$Pretitle{}
$Title{Works of Voltaire
The Philosophy Of The Enlightenment}
$Subtitle{}
$Author{Voltaire}
$Affiliation{Assistant Professor Of History, Hofstra University}
$Subject{voltaire
enlightenment
wrote
philosophes
god
thinkers
reason
class
ideas
french}
$Date{}
$Log{}
Title:       Works of Voltaire
Book:        Introduction to Voltaire
Author:      Voltaire
Critic:      Sobel, Robert
Affiliation: Assistant Professor Of History, Hofstra University

The Philosophy Of The Enlightenment

     The term "Enlightenment" is often given to the intellectual quickening of
the eighteenth century. As is the case with all intellectual movements of
great importance and duration, it is difficult to say where, when, and how it
began, and when it ended. In addition, any satisfactory definition of the
Enlightenment would be so cumbersome and all-embracing as to be almost
useless; any concise definition would certainly fail to take into account many
thinkers and ideas of the period. Still, some generalities may be made which
will prove useful.

     The Enlightenment may best be considered the intellectual offspring of
the scientific and philosophical movements of the seventeenth century. In
turn, these movements would have been impossible were it not for the
Renaissance, which saw the spirit of secular inquiry revived in Western
Europe. The Reformation also made its contribution, in its destruction of what
operated as a monolithic Church. This is not to say that the thinkers of the
Renaissance and Reformation succeeded in viewing the world totally
objectively, without dogma; rather, they aided in tearing down the medieval
world view, a necessary precondition for the construction of a new one.

     To these factors must be added the growth of nationalism and the rise of
the middle class. Again, neither the national monarchs or the growing merchant
class were necessarily scientifically oriented. They were more interested in
this world than the next, however, and many of their actions and ideas
supported a natural rather than a supernatural explanation of phenomena.

     What did these movements and groups have in common? All stressed
individualism and, by implication, reason. The Renaissance man needed to be
free in order to fully exercise his faculty of reason. The religious reformer
of the Reformation based a good deal of his protest on the Church's lack of
individual interpretation of the Bible and its control over the secular
activities of man. The nationalist stressed the uniqueness of his
nation-state, as opposed to the universality of the Church. The market
demanded that the merchant use reason in his dealings or be out-competed in
trades that required the full use of his senses. During the Middle Ages, the
intellectual stress was on the unity of man under God, the universality of the
Church, the corporate nature of man (a member of a class rather than an
individual in his own right), and the rewards of heaven. The stagnation of
this period was shattered by the Renaissance and Reformation, by the
nationalists and the middle class.

     During the seventeenth century, synthesizing attempts were made to
preserve some of the tenets of the old order, while admitting to the virtues
of the new. After all, St. Thomas used reason in coming to his conclusions;
even if the conclusions were unacceptable, his methodology was not. The
scholastics of the fifteenth century believed their faith could be reasonably
demonstrated, as did the scientists of the seventeenth century.

     Three of the most important thinkers of the seventeenth century-and the
intellectual fathers of the eighteenth century Enlightenment-were Rene
Descartes (1596-1650), Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727), and John Locke
(1632-1704). Descartes attempted to create a system of philosophy by first
sweeping away all preconceptions, and starting with the concept he held to be
the only absolute, "I think, therefore I am." With the use of mathematics and
the deductive method, Descartes went on to reconstruct the universe. God
existed, he said, but only as a first mover and creator of matter and
mathematical laws. "Give me extension and motion," he said, "and I will
construct the universe." As a later critic remarked, "The Cartesian (follower
of Descartes) attempts to explain all the phenomena of nature by matter and
motion; requiring only that God should first create a sufficient quantity of
each, just enough to set him at work." Thus, Descartes did away with the need
for a supernatural God to explain earthly events, as well as the human soul
itself.

     Sir Isaac Newton built upon this philosophical foundation, attempting to
formulate universal mathematical laws to explain all physical phenomena. He
said, for example, that "every particle of matter in the universe attracts
every other particle with a force varying inversely as the square of the
distance between them and directly proportional to the product of their
masses." The implication was clear; God existed-it was He who created these
laws-but the universe acts in accordance with the laws, and not with His whims
of the moment. Man may not be able to understand God, but he can understand
these naturalistic laws. Consequently, to understand God, man must explore
science and this world, and not theology and the supernatural.

     Locke was an influential philosopher-his political ideas helped lay the
basis for the American and French Revolutions-but his epistemological theories
are what concerns us here. At birth, he said, the human mind is blank, a
tabula rasa. The child receives simple ideas, which are later integrated to
form complex ideas. Sensations give the mind its raw materials, and reason
makes them meaningful. Thus, Locke ignores "revelation" and "spiritual
truths," in his theory of knowledge. Also implicit in his philosophy is the
belief that man possesses a volitional consciousness, that is, he has the
capacity to choose and determine his course of action. God has given man a
brain and reason, but he may use them freely.

     Descartes, Newton, Locke, and their seventeenth and early eighteenth
century followers provided the basis for the Enlightenment. At the same time,
the student must remember that their ideas were not completely original, but
based in part upon the work of the later scholastics. St. Thomas may not have
agreed with any of their conclusions, but he would have recognized and
accepted their methods.

The Enlightenment Beliefs:

     The basic beliefs of the Enlightenment may be analyzed under four
headings: (1) trust in reason; (2) disbelief in original sin; (3) the
infallibility of scientific laws; (4) trust in the "simple" and "natural"
methods and ways of life.

     The thinkers of the Enlightenment believed that all knowledge was
attainable through human reason. God gave man a brain and the free will to
use it. If man used his mind correctly, he could comprehend the universe, and
God himself. St. Augustine had said that man's function on earth was to create
an earthly city as close to the City of God as possible, but contented that
perfectibility was unattainable. The thinkers of the Enlightenment said that
this perfect knowledge was within their grasp, and were supremely optimistic
and self-confident.

     The men of the Enlightenment denied the assertion, made by both Catholics
and Protestants, that man was born with original sin and therefore was
incapable of perfection. Instead, the Enlightenment thinkers believed that man
was born without preconceptions, and was capable, through his reasoning
faculty, of attaining both knowledge and virtues. The Enlightenment believed
in progress, a rapid progress which took full advantage of the newly liberated
human mind.

     The uniform nature of the universe fascinated the men of the
Enlightenment. The one who unlocked its secrets could use nature's laws to
attain unlimited power. Everything was within man's grasp once the key to
knowledge was discovered and used.

     What was called "civilization" was, to many Enlightenment thinkers, the
dead hand of the past upon the present. Institutions were encrusted with ideas
and forms which may have once seemed useful, but which needed to be examined
afresh, to determine whether or not any of it was meaningful. From this
premise the Enlightenment men proceeded to discard most of organized religion,
many concepts of the nation-state, war, economic institutions, etc. In the
past, reformers had been content to patch the fabric of society; in the
future, the premise went, the rotten foundations must be torn down and the
task undertaken anew.

     The key word of the Enlightenment, then, was reason. Through the use of
reason, man would be able to uncover the natural laws set down by God, the
great mathematician. If the laws were followed, then limitless progress would
result. The turmoil and suffering of the world might have led others to
extreme pessimism; to the man of the Enlightenment, each bit of suffering
represented the opportunity to use reason to bring order, progress, and
happiness to man. Thus, the Enlightenment, while deploring the present, was
extremely optimistic about the future.

The Philosophes

     The ideas of the Enlightenment were spread by a group of men known
collectively as the philosophes. These men were to be found in every part of
the Western world: Locke and David Hume in England, Franklin and Jefferson in
America, and Leibnitz and Herder in Germany, were leading thinkers of the
period. But France, above all nations, was the home of the philosophes. This
is what Jefferson meant when he said that every man has two countries: his own
and France. Among the leading French philosophes were Montesquieu, Rousseau,
Diderot, Helvetius, Turgot, Condorcet, and, of course, Voltaire.

     The term, philosophes, is often misunderstood.  It does not mean
"philosophers" in the English sense of the term. Rather, these men were, in
addition to being original thinkers, popularizers of an intellectual doctrine.
All wrote complex works of philosophy, which were read widely by the
intellectuals of Europe. But in addition, they wrote popular accounts,
contributed to newspapers and magazines, and in other ways brought their
doctrines to the other classes. Thus, we find that Rousseau's most important
works were magazine essays or pamphlets; Franklin is well-known for Poor
Richard's Almanac, and Jefferson's Declaration of Independence was designed to
be read as a statement of political philosophy.

     In this respect, the thinkers of the Enlightenment resembled those of the
Renaissance. The latter group could scarcely have existed were it not for the
patronage of the Church and the nobles, as well as the newly-created merchants
of Europe. Contrary to popular belief, the artist of the Renaissance did not
work for art's sake in a garret; instead, he more often than not was a
hard-headed businessman who had the equivalent of a contract and an advance
payment before beginning his work. The Renaissance was indeed a great
flowering of intellect and art, but it would have been impossible without the
patronage of a select audience, who paid for the works of the period.

     So it was with the Enlightenment philosophes. Like their predecessors,
they catered to the upper class on occasion; the so-called "enlightened
despots" were sponsors of many thinkers. Frederick the Great of Prussia liked
to consider himself a philosophe. He wrote essays, poems, and plays, and
invited other writers to his court. Voltaire lived for a while at Frederick's
palace at Potsdam, and wrote several of his masterpieces there. Austrian
Emperor Joseph II avidly read the works of the French philosophes, and
attempted to reconstruct his nation on the models they gave him, often calling
some of his mentors to Austria for aid and advice. The same was true, to a
lesser extent, of Gustavus III of Sweden and Charles III of Spain. Catherine
the Great of Russia gave lip service to the ideas of the philosophes,
although in practice she was more despotic than enlightened. Still, she
invited Diderot to Russia, gave bounties to Voltaire, and supported other
French thinkers. She spent three years, herself, composing a set of
instructions to a commission entrusted with the task of codifying Russia's
laws. These instructions contain long sections drawn from Beccaria's Crimes
and Punishments and Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws.

     It was in America and France, however, that the ideas of the philosophes
were most widely spread. Turgot became finance minister for Louis XVI, and the
French Revolution was often led and inspired by the ideas of these thinkers.
During his period of rule, Robespierre attempted to remake French society
according to the ideas of the Enlightenment, going so far as to create an
artificial religion. Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity replaced the Christian
Trinity; the carpenter's level replaced the cross as a religious symbol. The
American Revolution was led by men who could be classified as philosophes.
Certainly Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington fall into
this category.

     But as important as the appeal to the ruling class was it was not the
substance of the philosophe's audience. Instead, the thinkers of the
Enlightenment appealed to the broad and rapidly-growing middle class. One need
only note the rapid growth of newspapers and magazines-typical middle class
publications-in the eighteenth century to see evidence of this appeal. Whereas
the men of the Renaissance appealed primarily to the thin strata of the
nobility and the upper class, the philosophes wrote for the newly-articulate
middle class. Diderot's seventeen-volume Encyclopedie, which included articles
by Voltaire, Montesquieu, Rousseau, and almost all the major French thinkers,
was written for and sold to this audience. Emotional appeals sufficed for the
upper and lower classes; the upper class maintained its position due to the
emotional and irrational concept of status, while the lower classes were
unequipped for anything but emotional appeals, usually of a mystical nature.
But the middle class developed as a result of its newly-emancipated right to
the use of its reasoning power. It is no exaggeration to say that the major
difference between a member of the middle class and a lower class peasant was
the fact that the former had money and property, while the latter did not. A
duke without money was an impoverished duke, but a merchant without money was
a peasant. Thus, the merchant, lacking permanent status, relied upon his brain
for survival, and supported endeavors which would increase his knowledge. The
merchant class congregated near their markets in cities and here the
philosophes found a ready audience. The Enlightenment appeal to reason was
eagerly accepted by members of the rising middle class.

     The men of the Enlightenment were a diverse group. All believed in
progress and reason, but beyond that, there were as many differences as there
were similarities. This was to be expected; after all, a key concept of the
Enlightenment was individualism. Thus, more often than not, the appearance of
any important work of the period would be applauded by some thinkers, and
condemned by others. Voltaire and Rousseau were usually at odds with one
another. Montesquieu called for a government based upon almost-mathematical
laws, while Rousseau demanded rule by a mystical "general will" of the people.
Almost, all Enlightenment figures criticized organized religion, but their
alternatives varied. Voltaire was a Deist, believing in God but not in any
organized church. Pierre Bayle, author of the Critical and Historical
Dictionary, was a religious skeptic. Holbach became the father of modern
atheism. On the other hand, Jansenism, an almost-Calvinist version of
Catholicism, was most powerful during this period. The Quakers and Methodists
can trace their origins to the Reformation, as can the mystical
Swedenborgians. Pietism, a spiritual, other-worldly version of Christianity,
swept the Germanys in this period. If one may use a Newtonian concept in the
social sciences, it might be said that every Enlightenment idea had an equal
and opposite reaction. One can almost discern an "anti-Enlightenment" movement
flourishing side by side with the Enlightenment. Yet, can the critic really
say that George Fox and John Wesley were leaders of this anti-movement? These
founders of Quakerism and Methodism have left many writings, which mark them
as true sons of the Enlightenment. And one can notice another quality which
runs throughout all the religious developments of the period: a lessening of
religious bigotry and superstition.

     If there were apparent schisms in the area of religion, there were also
important divisions in the study of economics. During the seventeenth century,
the single most powerful group of economists were the mercantilists. These men
held that a nation's wealth is measured in terms of gold, silver, and precious
stones. A nation should export more than it imports in order to assure a
"favorable balance of trade." Colonies were prized by mercantilists, both as
sources of raw materials and markets for surpluses.

     Eighteenth century economic theory represented a complete break from and
rejection of mercantilism. Francois Quesnay saw in the circulation of the
economy parallels to the circulation of blood in the human body; both were
beneficial and should be encouraged. Quesnay was the leader of a group of
economists known as the physiocrats. This group held that a nation's wealth is
based on farming and mining, and that manufacturing and trading were not the
creators of wealth, but the transformers and exchangers of it. Government
restrictions, such as those of the mercantilists, hinder the free development
of the economy, and should be held to an absolute minimum. Quesnay spoke of
laissez-faire, or "let them do as they will," as the best policy toward the
economy, one which would assure its growth and prosperity. Adam Smith was
influenced by Quesnay and the physiocrats. His Wealth of Nations, published in
1776, was a persuasive argument in favor of the laissez-faire doctrines. Using
reason, men such as these concluded that there were natural laws of economics;
Smith was considered by many to be the Newton of economics. His ideas and
those of the physiocrats were widespread among the philosophes. Jefferson in
particular was influenced by them, as were other Americans of the
Revolutionary generation.

     Religion and economics were only two of the many areas influenced by the
thinking of the philosophes. Indeed, there was scarcely an area of
endeavor-from music to criminology to government-that was not influenced by
their ideas.

     Still, it is important to note that although the ideas of the philosophes
were generally greeted by applause by the powers that be, few of them were
actually put into practice. The philosophes argued that government should be
rational. The enlightened despots listened politely, made token reforms, but
retained the forms and policies of absolutism. Only Joseph of Austria
attempted a full-scale program of reform, and his efforts ended with failure.
The Church was attacked, but it remained strong. Despite the acceptance of the
physiocrats' theories, mercantilism remained the dominant economic philosophy.
Education scarcely changed; nor did the treatment of criminals. Thus, the men
of the Enlightenment preached reason and progress, but saw irrationality
still strangling Europe. Rousseau argued that only a violent revolution could
change this situation. Montesquieu hoped that gradual changes would lead to a
more enlightened government in France. Turgot was named Finance Minister to
Louis XVI, but was dismissed when he tried to bring order out of the chaos of
French fiscal policy.

     The gap between theory and reality led to three reactions: Rousseau's
revolutionism, Montesquieu's gradualism, and a third reaction, from those who
denied the existence of a problem at all. The philosophical father of this
last school of thought was Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz (1646-1716).
Leibnitz was a major philosopher and mathematician who, among his other
accomplishments, is credited with the independent discovery of calculus.
Although he died before the flowering of the Enlightenment, Leibnitz was an
important influence on many of the later thinkers. Much of his philosophy
stemmed from his attempts to prove the existence of God. Without going into
details regarding his ideas, essentially Leibnitz, believed the universe was
composed of "monads," each of which contained a spiritual as well as a
physical aspect. From this Leibnitz attempted to prove the existence of God
based on his conclusion that there is a pre-established harmony in the
universe, which is God-made. Thus, he seems to have agreed with Newton: God is
the great giver of mathematical laws, which operate throughout the universe
for all time. Leibnitz and his followers were optimistic, as were most of the
men of the Enlightenment. To them, this meant that all that happened was part
of the world-plan of a mechanistic God. Leibnitz did not say so, but some of
his followers concluded that as a result, this is the best of all possible
worlds. Progress is assured; all that happens is for the good; perfection is
within the grasp of those who harmonize their actions with the laws of God.

     One of those who came to this conclusion was the third Earl of
Shaftesbury. "Oh glorious nature, supremely fair and sovereignly good," he
wrote. Nature is always good; if it appears evil, the fault lies within us for
being unable to see the grand design. To Shaftesbury, all nature conspired for
the general good.

     This view was seconded by Alexander Pope, one of the most important poets
of the Enlightenment. In his influential Essay on Man, Pope wrote:

All Nature is but Art, unknown to thee;
All Chance, Direction, which thou canst not see;
All Discord, Harmony not understood;
All partial evil, universal Good;
And, spite of Pride, in erring Reason's spite
One truth is clear, Whatever is, is right.

     Needless to say, individuals such as these, content to see nothing but
good around them, were hardly apt to become reformers. Is it any wonder, then,
that they were viewed with contempt by those philosophes engaged in reform
activities? These extreme optimists were the targets of many attacks from
those who saw a disparity between man's knowledge and his accomplishments. The
most savage and biting of these came from Francois-Marie Arouet, who wrote
under the name of Voltaire.

Voltaire

     Francois-Marie Arouet (he took the pen name de Voltaire at the age of
twenty-three) was born into a middle class French family on November 21, 1694.
Voltaire's father was a lawyer, whose clients included such famous families as
that of the Duke of Sully and Cardinal Richelieu. The father was also a
Jansenist, professing a variety of Catholicism based on the teachings of St.
Augustine, which stressed "grace" rather than "works." The Jansenist moral
code was as strict as that of the Calvinists, and so we may assume that
Voltaire's early years were spent in an authoritarian environment. Voltaire's
mother died when he was seven years old, and at this point the harsh code of
his father became oppressive.

     At the age of ten, Voltaire was sent away to a Jesuit school. It is
difficult to understand why the father sent him to a school run by the
theological enemies of the Jansenists; perhaps it was because the Jesuits were
considered the best teachers of the time. In any case, the school was even
more authoritarian than his home. Voltaire later wrote that he was grateful
for the education and work habits the Order instilled in him, but he revolted
against the harsh discipline at the time. He left school at the age of
sixteen, intent on spending his life writing. His father considered such
pursuits useless, and tried to interest his son-in-law. When Voltaire refused
to enter law school, he was sent to Paris. Then, in 1713, he was named to a
junior diplomatic post at The Hague. Voltaire entered the gay life of the
sophisticated city; when his father learned of this, he warned his son to
repent or be sent to the wilds of America. Still, Voltaire continued to
frequent the salons, and began to write poetry. He eventually returned to
Paris, and became a minor luminary during the wild, hedonistic days of the
Regency (the period after the death of Louis XIV and before the coming of age
of Louis XV). He was banished from Paris and for a while imprisoned for having
written some barbed satires directed at the Regent.

     In 1718, the twenty-four year old Voltaire wrote Oedipe, a tragedy, which
was his first successful work. Others followed, and Voltaire was soon
considered an important French playwright. In 1723 he wrote a play whose hero
was Henry IV, who brought unity and religious peace to France. Soon after his
career took a turn for the worse. Voltaire argued with the Chevalier de Rohan,
was badly beaten by Rohan's men, and hospitalized. He challenged Rohan to a
duel, but was arrested and placed in the Bastille before the two men could
meet on the field of honor. He was allowed to leave on condition that he go to
England. Thus, in 1726, Voltaire crossed the Channel, and stayed in England
until 1729.

     Voltaire later wrote that his stay in England was one of the most
important periods of his life. London seemed free after the harsh days in
Paris; the Englishman of the eighteenth century appeared to have many more
freedoms than his French counterpart. While in England he wrote his
Philosophical Letters, which praised England and criticized France. The book
was published in 1734, after Voltaire had returned to Paris. It was burned,
and a warrant was issued for the author's arrest. This time Voltaire was
prepared for the attack. Wealthy as a result of several successful books, he
fled France and went to the independent Duchy of Lorraine where he lived at a
chateau with his mistress, Emilie, the Marquise du Chatelet, and her most
accommodating husband.

     Voltaire was able to return to France in 1744, and became a member of the
Royal Court. But he was unhappy in France, and in 1750 finally accepted an
appointment to the court of Frederick the Great which had been offered to him
on several occasions in the past. But the two men were both individualists,
and in short order they quarrelled and were no longer on speaking terms.
Accordingly, Voltaire left Frederick's employ and, in 1753, returned to
France.

     The stay in France was to be short; Voltaire's enemies were still in
power, and he was forced to leave again. The author's next home was Geneva,
which he liked insofar as climate was concerned, but disliked because of its
authoritarian Calvinistic atmosphere. In 1758 he purchased a large estate near
Ferny, on French soil but within a few miles of Geneva. At the time he was
sixty-four years old. Voltaire, "the Patriarch of Ferny," was also known as
"the hotel keeper of Europe," as the great thinkers of the time made
pilgrimages to his home and often stayed for long visits. From time to time
Voltaire would venture from his home, but never for long. In 1778, at the age
of eighty-four, he died in Paris.

Voltaire's Philosophy And Candide

     It is difficult to generalize about a man whose writings cover more than
sixty years of time and fill over seventy large volumes. Still, there are some
basic ideas to be found in all of his works.

     Voltaire was a passionate defender of freedom. His most famous quote is:
"I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it." Throughout his life, he defended the rights of men to write
and say what they wished. On the other hand, he sometimes was intolerant in
his criticisms of his enemies.

     Voltaire was a believer in and practitioner of the historical method.
This can best be seen in one of his major works, The Age of Louis XIV (1756).
In it, Voltaire is not only interested in the parade of leading figures, as
many of his predecessors had been, but in the lives of the people, the "temper
of the times," and in casual relationships. Some modern historians credit
Voltaire with having been the first to use the term "philosophy of history."
In his works, we find none of the supernatural events which mark previous
histories. Voltaire once wrote that it is impossible to verify events before
the fifteenth century, which indicates his interest in sources and the use of
historical criticism. On the other hand, some of the material found in his
works cannot be verified independently.

     Voltaire was anti-clerical as a natural outgrowth of his belief in
freedom and the historical method. He saw no basis in fact for the claims of
the various churches and charged religious leaders with suppressing free
thought and criticism. Referring to the clergy, he wrote, "Crush the infamous
thing!" As for himself, Voltaire was a Deist, and is often considered the
father of the movement.

     Voltaire believed in rule by reason. He was no democrat, having little
trust in the common man. Voltaire called for rule by an enlightened despot,
who would allow freedom of speech and other basic freedoms, and do what had to
be done, not that which was popular with the masses. It was for this reason,
among others, that Frederick the Great admired Voltaire. It may be said that
Voltaire desired freedom for the enlightened, and cared little for the rest of
humanity.

     As important as these contributions were, Voltaire's major impact was due
to other factors, namely his catalytic qualities and his skepticism.

     Voltaire was the major intellectual influence during much of the French
Enlightenment. This influence came not only from his own writings, but also
through his work with others. The Encyclopedists considered him their leader;
the physiocrats thought of Voltaire as their guide. Turgot turned to Voltaire,
then an old man, when he gained power in French politics. His writing
influenced an entire generation of French Revolutionaries. During his later
life, Voltaire had a long correspondence with Rousseau. Although the two men
differed on many points, the impact of Voltaire on Rousseau is evident from
reading the letters.

     The fact that Voltaire always considered himself more a critic than
anything else is probably why many have said that he was more destructive than
constructive. Such criticisms of Voltaire ignore his writings which praise the
English constitution, his defense of religious freedom in France and
elsewhere, and his programs for reform. True, these make up only a small
fraction of the man's total output, but they are there nonetheless.

     Voltaire looked around him and saw rampant irrationality. The thinkers of
the Enlightenment put forth their programs, but they had little effect during
the reigns of Louis XV and Louis XVI. Voltaire considered it to be his
function to observe the stupidities of society, and to point out necessary
changes. Where other major Enlightenment figures, such as Montesquieu and
Rousseau, wrote of grandiose schemes for a universal amelioration of the human
condition-and did little concrete about it-Voltaire called for specific
reforms. If his approach was piecemeal, it had the virtue of being more
realistic. Rousseau called for freedom of religion; Voltaire risked his very
life in defending a Protestant, Jean Calas, who was convicted of a crime more
for his religion than for his actual guilt. Rousseau called for a sweeping
away of all religions; Voltaire was more circumspect. In writing to Frederick
the Great, he said:

As long as there are fools and knaves there will be religion. Ours is the
most ridiculous, the most absurd, and the most bloody that has ever infected
the world. Your Majesty will do the human race an eternal service in
extirpating this infamous superstition. I do not say among the rabble, who are
not worthy of being enlightened and who are apt for every yoke; I say among
the well bred, among those who think, among those who wish to think. Their
number is not very great.

     If we read between the biting lines, we can see a sharp insight into the
problems of the times. Some philosophes believed that once the individual
realized that his life was irrational, he would give up his old ways
completely to accept the new, rational way of life. Voltaire realized that the
"average man" was not prepared for such a change, even if it were possible.
Therefore, he called for freedom-but only for those who knew how to handle it.

     To this end, Voltaire believed in education; he agreed with Locke's idea
of a tabula rasa. Faulty education was a major problem; better education would
solve many of the difficulties facing mankind. Why do we call ourselves
Christians? Because we were educated to think of ourselves as such. In Zaire,
Voltaire has a Moslem girl proclaim:

Custom and law alone, applied in early youth,
Have caused me to believe that Islam is the truth.
I see it all, the bent of children's education,
Makes their belief and thoughts cherished by the nation.
Were I an Indian, a false God I should fear,
A Christian girl in France, a faithful Moslem here.

     Voltaire saved the sharpest arrows in his quiver for those who refused to
see the problems and injustices of the modern world. Among these were those
philosophes who proclaimed the optimism of Leibnitz, but actually had
perverted his philosophy. His mistress, Emilie, was one of these; she saw
God's purpose in all things, including the many evils which surrounded her
beautiful chateau. Voltaire was gentle with her, and did not poke fun at
Emilie's beliefs. But ten years after her death, in 1758, he wrote Candide, a
biting satire about these optimists, and what many consider to be his greatest
work.

     Candide is a work of the eighteenth century in many respects. In the
first place, its philosophy is that of the Enlightenment; it is a work by a
man of reason. Secondly, it is historical in tone; most of the material
presented in the satire is based on actual occurrences. Finally, it is pure
Voltaire: biting, insinuating, subtle (though at times direct), and sharp.
Voltaire criticizes the Europe of his time in many of the chapters, but his
greatest scorn is reserved for those who, having the intelligence, refuse to
see what to him is obvious. For example, one of the great disasters of the
century was the Lisbon earthquake, in which thousands perished. Yet, some
philosophes saw God's plan even in this tragedy. The earthquake is discussed
in Candide, but in his Poem on the Disaster of Lisbon, written two years
earlier, Voltaire was even more biting:

The heirs of the dead would now come into their fortunes, masons would
grow rich in rebuilding the city, beasts would grow fat on corpses buried in
the ruins; such is the natural effect of natural causes. So don't worry about
your own particular evil; you are contributing to the general good.

     The poem was the chief item of conversation in the salons that season.
The city fathers of Geneva, shocked at its implications, wrote to Rousseau,
asking him to reply to and refute Voltaire. Rousseau agreed, and published an
article in which he said that the disaster was man's fault, and not God's. Had
men not been living in cities, which were unnatural, they would have been
spared the horrors of Lisbon. Then Rousseau turned his pen to his old friend,
Voltaire, and wrote: "May heaven keep me from offending the one of my
contemporaries whose talents I esteem most deeply; but here it is destiny that
is in question, destiny on which I stake everything."

     Voltaire did not answer this letter; he knew full well that his opponents
and those of Rousseau would like nothing better than to see the two fighting.
But his reply did come, taking another form: two years later he wrote
Candide.

     In 1758 Voltaire journeyed to visit the Elector of the Palatinate, who
had promised him an annuity for the rest of his life. While traveling, he was
given hospitality by several princes who lived along the way. Voltaire rested
for a while at a castle belonging to the Margrave of Baden-Durlach, in
Karlsruhe. It was there that he began to plan Candide.

     Tradition has it that Voltaire wrote Candide in four days, during which
time he was locked in his room, the door closed except to receive food and
coffee. On the fourth day he emerged, gave the manuscript to his niece, and
said: "Here, curious Madame, is something you may read."

     For some time Voltaire, who had become quite wealthy, had published some
of his works anonymously, or under pseudonyms. This was to be the case with
Candide, on whose title page was inscribed: "Translated from the German by Dr.
Ralph." He wrote to his friends, denying the authorship of the work. "What
sort of work is this Candide, of which it is said that it is scandal to sell
it, and which is supposed to have originated in Lyons? I might like to have
it. Couldn't you, gentlemen, get me a bound copy? It is said that some people
are brazen enough to claim that I am the author of this work, which I have
never laid eyes on."

     Voltaire gave himself away, forever, when the Calvinist leaders of Geneva
banned the book, and had it publicly burned. He wrote several scathing anti
religious tracts, and had them distributed in the city. After that, he didn't
deny authorship of Candide.

