Comments on: Voltaire the hypocrite

By: roger

roger — Fri, 17 Dec 2004 18:27:46 +0000

Sticking my nose in this issue once more—in Condorcet’s bio of Voltaire, sweetly put up on the Voltaire site (http://www.voltaire-integral.com/index.html) , the issue between Voltaire and Rousseau was complicated by the issue between the citoyens, ruled by a Protestant aristocracy (the magistrates) and a mix of Protestant and Catholics who were denied the privileges of Catholicism. Condorcet is a prejudiced source, but in his telling, Voltaire’s status, being close to Geneva, is as threatened as Rousseau’s one by the politics of reaction against the idea that a people had a right to revolt against an oppressive government. Here’s Condorcet: On parla donc de remettre en vigueur les lois qui défendaient aux catholiques d’avoir du bien dans le territoire genevois; on reprocha aux magistrats leurs liaisons avec Voltaire, qui avait osé s’élever contre l’assassinat barbare de Servet, commandé au nom de Dieu par Calvin aux lâches et superstitieux sénateurs de Genève. Voltaire fut obligé de renoncer à sa maison des Délices. Bientôt après, Rousseau établit dans Émile des principes qui révélaient aux citoyens de Genève toute l’étendue de leurs droits, et qui les appuyaient sur des vérités simples que tous les hommes pouvaient sentir, que tous devaient adopter. Les aristocrates voulurent l’en punir; mais ils avaient besoin d’un prétexte. Ils prirent celui de la religion, et se réunirent aux prêtres qui, dans tous les pays, indifférents à la forme de la constitution et à la liberté des hommes, promettent les secours du ciel au parti qui favorise le plus leur intolérance, et deviennent, suivant leurs intérêts, tantôt les appuis de la tyrannie d’un prince persécuteur ou d’un sénat superstitieux, tantôt les défenseurs de la liberté d’un peuple fanatique. So, this isn’t only a free speech issue, or a matter of Voltaire simply prosecuting Rousseau—but of two men who both played sides with various factions in Geneva for their various gains. Voltaire was an old hand at this.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Fri, 17 Dec 2004 10:38:21 +0000

Damien, That isn’t the impression given by Cranston (3rd volume) pp. 9—10. Of course, Cranston could be wrong, but he supports Rousseau’s belief (dismissed by the author of your article) that Voltaire was maliciously at work in 1762 also.

By: Damien

Damien — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:38:32 +0000

Chris, Voltaire had nothing to do with the frenzy against Rousseau in 1762. Instead he offered his support to Rousseau at the time! But the burning of Voltaire’s books in Geneva in 1764 can be linked to Rousseau’s “Letters from the mountain” where Rousseau exposes Voltaire as the author of the “Sermon des Cinquante”. Voltaire then writes the anonymous “Le Sentiment des Citoyens” to get his revenge. Read the article, it’s worth it!

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 18:10:55 +0000

How could it be the case that the first books to burn were Voltaire’s given that the SC and Emile had already been burnt in June 1762!

By: Damien

Damien — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 17:01:31 +0000

Regarding the growing and mutual hatred between Rousseau and Voltaire, a very good article is accessible online in French. As Roger points out, Voltaire is by no means clean, but one has to aknowledge that the first books to burn in Geneva were Voltaire's, thanks to Rousseau's fifth letter in "Lettres écrites de la montagne". The same website also provides us with the full text of Voltaire's satire of Rousseau, "Lettre au Docteur Jean Jacques Pansophe"

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:57:18 +0000

Jackmormon: R’s considered position (in the Letter to Voltaire, the 2nd Discourse and the Social Contract) is in favour of toleration of all religions which intersect with the doctrines of “civil religion”. So, no open atheists (he agrees with Locke on this one….) and no religions that aren’t prepared to co-exist with other religions. (The no-atheists position is slightly complexified by more moderate remarks in a footnote to Julie.) The Enclyclopedie entry on Tolerance (or mayby Intolerance, I forget) cites Rousseau in extenso as exemplifying religious toleration. So by contemporary standards, at least, he had fairly liberal views.

By: Jeff Bogdan

Jeff Bogdan — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:53:37 +0000

Getting Limbaugh fined (or fired) for saying “dick” on the air would be completely unfair. On the other hand…whoo-hoo!

By: Jackmormon

Jackmormon — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:50:42 +0000

Sorry, that’s speech-acts, of course.

By: Jackmormon

Jackmormon — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 00:49:00 +0000

I’m trying to work out whether the freedom of speech question in Voltaire shouldn’t be separated from the religious tolerance question. I know there’s linked logically, but one of the burning questions in the 18th c was how to sever the link between religion and the state. Voltaire seems to have admired dissenting religions like the Quakers it seems specifically because of their stance on equality and free speech (Letters from england), but of course to an exile from a French monarchy, the Quakers would have seemed exotic. My guess is that he tolerates all expression that is funny and unthreatening or somehow profitable. Rousseau’s position was more consistent, but more troubling as a basis for law. In “the confessions of a savoyard vicar” in Emile, Rousseau seems to advocate state religions: the individual can enjoy his freedom to dissent on the inside all he (or more rarely, she) likes, but in order to be part of the nation, the individual should conform to the state’s constraints. Rousseau’s position on free speech I can’t come up with easily at the moment, but I expect it would have something torturous to do with an opposition between subjective expression and political language-acts. There’s a number of places where the two would clash violently. Which leaves us back to Pierre’s comment: Like Voltaire, I am categorically against the burning of books. Unless they are by people I know personally.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:30:43 +0000

Well, Roger, I think you’ll find that Rousseau was pretty tolerant of religious differences too, on the whole. (Though that’s a complex topic , but well dealt with by Ralph Leigh in a lecture “Rousseau and the Problem of Tolerance”(? title). As for “so-called enemy of liberty”. Indeed, “so-called”. But you can always read my book on the subject ;) Theatres were illegal in a lot of places in the mid-18th century—including where I live in Bristol, England. I don’t think you should assimilate that to modern totalitarianism.

By: roger

roger — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:14:40 +0000

ps—oh, and along those lines, there’s been a meme on the left blogs urging people to complain to the FCC about Limbaugh for saying “dick” on the air. After a while, any stick becomes good in a fight. But surely, the left – libertarian view is that Limbaugh should not be fined for saying dick on the air, NBC shouldn’t be fined for showing Janet Jackson’s provocative aureolas for five seconds, and, and… there should be theaters in Geneva.

By: roger

roger — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:06:58 +0000

Chris, I know that. While I will grant that Voltaire was vengeful and inconsistent, even hypocritical, in the pursuit of his enemies, still, it is a bit of a hard knock to try to say he doesn’t deserve his place as a defender of tolerance because he was hypocritical to a man who was not exactly a paragon of free speech beliefs himself. I’d say that Voltaire’s record against intolerance, while spotty (his notorious prejudice against Jews, for example), was on the whole admirable. The deeper point is that an intellectual who desires and promotes liberty ends up persecuting a so called enemy of liberty with those tools he had at hand. Rather the paradox that seems to overcome the left defenders of the Iraq invasion.

By: Chris Bertram

Chris Bertram — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:44:56 +0000

Roger, I wasn’t holding Rousseau up as a hero of free speech….

By: roger

roger — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:27:22 +0000

Was this the same Rousseau who wanted to make sure that Geneva continued to ban theater? Who replied to D’Alambert’s praise of drama in the Encyclopedie: With what avidity the youth of Geneva, entrained by an authority of such a weight, will give themselves to ideas of which they are all too currently inclined. How, since the publication of this volume, young Genevans, otherwise good citizens, await the moment to patronize the establishment of a theater, believing thus to render a service to the country and almost to humanity itself! This is the subject of my alarms, this is the ill I wished to prevent.” A sentiment that has echoed down the ages, all the way to Madame Mao. Just sure I am getting the censorship issues straight here. I’m not used to Rousseau being the hero of freedom of speech.

By: Anderson

Anderson — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 17:31:47 +0000

Voltaire could be a complete bastard whenever he chose, as can be gleaned even from Besterman’s very sympathetic biography. I sometimes think that his amazingly fluid ability with words had some correlation with his character; just as it’s easy to say “A . ~A”, it’s easy to BE that as well.