It seems that no op-ed piece on the British government’s proposals to criminalize incitement to religious hatred is complete without some reference to Voltaire. So, for example, Polly Toynbee in today’s Guardian (and cf Toynbee on the same subject in August):
Voltaire would have defended Islamic communities to the death from racists - but not set their beliefs beyond ordinary debate.
From Maurice Cranston’s The Solitary Self: Jean-Jacques Rousseau in Exile and Adversity pp. 100—101:
It was amid these ominous stirrings that the Letters from the Mountain [by Rousseau] arrived in Geneva like ‘a firebrand in a powder magazine’, a phrase used in a letter from Francois d’Ivernois to Rousseau and often repeated. One or two magistrates proposed burning the book immediately, and Voltaire wrote impassioned letters urging them to do so. Posing as a champion of Christianity, he pressed his best friend on the Petit Conseil, Francois Tronchin, to ensure that the government acted against a ‘seditious blasphemer’ and put a stop to ‘the audacity of a criminal’ not simply by burning the book but by punishing the author ‘with all the severity of the law’.
This is not true. Is it?
Expecting consistency from Voltaire is like… expecting consistency from Rousseau. You’re better off not doing it.
I suspect Voltaire’s flair for hyperbole and sarcasm is being disregarded here. No one should take Voltaire at face value, especially when he is most worked up.
No, Lance, we’re not dealing with someone just getting carried away here but with a sustained and calculated campaign to get the Genevan authorities to act against Rousseau. (There’s more in Cranston than just that one quote.)
Rosseau must have decided to stay in exile and adversity just a while longer, then.
Like Voltaire, I am categorically against the burning of books. Unless they are by people I know personally.
What would Voltaire have offered by way of an explanation?
Could you read this this thing, please Biographie de Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Doesn’t it say that what Voltaire wrote in regards to these ‘Letters’ was a satire?
Abb1, the text you cite does not indicate that this work was a satire. Here is the relevant section:
“Il [Rousseau] reçoit des visites de ses amis de Paris et de Genève, Mme de Verdelin, les Deluc, Moulton, le négociant d’Yvernois. Cette tranquillité fût troublée d’abord par les tracasseries de Thérèse qui se brouilla avec les gens de Motiers, puis par les suites des Lettres écrites de la montagne. Elles lui attirèrent une violente attaque, dans une brochure intitulée le Sentiment des citoyens (1765): où il était voué à un châtiment capital et dénoncé comme ayant exposé ses enfants à la porte d’un hôpital. Jean-Jacques s’obstina à imputer à Vernes ce triste pamphlet dont l’auteur était Voltaire. Puis, le Conseil condamna au feu les Lettres de Rousseau: ce qui redoubla la guerre intestine de Genève. Après avoir regretté la mollesse de ses partisans, Rousseau s’efforça de les calmer (cf. Béranger, Rousseau justifié envers sa patrie, 1775). Cependant les Lettres écrites de la montagne étaient brûlées à La Haye, à Paris, à Berne, à Neufchâtel…”
There is no indication that Voltaire’s pamphlet was a satire at all. Rousseau thought Vernes was the author of the pamphlet, but apparently it was Voltaire. The apparent result of the intervention was that Rousseau’s work got burned all across the francophone world.
Was Voltaire serious? Perhaps; he could certainly be vindictive at times, and at this point in his life he was quite hostile to Rousseau. Then again, he may well have written it merely to provoke the Genevan authorities into doing their worst. This would also be perfectly in character for him. I have not read the pamphlet itself, though, so I cannot even guess at what tone Voltaire intended to take.
Answering this question would require walking across campus to look at Voltaire’s collected letters (Theodore Bestermann is the editor). But it’s already lunchtime, and my entire afternoon is spoken for, so I’m afraid I cannot help you.
No it doesn’t. It refers to Voltaire’s Le Sentiment des citoyens (another nasty attack). Whether this was satire or not, it is an incident subsequent to the private letters Voltaire wrote trying to get the Genevan Petit Conseil to act against Rousseau. Rousseau refused to believe that Voltaire could have been the author of something so spiteful.
(BTW, you really shouldn’t prefer an account from a 19th century encyclopaedia article to Cranston’s very scholarly biography.)
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.
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.
Roger, I wasn’t holding Rousseau up as a hero of free speech….
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sorry, that’s speech-acts, of course.
Getting Limbaugh fined (or fired) for saying “dick” on the air would be completely unfair. On the other hand…whoo-hoo!
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.
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”
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!
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!
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.
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.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review