The most commonly taught book by Voltaire is his amusing satire on philosophical

optimism, Candide. It was even made into a delightful musical by Leonard

Bernstein. However, it does not represent Voltaire at his most influential.
Philosophical optimism is pretty much dead and has to be explained to students
today so that they can grasp the point of his satire. Voltaire's thought ranged much
more widely than this, however. In a very long life of tireless intellectual
campaigning he was the most widely-read of the Enlightenment spokesmen known
as philosophes.

These writers prized clarity and wit, and Voltaire's writing abounds in both.
However, these qualities are somewhat dimmed for many contemporary readers
who don't have the background to appreciate his jokes or grasp his points without
assistance. These notes try to provide some assistance in this regard, and draw the
reader's attention to the most important issues.

It has been said that "Voltaire criticized the Bible, but now everyone reads the Bible
and no one reads Voltaire." Besides being wildly overstated, this jibe misses the
point: we no longer read most of Voltaire's writings because the ideas he fearlessly
promoted have mostly become commonplaces which we take for granted. The
agenda of the Enlightenment is a familiar one to anyone studying classic American
values: freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, and opposition to the cruel
caprices of unenlightened monarchs, to militarism and to slavery.

It is crucial to understand that at his time, organized religion in France (and

elsewhere) ranged itself on the opposite side of every one of these issues, censoring
the press and speech, opposing religious toleration, supporting the doctrine of the
divine right of kings to rule and often endorsing slavery as well. Voltaire railed
against the Catholic Church not because he was a wicked man who wanted freedom
to sin, but because he viewed it as a fountainhead and bulwark of evil. He felt that
no change of the kind he wanted was possible without undermining the power of
the Church; that is why he devoted so much of his attention to ridiculing and
discrediting it.

Unlike his arch-rival philosophe, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, he was not a democrat. ( A

comparison of the two.) Despite the stereotype of the Enlightenment as a
movement of facile optimism, Voltaire was deeply pessimistic about the human
nature. He never dreamed of creating a perfect world (despite the utopia depicted
in Candide). He only argued that the world could be less bad than it is if we replaced
ignorance and superstition with knowledge and rational thought.

His influence (along with Rousseau) on the French Revolution is well-known, but
Voltaire would have been appalled by the irrational, violent excesses done in the
name of enlightenment. Critics ever since have been arguing that the 18th-century
crusade against faith has fatally wounded the Western World, promoting all sorts of
social ills. Whether one sees the world as better or worse after Voltaire, there is no
question that the issues which obsessed him are still important today. There are few
of the questions treated below which are not still being hotly debated in
contemporary America, and few of his arguments have lost their point in the
ensuing centuries.

As you read this book, ask yourself to what extent are his views the very foundation
stones of our culture and to what extent do they challenge it? Voltaire's great
ambition was to make his contemporaries think, and it is a tribute to his wit and his
intellect that his writings can still accomplish that goal.

The following notes refer to the Penguin edition of the Philosophical Dictionary, but
there is a different, older translation available on the Web.

Abb
Why does Voltaire think it is ironic that priests are called "father?" What does he
think is the main fault of modern priests as opposed to ancient ones? What does the
threat in the last line of this article mean?

Ame: Soul

In this article Voltaire ironically examines the concept of the soul, which had been
finely subdivided as he describes by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, whose
definitions were adapted by the thirteenth century Italian theologian Thomas
Aquinas, and which became the basis of Roman Catholic teaching on the subject
(see p. 24). Much of this article is spent mocking these teachings. Focus instead on
Voltaire's attitude toward knowledge. Some of his comments in this article are
aimed at particular points in their philosophy and are of mainly historical interest.
Focus on the points addressed in the following questions. Voltaire does not believe it
is possible to observe what is usually called the "soul." Notice how he ridicules the
idea that there is a spiritual entity separate from the body by discussing the nature
of flowers and dogs. Voltaire, like most modern scientists, sees humans as being
part of a natural continuum with animals and plants. In the last sentence on p. 21,
Voltaire introduces the rest of his discussion by suggesting that religious teachers
(by "supernatural help") are the sole source of the notion of the soul: reason alone
does not suggest it. On p. 22, he uses the newly-announced theory of gravitation

(developed by Newton and much admired by Voltaire) to argue that the fact that
human beings are alive does not imply the existence of a soul separate from the
body. Rocks do not have heaviness in them as something distinguishable from the
rest of their nature: rocks are heavy. Similarly, living beings live not because they
have souls which animate them; they are simply physical beings one of whose
characteristics is life. What do you think of this argument? Voltaire repeatedly
argues that the soul cannot be known without "revelation" or "faith;" is he therefore
arguing in favor of the concept of an inspired Bible? How can you tell? On p. 23 he
rejects the Greek concept of the animal soul. On p. 24, how can you tell that the
sentence which begins "Saint Thomas wrote two thousand pages" is sarcastic?
"Schoolmen" are the traditional theologians known as " scholastics." What examples
does he use to ridicule the concept of the existence of a soul existing after death?
What does he say was the attitude toward the ancient Jewish people about the soul
and immortality? "Decalogue" means the Ten Commandments. What kind of portrait
does he give of Jewish law in his paraphrase of laws from Deuteronomy on p. 25?
Why does he single out the passage on false prophets? What relationship does the
last full paragraph on p. 25 have to the question of whether the Jews believed in
immortality? Throughout his discussion of Deuteronomy Voltaire follows the
common interpretation of his time that Moses was the author of the first five books
of the Bible, though he elsewhere rejects this notion. He states on p. 26 that
"several illustrious commentators" argue that when Jacob, mourning Joseph, said he
would descend in infernum (orig. sheol) it is thereby proven that the ancient Jews
believed in an afterlife; but he does not bother to answer this argument. Why is it
an embarrassing argument even for those who use it? Since the Sadducees were
the most conservative, traditional branch of Judaism, it is particularly significant
that they did not accept the concept of immortality. According to Voltaire Josephus
says that the Pharisees believed in "metempsychosis" (reincarnation), while the
Sadducees rejected life after death altogether. The Essenes were the least orthodox
of all, yet their beliefs best match those of later Jews and Christians. On p. 27, "He
who alone was to teach all men" is of course Christ. Why does Voltaire say that
we've only been certain of the existence of the soul for 1,700 years? Note how
Voltaire slips in a sarcastic comment on the Bible's inconsistency in stating in one
place that Moses saw God face to face and in another that he saw him only from the
rear. What, for Voltaire, is the purpose of the mind, or "understanding?" On p. 28 he
rejects the accusation that he supports belief in a material soul by repeating that
knowledge of any kind of soul is impossible. How does he use the arguments of
religious people in favor of divine revelation against them? How does he contrast
the attitude of Philosophy (Enlightenment philosophy, of course) with that of
religious thinkers in the last sentence of this essay?
Amour: Love

For Voltaire love equals sex. What quality of sexuality does he say is unique to
human beings, denied to the lower animals? What do you think of his argument?
What is the point of the quotation from the Earl of Rochester (a notorious skeptic)
on p. 30? How does he argue on p. 31 that syphilis is not the result of God's

displeasure with human immorality, as many priests had argued? Can you apply this
argument to the AIDS epidemic? Phryne, Lais, Flora and Messalina were all women
notorious for their sexual excesses. "The pox" is syphilis.

Amour-propre: Self-love

What Christian traditions might Voltaire have had in mind in telling the story of the
Indian fakir on p. 35? What is his position on self-love and self-sacrifice?

Athe, athisme: Atheist, atheism

You can skim most of this article up to p. 55. Voltaire begins his discussion of
atheism with a long list of distinguished people from the past who have been
unjustly accused of atheism. On p. 50, why does Voltaire call the Romans wiser than
the Greeks? Note how he calls modern Europeans "the barbarian peoples which
succeeded the Roman empire." Voltaire cites Vannini as a predecessor of the
Enlightenment figures like himself who argued in favor of deism but who were
attacked for atheism. How does he argue on pp. 54 and 55 that a whole society can
exist composed of atheists? "Gentiles" are non-Jews--in this case ancient Greeks and
Romans, many of whom he argues were in essence atheists. This was a strong
argument since the French of his time particularly admired Classical thought. Which,
on p. 56, does he argue is more dangerous: atheism or fanaticism? Do you agree or
disagree with him? Why? What is the point of his reference to the " massacres of
Saint Bartholomew?" Despite his arguments than one can have a just society
composed of atheists, why does he argue on p. 57 that belief in God is desirable in a
monarchy? What is the sole reason he puts forward that learned men should not be
atheists? Can you see any problems with this argument? The final sentence in the
last full paragraph on p. 57 is a subtle rejection of Christian belief in creation ex
nihilo (from nothing), considered disproved by 18th-century science, and leading
perhaps to belief in an orderly Deistic universe but not to a conventionally Goddominated one. Something is said to have had a final cause if it has been called into
being for some purpose. What is Voltaire's opinion of final causes? In section II, what
does Voltaire say are the main causes of atheism? What are your own reactions to
his argument here? Atheism is common in France and most of Western Europe, rare
in the U.S. Why do you suppose so few Americans are atheists?

Beau, Beaut: Beautiful, beauty

What is the main point of this article? Do you agree with it?

Bien (tout est) All is good

Voltaire's most famous work, Candide, satirizes the arguments of Leibnitz [here
spelled Leibniz] and Pope that "all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds."
On the bottom of p. 68, what basic element of Christianity does he say Leibnitz has
fatally weakened by adopting his thesis? He summarizes Lactantius' devastating
statement of the classic "problem of evil" on p. 69, delighting in drawing his
arguments from an unimpeachably Catholic source.

To help you work through the "Problem of Evil" which he is here exploring, I've
created a Web site that considers various options. Visit it now by clicking here. This
should make clearer the philosophical context in which Voltaire is making his
argument. See whether you can come up with additional arguments or replies to
these arguments, and post them online.

What is his basic point here? What is the point of his argument about a Lucullus (a
famously wealthy Roman)who can easily believe that all is for the best? He goes on
to recount mockingly the attempts of various faiths to deal with the problem of evil,
none of which works for Christians or Jews. What is the point of his fanciful tale of a
supposed Syrian creation story? He says that "all is good" simply means "everything
is as it has to be." How does the central paragraph on p. 72 seek to refute the
argument that the orderliness of the universe is evidence of a divine, benevolent
will? Note his sarcasm at the end. How does he argue against Pope's statement that
particular evils form the common good? On p. 73, how does he react to those who
find this theory consoling? What kind of a God does he say the theory implies? What
is his final statement as to the problem of evil? What are your personal reactions to
these arguments?

Bornes de l'esprit humain: Limits of the human mind

As elsewhere in Voltaire, "doctor" means "theologian." In what way is the subject of

this article related to the last paragraph of the previous one? What is his attitude
toward those who claim to have absolute knowledge? Why is he so opposed to such
attitudes?

Catchisme chinois: Chinese catechism

Like most of Voltaire's writings on Asian religions, this bears slight relation to real
Asian thought. It is instead a vehicle for the expression of some of his more daring
criticisms of Christian theology. By using the dialogue format, he can offer two
disputants, one more skeptical than the other. What is his attitude toward the
concept of Heaven on p. 79? Does he reject the concept that Earth is unique in the
universe? In ridiculing the myth of Fo he is of course mocking the Christian doctrine
of the Incarnation of Christ. With what objection does Koo meet the traditional
argument that the marvel of the eye implies a creator? What attitude toward belief
in God does his story of the crickets imply? Why does he quote Confucius on p. 81?
What is he trying to imply about the ethics of Christianity? (Confucius lived several
centuries before Christ.) Notice that Koo argues that humanity is more diligent in
suppressing evil than is God. Wht do you think of this argument? What attitude
toward immortality does Ku-Su express at the end of the Second Conversation? The
Third Conversation offers familiar arguments against the existence of the soul (see
Ame, Soul above). with some original twists. One of the most important passages
occurs on p. 83, where Koo says "What impression do you want to give me of the
architect of so many millions of worlds were he obliged to carry out so many repairs
to keep his creation going?" What is the point of this question? Notice that on p. 85
he argues that at least half of the Ten Commandments (the laws of the Sinoos) are
necessarily universal, thus implying that morality need not be based on any
particular religious revelation. What arguments does he bring against the idea of
divine judgment after death on p. 86? Koo seems to give in to faith grudgingly on p.
86: why does he do so? What are his arguments against prayer and sacrifice in the
Fourth Conversation? What does Koo claim are the real motives of the bonzes
(priests) in preaching as they do? What does Ku-Su argue on p. 88 is natural law?
Why does Voltaire like King Daon? In the Fifth Conversation, what sorts of virtues are
admired in a king? The king being ridiculed on p. 90 in Koo's statement about those
with 300 wives, etc. is Solomon. What relationship does the last paragraph on p. 90
have to the article Abb, which you read earlier? Why does Ku-Su argue that
friendship should not be made a religious teaching? Why does he claim that
Confucius recommends to his followers to love their enemies? (In fact he does not.)
On p. 92, the "impertinent peoples" referred to are of course the Europeans (see
footnote). Voltaire's criticisms of "taverns" reflect the low state of commercial
hospitality in his day. Commodious hotels and restaurants were founded only after
the French Revolution, when the wealthy could no longer automatically stay as
guests in aristocratic mansions. Voltaire himself was a perennial house guest for
many years. What criticisms does he make of the Christian concept of humility on p.
94? What do you think of these criticisms? What are the basic religious beliefs that
Koo endorses at the end of the essay?

Certain, certitude: Certain, certainty

What is Voltaire's basic attitude toward human certainty? What does he argue are
the only kinds of "immutable and eternal" certainty? What Christian belief is he

satirizing in his example about the Marshal of Saxe on p. 107? Why do you think this
question of certainty and uncertainty is so important to Voltaire? How is it reflected
in other articles in the Dictionary?

Chane des vnements: Chain of events

Voltaire takes it as given that all events have causes, that the world operates like an
"immense machine" (p. 110), but argues that not all actions have results. It may
seem strange that someone so passionately attached to freedom should argue for
determinism (the belief that everything happens by necessity). Why do you think
this argument attracted Voltaire?

Credo

Voltaire begins this declaration of his personal theology with a joke in which Mlle
Duclos is so ignorant of her religion that she has the Credo confused with the Pater
Noster (the Lord's Prayer). The point of the paragraph at the bottom of p. 159 and
the top of p. 160 is that the Christian Credo probably evolved some time after Jesus,
and does not reflect the beliefs of his early followers. The paragraph about the
belief that Christ descended into Hell is based on a now-obscure doctrine called in
English " the Harrowing of Hell," which at one time was very prominent and is often
depicted in Medieval art and literature. The so-called "Credo of Saint-Pierre" is, of
course, Voltaire's own composition. What does its strong insistence on monotheism
imply about Christianity? What is the point of the long third paragraph of the
"Credo," and of the two paragraphs that follow? What is the evil that he most
strenuously attacks? How does he say priests should be treated?

galit: Equality

What, according to Voltaire, is humanity's greatest divine gift? And what is the result
of not using this gift properly? He is echoing Rousseau's famous statement that
"Man is born free and is everywhere in chains," and to some degree replying to the
latter philosopher's theories of human equality in The Social Contract. What does he
argue is the cause of inequality on p. 182? What common human characteristics
lead to inequality (p. 183)? Note his sly dig at the rivalries of theologians in the
middle of the page. What does he say is the implied meaning of laws which forbid
people to leave a country (as he was forbidden to leave Prussia by his former friend
and supporter Frederick the Great)? To what basic principle does he reduce human
equality? When Voltaire says that anyone who feels unjustly treated in a particular
state should leave, he is not speaking lightly. He lived in exile from France for much

of his life. Note that his attitudes are far removed from the extreme egalitarianism
during the French Revolution.

Enthousiasme: Enthusiasm

Why does Voltaire label enthusiasm a disease? (Note that the 18th-century French
use of this term is not identical with contemporary English usage.) His story about
the young man so carried away by a tragedy that he decides to write one himself is
a self-mocking comment: he wrote many tragedies. Ovid's The Art of Love and The
Loves are cynical observations on love affairs, whereas Sappho's poetry is filled with
passion. She was said in ancient times to have committed suicide for love. How
does he contrast reason with religion? What sort of people are said to unite reason
with enthusiasm?

tats, gouvernements: quel est le meilleur? States, governments: which is the best?

Voltaire begins this article by mocking those who claim to be able to reform
government based on an imperfect understanding of the world. The article really
begins on p. 192 when he raises the question of what sort of government a "wise
man, free, of modest wealth, and without prejudices" would prefer to live in.
Typically, he sets this dangerous debate (remember that Voltaire lived in an
absolute monarchy endorsed by the Church) by placing it in the mouths of two
Indians. He begins by satirizing the republic of ancient Israel (on the top of p. 193).
What does he say is the reason there are so few republics (states in which the
citizens govern themselves)? The republic discussed by the councilor which lasted
more than 500 years is the ancient Roman republic. What moral advantage is it
argued a republic has over a monarchy? Voltaire amusedly alludes to Montesquieu's
theory that different laws are caused by different climactic conditions, but excludes
religion from this variability. What does it mean to say that the best government is
that "in which only the laws are obeyed?" (Hint: there is a common phrase in
American constitutional law that states "We are a government of laws, not of men,"
which means the same thing.) What does this last sentence of the article mean?
Why do you think self-government has been so rare in human history?

Fanatisme: Fanaticism

What do Voltaire's examples of detestable fanaticism have in common? What is the

remedy he suggests on p. 203? What does he dislike about the stories from the Old
Testament to which he alludes? What does he say is the basic problem with people
who appeal to a higher divine law when they behave violently? By the way, he is

quite wrong in his description of Confucianism as being free from fanaticism;

Buddhism comes closer. Although Confucianism is based on rational principles,
Confucianists could be quite fanatical in their opposition to Buddhism.

Foi: Faith

The story with which this article begins is loosely based on historical fact and allows
Voltaire to remind his readers of some of the more unsavory aspects of the history
of the papacy. What is his definition of faith? What criticisms does he make of it?
Can you provide a different definition of faith which is not open to these criticisms?
Why does he say faith brings no merit? He is parodying in the statement of the
bonze toward the bottom of p. 209 the Christian doctrine that one can receive the
grace to believe what one does not readily accept through prayer.

Guerre: War

In one of his most bitterly sarcastic passages, Voltaire "praises" war as a divine gift
which unites all the worst evils, causing those who create it to be adored as gods on
earth. The whole article drips with irony. When he comments on p. 232 that people
today do not fight wars for such stupid causes as the ancient Romans, he is being
ironic. What does he say on p. 232 is a common cause for princes going to war
(hint: see Shakespeare's Henry V)? What does he say should happen before a king
should be allowed to become the ruler over a people? What relationship does he say
the Church has to war (p. 233)? What distinction does he make between natural and
artificial religion? When he contrasts "love" with war, he of course means sex. Does
he believe war can be abolished?

Libert de pense: Freedom of thought

Voltaire places the debate over freedom of thought in the mouths of representatives
of England (which he admired) and Portugal (which he detested). Medroso (the
name means "fearful") is a religious fanatic, ignorant of the most famous names
from antiquity. What does he say at the top of p. 280 is the main danger of freedom
of thought? The "holy office" referred to here is the Inquisition run by the Dominican
Order which imprisoned, tortured, and executed those who failed to conform to
Catholic orthodoxy. Banned from France, it still flourished in Spain and Portugal in
Voltaire's time. Why does he argue Christians should support freedom of thought?
Hidden in the paragraph beginning "When some business matter . . ." is his answer
to Pascal's famous wager which argued that it makes sense to believe in God since
if there is one, one will avoid going to Hell for disbelieving, and if there is none, one

will have nevertheless led a good life. What is Voltaire's objection to this logic? What
is your own reaction to this argument? What are the respective virtues of the
English and the Portuguese, stated on p. 281?

Note: Readers attracted by the nearby article on Free Will should be cautious in
connecting it with this article. Voltaire argues against the Catholic doctrine of free
will and in favor of a form of determinism. The reader should not assume that
because Voltaire advocates freedom he accepts the philosophical concept called
"free will."

Prjugs: Prejudices

Under this heading Voltaire groups a wide variety of ideas--all of them various sorts
of irrational opinions. What are good prejudices, according to him? (Compare with
"natural law.") What common European attitudes is he satirizing in the paragraph
that begins at the bottom of p. 343? "Prejudices of the Senses" are simply sensory
illusions, and "physical prejudices" are irrational beliefs handed on by tradition. He
debunks a pious story about how Clovis converted to Christianity by pointing out
that it is not natural to pray to a God in whom one does not yet believe. Note that
most of his examples of religion avoid Christianity but can easily be paralleled with
it. What does he say should be the final result of overcoming religious prejudices?

Secte: Sect

Why does Voltaire argue that the very existence of disputing sects within a religion
disproves its truth? How does he contrast science with religion? Scientists also
disagree among themselves; does this make them the same as religious people?
Explain. What distinctions does he make between religious beliefs that everyone
shares and those which are unique (and therefore false)? Pascal was not the only
one to argue that there is special merit in believing difficult-to-believe Christian
dogmas.

Thiste: Theist

Voltaire consistently uses the term "theist" where we would use " Deist:" a believer
in a minimal religion which reveres a creator but omits most of the elements of
traditional religion: prayers of petition, miracles, divine revelation, incarnation,

salvation, damnation, etc. What are the main characteristics of the theist, according
to Voltaire?

Tolrance: Toleration

What does Voltaire say is the first law of nature? Voltaire is intent on showing that
the Romans were unusually tolerant of foreign religions because the usual
stereotype of their culture is that it was intolerant in its attitude toward Christianity.
According to him, why did the Romans finally become hostile to Christianity? What
does he say was the attitude of various groups within original Christianity? On p.
389 he engages in one of his periodic assaults on Jewish belief, but with the aim of
maintaining that they were at least more open-minded than Christians. What seem
at first to be antisemetic passages in his work are often simply ruses to attack
Christianity. He depicts the religious conversion of leaders in Europe as having
produced a series of catastrophes. In section II, what does he say is the attitude of
Christianity toward other religions? The second paragraph, assuming a detailed
familiarity with the Bible, is designed to demonstrate that Christians did not at first
distinguish themselves from Jews, and that their subsequent intolerance was an
unfortunate late development. On p. 391 he refers to the numerous sects into which
Christianity has always been divided to refute the claims of the Catholic Church to
universal authority. What does he say is the remedy for religious dissension? How
does the argument on p. 292 relate to the article entitled "Secte: Sect?" What
religious sect does he most admire and compare to the beliefs of the earliest
Christians? What arguments does he give to show that Jesus was not a Christian?
What is the point of the parable of the reed at the end of the article? Americans, like
Voltaire, value toleration, particularly in religious matters, very highly; but they also
tend to value faith, which he rejects. How do you reconcile these two values? Is it
possible to believe profoundly in a religious faith without being tempted to coerce
others into accepting it? Explain.

Tyrannie: Tyranny

Voltaire is of course being sarcastic when he says "there are no such tyrants in
Europe." What does he say is the advantage of living under one tyrant rather than
under many?

Candide begins in the German town of Westphalia, where Candide, a young man, lives
in the castle of Baron of Thunder-ten-tronckh. A noted philosopher, Doctor Pangloss,
tutors the baron on philosophical optimism, the idea that "all is for the best . . . in this
best of all worlds." Candide, a simple man, first accepts this philosophy, but as he

experiences the horrors of war, poverty, the maliciousness of man, and the hypocrisy of
the church, he begins to doubt the voracity of Pangloss's theory. Thus, philosophical
optimism is the focus of Votaire's satire; anti-war and anti-church refrains also run
throughout the novel.

WAR.
All animals are perpetually at war; every species is born to devour another.
There are none, even to sheep and doves, who do not swallow a prodigious
number of imperceptible animals. Males of the same species make war for the
females, like Menelaus and Paris. Air, earth, and the waters, are fields of
destruction.
It seems that God having given reason to men, this reason should teach
them not to debase themselves by imitating animals, particularly when nature
has given them neither arms to kill their fellow-creatures, nor instinct which
leads them to suck their blood.
Yet murderous war is so much the dreadful lot of man, that except two or
three nations, there are none but what their ancient histories represent as
armed against one another. Towards Canada, man and warrior are
synonymous; and we have seen, in our hemisphere, that thief and soldier were
the same thing. Manichans! behold your excuse.
The most determined of flatterers will easily agree, that war always brings
pestilence and famine in its train, from the little that he may have seen in the
hospitals of the armies of Germany, or the few villages he may have passed
through in which some great exploit of war has been performed.
That is doubtless a very fine art which desolates countries, destroys
habitations, and in a common year causes the death of from forty to a hundred
thousand men. This invention was first cultivated by nations assembled for
their common good; for instance, the diet of the Greeks declared to the diet of
Phrygia and neighboring nations, that they intended to depart on a thousand
fishers barks, to exterminate them if they could.
The assembled Roman people judged that it was to their interest to go and
fight, before harvest, against the people of Veii or the Volscians. And some
years after, all the Romans, being exasperated against all the Carthaginians,
fought them a long time on sea and land. It is not exactly the same at present.

A genealogist proves to a prince that he descends in a right line from a

count, whose parents made a family compact, three or four hundred years ago,
with a house the recollection of which does not even exist. This house had
distant pretensions to a province, of which the last possessor died of apoplexy.
The prince and his council see his right at once. This province, which is some
hundred leagues distant from him, in vain protests that it knows him not; that
it has no desire to be governed by him; that to give laws to its people, he must
at least have their consent; these discourses only reach as far as the ears of the
prince, whose right is incontestable. He immediately assembles a great
number of men who have nothing to lose, dresses them in coarse blue cloth,
borders their hats with broad white binding, makes them turn to the right and
left, and marches to glory.
Other princes who hear of this equipment, take part in it, each according
to his power, and cover a small extent of country with more mercenary
murderers than Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, and Bajazet employed in their
train. Distant people hear that they are going to fight, and that they may gain
five or six sous a day, if they will be of the party; they divide themselves into
two bands, like reapers, and offer their services to whoever will employ them.
These multitudes fall upon one another, not only without having any
interest in the affair, but without knowing the reason of it. We see at once five
or six belligerent powers, sometimes three against three, sometimes two
against four, and sometimes one against five; all equally detesting one
another, uniting with and attacking by turns; all agree in a single point, that of
doing all the harm possible.
The most wonderful part of this infernal enterprise is that each chief of the
murderers causes his colors to be blessed, and solemnly invokes God before he
goes to exterminate his neighbors. If a chief has only the fortune to kill two or
three thousand men, he does not thank God for it; but when he has
exterminated about ten thousand by fire and sword, and, to complete the
work, some town has been levelled with the ground, they then sing a long song
in four parts, composed in a language unknown to all who have fought, and
moreover replete with barbarism. The same song serves for marriages and
births, as well as for murders; which is unpardonable, particularly in a nation
the most famous for new songs.

Natural religion has a thousand times prevented citizens from committing

crimes. A well-trained mind has not the inclination for it; a tender one is
alarmed at it, representing to itself a just and avenging God; but artificial
religion encourages all cruelties which are exercised by troops conspiracies,
seditions, pillages, ambuscades, surprises of towns, robberies, and murder.
Each marches gaily to crime, under the banner of his saint.
A certain number of orators are everywhere paid to celebrate these
murderous days; some are dressed in a long black close coat, with a short
cloak; others have a shirt above a gown; some wear two variegated stuff
streamers over their shirts. All of them speak for a long time, and quote that
which was done of old in Palestine, as applicable to a combat in Veteravia.
The rest of the year these people declaim against vices. They prove, in
three points and by antitheses, that ladies who lay a little carmine upon their
cheeks, will be the eternal objects of the eternal vengeances of the Eternal;
that Polyeuctus and Athalia are works of the demon; that a man who, for two
hundred crowns a day, causes his table to be furnished with fresh sea-fish
during Lent, infallibly works his salvation; and that a poor man who eats two
sous and a half worth of mutton, will go forever to all the devils.
Of five or six thousand declamations of this kind, there are three or four at
most, composed by a Gaul named Massillon, which an honest man may read
without disgust; but in all these discourses, you will scarcely find two in which
the orator dares to say a word against the scourge and crime of war, which
contains all other scourges and crimes. The unfortunate orators speak
incessantly against love, which is the only consolation of mankind, and the
only mode of making amends for it; they say nothing of the abominable efforts
which we make to destroy it.
You have made a very bad sermon on impurity oh, Bourdaloue! but
none on these murders, varied in so many ways; on these rapines and
robberies; on this universal rage which devours the world. All the united vices
of all ages and places will never equal the evils produced by a single campaign.
Miserable physicians of souls! you exclaim, for five quarters of an hour, on
some pricks of a pin, and say nothing on the malady which tears us into a
thousand pieces! Philosophers! moralists! burn all your books. While the
caprice of a few men makes that part of mankind consecrated to heroism, to

murder loyally millions of our brethren, can there be anything more horrible
throughout nature?
What becomes of, and what signifies to me, humanity, beneficence,
modesty, temperance, mildness, wisdom, and piety, while half a pound of lead,
sent from the distance of a hundred steps, pierces my body, and I die at twenty
years of age, in inexpressible torments, in the midst of five or six thousand
dying men, while my eyes which open for the last time, see the town in which I
was born destroyed by fire and sword, and the last sounds which reach my
ears are the cries of women and children expiring under the ruins, all for the
pretended interests of a man whom I know not?
What is worse, war is an inevitable scourge. If we take notice, all men have
worshipped Mars. Sabaoth, among the Jews, signifies the god of arms; but
Minerva, in Homer, calls Mars a furious, mad, and infernal god.
The celebrated Montesquieu, who was called humane, has said, however,
that it is just to bear fire and sword against our neighbors, when we fear that
they are doing too well. If this is the spirit of laws, it is also that of Borgia and
of Machiavelli. If unfortunately he says true, we must write against this truth,
though it may be proved by facts.
This is what Montesquieu says: Between societies, the right of natural
defence sometimes induces the necessity of attacking, when one people sees
that a longer peace puts another in a situation to destroy it, and that attack at
the given moment is the only way of preventing this destruction.
How can attack in peace be the only means of preventing this destruction?
You must be sure that this neighbor will destroy you, if he become powerful.
To be sure of it, he must already have made preparations for your overthrow.
In this case, it is he who commences the war; it is not you: your supposition is
false and contradictory.
If ever war is evidently unjust, it is that which you propose: it is going to
kill your neighbor, who does not attack you, lest he should ever be in a state to
do so. To hazard the ruin of your country, in the hope of ruining without
reason that of another, is assuredly neither honest nor useful; for we are never
sure of success, as you well know.
If your neighbor becomes too powerful during peace, what prevents you
from rendering yourself equally powerful? If he has made alliances, make
them on your side. If, having fewer monks, he has more soldiers and

manufacturers, imitate him in this wise economy. If he employs his sailors

better, employ yours in the same manner: all that is very just. But to expose
your people to the most horrible misery, in the so often false idea of
overturning your dear brother, the most serene neighboring prince! it was
not for the honorary president of a pacific society to give you such advice.
FrontTable of Contents PrevNext
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/v/voltaire/dictionary/chapter475.html
Last updated Tuesday, August 25, 2015 at 14:14

Against death penalty

Against aristocracy
He believed France was not yet ready for a real democracy, and was therefore in favor of a constitutional
monarchy that has existed in Great Britain for a long time already. He was very much in favor of the idea
of Enlightened absolutism.

Franois-Marie Arouet (French: [f .swa ma.i a.w]; 21 November 1694 30 May 1778), known
by his nom de plume Voltaire(/voltr/;[1] French: [vl.t]), was a French Enlightenment writer,
historian, and philosopher famous for his wit, his attacks on the established Catholic Church, and his
advocacy of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and separation of church and state.
Voltaire was a versatile writer, producing works in almost every literary form, including plays, poems,
novels, essays, and historical and scientific works. He wrote more than 20,000 letters and more than
2,000 books and pamphlets. He was an outspoken advocate of several liberties, despite the risk this
placed him in under the strict censorship laws of the time. As a satirical polemicist, he frequently
made use of his works to criticize intolerance, religious dogma, and the French institutions of his day.

The name "Voltaire"[edit]

The name "Voltaire", which the author adopted in 1718, is an anagram of "AROVET LI," the
Latinized spelling of his surname, Arouet, and the initial letters of "le jeune" ("the young").[9] The
name also echoes in reverse order the syllables of the name of a family chteau in
the Poitou region: "Airvault". The adoption of the name "Voltaire" following his incarceration at the
Bastille is seen by many to mark Voltaire's formal separation from his family and his past.
Richard Holmes[10] supports this derivation of the name, but adds that a writer such as Voltaire would
have intended it to also convey its connotations of speed and daring. These come from associations
with words such as "voltige" (acrobatics on a trapeze or horse), "volte-face" (a spinning about to face

one's enemies), and "volatile" (originally, any winged creature). "Arouet" was not a noble name fit for
his growing reputation, especially given that name's resonance with " rouer" ("to be broken on the
wheel" a form of torture then still prevalent) and "rou" (a "dbauch").
In a letter to Jean-Baptiste Rousseau in March 1719, Voltaire concludes by asking that, if Rousseau
wishes to send him a return letter, he do so by addressing it to Monsieur de Voltaire. A postscript
explains: "J'ai t si malheureux sous le nom d'Arouet que j'en ai pris un autre surtout pour n'tre
plus confondu avec le pote Roi", (I was so unhappy under the name of Arouet that I have taken
another, primarily so as to cease to be confused with the poet Roi.)[11] This probably refers to Adenes
le Roi, and the 'oi' diphthong was then pronounced like modern 'ouai', so the similarity to 'Arouet' is
clear, and thus, it could well have been part of his rationale. Indeed, Voltaire is known also to have
used at least 178 separate pen names during his lifetime. [12]