As soon as our two travelers had taken leave of his excellency, "Well," said Candide to Martin, "I hope you will own that this man is the happiest of all mortals, for he is above everything he possesses."
"But do you not see," answered Martin, "that he likewise dislikes everything he possesses? It was an observation of Plato long since, that those are not the best stomachs that reject, without distinction, all sorts of aliments." "True," said Candide; "but still, there must certainly be a pleasure in criticising everything, and in perceiving faults where others think they see beauties." "That is," replied Martin, "there is a pleasure in having no pleasure." "Well, well,"
said Candide. "I find that I shall be the only happy man at last, when I am blessed with the sight of my dear Cunegund." "It is good to hope," said Martin.
The single citation preceding sufficiently exemplifies, at their best, though at their worst not, the style and the spirit of Voltaire"s "Candide;" as his "Candide" sufficiently exemplifies the style and the spirit of the most characteristic of Voltaire"s writings in general.
"Pococurantism" is a word, now not uncommon in English, contributed by Voltaire to the vocabulary of literature. To readers of the foregoing extract, the sense of the term will not need to be explained. We respectfully suggest to our dictionary-makers, that the fact stated of its origin in the "Candide" of Voltaire would be interesting and instructive to many. Voltaire coined the name, to suit the character of his Venetian gentleman, from two Italian words which mean together "little-caring." Signor Pococurante is the immortal type of men that have worn out their capacity of fresh sensation and enjoyment.
Mr. John Morley"s elaborate monograph on Voltaire claims the attention of readers desirous of exhaustive acquaintance with its subject. This author writes in sympathy with Voltaire, so far as Voltaire was an enemy of the Christian religion; but in antipathy to him, so far as Voltaire fell short of being an atheist. A similar sympathy, limited by a similar antipathy, is observable in the same author"s still more extended monograph on Rousseau. The sympathy works without the antipathy to limit it, in Mr. Morley"s two volumes on "Diderot and the Encyclopaedists"--for Diderot and his closest fellows were good thorough-going atheists.
Even in Voltaire and Rousseau, but particularly in Voltaire, Mr. Morley, though his sympathy with these writers is, as we have said, not complete, finds far more to praise than to blame. To this eager apostle of atheism, Voltaire was at least on the right road, although he did, unfortunately, stop short of the goal. His influence was potent against Christianity, and potent it certainly was not against atheism. Voltaire might freely be lauded as on the whole a mighty and a beneficent liberalizer of thought.
And we, we who are neither atheists nor deists--let us not deny to Voltaire his just meed of praise. There were streaks of gold in the base alloy of that character of his. He burned with magnanimous heat against the hideous doctrine and practice of ecclesiastical persecution. Carlyle says of Voltaire, that he "spent his best efforts, and as many still think, successfully, in a.s.saulting the Christian religion." This, true though it be, is liable to be falsely understood. It was not against the Christian religion, as the Christian religion really is, but rather against the Christian religion as the Roman hierarchy misrepresented it, that Voltaire ostensibly directed his efforts. "You are right," wrote he to his henchman D"Alembert, in 1762, "in a.s.suming that I speak of superst.i.tion only; for as to the Christian religion, I respect it and love it, as you do." This distinction of Voltaire"s, with whatever degree of simple sincerity on his part made, ought to be remembered in his favor, when his memorable motto, "_ecrasez l"Infame_," is interpreted and applied. He did not mean Jesus Christ by _l"Infame_; he did not mean the Christian religion by it; he did not even mean the Christian Church by it; he meant the oppressive despotism and the cra.s.s obscurantism of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. At least, this is what he would have said that he meant, what in fact he substantially did say that he meant, when incessantly reiterating, in its various forms, his watchword, "_ecrasez l"Infame_," "_ecrasons l"Infame_"--"Crush the wretch!" "Let us crush the wretch!" His blows were aimed, perhaps, at "superst.i.tion;" but they really fell, in the full half of their effect, on Christianity itself. Whether Voltaire regretted this, whether he would in his heart have had it otherwise, may well, in spite of any protestation from him of love for Christianity, be doubted. Still, it is never, in judgment of Voltaire, to be forgotten that the organized Christianity which he confronted was in large part a system justly hateful to the true and wise lover, whether of G.o.d or of man. That system he did well in fighting. Carnal indeed were the weapons with which he fought it; and his victory over it was a carnal victory, bringing, on the whole, but slender net advantage, if any such advantage at all, to the cause of final truth and light. The French Revolution, with its excesses and its horrors, was perhaps the proper, the legitimate, the necessary, fruit of resistance such as was Voltaire"s, in fundamental spirit, to the evils in Church and in State against which he conducted so gallantly his life-long campaign.
But though we thus bring in doubt the work of Voltaire, both as to the purity of its motive and as to the value of its fruit, we should wrong our sense of justice to ourselves if we permitted our readers to suppose us blind to the generous things that this arch-infidel did on behalf of the suffering and the oppressed. Voltaire more than once wielded that pen of his, the most dreaded weapon in Europe, like a knight sworn to take on himself the championship of the forlornest of causes. There is the historic case of Jean Calas at Toulouse, Protestant, an old man of near seventy, broken on the wheel, as suspected, without evidence, and against acc.u.mulated impossibilities, of murdering his own son, a young man of about thirty, by hanging him. Voltaire took up the case and pleaded it to the common sense, and to the human feeling, of France, with immense effectiveness. It is, in truth, Voltaire"s advocacy of righteousness, in this instance of incredible wrong, that has made the instance itself immortal. His part in the case of Calas, though the most signal, is not the only example of Voltaire"s literary knighthood. He hated oppression, and he loved liberty, for himself and for all men, with a pa.s.sion as deep and as constant as any pa.s.sion of which nature had made Voltaire capable. If the liberty that he loved was fundamentally liberty as against G.o.d no less than as against men, and if the oppression that he hated was fundamentally the oppression of being put under obligation to obey Christ as lord of life and of thought, this was something of which, probably, Voltaire never had a clear consciousness.
We have now indicated what was most admirable in Voltaire"s personal character. On the whole, he was far from being an admirable man. He was vain, he was shallow, he was frivolous, he was deceitful, he was voluptuous, he fawned on the great, he abased himself before them, he licked the dust on which they stood. "_Trajan, est-il content?_" ("Is Trajan satisfied?")--this, asked, in nauseous adulation, and nauseous self-abas.e.m.e.nt, by Voltaire of Louis XV., so little like Trajan in character--is monumental. The occasion was the production of a piece of Voltaire"s written at the instance of Louis XV."s mistress, the infamous Madame de Pompadour. The king, for answer, simply gorgonized the poet with a stony Bourbon stare.
But, taken altogether, Voltaire"s life was a great success. He got on in the world, was rich, was fortunate, was famous, was gay, if he was not happy. He had his friendship with the great Frederick of Prussia, who filled for his false French flatterer a return cup of sweetness, cunningly mixed with exceeding bitterness. His death was an appropriate _coup de theatre_, a felicity of finish to such a life quite beyond the reach of art. He came back to Paris, whence he had been an exile, welcomed with a triumph transcending the triumph of a conqueror. They made a great feast for him, a feast of flattery, in the theater. The old man was drunk with delight. The delight was too much for him. It literally killed him. It was as if a favorite actress should be quite smothered to death on the stage under flowers thrown in excessive profusion at her feet.
Let Carlyle"s sentence be our epigraph on Voltaire:
"No great Man.... Found always at the top, less by power in swimming than by lightness in floating."
XVII
ROUSSEAU: 1712-1778; St. Pierre: 1737-1814.
There are two Rousseaus in French literature. At least there was a first, until the second effaced him, and became the only.
We speak, of course, in comparison, and hyperbolically. J. B. Rousseau is still named as a lyric poet of the time of Louis XIV. But when Rousseau, without initials, is spoken of, it is always Jean Jacques Rousseau that is meant.
Jean Jacques Rousseau is perhaps the most squalid, as it certainly is one of the most splendid, among French literary names. The squalor belongs chiefly to the man, but the splendor is wholly the writer"s.
There is hardly another example in the world"s literature of a union so striking of these opposites.
Rousseau"s life he has himself told, in the best, the worst, and the most imperishable of his books, the "Confessions." This book is one to which the adjective charming attaches, in a peculiarly literal sense of the word. The spell, however, is repellent as well as attractive. But the attraction of the style a.s.serts and p.r.o.nounces itself only the more, in triumph over the much there is in the matter to disgust and revolt.
It is quite the most offensive, and it is well-nigh the most fascinating, book that we know.
The "Confessions" begin as follows:
I purpose an undertaking that never had an example, and whose execution never will have an imitator. I would exhibit to my fellows a man, in all the truth of nature, and that man--myself.
Myself alone. I know my own heart, and I am acquainted with men. I am made unlike any one I have ever seen--I dare believe unlike any living being. If no better than, I am at least different from, others.
Whether nature did well or ill in breaking the mold wherein I was cast, can be determined only after having read me.
Let the last trumpet sound when it will, I will come, with this book in my hand, and present myself before the Sovereign Judge. I will boldly proclaim: Thus have I acted, thus have I thought, such was I.
With equal frankness have I disclosed the good and the evil. I have omitted nothing bad, added nothing good; and if I have happened to make use of some unimportant ornament, it has, in every case, been simply for the purpose of filling up a void occasioned by my lack of memory. I may have taken for granted as true what I knew to be possible, never what I knew to be false. Such as I was, I have exhibited myself--despicable and vile, when so; virtuous, generous, sublime, when so. I have unveiled my interior being, such as Thou, Eternal Existence, hast beheld it. a.s.semble around me the numberless throng of my fellow-mortals; let them listen to my confessions, let them blush at my depravities, let them shrink appalled at my miseries.
Let each of them, in his turn, with equal sincerity, lay bare his heart at the foot of thy throne, and then let a single one tell thee, if he dare, _I was better than that man_.
Notwithstanding our autobiographer"s disavowal of debt to example for the idea of his "Confessions," it seems clear that Montaigne here was at least inspiration, if not pattern, to Rousseau. But Rousseau resolved to do what Montaigne had done, more ingenuously and more courageously than Montaigne had done it. This writer will make himself his subject, and then treat his subject with greater frankness than any man before him ever used about himself, or than any man after him would ever use. He undoubtedly succeeded in his attempt. His frankness, in fact, is so forward and eager that it is probably even inventive of things disgraceful to himself. Montaigne makes great pretense of telling his own faults, but you observe that he generally chooses rather amiable faults of his own to tell. Rousseau"s morbid vulgarity leads him to disclose traits in himself of character or of behavior, that, despite whatever contrary wishes on your part, compel your contempt of the man.
And it is for the man who confesses, almost more than for the man who is guilty, that you feel the contempt.
The "Confessions" proceed:
I was born at Geneva, in 1712, of Isaac Rousseau and Susannah Bernard, citizens.... I came into the world weak and sickly. I cost my mother her life, and my birth was the first of my misfortunes.
I never learned how my father supported his loss, but I know that he remained ever after inconsolable.... When he used to say to me, "Jean Jacques, let us speak of your mother," my usual reply was, "Well, father, we"ll cry then," a reply which would instantly bring the tears to his eyes. "Ah!" he would exclaim with agitation, "give me her back, console me for her loss, fill up the void she has left in my soul.
Could I love thee thus wert thou but _my_ son?" Forty years after having lost her he expired in the arms of a second wife, but with the name of the first on his lips, and her image engraven on his heart.
Such were the authors of my being. Of all the gifts Heaven had allotted them, a feeling heart was the only one I had inherited.
While, however, this had been the source of their happiness, it became the spring of all my misfortunes.
"A feeling heart!" That expression tells the literary secret of Rousseau. It is hardly too much to say that Rousseau was the first French writer to write with his heart; but heart"s blood was the ink in which almost every word of Rousseau"s was written. This was the spring of his marvelous power. Rousseau:
My mother had left a number of romances. These father and I betook us to reading during the evenings. At first the sole object was, by means of entertaining books, to improve me in reading; but, ere long, the charm became so potent, that we read turn about without intermission, and pa.s.sed whole nights in this employment. Never could we break up till the end of the volume. At times my father, hearing the swallows of a morning, would exclaim, quite ashamed of himself, "Come, let"s to bed; I"m more of a child than you are!"
The elder Rousseau was right respecting himself. And such a father would almost necessarily have such a child. Jean Jacques Rousseau is to be judged tenderly for his faults. What birth and what breeding were his!
The "Confessions" go on:
I soon acquired, by this dangerous course, not only an extreme facility in reading and understanding, but, for my age, a quite unprecedented acquaintance with the pa.s.sions. I had not the slightest conception of things themselves at a time when the whole round of sentiments was already perfectly familiar to me. I had apprehended nothing--I had felt all.
Some hint now of other books read by the boy:
.... Plutarch especially became my favorite reading. The pleasure which I found in incessantly reperusing him cured me in some measure of the romance madness: and I soon came to prefer Agesilaus, Brutus, and Aristides to Orondates, Artemenes, and Juba. From these interesting studies, joined to the conversations to which they gave rise with my father, resulted that free, republican spirit, that haughty and untamable character, fretful of restraint or subjection, which has tormented me my life long, and that in situations the least suitable for giving it play. Incessantly occupied with Rome and Athens, living, so to speak, with their great men, born myself the citizen of a republic [Geneva], the son of a father with whom patriotism was the ruling pa.s.sion, I caught the flame from him--I imagined myself a Greek or a Roman, and became the personage whose life I was reading.
On such food of reading and of reverie, young Rousseau"s imagination and sentiment battened, while his reason and his practical sense starved and died within him. Unconsciously thus in part were formed the dreamer of the "emile" and of "The Social Contract." Another glimpse of the home life--if home life such experience can be called--of this half-orphan, homeless Genevan boy:
I had a brother, my elder by seven years.... He fell into the ways of debauchery, even before he was old enough to be really a libertine.
... I remember once when my father was chastising him severely and in anger, that I impetuously threw myself between them, clasping him tightly. I thus covered him with my body, receiving the blows that were aimed at him; and I held out so persistently in this position, that whether softened by my cries and tears, or fearing that I should get the worst of it, my father was forced to forgive him. In the end my brother turned out so bad that he ran away and disappeared altogether.
It is pathetic--Rousseau"s attempted contrast following, between the paternal neglect of his older brother and the paternal indulgence of himself:
If this poor lad was carelessly brought up, it was quite otherwise with his brother.... My desires were so little excited, and so little crossed, that it never came into my head to have any. I can solemnly aver, that till the time when I was bound to a master I never knew what it was to have a whim.
Poor lad! "Never knew what it was to have a whim!" It well might be, however--his boy"s life all one whim uncrossed, unchecked; no contrast of saving restraint, to make him know that he was living by whim alone!
Young Jean Jacques was at length apprenticed to an engraver. He describes the contrast of his new situation and the effect of the contrast upon his own character and career:
I learned to covet in silence, to dissemble, to dissimulate, to lie, and at last to steal, a propensity for which I had never hitherto had the slightest inclination, and of which I have never since been able quite to cure myself....
My first theft was the result of complaisance, but it opened the door to others which had not so laudable a motive.
My master had a journeyman named M. Verrat.... [He] took it into his head to rob his mother of some of her early asparagus and sell it, converting the proceeds into some extra good breakfasts. As he did not wish to expose himself, and not being very nimble, he selected me for this expedition. Long did I stickle, but he persisted. I never could resist kindness, so I consented. I went every morning to the garden, gathered the best of the asparagus, and took it to "the Molard," where some good creature, perceiving that I had just been stealing it, would insinuate that little fact, so as to get it the cheaper. In my terror I took whatever she chose to give me and carried it to M. Verrat.
This little domestic arrangement continued for several days before it came into my head to rob the robber, and t.i.the M. Verrat for the proceeds of the asparagus.... I thus learned that to steal was, after all, not so very terrible a thing as I had conceived, and ere long I turned this discovery to so good an account, that nothing I had an inclination for could safely be left within my reach....
And now, before giving myself over to the fatality of my destiny, let me, for a moment, contemplate what would naturally have been my lot had I fallen into the hands of a better master. Nothing was more agreeable to my tastes, nor better calculated to render me happy, than the calm and obscure condition of a good artisan, more especially in certain lines, such as that of an engraver at Geneva.... In my native country, in the bosom of my religion, of my family, and my friends, I should have led a life gentle and uncheckered as became my character, in the uniformity of a pleasing occupation and among connections dear to my heart. I should have been a good Christian, a good citizen, a good father, a good friend, a good artisan, and a good man in every respect. I should have loved my station; it may be I should have been an honor to it; and after having pa.s.sed an obscure and simple, though even and happy, life, I should peacefully have departed in the bosom of my kindred. Soon, it may be, forgotten, I should at least have been regretted as long as the remembrance of me survived.