The Portable Voltaire (Portable Library)

by Francois Voltaire

  When you say that the blood circulates, that the air is heavy, that the sun’s rays are pencils of seven refrangible rays, you are not either of the sect of Harvey, or the sect of Torricelli, or the sect of Newton; you merely agree with the truth as demonstrated by them, and the entire world will always be of your opinion.

  This is the character of truth: it is of all time, it is for all men, it has only to show itself to be recognized, and one cannot argue against it. A long dispute means that both parties are wrong.

  SELF-LOVE

  Nicole in his Essais de Morale—written on top of two or three thousand other volumes of ethics-says that “by means of the wheels and gibbets which people erect in common, the tyrannous thoughts and designs of each individual’s self-love are repressed.”

  I shall not inquire whether or not people have gibbets in common, as they have meadows and woods in common, and a common purse, or if one represses ideas with wheels; but it seems very strange to me that Nicole should take highway robbery and assassination for self-love. One should distinguish shades of difference a little better. The man who said that Nero had his mother assassinated through self-love, and that Cartouche had an excess of self-love, would not be expressing himself very correctly. Self-love is not wickedness, it is a sentiment that is natural to all men; it is much nearer vanity than crime.

  A beggar in the suburbs of Madrid was nobly begging charity. A passer-by said to him: “Are you not ashamed to practice this infamous calling when you are able to work?”

  “Sir,” answered the beggar, “I ask for money, not advice.” And he turned on his heel with full Castilian dignity.

  This gentleman was a proud beggar, his vanity was wounded by a trifle. He asked charity out of love for himself, and could not tolerate the reprimand out of further love for himself.

  A missionary traveling in India met a fakir laden with chains, naked as a monkey, lying on his stomach, who was having himself whipped for the sins of his compatriots, the Indians, who gave him a few farthings.

  “What self-denial!” said one of the spectators.

  “Self-denial!” answered the fakir. “I have myself flogged in this world in order to give this flogging back to you in the next world, when you will be horses and I a horseman.”

  Those who have said that love of ourselves is the basis of all our opinions and all our actions, have therefore been quite right in India, Spain, and all the habitable world: and as one does not write to prove to men that they have faces, it is not necessary to prove to them that they have self-love. Self-love is our instrument of preservation; it resembles the instrument which perpetuates the species. It is necessary, it is dear to us, it gives us pleasure, and it has to be hidden.

  SOCRATES

  One day, two citizens of Athens, returning from the temple of Mercury, perceived Socrates in the public square. One said to the other: “Is not that the rascal who says that one can be virtuous without going every day to offer up sheep and geese?” “Yes,” said the other, “that is the sage who has no religion; that is the atheist who says there is only one God.” Socrates approached them with his simple air, his daemon, and his irony, which Madame Dacier has so highly extolled. “My friends,” said he to them, “one word, if you please: a man who prays to God, who adores Him, who seeks to resemble Him as much as human weakness can do, and who does all the good which lies in his power, what would you call him?” “A very religious soul,” said they. “Very well; we may therefore adore the Supreme Being, and have a great deal of religion?” “Granted,” said the two Athenians. “But do you believe,” pursued Socrates, “that when the Divine Architect of the world arranged all the spheres which revolve above our heads, when He gave motion and life to so many different beings, He made use of the arm of Hercules, the lyre of Apollo, or the flute of Pan?” “It is not probable,” said they. “But if it is not probable that He called in the aid of others to construct that which we see, it is not credible that He preserves it through others rather than through Himself. If Neptune were the absolute master of the sea, Juno of the air, Aeolus of the winds, Ceres of harvests—and if one desired a calm, when another wanted wind and rain—you see clearly, that the order of nature could not exist as it is. You will confess, that all depends upon Him who has made all. You attribute four white horses to the sun, and four black ones to the moon; but is it not more likely, that day and night are the effect of the motion given to the stars by their Master, than that they were produced by eight horses?” The two citizens looked at him, but answered nothing. In short, Socrates concluded by proving to them that they might have harvests without giving money to the priests of Ceres; go to the chase without offering little silver statues to the temple of Diana; that Pomona gave not fruits; that Neptune gave not horses; and that they should thank the Sovereign who had made all.

  His discourse was most exactly logical. Xenophon, his disciple, a man who knew the world, and who afterwards sacrificed to the wind, during the retreat of the ten thousand, took Socrates by the sleeve, and said to him: “Your discourse is admirable; you have spoken better than an oracle; and you are lost. One of these good people to whom you speak is a butcher, who sells sheep and geese for sacrifices; and the other a goldsmith, who profits by making little gods of silver and brass for women. They will accuse you of being a blasphemer, who would diminish their trade. They will depose against you to Melitus and Anitus, your enemies, who have resolved upon your ruin. Have a care of hemlock; your familiar spirit should have warned you not to say to a butcher and a goldsmith what you should say only to Plato and Xenophon.”

  Some time after, the enemies of Socrates caused him to be condemned by the council of five hundred. He had two hundred and twenty voices in his favor, by which it may be presumed that there were two hundred and twenty philosophers in this tribunal; but it shows that, in all companies, the number of philosophers is always the minority.

  Socrates therefore drank hemlock, for having spoken in favor of the unity of Cod; and the Athenians afterward consecrated a temple to Socrates-to him who disputed against all temples dedicated to inferior beings.

  STATES, GOVERNMENT

  The details of all forms of government have recently been subjected to close study. Tell me then, you who have traveled, in what state, under what sort of government would you choose to be born. I imagine that a great land-owning lord in France would not be vexed if he were to be born in Germany; for there he would be sovereign instead of subject. A peer of France would be happy to have the privileges of the English peerage; for then he would be a legislator. The lawyer and the financier, however, are better off in France than elsewhere.

  But what country would a wise, free man, a man of moderate fortune, and without prejudices, choose?

  A member of the government of Pondicherry, a fairly learned man, returned to Europe overland with a Brahmin better educated than the ordinary Brahmin. “What do you think of the government of the Great Mogul?” asked the councilor.

  “I think it abominable,” answered the Brahmin. “How can you expect a state to be happily governed by the Tartars? Our rajahs, our omrahs, our nabobs, are well enough pleased, but the citizens are quite the contrary, and millions of citizens are not to be ignored.”

  Discoursing philosophically, the councilor and the Brahmin traversed the whole of Upper Asia. “I notice,” said the Brahmin, “that there is not one republic in all this vast part of the world.”

  “Formerly there was the republic of Tyre,” said the councilor, “but it did not last long; and there was still another in the direction of Arabia Petrea, in a little comer called Palestine-if one can honor with the name of republic a horde of thieves and usurers, who sometimes governed by judges, sometimes by a species of kings, sometimes by grand-pontiffs; a people who were enslaved seven or eight times, and finally driven out of the country which they had usurped.”

  “I imagine,” said the Brahmin, “that one is likely to find very few republics on the earth. Men are rarely worthy of governing thems
elves. This happiness to be enjoyed only by little peoples who hide themselves in islands, or among the mountains, like rabbits who shun carnivorous beasts. But, in the long run, they are bound to be discovered and devoured.”

  When the two travelers reached Asia Minor, the councilor said to the Brahmin: “Would you believe that a republic was once established in a comer of Italy, which lasted more than five hundred years, and which ruled over Asia Minor, Asia, Africa, Greece, Gaul, Spain, and the whole of Italy?”

  “She soon became a monarchy, then,” said the Brahmin.

  “You have guessed right,” said the other. “But this monarchy fell, and we busy ourselves composing fine dissertations in order to explain the cause of its decadence and downfall.”

  “You take needless trouble,” said the Indian. “This empire fell because it existed. Everything has to fall. I hope as much will happen to the Grand Mogul’s empire.”

  “By the way,” said the European, “do you think that there is more honor in a despotic state, and more virtue in a republic?”

  The Indian, having had explained to him what we mean by honor, answered that honor was more necessary in a republic, and that virtue was more needed in a monarchy. “For,” said he, “a man who is elected by the people, will not be elected if he is dishonored; whereas at court he could easily obtain a place, in accordance with a great prince’s maxim, that in order to succeed a courtier should have neither honor nor character. As regards virtue, one must be prodigiously virtuous to dare to speak the truth. The virtuous man is much more at his ease in a republic; he does not have to flatter anyone.”

  “Do you think,” said the European, “that laws and religions are made for climates, just as one has to have furs in Moscow, and thin stuffs in Delhi?”

  “Without a doubt,” answered the Brahmin. “All the laws which concern material things are calculated for the meridian one lives in. A German needs only one wife, and a Persian three or four.

  “The rites of religion are of the same nature. How, if I were Christian, should I say mass in my province where there is neither bread nor wine? As regards dogmas, that is another matter; the climate has nothing to do with them. Did not your religion begin in Asia, whence it was driven out? Does it not exist near the Baltic Sea, where it was unknown?”

  “In what state, under what rule, would you like best to live?” asked the councilor.

  “Anywhere but where I do live,” answered his companion. “And I have met many Siamese, Tonldnese, Persians, and Turks who said the same thing.”

  “But,” persisted the European, “what state would you choose?”

  The Brahmin answered, “The state where only the laws are obeyed.”

  “That is an old answer,” said the councilor.

  “It is none the worse for that,” said the Brahmin.

  “Where is that country?” asked the councilor.

  “We must look for it,” answered the Brahmin.

  SUPERSTITION

  The superstitious man is to the rogue what the slave is to the tyrant. Further, the superstitious man is governed by the fanatic and becomes a fanatic. Superstition born in paganism, and adopted by Judaism, invested the Christian Church from the earliest times. All the fathers of the Church, without exception, believed in the power of magic. The Church always condemned magic, but she always believed in it: she did not excommunicate sorcerers as madmen who were mistaken, but as men who were really in communication with the devil.

  Today one half of Europe thinks that the other half has long been and still is superstitious. The Protestants regard the relics, the indulgences, the mortifications, the prayers for the dead, the holy water, and almost all the rites of the Roman Church, as evidences of superstitious dementia. Superstition, according to them, consists in taking useless practices for necessary practices. Among the Roman Catholics there are some more enlightened than their ancestors, who have renounced many of these usages formerly considered sacred; and they defend themselves against the others who have retained them, by saying: “They are unimportant, and what is merely unimportant cannot be an evil.”

  It is difficult to set the limits of superstition. A Frenchman traveling in Italy finds almost everything superstitious, and he is right. The Archbishop of Canterbury maintains that the Archbishop of Paris is superstitious; the Presbyterians direct the same reproach against His Grace of Canterbury, and are in their turn treated as superstitious by the Quakers, who are the most superstitious of all in the eyes of other Christians.

  In Christian societies, therefore, no one agrees as to what superstition is. The sect which seems to be the least attacked by this malady of the intelligence is that which has the fewest rites. But if, with few ceremonies, it is still strongly attached to an absurd belief, this absurd belief is equivalent alone to all the superstitious practices observed from the time of Simon the magician to that of Father Gauffridi.

  It is therefore clear that it is the fundamentals of the religion of one sect which are considered as superstition by another sect.

  The Moslems accuse all Christian societies of it, and are themselves accused. Who will judge this great matter ? Will it be reason? But each sect claims to have reason on its side. It will therefore be force which will judge, while awaiting the time when reason can penetrate a sufficient number of heads to disarm force.

  Up to what point can statecraft permit superstition to be destroyed? This is a very thorny question. It is like asking to what depth should one make an incision in a dropsical person, who may die under the operation. It is a matter for the doctor’s discretion.

  Can there exist a people free from all superstitious prejudices? This is equivalent to asking: Can there exist a nation of philosophers? It is said that there is no superstition in the magistracy of China. It is probable that some day none will remain in the magistracy of a few towns of Europe.

  Then the magistrates will stop the superstition of the people from being dangerous. These magistrates’ example will not enlighten the mob, but the leading citizens of the middle class will hold the mob in check. There is perhaps not a single riot, a single religious outrage in which the middle classes were not once involved; because these same middle classes were then the mob. But reason and time will have changed them. Their softened manners will soften those of the lowest and most savage populace. We have had striking examples of this in more than one country. In a word, less superstition, less fanaticism; and less fanaticism, less misery.

  THEIST

  The theist is a man firmly persuaded of the existence of a Supreme Being, as good as He is powerful, who has created all beings that are extensive, vegetative, sentient, and reflective; who perpetuates their species, who punishes crimes without cruelty, and rewards virtuous actions with kindness.

  The theist does not know how God punishes, how he protects, how he pardons, for he is not bold enough to flatter himself that he knows how God acts, but he knows that God acts and that He is just. Arguments against Providence do not shake him in his faith, because they are merely great arguments, and not proofs. He submits to this Providence, although he perceives only a few effects and a few signs of this Providence: and—judging of the things he does not see by the things he does see—he considers that this Providence extends to all time and space.

  United by this principle with the rest of the universe, he does not embrace any of the sects, all of which contradict one another. His religion is the most ancient and the most widespread, for the simple worship of a God has preceded all the systems of the world. He speaks a language that all peoples understand, while they do not understand one another. He has brothers from Pekin to Cayenne, and he counts all wise men as his brethren. He believes that religion does not consist either in the opinions of an unintelligible metaphysic, or in vain display, but in worship and justice. The doing of good, there is his service; being submissive to God, there is his doctrine. The Mohammedan cries to him: “Have a care if you do not make the pilgrimage to Mecca!” “Woe unto you,” says a Recoll
et, “if you do not make a journey to Our Lady of Loretto!” He laughs at Loretto and at Mecca; but he succors the needy and he defends the oppressed.

  TESTICLES

  I. This word is scientific, and a trifle obscene: it signifies little witnesses. Sixtus V, a Cordelier become pope, declared, by his letter of June 25, 1587, to his nuncio in Spain, that he must unmarry all those who were not possessed of testicles. It seems by this order, which was executed by Philip II, that there were many husbands in Spain deprived of these two organs. But how could a man, who had been a Cordelier, be ignorant of the fact that the testicles of men are often hidden in the abdomen, and that in that situation they are even more fit for conjugal action? We have beheld in France three brothers of the highest rank, one of whom possessed three, the other only one, while the third possessed no appearance of any, and yet was the most vigorous of the three.

  The angelic doctor, who was simply a Jacobin, decides that two testicles are de essentia matrimonii (of the essence of marriage); in which opinion he is followed by Ricardus, Scotus, Durandus, and Sylvius. If you are not able to obtain a sight of the pleadings of the advocate Sebastian Rouillard, in 1600, in favor of the testicles of his client, concealed in his abdomen, at least consult the dictionary of Bayle, at the article “Quellenec.” You will there discover that the wicked wife of the client of Sebastian Rouillard wished to render her marriage void, on the plea that her husband could not exhibit testicles. The defendant replied, that he had perfectly fulfilled his matrimonial duties. He specified intromission and ejaculation, and offered a repeat performance in the presence of witnesses. The jade replied that this trial was too offensive to her modesty, and was, moreover, superfluous, since the defendant was visibly deprived of testicles, and the gentlemen of the assembly were fully aware that testicles are essential to ejaculation.