Customer Reviews

Candide, Or, Optimism (Crofts Classics)

5 star:		(9)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

According to many scholars, Voltaire (pen name for Francois Marie Arouet) was the embodiment of the Enlightenment. Born in Paris is 1694, he was well educated by the Jesuits, studying law prior to turning to writing as a profession. His lampoons and satires won him fame and infamy; he was imprisoned and exiled at various times for his writing. He was forced into exile from France to England; later, he was invited to work for Frederick the Great in Berlin (politics and his reputation blew rapidly in the ever-changing winds of Europe). Voltaire wrote 'Candide' shortly after this period, when he had moved to Geneva. In 1778, the year of his death, he returned to Paris, a triumphant celebrity -- many of his ideas served to strengthen the movements that would eventually culminate in the French Revolution.

The story of 'Candide', the primary character in the Voltaire's novel, is the story of the search for answers. It is hard to classify 'Candide' solely as a political satire, or indeed in any other genre where it might find similarities. Voltaire explores religious and theological ideas, social and political situations, personal and intellectual issues, and the general strand of history. How could an omnipotent and benevolent God permit the world to be as it is? How can human beings, supposedly rational beings, treat each other as they do? How can rational beings act, feel and believe so irrationally?

The Enlightenment brought the ideas of Deism forward as important, and began to explore in earnest intellectual and political freedoms for people. The acquisition of knowledge, both pure theory and experiential/applied, was of high value. Candide was a student more than anything else, although in the course of the story, he holds many roles. Others who appear include Pangloss, the know-it-all philosophy teacher; Cunegonde, Candide's on-again, off-again love interest (who has her own set of adventures reported); Martin, another scholar (this one rather hopeless, in more ways than one); various other characters including Jewish merchants, Grand Inquisitors (the Enlightenment equivalent of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition), and other bit players.

Candide travels all across Europe, from Westphalia through the Latin countries, ending up finally in Constantinople. No stone is unturned to expose the foibles of the locals, the problems of the travelers, and questionable underside of all society as they move from place to place, culture to culture, and crisis to crisis. Ultimately, the plot is not as important as the characters and characterisations -- for a book written in the 1700s, it is remarkably modern, hinting at sexual innuendo (including homosexuality) among royals and clergy, making fun of the military mindset and leadership (the king of the Bulgars is modeled upon Frederick the Great, and the Bulgar army is the Prussian army) and the church (the pope here has an illegitmate daughter, etc.).

The key satire, however, is against Leibniz, philosopher and mathematician, very intelligent but obviously not in directions Voltaire cared for. Leibniz had a directional metaphysics and historical sense -- this was the best of all possible worlds (the most famous phrase from the novel, put in Pangloss' mouth); the amiable but not-swift-on-the-uptake Pangloss is the stand-in for Leibniz.

Norton's Critical Edition includes several essays, in addition to the text of Voltaire's 'Candide' -- the novel itself is a mere 77 pages, translated by Robert Adams of UCLA. There are several background pieces, including a general survey of the intellectual background, philosophical explanations, and a brief biography of Voltaire.

Essays on criticism include discussion of Voltaire's narrative art, the ideas of pessimism and providence (it is worth remember here that Voltaire's purpose in writing 'Candide' was as a critique against optimism, of a sort), and various controversies. This is truly a fascinating collection, with pieces by such heavyweights in literary history as William Blake and Heinrich Heine giving their impressions on Voltaire and the issues addressed in 'Candide'. Gustave Flaubert and Anatole France give reflections on Voltaire's humanity; Victor Hugo discusses his greatness.

As Adams says, it is a surprise to find that 'Candide', a classic, is nonetheless funny. However, that is because it is so readily identifiable -- many heroes in modern stories are re-worked Candides of one sort or another; it is an Enlightenment Everyman, and we live in a period still heavily invested in and self-identified with Enlightenment ideas.

This is obviously the best of all possible Norton Critical Editions of Voltaire's 'Candide' from Adams.

The Easton Press edition has a publisher's preface and an introduction by Paul Morand. The introduction gives you a complete plot synopsis which by no means spoils the tale. This edition also contains both colored and black and white illustrations, some containing nudity to bring out the sexual innuendos of the story. Voltaire didn't want his work to be illustrated. This tale has influenced writers throughout the ages. I couldn't help think of Woody Allen's film "Love and Death" when reading this book. Candide is the main character. He sees many hardships in his travels but maintains that all is for the best as taught to him by Pangloss. Pangloss represents the prevailing philosophy of his age, known as Leibnizian optimism which appears to come from the book of Job. No matter what evil or destruction befalls man, it is all for the best as the great sovereign of the universe (God for you folk) watches over us and guides us according to his plan. Candide sees the horrors of his age, including the great earthquake of Lisbon and questions such philosophy. Voltaire was of the deist school which claims God does not watch over us, which comes out at the end of the tale in a metaphor about kings caring for rats on a sailing vessel. That same Leibnizian philosophy is used by religious folk today who proclaim, "It's all good." Pangloss proclaims, "for private misfortunes are for the public good."

The character of Martin, who travels with Candide is the pessimist. He is the philosophical opposite of Pangloss. Cunégonde is the love of Candide's life. His life revolves much around his passion for her, although she is constantly the mistress of someone else. Three of the main characters in this story die, only to be revived later in a South Park, OMG they killed Kenny moment...only next week he is alive. Much of this was satire of the writings of his era, including a fast paced action plot which jumped around as if he wrote it drunk in one night. Historians claim Voltaire actually worked on this book for over a year in order to write this poorly and after it was published he rewrote some of it, especially chapter 22 which has grown. The Easton Press edition has some minor foot notes for historical references, although I thought it could use a few more as it was clear Voltaire was satirizing specific works and authors of his age.

As a Frenchman, the Germans, English, and Spanish are shown in a bad light as is the Catholic church. Also governments are not on Voltaire's good list either as Candide dines with six deposed historical monarchs in Venice. Ahmed III, Ivan VI of Russia, Charles Edward Stuart, Augustus III of Poland, Stanis'aw Leszczy'ski,
and Theodore of Corsica.

The book is a fairly easy read and is translated into modern English with a few foreign phrases untranslated. And if you don't read it, that's for the best too.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. A great story and important historical work in literature. Voltaire was a Renaissance Christian humanist who played a role in the development of the Enlightenment.

On the one hand, the structure of his novel Candide is Homeric, it is the journey narrative, the hero with a thousand faces, but it is a satirical restructuring of that classical motif of the hero on a quest. What is the importance of the quest in Candide? What is the quest about in the classical sense? The quest is about learning. In the classical sense the hero leaves, has to acquire some sort of knowledge, learn a set of skills that is going to help him or her enact the quest surmount the obstacles that they encounter at one point or another, and the finally what does the hero have to accomplish? What is out there the "Holy Grail" The prize, the whole quest is about attaining some sort of ultimate end or some sort of ultimate knowledge. Does it end there? No, you got to go back with that knowledge, because the quest is never just about attaining the goal, it's about bringing it home to make everybody better, to restore the community. The individual quest, the heroic quest in the classical sense always has a larger social corrective end. The purpose of the individual, the function of the individual all depends on his ability to return to the collective, whatever it is that he has found that he has acquired that is going to change the way things are. Now how does that compare to the journey or quest narrative in Candide? Contrary to the notion of what prepares us for the world, OK here is the important structure of the journey or the quest, and the critique of knowledge by Voltaire. It is contrary to the idea of the knowledge that we acquire prepares us for the world. That each new bit of knowledge that we acquire, prepares us for the next step, and prepares us for the next stage. Contrary to the idea that life is somehow to be understood or that human history is somehow to be understood as a journey organized around progress, around betterment advancement acquiring new knowledge more knowledge more science more learning, we're getting better again, Candide tells the story that goes in the opposite direction. So, then you acquire knowledge and then you spend the rest of the journey finding out that the knowledge is useless, bit by bit, and every lesson you've acquired has to be cast aside, everything you learn you have to abandon. Instead of gaining and getting better, it is throwing off, letting go, and getting worse. Where does Voltaire want us in the end to think of the notion and narrative of progress?


Of course, you know that Candide is steeped in so many of the political and philosophical controversies of the 1750's. One of his big critiques is of the philosopher Leibnitz who said that `this is the best of all possible worlds," the idea championed by Leibnitz was a simple version of the philosophy espoused by enlightenment philosophers that the existence of any evil in the world was a sign that god was not entirely good or very powerful. The idea of an imperfect god would be nonsensical. So if you are a philosopher who takes for granted that god exists, you would have to conclude logically; and here is where humanities and Christianity really start messing with each other in all kinds of obvious ways, that god is perfect if you logically conclude that god exists. Therefore, his creation, the world, and man must also be perfect. According to many enlightenment philosophers, people perceived imperfections of the world only because they do not get the plan. This is a teleological idea of the world. Now obviously Voltaire does not accept this theory, or that god or any god has to exist. Therefore, he makes fun of the idea that the world is completely good. Much of the novel is a satire addressed to the notion that the optimists who witness countless horrors and unbelievable injustice such as floggings, robberies, and earthquakes will always find a way to write it off. They will say, `oh well there must be part of a plan, even though none of these calamities seem to serve any good at all it must point to human cruelty ignorance and barbarism and points to the indifference of the natural world. Pangloss the philosopher in the book throughout the story is always trying to find some justification for the terrible things that he sees and the arguments that he makes seem increasingly to be absurd, like his quote that "Syphilis needed to be transmitted from the new world to Europe so that Europeans could taste new world delicacies. What other things is Voltaire criticizing here that connects to some of the debates that define the enlightenment period of the 1750's Religion? Religion- He criticizes the whole hypocrisy of religion. In the book, Voltaire has a parade of corrupt hypocritical religious leaders who are like the Pope that has a daughter (should have been celibate). Hard line Catholic inquisitors, a Franciscan monk who should have vow of poverty but is a jewel thief. Here Voltaire provides countless examples of the immorality and hypocrisy of religious leaders, he does not really condemn believers per say, he is really out to attack church leadership and church hierarchy. For example Jacques, who is an Anabaptist is arguably one of the most generous and humane characters.

What else does Voltaire criticize or satirize? Wealth- money corrupts; Candide seems to have more problems when he has lots of money. Things get worse he gets unhappy. An interesting point, Voltaire was deeply involved in a debate with the many deep thinkers of his time, most notably was Rousseau, who lambasted the aristocracy. Voltaire himself really moved very comfortably among aristocratic circles and interestingly the French enlightenment philosophy really took off among the French aristocracy. Since they had the leisure time to contemplate so many of the new ideas in reason, science and rationalism and his notions of progress and advancement were ideas that were principally championed and discussed by members of the French aristocracy. Therefore, it was among some of the idle members of the French aristocrats that these enlightenment philosophers were able to find their most ardent followers. Despite the fact that the church and the state were not more often that not completely allied with each other, kings could be attracted on occasion to arguments that seemed to undermine the authority of the church. The fact that the aristocrats were very much unaware of the precariousness of their position tended to make them overconfident. Dabbling in some new ideas that were part of the enlightenment movement caused them not to take seriously the kind of jeopardy they were in or what the enlightenment would lead to in the championing of the common man and the overthrow of the French aristocracy. Because they found these ideas somewhat new, interesting, and exciting and they did not really see this as at all leading inexorably to the demise of the aristocratic class. Now of course it was thinkers like Rousseau not at all like Voltaire on this particular point that made his chief adversary. Rousseau distrusted the aristocrats out of a hunger to overthrow the class but because he believed that people of wealth betrayed decent traditional values. Rousseau opposed the theatre, which is Voltaire's lifeblood; he shunned the aristocracy, which Voltaire very much courted. He courted their attention he courted their interests. Rousseau argued for something dangerous like democratic revolution, and Voltaire argued that equality was impossible it would never come about. Rousseau argued that inequality was not only natural but that if it were taken too far it would make any decent government a total impossibility. Voltaire was very charming and witty, which led largely to his success in moving about aristocratic and social circles. Rousseau insisted on his own correctness and was not a charming person to be around; he was very intense and very serious about his ideas. Voltaire endlessly repeated the same handful of core enlightenment notions, where as Rousseau was a deeply original thinker. Who was always challenging his own way of thinking contradicting himself, coming up with ideas on the equality of education, the family, the government, and the arts in a matter that was much more radical than Voltaire was ever willing to go along with. They were both skeptics, and Voltaire is nothing if not a skeptic.

What does Voltaire do with the idea of philosophy in Candide? Philosophy- What is the value of philosophical speculation? It is useless for Voltaire; it is one of Pangloss' biggest flaws. Abstract philosophical argument is not based on any real world evidence. In the chaotic world of this novel, philosophical speculation repeatedly proves to be useless, and at times even dangerous. Time and again it prevents the characters from making any useful assessment of the world around them, it prevents them from bringing about any kind of change, it prevent them from thinking that they might try to bring about some social change. Pangloss is the character most susceptible to this kind of foolishness. Example, while Jacques is drowning, Pangloss stops Candide from saving him by proving that the bay was formed for Jacques to drown in. Therefore, at the end of course at the novels conclusion Candide rejects Pangloss' philosophies. If philosophical speculation is useless, what does Voltaire suggest you put in its place? Hard practical work in general. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising in that sense that this judgment against philosophy that is portrayed in the book becomes very dramatic when we think about Voltaire's own status as a philosopher.

What about the garden at the end of the novel? At the end of the novel Candide defines happiness in raising vegetables. On the one hand it is indicative of the turning away from the following of philosophy, from the abstract speculative nature of philosophy towards something hands on something pragmatic. Does the garden have a symbolic resonance to it? Is it related to the Garden of Eden? For Adam and Eve the garden is the beginning of their troubles, here it is the end of their troubles. It is the end of the narrative the end of their quest, their journey, and the end of their travails. This is where they wind up this is where they retreat. In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve do not have to work to have fruits of the garden; this garden requires work, and constant tending. In that I think the garden here represents much, more in a very different way than the biblical garden represents. An embrace of life, but an embrace of life of what? For all the horror, hardships, and nightmares that these characters experience throughout the entire course of the text, at the end, they embrace life; they take it they say yes.

The status of knowledge in Voltaire, what do we know? The garden is a final retreat from activism, or social engagement in the world. Finally, what Voltaire is saying is look go back to the basics. Do not try to change, analyze the world, or try to speculate about the nature of our existence. Retreat into your own sphere and do not mess with the world around you, because ultimately you are powerless, to do anything in this world. I think Voltaire is commenting on in a sense the Utopian impulse and imagination. Specifically as it influenced enlightenment philosophers of the period with respect to the notion of progress and advancement.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and literature.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. A great story and important historical work in literature. Voltaire was a Renaissance Christian humanist who played a role in the development of the Enlightenment.

On the one hand, the structure of his novel Candide is Homeric, it is the journey narrative, the hero with a thousand faces, but it is a satirical restructuring of that classical motif of the hero on a quest. What is the importance of the quest in Candide? What is the quest about in the classical sense? The quest is about learning. In the classical sense the hero leaves, has to acquire some sort of knowledge, learn a set of skills that is going to help him or her enact the quest surmount the obstacles that they encounter at one point or another, and the finally what does the hero have to accomplish? What is out there the "Holy Grail" The prize, the whole quest is about attaining some sort of ultimate end or some sort of ultimate knowledge. Does it end there? No, you got to go back with that knowledge, because the quest is never just about attaining the goal, it's about bringing it home to make everybody better, to restore the community. The individual quest, the heroic quest in the classical sense always has a larger social corrective end. The purpose of the individual, the function of the individual all depends on his ability to return to the collective, whatever it is that he has found that he has acquired that is going to change the way things are. Now how does that compare to the journey or quest narrative in Candide? Contrary to the notion of what prepares us for the world, OK here is the important structure of the journey or the quest, and the critique of knowledge by Voltaire. It is contrary to the idea of the knowledge that we acquire prepares us for the world. That each new bit of knowledge that we acquire, prepares us for the next step, and prepares us for the next stage. Contrary to the idea that life is somehow to be understood or that human history is somehow to be understood as a journey organized around progress, around betterment advancement acquiring new knowledge more knowledge more science more learning, we're getting better again, Candide tells the story that goes in the opposite direction. So, then you acquire knowledge and then you spend the rest of the journey finding out that the knowledge is useless, bit by bit, and every lesson you've acquired has to be cast aside, everything you learn you have to abandon. Instead of gaining and getting better, it is throwing off, letting go, and getting worse. Where does Voltaire want us in the end to think of the notion and narrative of progress?


Of course, you know that Candide is steeped in so many of the political and philosophical controversies of the 1750's. One of his big critiques is of the philosopher Leibnitz who said that `this is the best of all possible worlds," the idea championed by Leibnitz was a simple version of the philosophy espoused by enlightenment philosophers that the existence of any evil in the world was a sign that god was not entirely good or very powerful. The idea of an imperfect god would be nonsensical. So if you are a philosopher who takes for granted that god exists, you would have to conclude logically; and here is where humanities and Christianity really start messing with each other in all kinds of obvious ways, that god is perfect if you logically conclude that god exists. Therefore, his creation, the world, and man must also be perfect. According to many enlightenment philosophers, people perceived imperfections of the world only because they do not get the plan. This is a teleological idea of the world. Now obviously Voltaire does not accept this theory, or that god or any god has to exist. Therefore, he makes fun of the idea that the world is completely good. Much of the novel is a satire addressed to the notion that the optimists who witness countless horrors and unbelievable injustice such as floggings, robberies, and earthquakes will always find a way to write it off. They will say, `oh well there must be part of a plan, even though none of these calamities seem to serve any good at all it must point to human cruelty ignorance and barbarism and points to the indifference of the natural world. Pangloss the philosopher in the book throughout the story is always trying to find some justification for the terrible things that he sees and the arguments that he makes seem increasingly to be absurd, like his quote that "Syphilis needed to be transmitted from the new world to Europe so that Europeans could taste new world delicacies. What other things is Voltaire criticizing here that connects to some of the debates that define the enlightenment period of the 1750's Religion? Religion- He criticizes the whole hypocrisy of religion. In the book, Voltaire has a parade of corrupt hypocritical religious leaders who are like the Pope that has a daughter (should have been celibate). Hard line Catholic inquisitors, a Franciscan monk who should have vow of poverty but is a jewel thief. Here Voltaire provides countless examples of the immorality and hypocrisy of religious leaders, he does not really condemn believers per say, he is really out to attack church leadership and church hierarchy. For example Jacques, who is an Anabaptist is arguably one of the most generous and humane characters.

What else does Voltaire criticize or satirize? Wealth- money corrupts; Candide seems to have more problems when he has lots of money. Things get worse he gets unhappy. An interesting point, Voltaire was deeply involved in a debate with the many deep thinkers of his time, most notably was Rousseau, who lambasted the aristocracy. Voltaire himself really moved very comfortably among aristocratic circles and interestingly the French enlightenment philosophy really took off among the French aristocracy. Since they had the leisure time to contemplate so many of the new ideas in reason, science and rationalism and his notions of progress and advancement were ideas that were principally championed and discussed by members of the French aristocracy. Therefore, it was among some of the idle members of the French aristocrats that these enlightenment philosophers were able to find their most ardent followers. Despite the fact that the church and the state were not more often that not completely allied with each other, kings could be attracted on occasion to arguments that seemed to undermine the authority of the church. The fact that the aristocrats were very much unaware of the precariousness of their position tended to make them overconfident. Dabbling in some new ideas that were part of the enlightenment movement caused them not to take seriously the kind of jeopardy they were in or what the enlightenment would lead to in the championing of the common man and the overthrow of the French aristocracy. Because they found these ideas somewhat new, interesting, and exciting and they did not really see this as at all leading inexorably to the demise of the aristocratic class. Now of course it was thinkers like Rousseau not at all like Voltaire on this particular point that made his chief adversary. Rousseau distrusted the aristocrats out of a hunger to overthrow the class but because he believed that people of wealth betrayed decent traditional values. Rousseau opposed the theatre, which is Voltaire's lifeblood; he shunned the aristocracy, which Voltaire very much courted. He courted their attention he courted their interests. Rousseau argued for something dangerous like democratic revolution, and Voltaire argued that equality was impossible it would never come about. Rousseau argued that inequality was not only natural but that if it were taken too far it would make any decent government a total impossibility. Voltaire was very charming and witty, which led largely to his success in moving about aristocratic and social circles. Rousseau insisted on his own correctness and was not a charming person to be around; he was very intense and very serious about his ideas. Voltaire endlessly repeated the same handful of core enlightenment notions, where as Rousseau was a deeply original thinker. Who was always challenging his own way of thinking contradicting himself, coming up with ideas on the equality of education, the family, the government, and the arts in a matter that was much more radical than Voltaire was ever willing to go along with. They were both skeptics, and Voltaire is nothing if not a skeptic.

What does Voltaire do with the idea of philosophy in Candide? Philosophy- What is the value of philosophical speculation? It is useless for Voltaire; it is one of Pangloss' biggest flaws. Abstract philosophical argument is not based on any real world evidence. In the chaotic world of this novel, philosophical speculation repeatedly proves to be useless, and at times even dangerous. Time and again it prevents the characters from making any useful assessment of the world around them, it prevents them from bringing about any kind of change, it prevent them from thinking that they might try to bring about some social change. Pangloss is the character most susceptible to this kind of foolishness. Example, while Jacques is drowning, Pangloss stops Candide from saving him by proving that the bay was formed for Jacques to drown in. Therefore, at the end of course at the novels conclusion Candide rejects Pangloss' philosophies. If philosophical speculation is useless, what does Voltaire suggest you put in its place? Hard practical work in general. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising in that sense that this judgment against philosophy that is portrayed in the book becomes very dramatic when we think about Voltaire's own status as a philosopher.

What about the garden at the end of the novel? At the end of the novel Candide defines happiness in raising vegetables. On the one hand it is indicative of the turning away from the following of philosophy, from the abstract speculative nature of philosophy towards something hands on something pragmatic. Does the garden have a symbolic resonance to it? Is it related to the Garden of Eden? For Adam and Eve the garden is the beginning of their troubles, here it is the end of their troubles. It is the end of the narrative the end of their quest, their journey, and the end of their travails. This is where they wind up this is where they retreat. In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve do not have to work to have fruits of the garden; this garden requires work, and constant tending. In that I think the garden here represents much, more in a very different way than the biblical garden represents. An embrace of life, but an embrace of life of what? For all the horror, hardships, and nightmares that these characters experience throughout the entire course of the text, at the end, they embrace life; they take it they say yes.

The status of knowledge in Voltaire, what do we know? The garden is a final retreat from activism, or social engagement in the world. Finally, what Voltaire is saying is look go back to the basics. Do not try to change, analyze the world, or try to speculate about the nature of our existence. Retreat into your own sphere and do not mess with the world around you, because ultimately you are powerless, to do anything in this world. I think Voltaire is commenting on in a sense the Utopian impulse and imagination. Specifically as it influenced enlightenment philosophers of the period with respect to the notion of progress and advancement.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and literature.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. A great story and important historical work in literature. Voltaire was a Renaissance Christian humanist who played a role in the development of the Enlightenment.

On the one hand, the structure of his novel Candide is Homeric, it is the journey narrative, the hero with a thousand faces, but it is a satirical restructuring of that classical motif of the hero on a quest. What is the importance of the quest in Candide? What is the quest about in the classical sense? The quest is about learning. In the classical sense the hero leaves, has to acquire some sort of knowledge, learn a set of skills that is going to help him or her enact the quest surmount the obstacles that they encounter at one point or another, and the finally what does the hero have to accomplish? What is out there the "Holy Grail" The prize, the whole quest is about attaining some sort of ultimate end or some sort of ultimate knowledge. Does it end there? No, you got to go back with that knowledge, because the quest is never just about attaining the goal, it's about bringing it home to make everybody better, to restore the community. The individual quest, the heroic quest in the classical sense always has a larger social corrective end. The purpose of the individual, the function of the individual all depends on his ability to return to the collective, whatever it is that he has found that he has acquired that is going to change the way things are. Now how does that compare to the journey or quest narrative in Candide? Contrary to the notion of what prepares us for the world, OK here is the important structure of the journey or the quest, and the critique of knowledge by Voltaire. It is contrary to the idea of the knowledge that we acquire prepares us for the world. That each new bit of knowledge that we acquire, prepares us for the next step, and prepares us for the next stage. Contrary to the idea that life is somehow to be understood or that human history is somehow to be understood as a journey organized around progress, around betterment advancement acquiring new knowledge more knowledge more science more learning, we're getting better again, Candide tells the story that goes in the opposite direction. So, then you acquire knowledge and then you spend the rest of the journey finding out that the knowledge is useless, bit by bit, and every lesson you've acquired has to be cast aside, everything you learn you have to abandon. Instead of gaining and getting better, it is throwing off, letting go, and getting worse. Where does Voltaire want us in the end to think of the notion and narrative of progress?


Of course, you know that Candide is steeped in so many of the political and philosophical controversies of the 1750's. One of his big critiques is of the philosopher Leibnitz who said that `this is the best of all possible worlds," the idea championed by Leibnitz was a simple version of the philosophy espoused by enlightenment philosophers that the existence of any evil in the world was a sign that god was not entirely good or very powerful. The idea of an imperfect god would be nonsensical. So if you are a philosopher who takes for granted that god exists, you would have to conclude logically; and here is where humanities and Christianity really start messing with each other in all kinds of obvious ways, that god is perfect if you logically conclude that god exists. Therefore, his creation, the world, and man must also be perfect. According to many enlightenment philosophers, people perceived imperfections of the world only because they do not get the plan. This is a teleological idea of the world. Now obviously Voltaire does not accept this theory, or that god or any god has to exist. Therefore, he makes fun of the idea that the world is completely good. Much of the novel is a satire addressed to the notion that the optimists who witness countless horrors and unbelievable injustice such as floggings, robberies, and earthquakes will always find a way to write it off. They will say, `oh well there must be part of a plan, even though none of these calamities seem to serve any good at all it must point to human cruelty ignorance and barbarism and points to the indifference of the natural world. Pangloss the philosopher in the book throughout the story is always trying to find some justification for the terrible things that he sees and the arguments that he makes seem increasingly to be absurd, like his quote that "Syphilis needed to be transmitted from the new world to Europe so that Europeans could taste new world delicacies. What other things is Voltaire criticizing here that connects to some of the debates that define the enlightenment period of the 1750's Religion? Religion- He criticizes the whole hypocrisy of religion. In the book, Voltaire has a parade of corrupt hypocritical religious leaders who are like the Pope that has a daughter (should have been celibate). Hard line Catholic inquisitors, a Franciscan monk who should have vow of poverty but is a jewel thief. Here Voltaire provides countless examples of the immorality and hypocrisy of religious leaders, he does not really condemn believers per say, he is really out to attack church leadership and church hierarchy. For example Jacques, who is an Anabaptist is arguably one of the most generous and humane characters.

What else does Voltaire criticize or satirize? Wealth- money corrupts; Candide seems to have more problems when he has lots of money. Things get worse he gets unhappy. An interesting point, Voltaire was deeply involved in a debate with the many deep thinkers of his time, most notably was Rousseau, who lambasted the aristocracy. Voltaire himself really moved very comfortably among aristocratic circles and interestingly the French enlightenment philosophy really took off among the French aristocracy. Since they had the leisure time to contemplate so many of the new ideas in reason, science and rationalism and his notions of progress and advancement were ideas that were principally championed and discussed by members of the French aristocracy. Therefore, it was among some of the idle members of the French aristocrats that these enlightenment philosophers were able to find their most ardent followers. Despite the fact that the church and the state were not more often that not completely allied with each other, kings could be attracted on occasion to arguments that seemed to undermine the authority of the church. The fact that the aristocrats were very much unaware of the precariousness of their position tended to make them overconfident. Dabbling in some new ideas that were part of the enlightenment movement caused them not to take seriously the kind of jeopardy they were in or what the enlightenment would lead to in the championing of the common man and the overthrow of the French aristocracy. Because they found these ideas somewhat new, interesting, and exciting and they did not really see this as at all leading inexorably to the demise of the aristocratic class. Now of course it was thinkers like Rousseau not at all like Voltaire on this particular point that made his chief adversary. Rousseau distrusted the aristocrats out of a hunger to overthrow the class but because he believed that people of wealth betrayed decent traditional values. Rousseau opposed the theatre, which is Voltaire's lifeblood; he shunned the aristocracy, which Voltaire very much courted. He courted their attention he courted their interests. Rousseau argued for something dangerous like democratic revolution, and Voltaire argued that equality was impossible it would never come about. Rousseau argued that inequality was not only natural but that if it were taken too far it would make any decent government a total impossibility. Voltaire was very charming and witty, which led largely to his success in moving about aristocratic and social circles. Rousseau insisted on his own correctness and was not a charming person to be around; he was very intense and very serious about his ideas. Voltaire endlessly repeated the same handful of core enlightenment notions, where as Rousseau was a deeply original thinker. Who was always challenging his own way of thinking contradicting himself, coming up with ideas on the equality of education, the family, the government, and the arts in a matter that was much more radical than Voltaire was ever willing to go along with. They were both skeptics, and Voltaire is nothing if not a skeptic.

What does Voltaire do with the idea of philosophy in Candide? Philosophy- What is the value of philosophical speculation? It is useless for Voltaire; it is one of Pangloss' biggest flaws. Abstract philosophical argument is not based on any real world evidence. In the chaotic world of this novel, philosophical speculation repeatedly proves to be useless, and at times even dangerous. Time and again it prevents the characters from making any useful assessment of the world around them, it prevents them from bringing about any kind of change, it prevent them from thinking that they might try to bring about some social change. Pangloss is the character most susceptible to this kind of foolishness. Example, while Jacques is drowning, Pangloss stops Candide from saving him by proving that the bay was formed for Jacques to drown in. Therefore, at the end of course at the novels conclusion Candide rejects Pangloss' philosophies. If philosophical speculation is useless, what does Voltaire suggest you put in its place? Hard practical work in general. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising in that sense that this judgment against philosophy that is portrayed in the book becomes very dramatic when we think about Voltaire's own status as a philosopher.

What about the garden at the end of the novel? At the end of the novel Candide defines happiness in raising vegetables. On the one hand it is indicative of the turning away from the following of philosophy, from the abstract speculative nature of philosophy towards something hands on something pragmatic. Does the garden have a symbolic resonance to it? Is it related to the Garden of Eden? For Adam and Eve the garden is the beginning of their troubles, here it is the end of their troubles. It is the end of the narrative the end of their quest, their journey, and the end of their travails. This is where they wind up this is where they retreat. In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve do not have to work to have fruits of the garden; this garden requires work, and constant tending. In that I think the garden here represents much, more in a very different way than the biblical garden represents. An embrace of life, but an embrace of life of what? For all the horror, hardships, and nightmares that these characters experience throughout the entire course of the text, at the end, they embrace life; they take it they say yes.

The status of knowledge in Voltaire, what do we know? The garden is a final retreat from activism, or social engagement in the world. Finally, what Voltaire is saying is look go back to the basics. Do not try to change, analyze the world, or try to speculate about the nature of our existence. Retreat into your own sphere and do not mess with the world around you, because ultimately you are powerless, to do anything in this world. I think Voltaire is commenting on in a sense the Utopian impulse and imagination. Specifically as it influenced enlightenment philosophers of the period with respect to the notion of progress and advancement.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and literature.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. A great story and important historical work in literature. Voltaire was a Renaissance Christian humanist who played a role in the development of the Enlightenment.

On the one hand, the structure of his novel Candide is Homeric, it is the journey narrative, the hero with a thousand faces, but it is a satirical restructuring of that classical motif of the hero on a quest. What is the importance of the quest in Candide? What is the quest about in the classical sense? The quest is about learning. In the classical sense the hero leaves, has to acquire some sort of knowledge, learn a set of skills that is going to help him or her enact the quest surmount the obstacles that they encounter at one point or another, and the finally what does the hero have to accomplish? What is out there the "Holy Grail" The prize, the whole quest is about attaining some sort of ultimate end or some sort of ultimate knowledge. Does it end there? No, you got to go back with that knowledge, because the quest is never just about attaining the goal, it's about bringing it home to make everybody better, to restore the community. The individual quest, the heroic quest in the classical sense always has a larger social corrective end. The purpose of the individual, the function of the individual all depends on his ability to return to the collective, whatever it is that he has found that he has acquired that is going to change the way things are. Now how does that compare to the journey or quest narrative in Candide? Contrary to the notion of what prepares us for the world, OK here is the important structure of the journey or the quest, and the critique of knowledge by Voltaire. It is contrary to the idea of the knowledge that we acquire prepares us for the world. That each new bit of knowledge that we acquire, prepares us for the next step, and prepares us for the next stage. Contrary to the idea that life is somehow to be understood or that human history is somehow to be understood as a journey organized around progress, around betterment advancement acquiring new knowledge more knowledge more science more learning, we're getting better again, Candide tells the story that goes in the opposite direction. So, then you acquire knowledge and then you spend the rest of the journey finding out that the knowledge is useless, bit by bit, and every lesson you've acquired has to be cast aside, everything you learn you have to abandon. Instead of gaining and getting better, it is throwing off, letting go, and getting worse. Where does Voltaire want us in the end to think of the notion and narrative of progress?


Of course, you know that Candide is steeped in so many of the political and philosophical controversies of the 1750's. One of his big critiques is of the philosopher Leibnitz who said that `this is the best of all possible worlds," the idea championed by Leibnitz was a simple version of the philosophy espoused by enlightenment philosophers that the existence of any evil in the world was a sign that god was not entirely good or very powerful. The idea of an imperfect god would be nonsensical. So if you are a philosopher who takes for granted that god exists, you would have to conclude logically; and here is where humanities and Christianity really start messing with each other in all kinds of obvious ways, that god is perfect if you logically conclude that god exists. Therefore, his creation, the world, and man must also be perfect. According to many enlightenment philosophers, people perceived imperfections of the world only because they do not get the plan. This is a teleological idea of the world. Now obviously Voltaire does not accept this theory, or that god or any god has to exist. Therefore, he makes fun of the idea that the world is completely good. Much of the novel is a satire addressed to the notion that the optimists who witness countless horrors and unbelievable injustice such as floggings, robberies, and earthquakes will always find a way to write it off. They will say, `oh well there must be part of a plan, even though none of these calamities seem to serve any good at all it must point to human cruelty ignorance and barbarism and points to the indifference of the natural world. Pangloss the philosopher in the book throughout the story is always trying to find some justification for the terrible things that he sees and the arguments that he makes seem increasingly to be absurd, like his quote that "Syphilis needed to be transmitted from the new world to Europe so that Europeans could taste new world delicacies. What other things is Voltaire criticizing here that connects to some of the debates that define the enlightenment period of the 1750's Religion? Religion- He criticizes the whole hypocrisy of religion. In the book, Voltaire has a parade of corrupt hypocritical religious leaders who are like the Pope that has a daughter (should have been celibate). Hard line Catholic inquisitors, a Franciscan monk who should have vow of poverty but is a jewel thief. Here Voltaire provides countless examples of the immorality and hypocrisy of religious leaders, he does not really condemn believers per say, he is really out to attack church leadership and church hierarchy. For example Jacques, who is an Anabaptist is arguably one of the most generous and humane characters.

What else does Voltaire criticize or satirize? Wealth- money corrupts; Candide seems to have more problems when he has lots of money. Things get worse he gets unhappy. An interesting point, Voltaire was deeply involved in a debate with the many deep thinkers of his time, most notably was Rousseau, who lambasted the aristocracy. Voltaire himself really moved very comfortably among aristocratic circles and interestingly the French enlightenment philosophy really took off among the French aristocracy. Since they had the leisure time to contemplate so many of the new ideas in reason, science and rationalism and his notions of progress and advancement were ideas that were principally championed and discussed by members of the French aristocracy. Therefore, it was among some of the idle members of the French aristocrats that these enlightenment philosophers were able to find their most ardent followers. Despite the fact that the church and the state were not more often that not completely allied with each other, kings could be attracted on occasion to arguments that seemed to undermine the authority of the church. The fact that the aristocrats were very much unaware of the precariousness of their position tended to make them overconfident. Dabbling in some new ideas that were part of the enlightenment movement caused them not to take seriously the kind of jeopardy they were in or what the enlightenment would lead to in the championing of the common man and the overthrow of the French aristocracy. Because they found these ideas somewhat new, interesting, and exciting and they did not really see this as at all leading inexorably to the demise of the aristocratic class. Now of course it was thinkers like Rousseau not at all like Voltaire on this particular point that made his chief adversary. Rousseau distrusted the aristocrats out of a hunger to overthrow the class but because he believed that people of wealth betrayed decent traditional values. Rousseau opposed the theatre, which is Voltaire's lifeblood; he shunned the aristocracy, which Voltaire very much courted. He courted their attention he courted their interests. Rousseau argued for something dangerous like democratic revolution, and Voltaire argued that equality was impossible it would never come about. Rousseau argued that inequality was not only natural but that if it were taken too far it would make any decent government a total impossibility. Voltaire was very charming and witty, which led largely to his success in moving about aristocratic and social circles. Rousseau insisted on his own correctness and was not a charming person to be around; he was very intense and very serious about his ideas. Voltaire endlessly repeated the same handful of core enlightenment notions, where as Rousseau was a deeply original thinker. Who was always challenging his own way of thinking contradicting himself, coming up with ideas on the equality of education, the family, the government, and the arts in a matter that was much more radical than Voltaire was ever willing to go along with. They were both skeptics, and Voltaire is nothing if not a skeptic.

What does Voltaire do with the idea of philosophy in Candide? Philosophy- What is the value of philosophical speculation? It is useless for Voltaire; it is one of Pangloss' biggest flaws. Abstract philosophical argument is not based on any real world evidence. In the chaotic world of this novel, philosophical speculation repeatedly proves to be useless, and at times even dangerous. Time and again it prevents the characters from making any useful assessment of the world around them, it prevents them from bringing about any kind of change, it prevent them from thinking that they might try to bring about some social change. Pangloss is the character most susceptible to this kind of foolishness. Example, while Jacques is drowning, Pangloss stops Candide from saving him by proving that the bay was formed for Jacques to drown in. Therefore, at the end of course at the novels conclusion Candide rejects Pangloss' philosophies. If philosophical speculation is useless, what does Voltaire suggest you put in its place? Hard practical work in general. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising in that sense that this judgment against philosophy that is portrayed in the book becomes very dramatic when we think about Voltaire's own status as a philosopher.

What about the garden at the end of the novel? At the end of the novel Candide defines happiness in raising vegetables. On the one hand it is indicative of the turning away from the following of philosophy, from the abstract speculative nature of philosophy towards something hands on something pragmatic. Does the garden have a symbolic resonance to it? Is it related to the Garden of Eden? For Adam and Eve the garden is the beginning of their troubles, here it is the end of their troubles. It is the end of the narrative the end of their quest, their journey, and the end of their travails. This is where they wind up this is where they retreat. In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve do not have to work to have fruits of the garden; this garden requires work, and constant tending. In that I think the garden here represents much, more in a very different way than the biblical garden represents. An embrace of life, but an embrace of life of what? For all the horror, hardships, and nightmares that these characters experience throughout the entire course of the text, at the end, they embrace life; they take it they say yes.

The status of knowledge in Voltaire, what do we know? The garden is a final retreat from activism, or social engagement in the world. Finally, what Voltaire is saying is look go back to the basics. Do not try to change, analyze the world, or try to speculate about the nature of our existence. Retreat into your own sphere and do not mess with the world around you, because ultimately you are powerless, to do anything in this world. I think Voltaire is commenting on in a sense the Utopian impulse and imagination. Specifically as it influenced enlightenment philosophers of the period with respect to the notion of progress and advancement.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and literature.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. A great story and important historical work in literature. Voltaire was a Renaissance Christian humanist who played a role in the development of the Enlightenment.

On the one hand, the structure of his novel Candide is Homeric, it is the journey narrative, the hero with a thousand faces, but it is a satirical restructuring of that classical motif of the hero on a quest. What is the importance of the quest in Candide? What is the quest about in the classical sense? The quest is about learning. In the classical sense the hero leaves, has to acquire some sort of knowledge, learn a set of skills that is going to help him or her enact the quest surmount the obstacles that they encounter at one point or another, and the finally what does the hero have to accomplish? What is out there the "Holy Grail" The prize, the whole quest is about attaining some sort of ultimate end or some sort of ultimate knowledge. Does it end there? No, you got to go back with that knowledge, because the quest is never just about attaining the goal, it's about bringing it home to make everybody better, to restore the community. The individual quest, the heroic quest in the classical sense always has a larger social corrective end. The purpose of the individual, the function of the individual all depends on his ability to return to the collective, whatever it is that he has found that he has acquired that is going to change the way things are. Now how does that compare to the journey or quest narrative in Candide? Contrary to the notion of what prepares us for the world, OK here is the important structure of the journey or the quest, and the critique of knowledge by Voltaire. It is contrary to the idea of the knowledge that we acquire prepares us for the world. That each new bit of knowledge that we acquire, prepares us for the next step, and prepares us for the next stage. Contrary to the idea that life is somehow to be understood or that human history is somehow to be understood as a journey organized around progress, around betterment advancement acquiring new knowledge more knowledge more science more learning, we're getting better again, Candide tells the story that goes in the opposite direction. So, then you acquire knowledge and then you spend the rest of the journey finding out that the knowledge is useless, bit by bit, and every lesson you've acquired has to be cast aside, everything you learn you have to abandon. Instead of gaining and getting better, it is throwing off, letting go, and getting worse. Where does Voltaire want us in the end to think of the notion and narrative of progress?


Of course, you know that Candide is steeped in so many of the political and philosophical controversies of the 1750's. One of his big critiques is of the philosopher Leibnitz who said that `this is the best of all possible worlds," the idea championed by Leibnitz was a simple version of the philosophy espoused by enlightenment philosophers that the existence of any evil in the world was a sign that god was not entirely good or very powerful. The idea of an imperfect god would be nonsensical. So if you are a philosopher who takes for granted that god exists, you would have to conclude logically; and here is where humanities and Christianity really start messing with each other in all kinds of obvious ways, that god is perfect if you logically conclude that god exists. Therefore, his creation, the world, and man must also be perfect. According to many enlightenment philosophers, people perceived imperfections of the world only because they do not get the plan. This is a teleological idea of the world. Now obviously Voltaire does not accept this theory, or that god or any god has to exist. Therefore, he makes fun of the idea that the world is completely good. Much of the novel is a satire addressed to the notion that the optimists who witness countless horrors and unbelievable injustice such as floggings, robberies, and earthquakes will always find a way to write it off. They will say, `oh well there must be part of a plan, even though none of these calamities seem to serve any good at all it must point to human cruelty ignorance and barbarism and points to the indifference of the natural world. Pangloss the philosopher in the book throughout the story is always trying to find some justification for the terrible things that he sees and the arguments that he makes seem increasingly to be absurd, like his quote that "Syphilis needed to be transmitted from the new world to Europe so that Europeans could taste new world delicacies. What other things is Voltaire criticizing here that connects to some of the debates that define the enlightenment period of the 1750's Religion? Religion- He criticizes the whole hypocrisy of religion. In the book, Voltaire has a parade of corrupt hypocritical religious leaders who are like the Pope that has a daughter (should have been celibate). Hard line Catholic inquisitors, a Franciscan monk who should have vow of poverty but is a jewel thief. Here Voltaire provides countless examples of the immorality and hypocrisy of religious leaders, he does not really condemn believers per say, he is really out to attack church leadership and church hierarchy. For example Jacques, who is an Anabaptist is arguably one of the most generous and humane characters.

What else does Voltaire criticize or satirize? Wealth- money corrupts; Candide seems to have more problems when he has lots of money. Things get worse he gets unhappy. An interesting point, Voltaire was deeply involved in a debate with the many deep thinkers of his time, most notably was Rousseau, who lambasted the aristocracy. Voltaire himself really moved very comfortably among aristocratic circles and interestingly the French enlightenment philosophy really took off among the French aristocracy. Since they had the leisure time to contemplate so many of the new ideas in reason, science and rationalism and his notions of progress and advancement were ideas that were principally championed and discussed by members of the French aristocracy. Therefore, it was among some of the idle members of the French aristocrats that these enlightenment philosophers were able to find their most ardent followers. Despite the fact that the church and the state were not more often that not completely allied with each other, kings could be attracted on occasion to arguments that seemed to undermine the authority of the church. The fact that the aristocrats were very much unaware of the precariousness of their position tended to make them overconfident. Dabbling in some new ideas that were part of the enlightenment movement caused them not to take seriously the kind of jeopardy they were in or what the enlightenment would lead to in the championing of the common man and the overthrow of the French aristocracy. Because they found these ideas somewhat new, interesting, and exciting and they did not really see this as at all leading inexorably to the demise of the aristocratic class. Now of course it was thinkers like Rousseau not at all like Voltaire on this particular point that made his chief adversary. Rousseau distrusted the aristocrats out of a hunger to overthrow the class but because he believed that people of wealth betrayed decent traditional values. Rousseau opposed the theatre, which is Voltaire's lifeblood; he shunned the aristocracy, which Voltaire very much courted. He courted their attention he courted their interests. Rousseau argued for something dangerous like democratic revolution, and Voltaire argued that equality was impossible it would never come about. Rousseau argued that inequality was not only natural but that if it were taken too far it would make any decent government a total impossibility. Voltaire was very charming and witty, which led largely to his success in moving about aristocratic and social circles. Rousseau insisted on his own correctness and was not a charming person to be around; he was very intense and very serious about his ideas. Voltaire endlessly repeated the same handful of core enlightenment notions, where as Rousseau was a deeply original thinker. Who was always challenging his own way of thinking contradicting himself, coming up with ideas on the equality of education, the family, the government, and the arts in a matter that was much more radical than Voltaire was ever willing to go along with. They were both skeptics, and Voltaire is nothing if not a skeptic.

What does Voltaire do with the idea of philosophy in Candide? Philosophy- What is the value of philosophical speculation? It is useless for Voltaire; it is one of Pangloss' biggest flaws. Abstract philosophical argument is not based on any real world evidence. In the chaotic world of this novel, philosophical speculation repeatedly proves to be useless, and at times even dangerous. Time and again it prevents the characters from making any useful assessment of the world around them, it prevents them from bringing about any kind of change, it prevent them from thinking that they might try to bring about some social change. Pangloss is the character most susceptible to this kind of foolishness. Example, while Jacques is drowning, Pangloss stops Candide from saving him by proving that the bay was formed for Jacques to drown in. Therefore, at the end of course at the novels conclusion Candide rejects Pangloss' philosophies. If philosophical speculation is useless, what does Voltaire suggest you put in its place? Hard practical work in general. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising in that sense that this judgment against philosophy that is portrayed in the book becomes very dramatic when we think about Voltaire's own status as a philosopher.

What about the garden at the end of the novel? At the end of the novel Candide defines happiness in raising vegetables. On the one hand it is indicative of the turning away from the following of philosophy, from the abstract speculative nature of philosophy towards something hands on something pragmatic. Does the garden have a symbolic resonance to it? Is it related to the Garden of Eden? For Adam and Eve the garden is the beginning of their troubles, here it is the end of their troubles. It is the end of the narrative the end of their quest, their journey, and the end of their travails. This is where they wind up this is where they retreat. In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve do not have to work to have fruits of the garden; this garden requires work, and constant tending. In that I think the garden here represents much, more in a very different way than the biblical garden represents. An embrace of life, but an embrace of life of what? For all the horror, hardships, and nightmares that these characters experience throughout the entire course of the text, at the end, they embrace life; they take it they say yes.

The status of knowledge in Voltaire, what do we know? The garden is a final retreat from activism, or social engagement in the world. Finally, what Voltaire is saying is look go back to the basics. Do not try to change, analyze the world, or try to speculate about the nature of our existence. Retreat into your own sphere and do not mess with the world around you, because ultimately you are powerless, to do anything in this world. I think Voltaire is commenting on in a sense the Utopian impulse and imagination. Specifically as it influenced enlightenment philosophers of the period with respect to the notion of progress and advancement.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and literature.

I decided to read this after reading Catherine the Great: Love, Sex, and Power and learning that Catherine the Great had a long and intimate pen pal relationship with Voltaire. As the French Revolution progressed, she regretted this friendship noting that philosophers and writers like Voltaire posed too great a threat to the monarchy.

You can see how Voltaire's mockery of the established order would resonate in 18th century Europe. Interestingly, he mocks not only the privilege of power, but also the risky business of being a king, with a long list of assassinated and otherwise deposed monarchs.

While it's a piece for its time, its truths hold true today. The developed world no longer has kings and slaves, but a pecking order is still in place and wars and conscriptions continue. There are still and will always be con men, sycophants, schemers, hypocrites and misogynists.

Not much satire survives a year, let alone a quarter millennium, but this one clearly does.

This was required reading for a graduate course in the Humanities. A great story and important historical work in literature. Voltaire was a Renaissance Christian humanist who played a role in the development of the Enlightenment.

On the one hand, the structure of his novel Candide is Homeric, it is the journey narrative, the hero with a thousand faces, but it is a satirical restructuring of that classical motif of the hero on a quest. What is the importance of the quest in Candide? What is the quest about in the classical sense? The quest is about learning. In the classical sense the hero leaves, has to acquire some sort of knowledge, learn a set of skills that is going to help him or her enact the quest surmount the obstacles that they encounter at one point or another, and the finally what does the hero have to accomplish? What is out there the "Holy Grail" The prize, the whole quest is about attaining some sort of ultimate end or some sort of ultimate knowledge. Does it end there? No, you got to go back with that knowledge, because the quest is never just about attaining the goal, it's about bringing it home to make everybody better, to restore the community. The individual quest, the heroic quest in the classical sense always has a larger social corrective end. The purpose of the individual, the function of the individual all depends on his ability to return to the collective, whatever it is that he has found that he has acquired that is going to change the way things are. Now how does that compare to the journey or quest narrative in Candide? Contrary to the notion of what prepares us for the world, OK here is the important structure of the journey or the quest, and the critique of knowledge by Voltaire. It is contrary to the idea of the knowledge that we acquire prepares us for the world. That each new bit of knowledge that we acquire, prepares us for the next step, and prepares us for the next stage. Contrary to the idea that life is somehow to be understood or that human history is somehow to be understood as a journey organized around progress, around betterment advancement acquiring new knowledge more knowledge more science more learning, we're getting better again, Candide tells the story that goes in the opposite direction. So, then you acquire knowledge and then you spend the rest of the journey finding out that the knowledge is useless, bit by bit, and every lesson you've acquired has to be cast aside, everything you learn you have to abandon. Instead of gaining and getting better, it is throwing off, letting go, and getting worse. Where does Voltaire want us in the end to think of the notion and narrative of progress?


Of course, you know that Candide is steeped in so many of the political and philosophical controversies of the 1750's. One of his big critiques is of the philosopher Leibnitz who said that `this is the best of all possible worlds," the idea championed by Leibnitz was a simple version of the philosophy espoused by enlightenment philosophers that the existence of any evil in the world was a sign that god was not entirely good or very powerful. The idea of an imperfect god would be nonsensical. So if you are a philosopher who takes for granted that god exists, you would have to conclude logically; and here is where humanities and Christianity really start messing with each other in all kinds of obvious ways, that god is perfect if you logically conclude that god exists. Therefore, his creation, the world, and man must also be perfect. According to many enlightenment philosophers, people perceived imperfections of the world only because they do not get the plan. This is a teleological idea of the world. Now obviously Voltaire does not accept this theory, or that god or any god has to exist. Therefore, he makes fun of the idea that the world is completely good. Much of the novel is a satire addressed to the notion that the optimists who witness countless horrors and unbelievable injustice such as floggings, robberies, and earthquakes will always find a way to write it off. They will say, `oh well there must be part of a plan, even though none of these calamities seem to serve any good at all it must point to human cruelty ignorance and barbarism and points to the indifference of the natural world. Pangloss the philosopher in the book throughout the story is always trying to find some justification for the terrible things that he sees and the arguments that he makes seem increasingly to be absurd, like his quote that "Syphilis needed to be transmitted from the new world to Europe so that Europeans could taste new world delicacies. What other things is Voltaire criticizing here that connects to some of the debates that define the enlightenment period of the 1750's Religion? Religion- He criticizes the whole hypocrisy of religion. In the book, Voltaire has a parade of corrupt hypocritical religious leaders who are like the Pope that has a daughter (should have been celibate). Hard line Catholic inquisitors, a Franciscan monk who should have vow of poverty but is a jewel thief. Here Voltaire provides countless examples of the immorality and hypocrisy of religious leaders, he does not really condemn believers per say, he is really out to attack church leadership and church hierarchy. For example Jacques, who is an Anabaptist is arguably one of the most generous and humane characters.

What else does Voltaire criticize or satirize? Wealth- money corrupts; Candide seems to have more problems when he has lots of money. Things get worse he gets unhappy. An interesting point, Voltaire was deeply involved in a debate with the many deep thinkers of his time, most notably was Rousseau, who lambasted the aristocracy. Voltaire himself really moved very comfortably among aristocratic circles and interestingly the French enlightenment philosophy really took off among the French aristocracy. Since they had the leisure time to contemplate so many of the new ideas in reason, science and rationalism and his notions of progress and advancement were ideas that were principally championed and discussed by members of the French aristocracy. Therefore, it was among some of the idle members of the French aristocrats that these enlightenment philosophers were able to find their most ardent followers. Despite the fact that the church and the state were not more often that not completely allied with each other, kings could be attracted on occasion to arguments that seemed to undermine the authority of the church. The fact that the aristocrats were very much unaware of the precariousness of their position tended to make them overconfident. Dabbling in some new ideas that were part of the enlightenment movement caused them not to take seriously the kind of jeopardy they were in or what the enlightenment would lead to in the championing of the common man and the overthrow of the French aristocracy. Because they found these ideas somewhat new, interesting, and exciting and they did not really see this as at all leading inexorably to the demise of the aristocratic class. Now of course it was thinkers like Rousseau not at all like Voltaire on this particular point that made his chief adversary. Rousseau distrusted the aristocrats out of a hunger to overthrow the class but because he believed that people of wealth betrayed decent traditional values. Rousseau opposed the theatre, which is Voltaire's lifeblood; he shunned the aristocracy, which Voltaire very much courted. He courted their attention he courted their interests. Rousseau argued for something dangerous like democratic revolution, and Voltaire argued that equality was impossible it would never come about. Rousseau argued that inequality was not only natural but that if it were taken too far it would make any decent government a total impossibility. Voltaire was very charming and witty, which led largely to his success in moving about aristocratic and social circles. Rousseau insisted on his own correctness and was not a charming person to be around; he was very intense and very serious about his ideas. Voltaire endlessly repeated the same handful of core enlightenment notions, where as Rousseau was a deeply original thinker. Who was always challenging his own way of thinking contradicting himself, coming up with ideas on the equality of education, the family, the government, and the arts in a matter that was much more radical than Voltaire was ever willing to go along with. They were both skeptics, and Voltaire is nothing if not a skeptic.

What does Voltaire do with the idea of philosophy in Candide? Philosophy- What is the value of philosophical speculation? It is useless for Voltaire; it is one of Pangloss' biggest flaws. Abstract philosophical argument is not based on any real world evidence. In the chaotic world of this novel, philosophical speculation repeatedly proves to be useless, and at times even dangerous. Time and again it prevents the characters from making any useful assessment of the world around them, it prevents them from bringing about any kind of change, it prevent them from thinking that they might try to bring about some social change. Pangloss is the character most susceptible to this kind of foolishness. Example, while Jacques is drowning, Pangloss stops Candide from saving him by proving that the bay was formed for Jacques to drown in. Therefore, at the end of course at the novels conclusion Candide rejects Pangloss' philosophies. If philosophical speculation is useless, what does Voltaire suggest you put in its place? Hard practical work in general. Therefore, it is somewhat surprising in that sense that this judgment against philosophy that is portrayed in the book becomes very dramatic when we think about Voltaire's own status as a philosopher.

What about the garden at the end of the novel? At the end of the novel Candide defines happiness in raising vegetables. On the one hand it is indicative of the turning away from the following of philosophy, from the abstract speculative nature of philosophy towards something hands on something pragmatic. Does the garden have a symbolic resonance to it? Is it related to the Garden of Eden? For Adam and Eve the garden is the beginning of their troubles, here it is the end of their troubles. It is the end of the narrative the end of their quest, their journey, and the end of their travails. This is where they wind up this is where they retreat. In the Garden of Eden Adam and Eve do not have to work to have fruits of the garden; this garden requires work, and constant tending. In that I think the garden here represents much, more in a very different way than the biblical garden represents. An embrace of life, but an embrace of life of what? For all the horror, hardships, and nightmares that these characters experience throughout the entire course of the text, at the end, they embrace life; they take it they say yes.

The status of knowledge in Voltaire, what do we know? The garden is a final retreat from activism, or social engagement in the world. Finally, what Voltaire is saying is look go back to the basics. Do not try to change, analyze the world, or try to speculate about the nature of our existence. Retreat into your own sphere and do not mess with the world around you, because ultimately you are powerless, to do anything in this world. I think Voltaire is commenting on in a sense the Utopian impulse and imagination. Specifically as it influenced enlightenment philosophers of the period with respect to the notion of progress and advancement.

Recommended reading for anyone interested in history, psychology, philosophy, and literature.