![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
montagnarde1793Or maybe just his fanboys. Hard to tell sometimes, really. Voltaire has his points; he's witty, his contes are entertaining, he wrote some pretty good plays, he fought against the Church and the persecution of huguenots, etc. On the other hand, he was pretty chummy with various despots, he was a huge asshole to Rousseau, he was anti-Semitic, and one can declare with quasi-absolute certainty that he would have detested the Revolution.
I just saw a documentary ("Quand l'Europe parlait français") which was ostensibly about, well, what it it says: how everyone and his fourth cousin twice removed spoke French in the 18th century. Well, all the educated people anyhow. (Since everyone knows that peasants and artisans don't count.) Really though, it spent enough time talking about Voltaire to be a documentary about him. Needless to say if you've read the title of this post, I was disappointed with the treatment. Basically, for Marc Fumaroli (and considering he's part of the academic establishment, I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised), the Revolution is nothing but a Rousseauist degeneration into violence (no seriously, he blames revolutionary repression on that one line from the Contrat social about forcing people to be free - color me naïve, but I always interpreted that line as "individuals can't just break any law they disagree with because then society would fall apart", which for the record is contrary to the Revolutionary system of putting natural rights above positive laws, but I wouldn't expect someone who sets out this kind of nonsense to understand such subtleties). If only we had stayed with Voltaire's "moderate" position of sucking up to despotic governments and only (very selectively) attacking certain abuses around the edges! The world would be so much of a better place, wouldn't it? /sarcasm
Fortunately, we cut to another talking head to assure us that the Revolution was not, in fact, responsible for the death of French-as-universal-language - you know, just for the death of salon culture and the amazingness that is rococo, apparently - that dubious honor falls on the industrial revolution. Because as everyone knows, language ineluctibly follows commerce. Which is natural. And thus French is doomed. Unless we "individually" - because we can't openly advocate returning to "enlightened despotism", now can we? - bring back certain parts of the Ancien Régime - which even certain "jacobins" who hate the Ancien régime because they're "ideologues"** would be unable to disdain entirely. Again, apparently.
I mean, I guess all this proves is that you can't admire Voltaire unequivocally and still support the Revolution, which is a fairly obvious point - well, except to certain reactionary conspiracy theorists, but let's not go there, shall we? But it pisses me off anyway, because there's been a lot of celebration of how wonderful Voltaire was these past few years, and I can't help but feel that it's precisely not in spite of what I would consider to be his faults, but because of them*. He's the incarnation of the "good", "moderate" philosopher that those in power and their supporters both in the 18th century and now can feel comfortable around while patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened. (The irony is, the documentary points out this relationship between despotic courts and philosophers like Voltaire in the 18th century, but completely misses that the modern academic establishment is using the figure of Voltaire in much the same way.)
*To be fair, this is much less true of the anti-Semitism than of the helping of despotic regimes to keep up their image.
**I am so sick of seeing that word used as if it were the ultimate in sophisticated insults.
I just saw a documentary ("Quand l'Europe parlait français") which was ostensibly about, well, what it it says: how everyone and his fourth cousin twice removed spoke French in the 18th century. Well, all the educated people anyhow. (Since everyone knows that peasants and artisans don't count.) Really though, it spent enough time talking about Voltaire to be a documentary about him. Needless to say if you've read the title of this post, I was disappointed with the treatment. Basically, for Marc Fumaroli (and considering he's part of the academic establishment, I suppose I really shouldn't be surprised), the Revolution is nothing but a Rousseauist degeneration into violence (no seriously, he blames revolutionary repression on that one line from the Contrat social about forcing people to be free - color me naïve, but I always interpreted that line as "individuals can't just break any law they disagree with because then society would fall apart", which for the record is contrary to the Revolutionary system of putting natural rights above positive laws, but I wouldn't expect someone who sets out this kind of nonsense to understand such subtleties). If only we had stayed with Voltaire's "moderate" position of sucking up to despotic governments and only (very selectively) attacking certain abuses around the edges! The world would be so much of a better place, wouldn't it? /sarcasm
Fortunately, we cut to another talking head to assure us that the Revolution was not, in fact, responsible for the death of French-as-universal-language - you know, just for the death of salon culture and the amazingness that is rococo, apparently - that dubious honor falls on the industrial revolution. Because as everyone knows, language ineluctibly follows commerce. Which is natural. And thus French is doomed. Unless we "individually" - because we can't openly advocate returning to "enlightened despotism", now can we? - bring back certain parts of the Ancien Régime - which even certain "jacobins" who hate the Ancien régime because they're "ideologues"** would be unable to disdain entirely. Again, apparently.
I mean, I guess all this proves is that you can't admire Voltaire unequivocally and still support the Revolution, which is a fairly obvious point - well, except to certain reactionary conspiracy theorists, but let's not go there, shall we? But it pisses me off anyway, because there's been a lot of celebration of how wonderful Voltaire was these past few years, and I can't help but feel that it's precisely not in spite of what I would consider to be his faults, but because of them*. He's the incarnation of the "good", "moderate" philosopher that those in power and their supporters both in the 18th century and now can feel comfortable around while patting themselves on the back for being so enlightened. (The irony is, the documentary points out this relationship between despotic courts and philosophers like Voltaire in the 18th century, but completely misses that the modern academic establishment is using the figure of Voltaire in much the same way.)
*To be fair, this is much less true of the anti-Semitism than of the helping of despotic regimes to keep up their image.
**I am so sick of seeing that word used as if it were the ultimate in sophisticated insults.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: Tuesday, 8 March 2011 18:45 (UTC)So... Why do you think it's impossible to like Voltaire and the Revolution at the same time? I've been a big fan (I hate that word though) of Voltaire for quite a long time. It's precisely because of him and his works that I first "discovered" the Enlightenment and after that the Revolution.
He was indeed contradictory in many things. I mean, he was a deist and criticized the church but he still had a chapel built next to his mansion. I didn't manage to find out what it served him for.
But he wasn't always anti-Semitic. If I remember well, he praised Jews in some of his works. It's actually difficult to tell what he thought about them. I'm reading his biography at the moment and it's surprising indeed. Nonetheless he was an endlessly interesting man.
Maybe he would have criticized the Revolution had he lived to see it, but can we say for sure that Rousseau would have approved it? Rousseau was just as contradictory as Voltaire, but we still like him, don't we? :)
I don't know, there's is just something about Voltaire, he embodied the Enlightenment and I'm not saying that because most of the scholars think so, but because I realized Voltaire's significance while reading his works, especially Traité sur la Tolérance which is my favourite. You can't really talk about 18th century without talking about Voltaire. And then there's this great Rousseau whom I like just the same. If I had a chance to meet them both, I know I would disagree with Voltaire's political opinions and I would certainly defend Rousseau, but since the meeting will never occur, I can only praise them both because, for me, they are equally important.
(no subject)
Date: Tuesday, 8 March 2011 22:51 (UTC)In any case, I'm in no way saying that it's impossible to appreciate Voltaire and support the Revolution at the same time. What I am saying is that it's impossible to support Voltaire unequivocally in all his opinions and still support the Revolution. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that point.
I suppose it's somewhat unfair to blame Voltaire for the fact that many people these days only praise Voltaire to better denigrate the Revolution (even if, as I maintain, Voltaire would not have supported the Revolution - I maintain as well that by most standards, his writings are anti-Semitic, but I will concede that it's a question open to debate). This is, of course an alternative phenomenon to the one expresed by the schema:
Revolution = bad
Enlightenment -> Revolution
Therefore, Enlightenment = bad
which can on the contrary be expressed
Enlightenment (as movement of élites) = good
Revolution = (at best) a perversion of the Enlightenment, (at worst) its opposite.
It's more this phenomenon that gets on my nerves than Voltaire per se. (The way the phenomenon of turning Desmoulins into some kind of sainted martyr for freedom of the press has a tendency to make me view Desmoulins himself as far more annoying than I would otherwise, which is, again, admittedly unfair of me.)
As for whether Rousseau would have approved of the Revolution, well, I'm guessing he probably wouldn't have either, but not because (as in Voltaire's case) of any horror at the prospect of democracy/popular sovereignty. And thus while you'll often see Rousseau used in the first of the two schemas (c'est la faute à Rousseau), you will never see anyone use him to represent a "good" Enlightenment corrupted by the Revolution, and thus the particular problem I address in this entry doesn't come concern him.
As to their importance, I agree that it is immense for both figures, and as I say in the entry, there are certain things I appreciate about Voltaire (just as there are certain things I appreciate less about Rousseau). If I had to choose a single figure to represent the Enlightenment though, I must confess that I wouldn't choose either of them; I think Diderot fits the bill better. Happily however, we don't have to choose and we can appreciate each Enlightenment figure for his (or her!) own merits. Just not unequivocally.
(And I will admit that I forgot - at least - one of Voltaire's good points: his popularization of Newton, which while not strictly political, was definitely both emblematic of the Enlightenment and very beneficial. Voltaire cannot be faulted on the score of rationalism.)
(no subject)
Date: Tuesday, 8 March 2011 23:47 (UTC)If there's one thing I can't stand it's seeing the Revolution being qualified as something unbelievably violent and evil. And this: "a Rousseauist degeneration into violence" OMFG! Recently I had a discussion with some ridiculous person (and a Marie Antoinette fan) on youtube about this. She writes the word Revolution between quotation marks (meaning the FR was not a revolution compared to the American - ?!) and talks a bunch of bullshit about Robespierre. But it's not worth mentioning actually. People are just dumb.
I suppose you know this site: http://voltaire.republique.over-blog.com/ It's a bit funny. Voltaire and République? :S
(no subject)
Date: Wednesday, 9 March 2011 11:02 (UTC)XD; Well, even there (arguable tactical errors aside and sticking to the level of principles), while Robespierre is probably as close as any person could possibly get to obtaining my unequivocal support, there remains the issue of his views on women, which, while considerably more liberal than Rousseau's, really don't seem to extend to the idea that women should have full political rights. Which is a shame, but I can excuse it - without condoning it - in him as an 18th century figure, where I wouldn't accept it for a moment coming from anyone now living.
I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to have any kind of rational or intelligent discussion on youtube. That aside, Antoinette fans in general seem to be convinced that Robespierre was mentally ill. I'm not sure where they get that idea, since I can't recall ever having read anyone claim that anywhere other than internet forums - not the most trustworthy source (on the other hand, it's theoretically possible that someone like Artarit or Dingli - whom I haven't read, for obvious reasons - claims something that nonsensical). I get the feeling sometimes that they're inferring this from certain films on the Revolution made in the 1980s, which I will not mention, but who knows how the minds of Antoinette fans work?
I think in the case of that site they're trying to combine Voltaire's rationalism with the notion of the Republic. However, I'm not sure the Republic needs Voltaire in order to be rational, whatever they might think on the subject...
(no subject)
Date: Thursday, 10 March 2011 12:29 (UTC)Surprisingly, this Antoinette fan doesn't think Robespierre was insane. She thinks he was a liar and a thief! Apparently, he and Napoleon(!) stole the constitutional project from Louis XVI and credited it as their own! Can you believe this? I didn't know if I should laugh or cry really. I've never heard anything similar to this, have you? Also, she thinks Marie Antoinette wasn't beheaded. Wonderful, isn't it?
(no subject)
Date: Thursday, 10 March 2011 16:39 (UTC)Yes and no. We know that he thought women should be admitted to the Academies (prerevolutionary speech welcoming the two honorary women members of the Académie d'Arras) and that girls as well as boys should receive primary education (presentation of Lepeletier's plan for education). When he defends the primary assemblies, he's defending women's participation in them by default, since that was how the primary assemblies tended to work, but he never says anything explicit on the subject. And that's the problem really; there's no evidence that Robespierre ever spoke or wrote against measures like the restriction of the vote to men or the closing of the women's clubs, but he was never explicitly for any of those kinds of measures either. There exist some well-meaning but completely farfetched "feminist" interpretations which would have you believe that women were somehow liberated before the misogynistic Jacobins came in and ruined everything - often taking Olympe de Gouges' dislike of Robespierre for evidence that Robespierre was misogynist. However, there's nothing backing that interpretation. In a perfect world, Robespierre would have intervened in favor or women's full political participation, but in the absence of such a discourse, we'll just have to settle for a lack of any kind of misogynistic discourse - which is actually much more than one can say for a lot of 18th century figures.
...That's one I've never heard before. There are a lot of crazy people on the internet, but that pretty much takes the cake.