ENCYCLOPEDISTS
420
ENCYCLOPEDISTS
was necessary, and it was used. Some men who were
known for their conservative opinions were asked to
contribute articles, and the Encyclopedic contained
some unexceptionable doctrines and moderate views
on religious, ethical, and social problems; moreover,
the editors themselves and those who shared their
views frequently concealed or disguised their true
convictions. As Voltaire says, they were in the sad
necessity of "printing the contrary of what they be-
lieved" (Letter to d'Alembert, 9 October, 17.56).
More was insinuated than was clearly expressed, and
at times a sarcastic remark was used with better effect
than a definite statement or argument. When the
main article to which one would naturally turn for in-
formation contained nothing objectionable, other arti-
cles, less likely to attract attention, expressed different
and more "philosophic" views. That such was the
condition of affairs is attested by a significant passage
in a letter of d'Alembert to Voltaire (21 July, 1757).
To the latter's criticism of certain articles he replies;
" No doubt we have bad articles in theology and
metaphysics; but with theologians for censors, and a
privilege, I defy you to make them any better. There
are other articles less exposed to the daylight in which
all is repaired. Time will enable people to distinguish
what we have thought from what we have said."
Hence, although the Encyclopedic itself contains
many articles in which anti-Christian principles are
openly professed, the true, unrestrained encyclopedic
spirit was found in the meetings of the "philosophers"
and in the salons, where they were looked upon as ora-
cles. To-day it is to be found in the later works of the
Encyclopedists and chiefly their letters and memoirs.
In the impious and cynical d'Alembert, for instance, as
known from his correspondence with Voltaire, one
would fail to recognize the prudent and reserved
d'Alembert of the Encyclopedic. "You were born
with the firmest and most virile genius", Voltaire wrote
to him (4 June, 1769), "but you are free only with
your friends, when the doors are closed". This last
remark applies also to Diderot and the other Encyclo-
pedists. 'Their private letters reveal their true spirit
and intentions, and prove that the apparent modera-
tion and tolerance shown in their puljlic writings were
dictated by fear and not by conviction.
It is difficult to estimate the infiuence which the En- cyclopedie exerted on the events that foUowetl its pub- lication, especially the French Revolution. To a large extent imdoubtedly it was not the source, but only the reflection, of the religious and social views of the time. Not the Encyclopedic so much as the Encyclopedists exerted a real infiuence. Since their spirit was an- tagonistic to the Church and, in many respects, also to the State, one may ask why its manifestations were not suppressed; why in particular its organ, the En- cyclopcjdie, was allowed to proceed, notwithstanding the warnings of its adversaries and its repeated con- demnation by the civil authorities. In a word, what was done to check its influence or to oppose its doc- trines? In general, it may be answered that little was done, and, under the circumstances, perhaps little could be done. Tlie defenders of the Faith were not idle; they wrote books and articles in refutation of the "philosophers"; but their voice was not heard, and their scattered efforts were of little avail against the organized forces and the powerful protectors of their adversaries. The Jesuits, the secular clergy, espe- cially .\rchbishop Christophe tie Beaumont, of Paris, and Hishop Le Franc de Pompignan, of Le Puy, who wrote pastorals on the subject, and several other writers and preachers denounced the Encyclopedic. We have seen that they succeeded more than once in having its publication and sale prohibited by the Gov- ernment. The suspensions were only temporary. The Encyclopedists were under the patronage of high personages at the Court; they were protected espe- cially by Malcshcrbes, the director of the Librairie,
who controlled, among other things, the granting
of privileges for new pubhcations and the censuring
of books, and by Sartine, the chief of police, on
whom depended the enforcement of laws and ordi-
nances concerning the printing and sale of books.
Malesherbes always showed himself the friend not only
of the Encyclopedic, but also of the Encyclopedists.
Owing to this friendship, many works were published
notwithstanding the official opposition of the Govern-
ment. In 1759, after the decision of the council had
revoked the privilege formerly granted, it was Males-
herbes who warned Diderot that his papers were to
be seized the next day. As it was too late to look for a
place of safety where they could be taken, Malesherbes
had them sent to his own house.
Thus the Government secretly favoured an enter- prise which it officially censured, and, under this pro- tection the Encyclopedic was begun and completed. Partly for the same reason, partly also for deeper rea- sons concerning the religious and civil conditions in France, the eiTorts to combat the Encyclopedic were not rewarded with much success. Moreau in the "Memoires pour scrvir a I'histoire des Cacouacs" (1757), Palissot, in his "Petites lettres sur de grands philosophes" (1757) and in his comedy " Les philo- sophes" (1760), tried to use the weapons of ridicule and satire which some of the "philosophers", especially Voltaire, wielded with greater skill. Freron, in the " Annee litteraire ", was at times sarcastic, and always ready to give and take blows. Constantly at war with the Encyclopedists, he was at a great disadvan- tage, for they enjoyed Malesherbes's protection, whereas for him the censure was always very severe. Thus he was hardly allowed to write on Voltaire's "Ecossaise" (1760), in which he had been publicly in- sulted on the stage. The Jansenists, in the " NouvcUes ecclesiastiques", did little more than insult the Ency- clopedists. In the "Journal de Trcvoux", the Jesu- its, and among them especially Berthier (1704-82), who was director of the Journal from 1745 till the su{>- pression of the Society of Jesus, wrote frequent criti- cisms. But notwithstanding all this opposition the spirit of irreligion was steadily gaining. Too often the criticism was weak, the attack unskilful. In some cases even, the anti-Encyclopedists, instead of harm- ing their opponents, rather contributed to their suc- cess by giving them notoriety and affording them an opportunity for using their influence. The Jesuits were expelled from France in 1762; this gave a new victory and a new prestige to the "philosophers". D'Alembert, who wrote " La destruction des Jesuites en France" (1765), looks upon this expulsion as the just punishment of their hostility towards the Encyclo- pedic. Gradually the people were becoming accus- tomed to the new spirit, and thus it was that, whereas the first volumes had created a great stir in France, the appearance of the last volumes was scarcely iio- ticed.
Unknown or httle kno-nm in 1750, the " philosophers " had now won their battle, and were the recognized vic- tors. Their success made them bolder in declaring openly what fear had frequently obliged them to veil in their former works and in the Encyclopedic. These doctrines had also been made more familiar by the publication of several works before the completion of the Encyclopedic, the most important being Diderot's " Pensees sur I'interpretation de la nature" (1754); Helvetius's "De I'esprit" (1758); Rousseau's "Dis- cours sur I'origine et les fondements de I'inegalite parmi les hommes" (1753), "Contrat social" (1762), and "Emilc" (1762); Voltaire's " Dictionnaire philoso- phiquc" (1765); d'Holbach's "Systdme de la nature" (1770). Hence, on 8 July, 1765, Voltaire could write to d'Alembert: "They clamour against the philoso- phers, an<l are right; for, if opinion is the ruler of the world, this ruler is governed by the philosophers. You can hardly imagine how their empire is spreading."
