Voltaire/Chapter 24
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE ENCYCLOPEDIA.
A memorable work, in which Voltaire was greatly interested, was at this time attracting public attention. The 'French Encyclopedia,' which counts for something more than a great literary achievement, had its origin in a translation of the 'English Encyclopedia' of Chambers, published in 1728. Some of the most eminent men of letters in France took part in the French work, forming a body that came to be known as the Encyclopedists—a title which in its later acceptation signified enunciators of bold and subversive modes of thought. D'Alembert, a man of science, and a friend of Voltaire, whose junior he was by more than twenty years, and Diderot, already famous in philosophy and letters, first gave distinct form to the project, which was to bring together in one work full information respecting all the sciences, and all the arts, in their existing stages and conditions, and thus to render it a delineation of the progress of the human mind and of civilisation. The extent and numerous branches of this design rendered necessary the co-operation of many skilled writers: some of the most noted men of science and of letters in France took part, as Helvetius, author of the once celebrated book on 'L'Esprit;' Buffon, the famous naturalist; Turgot, afterwards Minister of Finance; and Condorcet. Except Turgot, all these philosophers were free-thinkers, and were convinced that the policy and abuses of the Church in France were the great obstacles to the enlightenment of the nation. But the time had by no means arrived when they could venture to be completely outspoken. The authorities both of Church and State felt instinctively that their power rested mainly on the ignorance of the people, of whose welfare, temporal and spiritual, they took small thought; and their interest in science and literature was almost entirely of a repressive kind. It was necessary, therefore, for the Encyclopedists to insinuate their theories, whether of science or theology, in a covert or apologetic way. Nevertheless, the jealousy of the priesthood was aroused, the early volumes were suppressed, and it was only after many conflicts with authority, which tended to increase its popularity and fame, that the 'Encyclopedia' attained to a far more than national celebrity. None of the views therein set forth would be considered extreme in the present day. On the contrary, works of philosophy and religion that bring their authors high repute and esteem are published every day, which seem to have made a starting-point of the theories of the French philosophers. It might even be possible to name English divines who would be puzzled to define the points in which they differ from those unorthodox theologians. But things are to be considered with reference to their time: these views then excited hatred and fear; and on the school, and Voltaire the head of the school, obloquy was so lavishly poured that the stains have never left them. All the enjoyers of privilege and authority,—all the lesser people whose interest it was to propitiate these—all who, knowing nothing of the questions, wished to obtain a cheap repute for orthodoxy and loyalty,—joined with those who honestly believed in the mischievous tendencies of free thought to denounce its advocates. They were charged with being not only the enemies of Church and State, which they were, but of morality and order, which they were not. But at the same time there were great numbers of people, especially in England, who lamented the condition of the French nation, and who regarded Voltaire and his disciples as its benefactors. Thus no cold medium was observed in estimating him; all were either persecutors or proselytes, and he stood aloft in all the prominence of a symbol of conflict.
As the sharer, or inspirer, of the views of the Encyclopedists, and the intimate friend of D'Alembert, the editor, Voltaire took an ardent interest in their work, and contributed many articles on a great diversity of subjects. Finding, at length, that, though this was an excellent mode of expression for himself, articles were often inserted of which he did not approve, he established an independent outlet of thought, of a similar kind, in his 'Philosophical Dictionary,' in which, following the alphabetical form of arrangement, he brought together a vast variety of short essays on subjects of literature, politics, theology, grammar, and physical science, written in styles which, always attractive, were various as their matter. It may serve to rescue him from a common and ignorant accusation to give here a few extracts from the article "Atheist," in which is set forth, probably for the first time, the idea that though to have no religion is very bad, yet to have a cruel and immoral religion is worse:—
"There have been many atheists among Christians; their number is now much diminished. What looks like a paradox, but which on examination will prove to be a truth, is that theology has often precipitated minds into atheism, while philosophy has rescued them from it. It was in fact pardonable in men to doubt of a Divinity, when the only persons who asserted it disputed as to its nature. The first Fathers of the Church nearly all represented the Supreme Power as corporeal; others followed who, giving it no more extent, lodged it in a certain part of the sky: according to some the Deity had created the world in time; according to others He had created time."
After enumerating some hotly-disputed points of theology, such as even now agitate the Catholic world, he goes on:—
"When the confidants of the Divinity were seen to agree so little among themselves, and to pronounce curses against each other from age to age, while all agreed in their uncontrolled thirst for riches and grandeur; when, in another direction, the view rests on the prodigious number of crimes and misfortunes with which the earth was beset, and of which so many were caused by the disputes of these very masters of souls,—it must be confessed that it seemed permissible to a reasonable man to doubt the reality of a being so strangely announced, and to a sympathetic man to imagine that a God who had voluntarily created so many unfortunates could have no existence.
"A philosopher has been given to the world, who has discovered by what simple and sublime laws all the celestial bodies move in the abyss of space. Thus the work of the universe, better known, shows a workman; and so many laws, always constant, prove a legislator. Sound philosophy has thus destroyed that atheism to which an obscure theology lent weapons."
After producing many of the arguments used by atheists, and discussing them, he says:—
"The philosopher who recognises a God has with him a crowd of probabilities equivalent to certainty, while the atheist has nothing but doubts… It is evident that, in morals, it is most important to recognise a deity. It is certainly for the interest of all men that there should be a divinity who punishes what human justice cannot repress; but it is also clear that it is better not to recognise a God than to adore a barbarous deity, to whom human beings are sacrificed, as has been done by so many nations… It is certain that atheism is not taught in the schools of China, yet many scholars there are atheists, because they are only imperfect philosophers. But it is certainly much better to live with them at Pekin, enjoying all the gentleness of their manners and laws, than to be liable in Goa to groan in chains in the prisons of the Inquisition, and to be brought from them, arrayed in a robe of brimstone colour embroidered with devils, to die at the stake."
And he thus sums up his conclusions:—
Atheism and fanaticism are two monsters, which rend and devour society; but the atheist, in his error, preserves the reason which cuts his claws, while those of the fanatic are sharpened in the incessant madness which afflicts him."
It is easy to understand that neither Jesuits nor Jansenists would approve of writings which dealt thus with their quarrels, any more than the Romish clergy generally would like his ridicule of such modern miracles as, even now, an amazed world is sometimes called on to credit. Talking of a chronicler of these marvels he says:—
"He assures us that a little monk was so much accustomed to perform miracles that the Prior forbade him to exercise his talent. The little monk obeyed; but seeing a poor tiler fall from a roof he hesitated between the desire to save his life and the holy law of obedience. He therefore only ordained that the tiler should remain in the air to await fresh orders, and ran to report the state of things to his Prior. The Prior gave him absolution for the sin which he had committed in beginning a miracle without permission, and allowed him to finish it, provided he ended there, and did not repeat the practice."
And, in a vein equally likely to conciliate the clergy, he thus speaks "of Fanaticism:"—
"Some one spreads a rumour in the world that there is a giant in existence 70 feet high. Very soon all the doctors discuss the questions what colour his hair must be, what is the size of his thumb, what the dimensions of his nails; there is outcry, caballing, fighting; those who maintain that the giant's little finger is only an inch and a half in diameter, bring those to the stake who affirm that the little finger is a foot thick. 'But, gentlemen, does your giant exist?' says a bystander, modestly. 'What a horrible doubt!' cry all the disputants; 'what blasphemy! what absurdity!' Then they all make a little truce to stone the bystander, and, after having assassinated him in due form, in a manner the most edifying, they fight among themselves, as before, on the subject of the little finger and the nails."