This dissertation has been 64—1246 microfilmed exactly as received

CALESI, Vasile, 1926- THE "DEATH OF SOCRATES" IN DIDEROT AND THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS.

The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1963 Language and Literature, Modem

University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan THE "DEATH OF SOCRATES" IN DIDEROT

AND

THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY PHILOSOPHERS

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University

Vasile Calesi, A.B., A. M.

The Ohio State University 1963

Approved by a /I Adviser DeAaiftmentspai of Romance Languages \J TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. THE FIRST GERM OF THE SOCRATTC MYTH IN DIDEROT...... 1

II. VINCENNES AND THE APOLOGY ...... 19

III. THE DEATH OF SOCRATES IN DIDEROT'S LA PQBSIB DRAMATIQUE. "D'UNE SORT DE DRAME PHILOSOPHIQOE"...... 35

IV. LA MORT DE SOCRATE IN DIDEROT'S "DE LA PANTOMIME" .... 44

V. SOCRATES IN DIDEROT'S WORKS AFTER 1758 ...... 54

VI. ROUSSEAU AND SOCRATES ...... 79

VII. VOLTAIRE'S TREATMENT OF THE "DEATH OF S O C R A T E S " ...... 101

VIII. THE ENCYCLOPEDISTS AND THE ANTI-PHILOSOPHIC GROUP .... 128

IX. VOLTAIRE'S TRAGEDY, LA MORT DE SOCRATE...... 154

X. SAUVIGNY'S LA MORT DE SOCRATE ...... 189

XI. LINGUET'S SOCRATE ...... 208

XII. BERNARDIN DE SAINT-PIERRE...... 228

XIII. GALIANI AND A L F I E R I ...... 246

XIV. CONCLUSION...... 267

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 274

ii CHAPTER ONE

THE FIRST GERM OF THE SOCRATEC MTTH IN DIDEROT

The life of a great man, particularly when he belongs to another age, can never be a mere record of undisputed fact. Even when such facts are plentiful, the biographer's real task is one of interpretation.

He must penetrate behind these events and find the purpose and character which they disclose, but he can reach these facts only through an effort of constructive imagination. In the case of Diderot, many critics and biographers have attempted to reconstruct his life and whereabouts prior to 1743, but they have often needed all the strength of their imagina­ tion to do so. There are many blank places in their biographies, for

Diderot himself did not say much about those years. Although there is not much evidence concerning his life before 17^3, when he translated

Temple Stanyan's History of Greece from English, it would be helpful for us to investigate these early years in an attempt to establish how and when the idea of Socrates' life, and especially his death, took shape in

Diderot's mind— ideas which brought him to the point of identifying him­ self with the Greek philosopher in his later years and of adopting the title of "le Philosophe" of his time.

Raring the first half of the eighteenth centuxy, a philosopher was considered a threat to society; and this factor became a strong weapon in the hands of religious writers and anti-philosophers. When Voltaire's

1 Lettres philosophiQues appeared, the work was condemned by parliament as:

Propres & inspirer le libertinage le plus dangereux pour la religion et l*ordre de la soci£t£ civile.^

Hie Dictionnaire de l’Academie francalse (editions 169^, 173-8, and 1?40), after giving the standard Aristotelian and Stoic definition, i.e., the philosopher seeks to understand things by their first causes and princi­ ples, the philosopher leads a calm, secluded, modest life, practicing the virtues of moderation and serenity, continues as follows:

II se dit aussi quelquefois absolument, d'un homme, qui, par libertinage d*esprit, se met au desaus des devoirs et des obliga­ tions ordinaires de la vie civile et chretienne. C ’est un homme qui ne se refuse rien, qui ne se contraint sur rien, et qui mene une vie de philosophe.

Hie Dictionnaire de trevoux. 1771, which has a milder tone, nevertheless expresses a hostile attitude toward the philosopher, as we can see from the following passage:

11 se prend quelquefois dans un mauvais sens, et signifie, dur, insensible, misanthrope. "Generis humani osor." Cela est un peu bien philosophe: Ce Chagrin philosophe est un peu trop sauvage.

Another passage states:

Se dit quelquefois ironiquement d'une homme bourru, crotte, incivil, qui n'a aucun egard aux devoirs, et aux bienseances de la societe civile.

Hierefore, we see from the above that, when Diderot appeared for the first

time in the domain of letters, the term "philosophe" often had a pejora­ tive connotation.

^Joseph Poramier, Diderot avant Vincennes (Paris: Ancienne Librairie Furne, Boivin & Cie., 1939)* p« 81. The philosophic group, either because they were aware of their inability to fight this hostility or because they were in agreement with the above definitions of a "philosophe," apparently did not try to prove these definitions false. Instead, in the article "Philosophe” in the

Encyclopedie. they made a clear distinction between three types of philosophers:

(a) II n*y a rien qui coute moins a acquerir aujourd’hui que le nom de philosophe; une vie obscure et retiree, quel- ques dehors de sagesse, avec un peu de lecture, suffisent pour attirer ce nom & des personnes qui s*en honorent sans le m£riter.

(b) D’autres en qui la liberty de penser tient lieu de raisonne- ment, se regardent comme les seuls v^ritables "philosophes," parce qu'ils ont ose renverser les bornes sacrees posees par la religion, et qu*ils ont brise les entraves ou la foi mettoit leur raison. Flers de s’etre defaits des prejuges de 1*education, en matiere de religion, ils regardent avec mlpris les autres commes des ames foibles, des genies ser- viles, des esprits pusillanimes qui se laissent effrayer par les consequences ou conduit l ’irreligion, et qui n'osant sortir un instant du cercle des vlrites etablies, ni marcher dans des routes nouvelles, s'endorment sous le joug de la superstition.

It is evident from the above definitions that the Encyclopedists or, better stated, the philosophers were in agreement with the anti- philosophic group with regard to some people who called themselves

"philosophes" while in reality they were not. This type of "philosophe" was the main cause of the pejorative connotation that the word had acquired. To live a secluded life and to have a little education are not sufficient to make a "philosophe," at least not for Diderot, as we shall see. On the other hand, atheism or revolt against established religions and political principles alone are not enough for the title of "philosophe." As for Diderot) a "philosophe" must be a complete, all- around person. To support this, we shall take the third definition that was given in the "Philosophe." While the two dictionaries cited above did not have a definition of a true "philosophe," except the standard

Aristotelian definition as mentioned, the Ehcyclopedle gives a defini­ tion where the image of a "philosophe" is portrayed in the manner of

Diderot:

(c) Mais on doit avoir une idle plus juste du "philosophe," et v o i d le caractere que nous lui donnons: Les autres hommes sont determines A agir sans sentir, ni connoitre les causes qui les font mouvoir, sans meme songer qu'il y en ait. Le "philosophe" au contraire demele les causes autant qu*51 est en lui, et souvent meme les previent,et se livre A elles avec connoissance: c'est une horloge qui se monte, pour ainsi dire, quelques fois elle-meme. Ainsi il evite les objets qui peuvent lui causer des sentiments qui ne conviennent ni au bien-etre, ni a l'etre raisonnable, et cherche ceux qui peuvent exciter en lui des affections eonvenables a l'etat ou il se trouve. La raison est & l'lgard du "philosophe," ce que la grace est A l'egard du Chretien. La grace determine le chrltien \ agir; la raison determine le "philosophe."

The words "c*est une horloge qui se monte elle-meme" describe admirably the complexity and wholeness of a true "philosophe." Feelings alone, just as reason alone, are not enough to make a "philosophe." A true

"philosophe" must have the combination of both.

Although the article "Philosophe" in the Bncyclopldle was not written by Diderot, it expresses his ideas. He was the editor of the publication, and as such, he revised all the articles. In fact, in

La Promenade du eceptioue he expresses almost the same idea. In this work, he divides society into three categories, which could veiy well 5

correspond to the three definitions of the "philosophe." The "allee des

epines" could represent the first definition, the "all£e des fleurs" the

second, and the "allee des narroniers" the third. The inhabitants of the

"allrfe des marroniers," i.e., the "philosophes," were the only ones who

were not restricted to their realm. They were free to go from one place

to another as they pleased, which signifies the wide point of view of the

philosopher in regard to things and ideas. This work was written in 1747

but it was not published until 1830. What is important for us in this

writing is the fact that, although briefly, the image of Socrates is pre­

sent. When Diderot describes Cleobulus' residence, among the few things

that we find in the house is a statue of Socrates:

On arrive dans sa retraite par une avenue de vieux arbres qui n'ont jamais £prouv£ les soins ni le ciseau du jardinier. Sa maison est construite avec plus de gout que de magnificence. Les appartements en sont moins spacieux que commodes; son ameublement est simple, mais propre. II a des livres en petit nombre. Un vestibule, o m e des bustes de Socrate, de Platon, d'Atticus, de Ciceron, etc.

Later we shall see that the same picture, but in more detail, is expressed

in Mimosa's dream in Les Bi.ioux indiscrets. Judging from the favorable

image that Diderot gives of a "philosophe" in this work, it seems that at

that time he had already qualified himself as a "philosophe." What

remained to be done was to find one of the philosophers in the history of

philosophy and imitate him. Who else could better satisfy his aspirations

than Socrates, whose life was a model of virtues? Montaigne in his Essai

2 Denis Diderot, Oeuvres completes. Assejat-Tourneux (ed.) (Paris: Garnier, 1876), Vol. I, p. 178. time and time again considered Socrates as the greatest and noblest

“philosophe" ever to live. Diderot was acquainted and influenced by

Montaigne in many ways. In his first work, the adaptation of Shaftes­ bury's Essai sur le merite et la vertu (17*4-5) where Diderot speaks of nature, the influence of Montaigne seems present. It is possible that he adopted from Montaigne the cult of Socrates. In fact, when he men­ tions Socrates in this writing, he is using an image which is almost

Montaignian:

Nous naissons tous plus ou moins depraves; les uns timides, ambitieux et coleres; les autres avares, indolents et temeraires; mais cette depravation involontaire du tempera­ ment ne rend point, par elle-meme, la creature vicieuse: au contraire, elle sert a relever son merite, lorsqu'elle en triomphe. Le sage Socrate naquit avec un penchant mer- veilleux \ la luxure.3

"Le sage Socrate" was one of Montaigne's favorite expressions when he referred to Socrates. For Diderot, who was new in the realm of letters, it also became "le sage Socrate." Socrates was a man of virtue and reason who believed in individuality, truth, and government of law and intelligence. He knew of no other authority than that of knowledge.

These ideas are always a threat to a corrupted society; therefore, men like Socrates must be eliminated. Thus, Socrates was executed by the society of his time. Judging from Diderot's life, he believed in the same ideals; and his entire literary career was a struggle for the tri­ umph of his ideas.

•^Ibid.. p. 31 (footnote). The first time that Diderot mentions Socrates on a full scale is

in Les Bijoux iadiscrets. This work, as well as being a way of making money for his mistress, is a satire against the corrupted society of his

time and against many literary forms which do not interest us here. We

shall consider only the philosophical portions and particularly the part

which is related to this topic and has been considered by many critics

as a masterpiece (Cf. Rosenkranz, Diderot*s Leben und Werke. Vol. I, p. 1).

This part is Chapter 32, "Reve de Mangogul, ou Voyage dans la region des

hyphotheses." We saw that the Encyclopedic gives three definitions of a

"philosophe." As stated above, the first two have a pejorative connota­

tion. Let us now consider Mangogul*s first impressions when he reached

the building of pseudo-philosophy;

Notre course avait ete longue, lorsque j*aper$us, dans le vague de l*espace, un edifice suspendu corame par enchantement. II etait vaste. Je ne dirai point qull pechat par les fondements, car il ne portait sur rien. Ses colonnes, qui n ’avaient pas un demi pied de diametre, s'elevaient A perte de vue et soute- naient des voutes qu*on ne distinguait qu*A la faveur des jours dont elles etaient symetriquement percees.^

It may be that we place too much emphasis on these lines; but philosophy,

according to the article "PhilosopheJ* is not the study of a single virtue,

branch of human behavior, or of the human body— it is a study of man and

man*s behavior as a whole. By separating the whole and examining each

s part individually, -the entire machine or "horloge" will fail. If we

divide philosophy into branches and attempt to study each branch separately, 8 the philosophical system will collapse because this is similar to taking the branches off a tree and trying to keep them alive without the trunk and the roots.

To note a difference of ideas, let us consider the above lines with the lines that follow:

Que me demandsz - vous 1&, dit-il en soupirant, et quel souvenir me rappelez-vousl Ce temple fut autrefois celui de la philoso­ phic. Helas! que ces lieux sont changes! La chaire de Socrate etait dans cet endroit. ...^

In the above quotation, Plato remembers when the building, which now hangs in the air, was once the sacred temple of philosophy, not of a philosophical school but of Mother Philosophy. We notice that Socrates dwelled in this building when it was a real temple of philosophy, a temple built on solid ground. In fact, this could very well be con­ sidered as "the first germ of the Socratic myth in Diderot"— not the philosopher, but "le philosophe."

After considering the building which symbolizes various philo­ sophical schools or systems, let us look at the people who were prac­

ticing philosophy in it:

C*etaient des vieillards, ou bouffis, ou fluets, sans embonpoint et sans force et presque tous contrefaits. L'un avait la tete trop petite, 1 'autre les bras trop courts. Celui-ci plchait par le corps, celui-ll manquait par les jambes. La plupart n'avaient point de pieds et n'allaient qu'avec des bequilles. Un souffle les faisait tomber, et ils demeuraient & terre jusqu'a ce qu'il prlt envie A quelque nouveau debarque de les relever. Malgre tous ces defauts, ils plaisaient au premier coup d'oeil. Ils avaient dans la physionomie je ne sais quoi d'interessant et de hardi. Ils etaient presque nus, car tout leur vetement consistait en un petit lambeau d'etoffe qui ne couvrait pas la centi^me partie de leur corps.® 9

We can see clearly In the above lines the defects and shortcomings of the

different philosophical systems as they were considered by Diderot. Each

one of the inhabitants of the building had a physical defect, which in

reality symbolised the defect of the philosophical doctrine that he was

advocating. Most of them were without feet which, according to Diderot,

could symbolize the stagnancy of the school. A man is able to move with­

out his arms, he is capable of doing many things regardless of any other

physical handicap, but without feet he cannot move— he cannot progress in

time and space. It is the same with a philosophical idea. The most

important part for us to consider in this quotation is the last sentence.

Here Diderot describes the nakedness of the inhabitants of.the building.

Philosophy, as a whole, is like a cloak which covers the entire body;

if one cuts this cloak into pieces, then a single piece will cover only a

section of man's nakedness. We can deduce from this, according to Diderot,

that philosophical systems are like the pieces of a cloak and cannot cover

everything in the realm of philosophy. We notice, too, that Diderot is

retrogressive in this matter. First, he describes the almost complete

nudity of the modern philosophers of his time; and as he goes back to the

origin of philosophy, the philosophers have most of their bodies covered—

they are closer to Mother Philosophy. Diderot might have stopped when he

reached Plato and considered the latter as the true "philosophe"; yet, he

did not. Even Plato is described as:

J'en vis un dont les epaules Itaient a moitie couvertes de lambeaux si bien rapproch£s que l'art derobait aux yeux les coutures. ...? For Diderot, therefore, not even Plato’s philosophical school could be taken as the school of philosophy. After Socrates* death, many different schools were established, each one claiming to be the one near­ est to Socrates* ideas. In reality, each one was systematised into a new school and expressed new ideas. Even among Socrates' disciples, we find different systems and ideas which were considered as those of the master, but actually they were not. In the article "Socratique" of the Encyclopedic.

Xenophon was one of the closest to Socrates, according to Diderot:

Les uns s'etaient approches de Socrate, pour se disposer par la connaissance de la verite, l'£tude des moeurs, 1'amour de la vertu, a remplir dignement les premiers emplois de la republique auxquels ils etaient destines: tel fut Xenophon.®

This does not mean that Diderot did not have an admiration for Plato, but

it may be that he was impressed more tyr the simplicity and brevity of

Xenophon. In fact, in the same article, he describes Plato's embellished

style which many times does not correspond to reality. Regarding this fact,

Diderot has Socrates exclaim, "What beautiful lies the young man writes for

me." Thus, we note that for Diderot, Socrates' disciples— although close

to the master's ideas— were not sufficiently close to represent Philosophy.

Before we proceed to examine the most important factor of interest

to us in this dream, let us first see the comparison made by Diderot of the

philosophical systems and the acts of the so-called "philosophes":

II trempait, dans une coupe pleine d'un fluide subtil, un chalumeau qu'il portait & sa bouche et soufflait des bulles a une foule de spectateurs qui l'environaient et qui travaillaient & les porter jusqu'aux nues. ... Les petits echantillons d'etoffes m'avaient encore frappe, et j'avais observe que plus ils etaient grands moins ceux qui les portaient s'interssaient aux billies.9 11

The bubbles which were blown by these men symbolize the ideas expressed ty the modern philosophers. If we consider the duration of a bubble and compare it with the different philosophical ideas, the duration is not very long. Also, it is worth noticing the description that Diderot gives of the various philosophers. He believes in the supremacy of the modern­

ists over the ancients, but only through the experience that they had acquired with time. In theory he considered the ancients superior to the modernists. As evidence of this, we can examine the philosophers des­

cribed in this passage. The ones who were wearing a larger piece of cloth

to cover their nudity were the ones blowing fewer bubbles. To establish who was closer to Socrates* ideas, we find that Plato, better dressed than

anyone else, was nearer to Diderot's aim— Socrates* When Mangogul asks

Plato, "Socrate avait-il un chalumeau et soufflait-il aussi des bulles?"^®

he answers very categorically "no."

Non, non, me repondit Platon; ce n'est pas ainsi qu'il merita des dieux le nom du plus Sage des hommes; c'est a faire des tetes, c'est & former des coeurs, qu'il s'occupa tant qu'il vecut. Le secret s'en perdit a sa mort. Socrate mourut, et les beaux jours de la philosophie passerent. Ces pieces d'etoffes, que ces systematiques memes se font honneur de porter, sont des lambeaux de son habit. II avait a peine les yeux femes, que ceux qui aspiraient au titre de philosophes se jeterent sur sa robe et la dechirerent.

J'entends, repris-je, et ces pieces leur ont servi d'etiquette a leur postarite. 1

According to Plato, who expresses Diderot's ideas in this passage,

Socrates was not interested in schools and systems. His main concern was to build virtuous men and, thus, a better society. Unfortunately,

this ideal died with him. After his death, his disciples and their

followers twisted Socrates' ideas because they misunderstood them; and

they began to create different schools and systems. Plato also belongs

to this group. Although he succeeded in appropriating for himself the

largest piece of his master's cloak, it was not enough to cover himself

entirely. All the philosophers who followed him adopted the name of

"philosophe," but their ideas were very narrow. They were wearing,

therefore, a small piece of the cloth that they had cut from Socrates'

cloak and of which they were unworthy.

The image of Socrates' torn cloak seems to have been very dear

to Diderot, for he used it again in "Socratique" in the Encyclopedie:

Apres la mort de Socrate, ses disciples se jeterent sur sa robe et la dechirerent. Je veux dire qu'ils se livrerent a differentes parties de la philosophie, et qu'ils fonderent une multitude de sectes diverses, opposees les unes aux autres, qu'il faut regarder comme autant de families divisees, quoi qu'elles avouassent toutes la meme souche.^

If Diderot stresses Socrates' torn cloak and, thus, philosophy, it is

because he considered the different "isms" the main cause of philosophy's

downfall. Judging from the definitions of the word "philosophe" quoted

at the beginning, it appears that the philosophers who followed Socrates

with their narrowness in ideas and views succeeded only in creating a

hostile attitude among the people and caused the pejorative meaning of

the term "philosophe." Concerning Socrates' completeness, Diderot states it in his article "Socratique" when he speaks of Socrates' education:

Socrate entendit Anaxagoras, etudia sous Archelaus, qui le ch£rit, apprit la musique de Damon, se forma II l'art oratoire aupres du sophiste Prodicus, a la poesie sur les conseils d'Evenus, & la geometric avec Theodore, et se perfectionna par le commerce de Diotime et d'Aspasie, deux femmes dont le merite s'est fait distinguer chex la nation du monde ancien la plus polie, dans son siecle le plus celebre et le plus eclaire, et au millieu des hommes du premier genie. 11 ne voyagea point.^3

We note that Socrates' education was quite complete; and as we shall see during the course of this dissertation, Diderot tried to imitate Socrates even in this respect by studying very carefully and by basing on exper­ ience the matters that he treated in his works. This is why he placed so much emphasis on Socrates' wholeness, and that is why Plato exclaims with a sad tone in Les Bijoux indiscrets:

Qui rassemblera ces morceaux, continue Platon, et nous resti- tuera la robe de Socrate?!^

To Plato's pathetic question in regard to philosophy, Diderot does not

give us a direct answer as to the person who^will resuscitate Socrates'

philosophy. He leaves the question open. Indirectly he introduces

experimental philosophy, represented by a strong young man, as an answer

to this question. We see that experimental philosophy is superior and

more powerful than any of the theoretical-hypothetical schools or systems.

This is why during his entire literary career Diderot tried to prove the

validity of his ideas through experiments— he attempted to put together all the pieces and recreate Socrates* cloak. He exclaims in "Socratique"

Quel homme! Quel citoyent Quel magistratt Quel epouxl Quel peret Moins Xantippe meritait cette apologie, plus il faut admirer Socrate.^ Another important factor for us to understand is that he had established already the person of Socrates as the Father of philosophy.

Here he combines the two schools— the modern and ancient schools^ which caused so many difficulties during the latter part of the seventeenth and the first half of the eighteenth century. Chapter 38, "Entretien sur les lettres" is dedicated to the "Querelle des ancien3 et des niodernes."

Selim is the partisan of the modernists. Perhaps Diderot expresses some of his own ideas through Selim when the latter defends his thesis:

Y a-t-il d*autre regie que 1 ‘imitation de la nature? et n*avons- nous pas les meme yeux que ceux qui l’ont etudiee?^°

A defender of the ancients replied that all faces of nature are real, but

they are not equally beautiful. What could help us in choosing them if not the reading of the ancients, where our predecessors exposed their

ideas? Because of such a poor defense of the ancients, the modernists

took advantage of it and added:

11 ne s*ensuit autre chose de votre raisonnement, sinon que les modernes, jouissant des tresors amasses jusqu’a leur temps, doivent etre plus riches que les anciens, ou si cette comparaison vous deplait, que montes sur les epaules de ces colosses, ils doivent voir plus loin qu*eux. '

At this point, the modernists have the advantage because the cause of the

ancients is pleaded by a pedantic character, "machine & principes," who

15lbid.. Vol, XVII, p. 156. l6Ibid.. Vol. IV, p. 283.

17Ibid.. p. 284. 15 does not understand the ancients and their ideas. In his superficiality, the only thing he does is to quote them; but the quotations do not have any meaning for him— they are empty words. Such persons cannot defend a cause. Diderot attacks them for they are also the cause of the downfall of philosophy and the ancient ideas. What Ricaric, the partisan of the ancients, fails to accomplish in Chapter 38 is done by Mirzoza in her dream, Chapter ^40. She follows

the same pattern as Mangogul. Instead of being in a building suspended in the air, she finds herself in a gallery filled with books and statues.

She begins with the epic poets who are succeeded by the lyric poets.

After the greatest ancient poets have passed in review, she reaches the

realm of philosophy. The spirit that accompanies Mirzoza is worth watch­

ing; it is the spirit of Minerva, the goddess of wisdom. When Mirzoza

asks the goddess the names of the poets, the latter tells her to read

their names for herself; but when she reaches the realm of philosophy and

asks for the names of the philosophers, the goddess is eager to supply

her with this information:

Apres en avoir examine quelques autres, je me mis & interroger ma conductrice.

"Quel est celui-ci, lui demandai-je, qui porte la verit£ sur ses levres et la probite sur son visage?”

"Ce fut, me dit-elle, l'ami et la victime de l'une et de l'autre. II s'occupa, tant qu*il v£cut, A rendre ses con- citoyens eclaires et vertueux; et ses concitoyens ingrats lui oterent la vie."^8

18Ibid.. p. 295. 16

Another factor worth mentioning in Mirsoaa's dream is the order in which these people appear. The poets are led by Homer followed by

Virgil; therefore, there is a chronological order. We know that there were many philosophers prior to Socrates, yet they are not in Mirzoza's dream— the first philosopher is Socrates. Philosophy* according to

Diderot, begins with Socrates because he was a disciple of all of his predecessors, and yet of no specific one. He combined all of them and created a true philosophy— his "cloak." Politicians and pseudo­ philosophers corrupted hy vice did not appreciate him; thus, the goddess says, "Ses concitoyens ingrats lui oterent la vie."

In Les Bijoux indlscrets we have attempted to establish the begin­ ning or the germ of the Socratic myth in Diderot— a myth which was almost an obsession for him and appeared over and over again in his main works.

At a later date, Diderot repudiated Les Bi.ioux indisc rets by considering

it "la marotte" and "les grelots." Nevertheless, the two chapters con­

sidered in this paper express the ideas that we find in Diderot's writings at a later stage. As evidence that Diderot renounced this work, we find

in the "Dedicacef that he placed in front of his Memoires sur differents suiets de mathematicues (17**8), the following dedicated to Madame de P ...

Madame, Je n'opposerai point a vos reproches l'exemple de Rabelais, de Montaigne, de La Motte-le-Vayer, de Swift, et de quelques autres que je pourrais nommer, qui ont attaque, de la maniere la plus cynique, les ridicules de leur temps, et conserve le titre de sages.

Je veux que le scandale cesse; et, sans perdre le temps en apologie, j'abandonne la marotte et les grelots, pour ne les reprendre jamais; et je reviens a Socrate.19 17

Diderot wanted to end with the writing of satirical works and do something

serious. However, the last words, "et je reviens a Socrate," are not very clear. In my research for the occurrence of Socrates in Diderot*s works

prior to Les Bi.joux indisc rets, nothing of consequence was found. In con­

sulting the books of criticism on Diderot during this period, again nothing

could be found. The only time Socrates is treated extensively is in the

two chapters discussed ty this paper. We must assume, therefore, that

this return to Socrates, mentioned in his letter to Mme de P..., is a refer­

ence to these two chapters. Perhaps it was with regard to these chapters

and "je reviens a Socrate" that Voltaire wrote to Raynal on July 30, 17^9*

after Diderot*s arrests

Madame du Chatelet a ecrit au gouverneur de Vincennes pour le prier d*adoucir autant qu*il le pourra la prison de Socrate- Diderot.^O

This is the first time that Diderot is identified with Socrates by someone

else. Certainly, Voltaire was familiar with Les Bijoux lndiscrets. Per­

haps he was impressed by the goddess* statement. Moreover, was not

Voltaire as well as Diderot aware of the similarity of the political and

religious situation in Prance during their time with that of Athens during

Socrates* time? Were not the same Meletuses and Anytuses in eighteenth

century France making certain that philosophical ideas did not progress?

If so, what other philosopher could be a better example for Diderot,who

wanted to wear the cape of the "philosophy" than Socrates? Socrates was

arrested for his beliefs and killed. For Diderot, too, it was not long

20 Theodore Besterman, Voltaire*s Correspondence (Genever Les Delices, Instituteet musee Voltaire, 195^ - )» Vol. XVII, p. 3^3* before he would be arrested. On July 28, 17^+9, he was sent to prison at Vincennes. If he was not put to death, at least he experienced the pains and sufferings that a prison has to offer. What work in those painful days could better alleviate his suffering than one of Socrates' writings? Therefore, we find him translating the Apology of Socrates, which is the topic of the next chapter. CHAPTER TWO

VINCENNES AND 'IHE APOLOGY

On July 7» 17^6, Les Pensees philosophiques was condemned by the parliament of Paris to be burned. In a review entitled Le Controleur du

Parnasse. one of the reasons for the magistrate's disapproval of this work was stated as being an attempt to put an end to numerous unorthodox writings which were poisoning the mind of the public. The worst feature of this censure was a demand for the persecution of the writers, as well as their works:

Le zele de leur ministere (Le Ministere des Magistrate) ne doit done pas se borner k s'elever contre ces ouvrages; il doit encore s'Entendre k en poursuivre les auteurs et a leur faire subir une punition dont l'exemple en impose a leurs pareils.

The condemnation of Les Pensees philosophioues was the first contact that

Diderot had had with the authorities— a contact which did not have any serious consequences for him. It is important to note that a year later

Berryer, Lieutenant General of Police, received a denunciatory letter regarding Diderot. According to P. Bonnefon's "Diderot prisonnier a 2 Vincennes," the police did not begin their surveillance of Diderot until

Hardy de Levare, the priest at Saint Medard Church (Diderot's parish),

^Le Controleur du Parnasse (Amsterdam: 17*+8), Vol. Ill, p.

P. Bonnefon, "Diderot prisonnier a Vincennes," Revue d'histoire litt^raire de Prance. 1899* pp* 202*203.

19 20 denounced the "philosophe." The priest’s accusations, the surveillance of the police after the publication of La Promenade du sceotlaue. 17^7* and other charges supplied to the authorities were sufficient for them to formulate a conception of Diderot's activities aiid ideas. It was not until he published Lettre sur les aveugles in June of 17^9 that he was arrested. This was the year of the conflict between the spirit of criti­ cism, which was attaining greater proportions, and the church and government.

The three months that Diderot spent in prison have been discussed by all of his biographers; therefore, since we are attempting to estab­ lish Diderot's personality and his identification as the new Socrates, we shall not mention any of his works in prison with the exception of the one which deals with this topic. Before we consider this particular work, it would be helpful to note the contempt that Diderot's arrest produced in Voltaire. On July 29* 17^9* he wrote to d'Argental:

Quel barbare persecute done ce pauvre Diderot? Je haxs bien un pays ou les cagots font coffrer un philosophe.^

Voltaire also wrote a letter to Abbe Raynal, as mentioned in Chapter One, identifying the "philosophe" as "Socrate-Diderot." Perhaps this identi­ fication does not signify a great deal at this point; but this symbol, appearing here for the first time, will acquire great importance during the entire struggle for the publication of the Encyclopedia and, especially, during the period of Palissot's comedy, Les Philosophes.

3 Voltaire, Oeuvres completes, id. Moland (Paris: Garnier, 1877-82), Vol. XXXVII, p. 36. 21

There have been many legends concerning Diderot's activities while he was in prison. La Bigarrure^ relates that Diderot had written a series of notes in the margins of a book ty the "divin Platon," which he had managed to smuggle into prison since the guards were unaware of his ability to read Greek. Others, among whom there was Mme de Vandeul,5

Diderot's daughter, said that he had a volume of Milton's poetry, in the margins of which he wrote some notes. Naigeon, in Memoires historiques et philosophiques sur la vie et les ouvrages de M. Denis Diderot.^ stated that Diderot wrote in the margins of a copy of Milton "une traduction a sa maniere de l'Apologie de Socrate et de Platon." If it is true that

Diderot translated the Apology during his detention at Vincennes (a point which is not contradicted in the legends), we would accept Bigarrure's statement that Diderot had a copy of Plato's works with him and not

Milton's poetry. Having consulted the manuscript and compared it with another French translation, it would seem improbable that a writer, regardless of his greatness, would be able to give such an accurate ver­ sion of the original unless he had access to it. Whether or not Diderot had a copy of the original is not as important as his translation of the

Apology. What other work would be more apropos for a philosopher who was a prisoner to comment on these circumstances than the Apologv7 To

L La Bigarrure. October 30, 17^9, p. 61.

^A. T., Vol. I, p. xliv.

^Jacques-Andre Naigeon, Memoires historiques et philosophiques sur la vie et les ouvrages de M. D. Diderot (Paris: J. Briere. 1821). p. 22 understand more clearly Diderot's interest in this work, let us analyse the original written by Plato. Socrates was arrested and accused of corrupting the youth and for not believing in the gods of the Athenians. He dealt with the charge in a curious way. He said nothing to disprove the accusation of introducing new religious practices, but rather tried to entrap his accuser, Meletus, into stating that not worshipping the gods of the city was not indicative of sheer atheism. While Socrates' trial seemed to be characterised at first as being easily understood, it became increas­ ingly difficult for those who observed the trial to comprehend it.

Certainly, the reasons for these difficulties are not the historical questions nor the external reasons which permitted a clear setting— a court and an accused man who spoke in his own defense and paid the price of the "game'' with his life. From this point of view, we can see that the trial possessed dignity and simplicity. Ejy looking beyond the simple setting of the Apology, there are to be found concealed and complex thoughts, which are the main reason for the difficulty of comprehension.

Hie trial, which took place before a large crowd, dealt with matters that were very different from ordinary trials. There were two extremes: on one side, there was an exceptional degree of sublimity; and on the other, extraordinary humility and simplicity. This voice did not shout but always spoke with a calm tone; yet what is more important, the voice 23 employed reason and was not affected by emotion, although the price was death. This is evident when he says:

And so, men of Athens, I say to you, do as Anytus bids or not as Anytus bids, and either acquit me or not; but whichever you do, understand that I shall never alter my ways, not even if I have to die many times.7

In order for a defendant to think clearly, he must control his feelings.

It seems that Socrates did so and expressed his argument with simplicity, for truth is simple. Truth never changes, and the man in danger of death remained faithful to his beliefs and ideas which were based on

truth.

To express the idea of the Apology in a single word, our choice would be "universal." Socrates and theAthenian democracy are dead, but

the trial and Apology remain alive as a great work of art; and like any

"chef-d'oeuvre," it is believed to exemplify universal truth. It is proof

of the tyranny of the majority, the trampling of the voice of reason and

individual conscience by mass rule, and the common man's hatred for the

man of genius. Socrates may be dead, but the issues involved in his trial

and those which led to his death are not. That is why this work was so

dear to a philosopher in distress. Beside its historical value, it also

has dramatic value. Plato's genius is visible in every paragraph of the

brilliantly dramatic work. His Apology, however, is not the only one

that gives us an account of Socrates' trial; there is also one by Xenophon.

The two versions are not similar, and at times they are quite contradic­

tory. These "Apologies" could be written and circulated, precisely

^R. W. Livingstone, Portrait of Socrates (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1953), P. 27. 24 because there was no authentic text of what Socrates actually said.

There is one truth in both "Apologies1*: The death of Socrates, and this mattered greatly to his disciples and to persecuted philosophers through­ out the ages.

If the Apology can be considered as an eternal drama with absolute values, then it can be adapted tjy any man of any epoch, Diderot as well.

The French "philosophe" was arrested and thrown into a dungeon without the benefit of a trial. What was his crime? It was almost the same as the one committed by Socrates— both were in search of truth. Although Diderot did not use Socrates* method of searching, the fact remains that he was seek­ ing the truth, as evidenced from his works. La Mettrie wrote with respect to the persecution of the author of Lettre sur les aveugles:

Soyons done libres dans nos ecrits, comme dans nos actions; montrons-y la fiere indapendance d*un republicain— 0 vous qui etes si prudents, si reserves, qui uses de tant de ruses et de stratagemes— vous craignez le sort de ce jeune et celebre savant, a qui un Aveugle a suffi pour eclairer l'univers, et conduire son auteur a Vincennes.®

We might interpret this "eclairer l’univers" as a search for truth- philosophical truth. As the Greek society was afraid of the truth, making it necessary to eliminate Socrates in order that deception triumph, the

French society, government, and church also were afraid of the truth, new ideas, and men of letters— especially the philosophers had to be silenced.

g Julien-Jean Offray de La Mettrie, Oeuvres philosophiaues (Berlin: 1796), Vol. I, pp. 57-58. 25

In Linguet's tragedy, Socrate. Anytus outlines as follows the causes for

Socrates' persecution:

On a vu de tout temps s'elever dans nos raurs Oes sophistes sans nom, des raisonneurs obscurs, Qui faisoient a grand bruit retentir leurs ecoles De vaines questions et d'arguments frivoles. Leur babil ridicule, aveuglant les mortels, Attaquait la raison, et non pas les autels. On les meprisait trop pour craindre leur audace: Mais, sans les imiter, Socrate prit leur place. Au-lieu de s'amuser II des subtilites Dont ces faibles esprits paraissaient trop flattes, XL osa proposer a son coeur intrepide, La verite pour but, et la raison pour guide. II ne recommandait aux hommes corrompus Que 1'amour des devoirs et celui des vertus. II faisait plus encor: par de sages exemples Attaquant les abus qui soutiennent nos Temples, Et coupant les canaux qui portent aux autels Les voeux et les presens des credules mortels, Arrestes, disait-il, est-ce une vaine offrande, Est-ce un sterile voeu que le Ciel vous demande? Le Pontife accable de vos nombreux presens, Les charge sur l'autel sans vous rendre innocens

Linguet supports the idea that, in the name of religion, thehigh priest

Anytus destroyed Socrates for refusing to acknowledge a powerbuilt upon deceit. Another fact which seems to prove the falsehood of the church was

*S. N.H. Linguet, Socrate (Amsterdam: Ches Marc-Michel Rey, 1?6^), pp. 3-k. 26 the scandal of P. La Valette. Joseph Le Gras wrote with regard to this:

Un certain P. La Valette, missionnaire aux Antilles avait pense que tout en gagnant des ames au seigneur, il pourrait gagner quelque argent a son Ordre. II s'etait done lance dans 1*agricul­ ture, et le commerce. Mais on ne s'improvise pas, au pied leve, agriculteur ou commergant, meme en exploitant les negres. Tbut Jesuite qu'il etait, le P. La Valette se ruina et ne pu rembourser la maison Gouffre et Lioncy de Marseille. ... Gouffre et Lioncy attaquerent la Compagnie de Jesus, comme solidaire du P. La Valette, en reclamerent leur creance, plus 50,000 livres de doramages et interets. La Compagnie de Jesus se vit condamnee 11 payer.

The situation in eighteenth century France was somewhat similar

to that of Athens of the fourth century, B.C., in that Diderot, represent ing a threat to the government and church, was imprisoned. Taken to

Vincennes without legal trial and an opportunity to deliver his own

"apology," what would have been more fitting for Diderot to translate

than the Apology, a work which could help him to forget his misery and believe that he was delivering his defense? Socrates began his Apology as follows:

Atheniens, je ne scais quelle impression auront fait sur vous les discours de mes accusateurs; pour moi, j'ai tellement ete frappe de la confiance avec laquelle ils ont parle, quoi qu'ils n'eussent rien a dire de vrai, que je me sent pres qu'oublie moi-meme. Dans le grand nombre de faussetes qu'ils ont avancees, une chose m'etonne particulierement, e'est qu'ils aient eu 1'impudence de vous prevenir contre moi, comme un homme capable de vous seduire, et de me traduire pour eloquant. 1

If "Atheniens" could be changed to read "Frangais," these lines might

have been written ty Diderot, and would have fitted his circumstances

. ^°J. Le Gras, Diderot et l'Sncyclopedie (Paris: Societe d'lSditions Litt. et Techniques, 19^2), pp. 14?-^+8.

^ D . Diderot, Apologie de Socrate. 17^9 (Photo. No. 4903 pos.), pp. 1-2. perfectly. When Socrates said "mes accusateurs ... quoi qu'ils n'eussent rien %l dire de vrai," it appears that the emphasis is on his truth; yet at the same time, he unmasks his adversaries whom he con­ siders false men. Then, he rejects the statement made ty his accusers that he is eloquent because for him eloquence equals untruth. Diderot, not having an opportunity to face his opponents, probably would have said the same thing.

Another possible similarity between the two philosophers is the

topic of religion. Socrates did not believe in the gods of the city, but he did believe in other deities:

Convene*-vous que j'enseigne aux jeunes gens la croyance de quel- que Dieux; en ce cas j'admets done des dieux. Je ne suis pas tout-a-fait un athee, et ce n'est pas en cela que je sui coupable, quoique ces dieux ne soient pas ceux de la ville mais d'autres, ou me trouves vous coupable que d'introduire d'autres Dieux?^

As Socrates did not believe in the Olympian gods of that time, Diderot

did not believe in the religion of his time, Christianity; and in

La Promenade du sceptiaue. he expresses very clearly his attitude toward

religion. Although his ideas are in allegorical form, they are not

difficult to interpret. Allegory was very popular during the eighteenth

century because it gave the writers an opportunity to voice their ideas

without placing their lives in danger. Diderot was very thoughtful in

adding a small dictionary to La Promenade du sceptiaue for those who may

have difficulty interpreting his allegories. In this work, there are

three great avenues whose physical aspects and inhabitants are quite

different from one another. Since only the first avenue is important

for us here, the other two will be omitted. "Allee des Epines," the first avenue, is the road of religion which, ty its complicated as well as artificial obstacles, makes the walk very difficult. Those who live on this avenue have their eyes

covered, representing blind faith. The white cloaks, which must never

be soiled, signify the human conscience as religion conceives it.

Diderot wrote:

TU reconnaltras les tetes bien faites a cette marque: car on a de tout temps observe que le bandeau s'ajustait d'autant mieux sur un front qu'il etait etroit et mal fait. Mais qu'arrive- t-il de la resistance du bandeau? de deux choses l'une: ou que les bras se fatiguent et qu'il s'echappe; ou qu'on persiste a le retenir et qu'on parvient a la longue %. vaincre son effort. Ceux dont les bras se lassent, se trouvent tout a coup dans l'etat d'un aveugle-ne k qui l'on ouvrirait les paupieres. Tous les objects de la nature se presenteraient a lui sous une forme bien differente des idees qu'il en aurait rejues. Ces illumines passent dans notre allee.^3

It seems that Diderot regarded religion as a kind of blindness. If one

is blind, he can hardly know the truth which is expressed in the realm

of light.

In the "Preface" of La Promenade du sceptiaue. which might be

considered the best part of the work from a literary point of view, the

memory of Shaftesbury is evident. Cleobulus, the main character of the

first part of this work, lived with a group of philosophers in a country

setting resembling an English garden. Diderot wrote:

C'est la que j'ai joui cent fois de l'entretien delicieux de Cleobule et du petit nombre d'amis qu'il y rassemble; car il en a, et ne craint pas de les perdre. ^ 29

It is from the continuous change in appearance of the trees, hills, and valleys that Cleobulus got the inspiration for his thoughts and senti­ ments. His philosophy seems to be "locale," for it is closely related to the influence of nature:

Transportls sur le sommet d'une colline qui dominait les champs et les campagnes d'alentour, il m'inspirait le mepris pour tout ce qui eleve l'homme sans le rendre meilleur; il me montrait mille fois plus d*espace au-dessus de ma tete que je n*en avals sous mes pieds, et il m'humiliait par le rapport evanouissant du point que j*occupais a l'etendue prodigieuse qui s'offrait St ma vue. Redescendus dans le fond d'une vallee, il considerait les miseres attachees \ la condition des hommes et m'exhortait & les attendre sans inquietude et & les supporter sans faiblesse. Une fleur lui rappelait ici une pensee legere ou un sentiment delicate.

The enthusiasm inspired by nature appears to become progressively human, similar to a universal form that inspired Diderot's power as a propagator of ideas. La Promenade du sceptiaue. relating a strange polemic against religion and the oppression of an enthusiast of nature like Cleobulus, is a symbol of the vigor that Diderot extracted from his great faith in

nature. The "Preface" seems to express an exhortation to action which

Diderot addressed, not only to himself, but to the others— a demonstration

of the necessity for man to live by these principles of knowledge which

had been rendered sterile by the church and the government.

In a dialogue between Cleobulus and Ariste, the vital questions

of the period are discussed. Cleobulus, the philosopher who lived in

seclusion and who had "le caractere meme de la divinite, car il a fait le

bien, il dit la verite, il aime les bons et se suffit a lui-meme," could

not have the power to expand these new ideas by himself. He needed someone 30 who had the courage to express publicly the problems of the church and government. Cleobulus, whose ideas are quite generous and vast, tried to dissuade his interlocutor from expressing his thoughts publicly:

Ne vous attendee pas que votre ouvrage serve beaucoup^aux autres; mais craignez qu'il ne vous nuise infiniment 4 vous-meme. La religion et le gouvernement sont des sujets sacres auxquels il n'est pas permis de toucher. ... Ariste, si vous m'en croyez, vous previendrez cet eclat, vous renferraerez votre manuscrit, et ne le communiquerez qu'a nos amis.

If we could substitute Diderot for Ariste, then it would become more

evident in La Promenade du seeptique that Diderot was determined to find

the truth. Although there was no oracle to tell him that he had been

elected to find it, Diderot's oracle was his ideas and the knowledge of

truths expressed by philosophers and writers through the centuries.

After the oracle predicted that Socrates was the wisest man alive, he

decided to ascertain the truthfulness of the prediction, placing his own

life in peril. Even when he had a choice between life and death k>y

renouncing his inquisitive philosophy, he refused to do it:

Si done resolu de ra'absoudre, vous me disiez, "nous ne croyons point Anyte; soyez absous de son accusation, mais que ce soit It condition que vous finirez vos experiences, et que vous renon- ceres a cete philosophie inquisitive, ou que vous serez puni de mort," si cela vous arrive, si vous me proposiez l'absolution a ce prix, je vous repondroit: 0 atheniens je vous cheris, je vous aime, mais il vaut mieux que j'obeisse aux dieux qu'a vous tant que je respirerai et que je le pourrai je philosopherai exhortant et enseignant 11 ma maniere tous ceux qui se presenteront. Je ne cesserai jamais de leur dire: "hommes de bien, vous etes d'Athenes la ville la plus puissant et la plus renom£e par son opulence et sa sagesse, et vous n'avez point de honte de mettre tous vos soins a augmenter vos honneurs, votre reputation et vos richesses; mais quant a acquerir la prudence, l'amour de la verite, et a orner votre ame de bonnes qualites, e'est quoi vous ne penses nullement. '

17 l6Ibid.. pp. 181-83. Diderot, pp. 37-38* 31

By comparing the above passage, Ariste's answer to Cleobulus, there is a similarity worth mentioning. Ariste said that what caused him to speak against religion and the government was his desire to

enlighten some of the problems kept in obscurity by the church and the

state. He saw man struggling against prejudices:

L'intlret a engendre les pretres, les pretres ont engendre les prejuges, les prejugls ont engendre les guerres, et les guerres dureront tant qu'il y aura des prejugls, les prejuges tant qu'il y aura des pretres, et les pretres tant qu'il y aura de l'interet II l'etre. ... Imposex-moi silence sur la religion et le gouvernement, et je n'aurai plus, rien I. dire. Bn effect, que m*importe que l'academicien ... ait fait un insipide roman.

Ariste's speech represents the stimulus that persisted through Diderot's

entire literary career in search for truth. In this dialogue, we also

find tendencies which express two principles of truth. On one hand,

there were the old ideas which nourished themselves from acquired

results; while on the other hand, there were the vigorous new ideas of

which Diderot was a strong partisan and which were to give a new impetus

to the philosophic movement. In Cleobulus' sad voice, perhaps we hear

the voice of Diderot stating the difficulties in which he found himself:

Presenter la verite a certaines gens, c'est introduire un rayon de lumiere dans un nid de hiboux; il ne sert qu'li blesser leurs yeux et a exciter leur cris. Si les hommes n'etaient ignorants que pour n'avoir rien appris, peut-etre les instruirait-on; mais leur aveuglement est systematique. Ariste, vous n'avei pas seulement affaire a des gens qui ne savent rien, mais a des gens qui ne veulent rien savoir. On peut detromper celui dont l'erreur est involontaire; mais par quel endroit attaquer celui qui est en garde contre le sens commun?^9

18 A. T., Vol. I, pp. 183-84. 32

These lines appear to express approximately the ideas found in the

Apology:

Je m'adressai a un de ceux qui passent ici pour sages, esperant mettre 1'oracle en defaut au jamais, et demontrer au dieu que ce n'etait point \ moi, mais a cet horame, qu'il aurait du attribuer la superior!te en sagesse; je me mis done A 1*exami­ ner ... mais quelle fut l'issue de mon examen, e'est que cet homme se tenait pour sage et passoit pour tel, et qu'il n'en sait rien e'est ce que je tachais de lui faire domprendre, que je m'en fis un ennemi; et que j'indisposois tant ceux qui etaient presents. 0

Cleobulus said "par quel endroit attaquer celui qui est en garde contre le sens commun," and Socrates said almost the same when he told the judges, "je tachais de lui faire comprendre qu'il n'en sait rien."

Socrates paid with his life for this truth, and Diderot was sentenced

to prison.

There is a difference between the two philosophers. While

Socrates supported his ideas with a certain amount of stoicism and died

for them, Diderot acted in a manner unworthy of him. The French philoso­ pher, while in prison, denied the authorship of all his works. At first

sight, the disciple appears to be undeserving of the master. Perhaps one

of the explanations for this behavior is the possibility of the differ­

ence in age. This argument which follows and given in Diderot's defense

for his actions at Vincennes is merely a hypothesis and not a fact.

Socrates was 70 years old at the time of his trial; therefore, losing his

life for the defense of his beliefs was not too high a price to pay.

Diderot, on the other hand, was in the prime of his life; he was very

ambitious, his literary career was before him, and he had just begun one

20Diderot, p. 13. 33 of the most monumental works that had ever been written, the Encyclopedic.

He could not afford to gamble his life at that particular time. That

Diderot was not a coward, at least not during his later years, is evi­

dent from the following episode. In 1766 after the imprisonment of

La Chalotais and the persecution of the Chevalier de la Barre, the

philosophic party was afraid that the government would direct its attack

against them. During this time, Voltaire advised Diderot to leave the

country and not sacrifice himself by being inspired nd'un stoicisme

deplace." Diderot replied that he was afraid; in spite of this, he pre­

ferred to remain in Paris. As he said:

Si j'avals le sort de Socrate, songes que ce n'est point asses de mourir comme lui pour meriter de lui etre compare. ^

Diderot's reply could be compared to Socrates' answer to Crito when the

latter advised him to escape from prison and be free in another city.

Although Diderot was afraid, for this is only human, he did not lack the

courage to die when he was certain that he had immortalised his name.

It is an aim of this thesis to establish that this idea of immortality,

Diderot's thirst to become immortal through his works, was an important

one— it was almost an obsession. It is in this light that we attempt to

explain Diderot's behavior during his detention at Vincennes.

The fact that Diderot translated the Apology and began to trans­

late Crito in prison is very important since, beginning with this period,

the philosophic party, essayists,as well as playwrights, approached

Socrates from a different point of view. They saw an injustice done to

21A. T., Vol. XIX, p. 485. Socrates by condemning him to death. It was the unjust death of a just man. The government in France during the eighteenth century was per­ secuting the Encyclopedists— unjustly persecuting just men. In this respect, the last days of Socrates' life and the facts surrounding his death are the events that became very important. The Apology and Crito belong to this circle of Socratic writings and, as such, were veiy close to the hearts of the "philosophes." The Apology, then, had a double pur­ pose for Diderot. First, we may assume that in his solitude Diderot used it as an imaginary defense of his own; and secondly, it was a document of justice versus injustice, truth against falsehood, and the triumph of injustice in a society that the philosophers were attempting to correct. CHAPTER THREE

THE DEATH OF SOCRATES IN DIDEROT'S LA POfiSIE DRAMATIQUE "D'UNE SORT DE DRAME PHILOSOPHIQUE"

As we shall point out during this study, Diderot's dramatic sketch greatly influenced the playwrights belonging to the philosophic group during the second half of the eighteenth century. They tried to adopt Diderot's ideas concerning a philosophic play and imitated him by choosing the last moments of Socrates' life as the theme for their plays.

Let us analyse this sketch in an effort to establish the image of

Socrates' death as a symbol for the "philosophes" of the eighteenth century.

Diderot first expressed his opinion that'in a philosophic play

"la morale" could be presented "directement et avec succes."^ In order to be able to do so, the philosopher of the play should be a man who incarnates within himself all moral qualities. Socrates fulfilled these requirements better than any other philosopher, for he had become

1 A. T., Vol. VII, p. 314.

35 36 throughout the ages the most noble Image in the field of philosophy.

With reference to this, Montaigne said:

Je suis venu jusques icy bien & mon aise. Mais, au bout de ce discours, il me tombe en fantasie que l'ame de Socrates, qui est la plus parfaicte qui soit venue 11 ma connoissance, seroit, a mon compte, une ame de peu de recommandation: car je ne puis concevoir en ce personnage la aucun effort de vitieuse con­ cupiscence. Au train de sa vertu, je n*y puis imaginer aucune difficulte et aucune contrainte; je connoy sa raison si puis- sante et si maistresse chet luy qu'elle n'eust jamais donne moyen a un appetit vitieux seulement de naistre. A une vertu si eslevee que la sienne, je ne puis rien mettre en teste. II me semble la voir marcher d'un victorieux pas et triomphat, en pompe et a son aise, sans empeschement ne destourbier.

Diderot did not believe in the separation of dramatic genres;

rather than tragedy or comedy, he preferred a hybrid type of dramatic

play which is designated merely as drama. According to conventional

rules, Diderot*s philosophical play would not complete the requirements

of a tragedy because it would lack real eloquence and sensitivity.

Diderot believed the contrary; if a man of genius were to treat the sub­

ject of the last moments of Socrates* life, he would manage to create

the most beautiful and instructive work of art ever produced. After

these introductory remarks, Diderot gives an outline of how this play

ought to be written. We shall see that many writers attempted to

express his noble sentiments, but they had neither the philosophical

temper nor Diderot's sensitivity. From a beautiful theme, they created

something only mediocre.

^Pierre Villey, Essays de Montaigne, ed. Nouvelle (Paris: Felix Alcan,1922), Vol. II, p. 12&. 37

Diderot inagines the first scene to take place in prison. The philosopher is chained and lying on straw. He is asleep while his friends, who have succeeded in corrupting the guards, arrive to tell him of their plans for his escape.

Tout Athenes est dans la rumeur: mais l'homme juste dort. De 1'innocence de la vie. Qu'il est doux d'avoir bien vecu, lorsqu'on est sur le point de mourir.3

In the simplicity of the above-quoted lines, which represent for Diderot an entire scene, we find a parallel of life and death. The image of a man sleeping without anything troubling his sleep approximates the image

of death. What is sleep if not a state of latency which could very well

represent a bridge between life and death? To be able to fulfill these

requirements, a man must be "juste," for only a good man, a moral man,

is capable of sleeping quietly without his conscience troubling the

sanctity of his rest. Ihat a man be perfect morally is not enough,

however, to call him "juste." He must also have led an innocent life.

In this sense, "juste" equals "innocent." In this respect, death is not

painful because it represents only eternal sleep. What a difference

there is between the image of "l'homme juste dort" and that of "Tout

Athenes est dans la rumeur" t The amorphous mass represented by the

entire population of a city— a mass without personality or individu­

ality— is troubled because of the injustice which it has done. Since

the mass lacks the qualities of justice and innocence, its conscience is

not clear and it cannot sleep quietly. It is evident from these few lines

3A. T., Vol. VII, p. 315. that from what Diderot calls a scene, a playwright could create not only a scene but several acts. In these lines, one might also see an anti­

thesis between good and evil— evil represented by the people and good, which is more difficult to perform, portrayed by the philosopher.

While everyone is in agitation, the philosopher awakens; and the only expression on his face is one of surprise in seeing his friends so

early. Knowing that everyone, even some of his former friends, is against

him; still Socrates appears impassive. There is not even an expression

of pain or regret on his face— only astonishment. His friends tell him

of their plan for his escape. It is here that "l’homme juste et innocent"

appears in all his greatness and nobility. Rather than accept his free­

dom and the most valuable gift of all, life, he refuses their offer:

Du respect qu'on se doit a soi-meme, et de la saintete des lois.

In the action of Socrates' friends, there seems to be a combination of

selfishness and love— selfishness because they feel lost and unsafe to

face life according to Socratic moral standards without the master, who

is like bread for their souls and minds, leading them on; and love because

they are aware of the danger to which they are exposing themselves in try­

ing to help Socrates escape. There is, however, a vast difference between

the disciples (half.philosophers) and the master (an integral philosopher)

in the fact that, while the disciples cannot understand the importance of

self-respect and continuous support of their philosophical ideas, the

master is fully aware of this. He realises that during his entire life 39 he attempted to create something beautiful— a better man and, thus, a better society. This idea, in order to be perfect, did not content

itself only with the philosopher’s good deeds during his whole life,

but it demanded more— it required his life. Without this last supreme

sacrifice^ the structure would be incomplete, and as such, destined to

succumb during the years. Socrates was aware of the importance of his

sacrifice; therefore, he believed it was his duty to accept his fate for

the triumph of truth and justice. As for the sanctity of the laws, he

had always believed in law and order; and many times during his life he

proved this belief on the battlefields. Thus, it is unimportant if the

laws are just or unjust as far as the individual is concerned. If the

state in order to preserve its safety demands the sacrifice of an indivi­

dual, the latter does not count. Perhaps it is in these facts that

Diderot found the greatness of Socrates. The "philosophe" was not afraid

to die for the safety of his country and the triumph of his beliefs and

ideas, even though he knew he died unjustly.

While he was attempting to convince his friends of the importance

of his duty towards himself as an individual and the laws of his country,

a guard came and freed him from his chains. At that critical moment of

his life, "le philosophe" had no remorse or complaints. We see him very

calmly relating to his friends the fable of pain and pleasure. It was at

that moment when:

Les juges entrent; et avec eux, les accusateurs de Socrate et la foule du peuple. II est accuse; et il se defend.5

5Ibid. We notice here the same image that we had in the first scene. "Les

juges" do not represent individuals; they symbolise the state and, thus,

the law which Socrates respects and to which he submits willingly.

Socrates' accusers also lack individuality. The only individual that

exists in this scene and upon whom the light is focused is Socrates,

"l'homme juste et innocent." The people are represented also as a mass

without soul or personality. Hence, the parallel "Tout Athenes est dans

la rumeur" and "la foule du peuple" are in a way the same image. This

mass does not have the willpower nor the mental strength required to

choose good; therefore, it allows itself to be dragged ty evil. It was

stated that also in the first scene Socrates appears as an individual,

"l'homme juste." If "l'homme" were capitalised, it could very well

express the good part of mankind against "tout Athenes" which represents

evil; but then it would no longer have the idea of individuality, and the

image of Socrates would lose some of its greatness. It is apparent that

Diderot tried to point out clearly the image of Socrates as an individual

in both scenes.

It has been stated while discussing the second scene that

Socrates believed in the sanctity of the laws; but during his trial, in

the Apology. by trying to defend himself, he was in an indirect way

attempting to defeat the laws and, thus, contradicting himself. However,

in the same scene, we saw that he had a duty towards himself and his

beliefs. It was natural for him to defend himself, not in order to save

his life but for the triumph of truth to which he had dedicated his life. With regard to the trial scene, Diderot said that the best way to succeed was to be as close as possible to the truth. According to him, this should be a real trial scene:

H faut ici s'assujetir au coutume: il faut qu'on lise les accusations, que Socrate interpelle ses juges, ses accusateurs et le peuple; qu'il les presse; qu'il les interroge; qu'il leur reponde. II faut montrer la chose comme elle s'est passee: et le spectacle n'en sera que plus vrai, plus frappant et plus beau.

The way Diderot conceived this scene with all its simplicity would not satisfy the dramatic rules required in a tragedy. Begardless of this, one can see that in a few words Diderot exposes the procedures of an entire legal trial. He departs with an orderly procedure. First, the prosecution must read the charges which are brought against the defendant next, the defendant or his counselor must introduce his defense. If the above were accomplished, then the scene would be more beautiful and pathetic since it would be closer to the real historical facts in the

case of Socrates and, moreover, would represent a realistic picture of

an everyday legal trial. Judging from the fact that Diderot discussed

this scene so carefully and that he had translated the Apology and had

encountered difficulties with the publication of the Encyclopedic during

those years, it would not seem so strange if we assumed that Diderot was

preparing his own apology instead of Socrates*.

After the defense follows the debate of the judges or the jury:

Les juges se retirent, les amis de Socrate restent; ils ont pressenti la condamnation. Socrate les entretient et les con­ sole. De l'immortalite de l'ame.' hz

In this short outline where Diderot attempted to give a picture of the last moments of Socrates' life, one thing is quite evident. Everything seems to turn around the image of Socrates, "l'homme juste et innocent."

Here is the hero who appears as a perfect, moral man— a man who is almost entirely removed from everyday life, existing in a world of his own.

Here is the image of Socrates, "le Philosophe," who lives and dies accord­ ing to the moral standards that he has imposed upon himself. When his friends and disciples foresee his condemnation and death and begin to lose their courage, we see Socrates, the one to be consoled and encour­ aged, as the man who has the power to console them. This peace and

serenity of mind was possible only because of his beliefs and ideas.

The discussion about the immortality of the soul is followed by

the verdict of the judges. Here it is interesting to note the stoicism with which Socrates accepts the death sentence:

II est juge. On lui annonce sa mort. II voit sa femme et ses enfants. On lui apporte la cigue. II meurt.®

This is the end of the act or play as Diderot conceived it. It opened

in prison where the philosopher was sleeping. Nothing troubled his

sleep, which was similar to death. His fate was accomplished, but his

mission was not fulfilled. It was, therefore, necessary for him to

interrupt his sleep in order to defend his ideas and then return to pri­

son and continue his sleep. In the first scene there is "l'homme juste

8Ibid. dort," while in the last, "l'homme /juste/meurt.H As Diderot said:

Qu’il est doux d ’avoir bien vecu, lorsqu'on est sur le point de raourir1 and in ti^e last scene:

II est juge. On lui annonce sa mort ... On lui apporte la cigue. II meurt.”

Hence, Socrates* sleep was hindered for a few moments to enable him to defend and fight for the triumph of his ideas. Having accomplished his

task, he returns to eternal sleep— death.

Diderot ended the outline by stating the greatness and beauty of

this subject. For someone to be able to create a play according to his

simple rules, that person needed to possess the soul of a "philosophe," which would enable him to actually live the part. Diderot was that man,

but his dedication to the publication of the Encyclopedia did not permit

him to write this philosophical play, which might have been a great work

of art. Many other playwrights who attempted to write the play did not

fully succeed. CHAPTER FOUR

"LA MORT DE SOCRATE" IN DIDEROT'S "DE LA PANTOMIME"

We saw in the previous chapter that in La Po£sie dramatigue. under the title of "Une Sorte de drame philosophique," Diderot chose the last moments of Socrates' life and gave an outline of what he con­ sidered to be a good topic for a philosophic play. In the same work under the title "De la Pantomime," Diderot returns to this topic; but this time the plot is concentrated only on the last moments of Socrates' life, after his trial. Diderot, in returning to this topic, stated:

Mais il me prend envie de vous esquisser les derniers instants de la vie de Socrate. C'est une suite de tableaux, qui prouver- ont plus en faveur de la pantomime que tout ce que je pourrais ajouter. Je me conformerai presque entierement a l'histoire. Quel canevas pour un poete.-*-

Here we are going to ignore the definition and importance of "pantomime" since it is not connected with our subject. What is interesting to us is the fact that Diderot in the same work chose the same subject twice as an example in supporting his arguments. It is also important to us to point out the significance of this plot and the image of Socrates— the just man unjustly executed— for many philosophers. One may wonder why Diderot chose to repeat the figure of Socrates, rather than find

^•A. T., Vol. VII, p. 38.

44 **5 another executed philosopher, for example Seneca, whose career he knew well. Seneca, however, lacked something, an innocent and perfect moral life. As we shall see later when Diderot wrote his essay on Seneca, he compared Seneca's death with that of Socrates'. Or Diderot might have chosen the figure of Cato. Montaigne believed, at an early stage in his career as a writer, that Cato was the most noble figure among the philoso­ phers. As he revised his work later in life, Cato was replaced hy

Socrates in many cases. In the following lines, we have an example of this change:

Tout mort doit estre de mesmes sa vie. Nous ne devenons pas autres pour mourir. J'interprets tousjour la mort par la vie. Et si on me la recite d'apparence forte, attaches a une foible vie, je tiens qu'elle est produitte d'une cause foible et sort- able li sa vie.

L'aisance done de cette mort, /Cato'sJ et cette facilite qu'il avoit acquise par la force de son ame, dirons nous qu'elle doive rabattre quelque chose du lustre de sa vertu? Et qui, de ceux qui ont la cervelle tant soit peu teinte de la vraye philosophic, peut se contenter d'imaginer Socrate seulement franc de crainte et de passion en 1 'accident de sa prison, de ses fers et de sa condamnation? Et qui ne reconnoit en luy non seulement de la feraet£ et de la Constance (e'estoit son assiette ordinaire que celle-lA), mais encore je ne sgay quel contentement nouveau et une allegresse enjouee en ses propos et fagons dernieres? A ce tressaillir, du plaisir qu'il sent £l gratter sa jambe apres que les fers en furent hors, accuse il pas une pareille douceur et joye en son ame, pour estre desenforgee des incommodites pass£es, et ii mesme d'entrer en cognoissance des choses advenir? Caton me pardonnera, s'il luy plaist; sa mort est plus tragique et plus tendue, mais cette-cy est encore, je ne sgay comment, plus belle.2

In analysing "De la Pantomime," we find that Diderot made a few changes as compared to "D'une Sort de drame philosophique." We pointed

2Villey, p. 128. out in Diderot's earlier version of the death of Socrates that the light was focused entirely on Socrates and that his disciples were unsure of themselves and afraid. In this new outline, however, the image has changed:

Ses disciples, n'en avaient point la pitie qu'on eprouve aupres d'un ami qu'on assists au lit de la mort. Cet homme leur par- aissait heureux; s'ils etaient touches, c'etait d'un sentiment extraordinaire mele de la douceur qui naissait de ses discours, et de la peine qui naissait de la pensee qu'ils allaient le perdre.^

The light is notfocused on Socrates; Socrates is the light itself. He

is the light which radiates in all directions and illuminates thepeople

that surround him. His friends, touched by this light, do not feel pity

for their master, only slight sorrow for losing their source of light.

In the first outline "of a philosophical play," Socrates appeared bound

and then unbound before his trial and sentence:

On y voit le philosoghe enchalne.... Les gardes arrivent; on lui ete ses chalnes.

In this version, Socrates is unbound at the last moment when he is about

to take the hemlock:

Lorsqu'ils entrerent, on venait de le delier. Xantippe etait assise aupres de lui, tenant un de ses enfants entre ses bras.

Another factor worth mentioning is that in the second version everyone

acquires an individuality. It is no longer the amorphous mass; they are

Socrates' disciples and friends. Even Xanthippe becomes an individual 4? for a moment, but then Diderot changes Xanthippe with "sa femme”:

Le philosophe dit peu de choses a sa femme; reals combien de choses touchantes un homme sage, qui ne fait aucun cas de la vie, n*aurait-il pas 3i dire sur son enfant?®

If Socrates said very little to his wife, it was because he did not believe she had the necessary intelligence to understand his ideas.

Her presence in the prison at this crucial moment could only trouble the philosopher's tranquility, thus, he had to send her away. In Voltaire's play, La Mort de Socrate. after the court pronounced the verdict and the philosopher returned to his cell, he exclaimed:

Tout ce que je crains S. present, e'est que ma femme Xantippe ne Viene troubler mes derniers moments et interrompre la douceur du recueillement de mon ame.'

Both French philosophers expressed the idea that Xanthippe's presence in prison troubled the philosopher's serenity, and perhaps there was a reason. These last moments for Socrates were the most important of his life. IXiring the few minutes remaining, he had to summarize everything he believed and preached during his entire life. The only people cap­

able of understanding him, the ones who could carry on the seed of his philosophical beliefs, were the men who had been close to him for a long

time, his disciples. It may be that he could have found a better listener

in his son than he found in his wife, but he was only a child, incapable

of comprehending the tragedy that went on in Socrates' soul. His pre­

sence, as well as that of his mother, could only trouble Socrates, That

Xanthippe did not have the necessary educational background to understand

7Voltaire, Vol. VIII, p. 491.Ibid. 48

Socrates, in a way, was true for Diderot also. Rosenkran* indicates something of this when he reminds us: Dass die Ehe mit Annette Champion Diderot in geistiger Beaiehung nicht befriedigte und dass er deshalb in eine Liebschaft mit Frau von Puisieur gerathen war, die mit sei- nem Gefangniss in Vincennes endete. This was nothing unusual for it was quite natural for men of ideas to try

to find companionship among educated people so that they could express

their ideas and be understood. In the case of Socrates, these were his

disciples; and for Diderot, his friends.

Diderot might have avoided this pathetic scene between a man who

is about to die and his wife, but perhaps he wanted to give more power

to the firmness of Socrates* character. This fact is apparent later in

the scene when Socrates tries to console and encourage his disciples by

appealing to their reason and their prestige as philosophers:

II disait A celui-ci: *0>u est la fermete, la philosophie, la vertu?" A celui-lk: "C'est pour cela que j'avais tfloigne les femmes. ...n°

He had sent away his wife so that he could retain his firmness, and now

his friends and disciples were behaving worse than women, which is

unworthy of a philosopher. Socrates' mission in this world was about to

be accomplished, and nothing earthly could touch him any longer - -not

even the sight of his wife and child, his own flesh and blood. After

all, was he not the one who propounded the idea that the individual does

not count when he must be sacrificed for something of greater value? In

g Karl Rosenkrans, Diderot's Leben und Werke (2 vols; Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1866), Vol. II, p. 1.

9A. T., Vol. VII, p. 383. **9 this particular moment, there was something more important for the philosopher than the individual. There were his ideas which were to set the basis for a better world. Socrates could not sacrifice all of this because of the weakness of a woman. Perhaps this is the reason he responds to Xanthippe*s cries and laments with a dry remark to Crito:

"Hon ami, faites conduire cette femme ches elle."^®

After this distressing scene which troubled Socrates* serenity for a moment, we see that he regained his calmness and became master of his emotions:

Alors, le philosophe prenant un visage serein, s'assied sur son lit, et pliant la jambe d'ou l*on avait ot£ la chaine, et la frottant doucement, il dit: "Que le platsir et la peine se touchent de prist Si fsope y avait pense, la belle fable qu*il en aurait faiteP'H

There seems to be two reasons for Socrates* calmness. First, there is the pleasure he received from the fact that although he was going to die, in a certain way, he would die free. "On lui avait ote la chaine" may symbolise the freedom of the soul after it is freed from the body, which represents the chain. It is the idea of man's freedom and his escape from a world of pain and suffering. Another reason, as mentioned above, might be the absence of his wife. After Xanthippe left, the philosopher was free to talk to his disciples. Now he was tranquil and could express his ideas. I think that this is what Diderot aimed at— Socrates, the philosopher, summing up his philosophy before taking the hemlock. 50

Besides, did Diderot not take upon himself the cloak of the "Philosophe" of the eighteenth century?

After the consideration and speculation on the subject of pain and pleasure, Socrates returns briskly to reality, his approaching death:

* • 12 "Les Atheniens ont ordonne que je m'en aille, et je m'en vais. ..."

Here he makes no distinction between the people of Athens. Historically speaking, among the people of the jury, there were many who voted in his favor, but not the majority. Athens represented the state, and as it was

stated previously, the state had the right to dispose of individuals for

its safety. The fact that the state could be represented by several political parties, corrupted and decadent politicians, was of no impor­

tance. The important factor was the state, Athens, who ordered that

Socrates die; and the order was executed.

In some respects, Diderot did the same as Socrates when confronted

with life in exile. Perhaps it is true that his life was not immediately

threatened, but he was afraid for his life more than once. His work was

his life— the Encyclopedic, which in a way represented his immortality or

the work which would survive after governments and monarchs were dead,

seemed about to be destroyed. Yet, during the time of trouble, 1750-1?60,

he refused to leave Paris and finish his work in another country where it

was safer.

After Socrates' reference to the Athenians, he returns to a topic

which was dear to him: "Dites a Evenus qu'il me suivra, s'il est s a g e . " ^ 3

12Ibid. 13Ibid. 51 He goes on to express his ideas on the immortality of the soul. Diderot is not concerned with this matter; therefore, he leaves it to others:

"Tentera cette scene qui l'osera. . .."^ At first glance the words

Hqui l'osera" would seem as if Diderot lacked the necessary preparation and ability to write a similar scene. Perhaps this was true. When

Socrates discussed the subject of the immortality of the soul in Phaedo.

it is evident that his speeches are too long (sometimes long speeches

in a drama weaken the dramatic effect). Diderot was interested in por­

traying the last moments of Socrates' life with all their dramatic

grandeur. He was trying to convey Socrates' impassiveness before his

death and the immortality of his ideas:

Pour moi, je me hate vers mon objet. Si vous avez vu expirer un pfere au milieu de ses enfants, telle fut la fin de Socrate au milieu des philosophes qui 1'environnaien t.15

In these lines, it is evident that the image of Socrates acquired a

fatherly look in regard to his disciples, who at this point became

"philosophes." Socrates was a just man and a good speaker, and while

he spoke no one interrupted him. Only when Socrates finished, Crito

asked him: "Qu'avez-vous Si nous ordonner?"^ Socrates* answer was

short and meaningful:

De vous rendre semblables aux dieux, autant qu'il vous sera possible, et de leur abandonner le soin du reste. '

What could be more perfect than the gods who represent the highest ideal

toward which man aspires? Even if Socrates did not believe in the

Olympian gods and Diderot did not believe in the Judeo-Christian God,

14 1 5 16 17 Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. 52 they both believed in an ideal life and that when man approached this ideal, he can be considered a good man, able to contribute to the forma­ tion of a better society. As for the last remark "et de leur abandonner le soin du reste," I think it has no value any longer. If man reaches a relative perfection, that is sufficient for he can never attain the per­ fection of God. this idea is better expressed in the following lines:

Criton. Aprfes votre mort, comment voulet-vous qu'on dispose de vous?

Socrate. Criton, tout comme il vous plaira, si vous me retrouves. Puis, regardant les philosophes en suriant, il ajouta: J'aurai beau faire, je ne persuaderai jamais 11 notre ami de distinguer Socrate de sa depouille.

If this last remark was meant for Crito, then it appears that the latter was not a perfect philosopher because he could not distinguish between

Socrates* spirit and body. If this were true, then Diderot seems to have intended this remark for pseudo-philosophers of his time, and particularly for his enemies. Perhaps Socrates' following statement could support our belief:

Alors il recommanda sa memoire II ses amis, et leur dit, d'une voix qui s'affaiblissait: "Dans un moment, je ne serai plus. ... C'est par vous qu'ils me jugeront. ... Ne reproches ma mort aux Athenians que par la saintet! de votre vie. *9

Here is the image of the philosopher who is not afraid to die, but who

fears the death of his ideas. He bequeathes his memory and the immortality

of his philosophical beliefs to his disciples. If they grasped his ideas

and are capable of applying them in their actions of everyday life, then posterity will remember him. It will be through their actions that the

Athenians and the entire world will recognise the injustice of his death.

However, if they fail to live up to the standards that he established,

his enemies will triumph.

The last statement, "Dans un moment, je ne serai plus. ... C'est

par vous qu'ils me jugeront. ..." is Diderot's creation since it does not

occur in any of Plato's Dialogues. This is one of the main threads on

which Diderot based the image of Socrates' last moments of his life.

- This represents the injustice done to the Greek philosopher and his

triumph over his enemies in the eyes of posterity. The idea of a writer

becoming immortal by means of his works is evident in Diderot's letters

to Falconet, in his essay on Seneca, and other works. It seems that

Diderot used this idea as a weapon and an answer to the opponents of the

Encyclopedists. CHAPTER FIVE

SOCRATES IN DIDEROT'S WORKS AFTER 1758

We have seen in the previous chapters on Diderot that the French philosopher was greatly concerned with Socrates' unjust death. Although this concern lasted all his life, it seems that as the years went ly and the threat of his opponents was diminishing the image of Socrates acquired a new dimension— Socrates as a road to immortality through his unjust death. Having finished the publication of the Encyclopedic.

Diderot was anxious to immortalise himself. It appears that he was con­ cerned with what judgment posterity would pass on him. We saw that while in prison at Vincennes in 1749 he translated Plato's Apology. Later in

1758 in La Poesie dramatique. twice he used the death of Socrates as a subject for a play. After this date, however, with the exception of the article entitled "Socratique," undated, there is no concrete work dedi­ cated to Socrates as such; but he used the latter*s death in almost all

of his controversial works.

In "Socratique," Diderot gave an idealistic picture of the Greek philosopher— his life, ideas, etc. Socrates emerges as the ideal citisen,

husband and father, philosopher and master. After Socrates' talk with

his son, who was complaining about his mother's strictness, he reminds

54 55 him that if she is strict it is because she loves him. lb which Diderot exclaimed:

Aht SocrateI je te ressemble peu; mais du moins tu me fais pleurer d'admiration et de joie.

As he stated, he is far from being like Socrates although deep in his heart he might have believed that he was as great. The remainder of the article does not express anything new, but rather the usual stories about

Socrates' life and philosophy.

In 1762 in Le Neveu de Rameau when "Lui" attacks the man of genius by stating that:

Si un enfant apportait en naissant, sur son front, la caracter- istique de ce dangereux present de la nature /genie/ il faudrait ou l'etouffer, ou le jeter aux cagnards.

"Moi," Diderot, after having tried to explain that men of genius are exceptional and strange sometimes, continued:

On meprisera les siecles qui n'en auront point produit. Ils feront l'honneur des peuples che* lesquels ils auront existe; tot ou tard on leur eleve des statues, et on les regarde comme les bienfaiteurs du genre humain.3

He further stated that perhaps injustice and lies may seem to triumph momentarily, but justice will prevail in the end. Ihere are two types

of laws: some which express an absolute generality, and others which owe

1A. T., Vol. XVII, p. 156.

2Ibid.. Vol. V, p. 393. 3Ibid.. p. 39^. 56 their existence to the blindness of the people or the necessity of cir­ cumstances. Diderot ended his statement with:

Celles-ci ne couvrent le coupable qui les enfreint, que d'une ignominie passagere, ignominie que le temps reverse sur les juges et sur les nations, pour y rester a jamais. De Socrate ou du magistrat qui lui fit boire la cigue, quel est aujourd'hui le deshonore?^

It is interesting to notice here that Diderot expresses the idea of

immortality through creativity. Even if a man of genius is misunder­

stood, persecuted, or put to death, he has accomplished his mission in

life if he has contributed to the progress of humanity through his

creative works. Posterity will recognize his value and will build

statues in his honor even though his contemporaries failed to recognize

him. In order to support his statements, Diderot chose his idol, Socrates,

as an example. Since this idea of immortality through creativity, which

seemed to have become an obsession with him from the l?60's on, appears

throughout his entire works, we shall limit our examples to the passages

where our topic, "the death of Socrates," is mentioned.

In Correspondance litteraire. Grimm relates a conversation with

Diderot with regard to Rousseau who was forced to flee Paris in order not

to be apprehended. Diderot said:

C'est done I. la justice des siecles que le sage d ’Athenes dut commettre les interets de sa memoire et l*apologie de sa vie. La posterite a venge Socrate opprime; elle aurait enleve la marque d'infamie des epaules du Citoyen de Geneve, et l ’aurait imprime pour jamais au front de ses juges. Ce n ’est pas Rousseau qui aurait ete deshonore, c ’est le siecle et le pays qui auraient vu porter cet inique jugement.^

k Ibid. ^Fl*£deric-Melchior Grimm, Correspondance litteraire. ed. M. Tourneux (16 vols.; Gamier, 1877-82), Vol. V, p. 13^. At this time the split between Rousseau and Diderot was not definite; but later when he became bitter against the author of Emile, he changed his feelings toward his former friend. While this fact is of no impor­ tance here, what matters is that at this time Diderot compared Rousseau's fate to that of Socrates'. Posterity avenged Socrates and would avenge the memory of Rousseau as well; it would throw the mark of infamy on the judges rather than Rousseau. We might add that Diderot could have found many examples in the history of mankind to whom he could compare himself and his friends, but Socrates* fate was his ideal.

The idea of immortality and the judgment of posterity acquired greater proportions between the years 1765 and 1767— the time of his controversial debate with Falconet. In 1765 in a letter to Sophie

Volland, Diderot wrote:

Je croyais etre It la fin de ma corvee; point du tout; quelques plaisanteries du sculpteur Falconet m'ont fait entreprendre tres serieusement la defense du sentiment de l'immortalite et du res­ pect de la posterite.®

It then appears that during the winter of 1765 Diderot and Falconet began a discussion on the subject of immortality through creative works and the judgment of posterity. The dispute lasted several years and it dealt with various topics, such as painting, sculpture, and the princi­ ples of creative art in all its aspects. They did not, however, reach an agreement during their discussions; and later they decided to continue it in writing. Their correspondence lasted until 1767* but the letters,

Denis Diderot, Lettres & Sophie Volland. ed. Babelon (Paris: Gallimard, 1930), Vol. II, p. 323. instead of concentrating on the main issue, seemed to have digressed from one subject to another. At one time they dealt with Pliny the

Elder, another time with Pausanias, and finally with the famous painting of Polygnotus. It seems that 1765 was a good year for the two friends, for Catherine II of Russia acquired Diderot's library, a fact which gave him material security, and Falconet was commissioned by her to do the statue of Peter the Great in Saint Petersburg.

The dispute on the judgment of posterity, which lasted until the winter of 1773 when the two friends saw each other for the first time

since 1767 in Saint Petersburg, had had enough time to penetrate and be

elaborated on by Diderot. He attempted to convince Falconet of the

validity of his ideas, but all his efforts were in vain because the

sculptor seemed to have deviated from the main issue. Falconet reduced

it to a question of individual order or, we might say, to a psychological

problem; and he based his statements on personal motives where the indivi­

dual acta according to the laws of justice. By so doing, he weakened

Diderot's statements and replies, which seem to have a false note.

Entrenched behind his individual analyses, Falconet was able to elude all

general arguments because Diderot— no more than anyone else could do under

these circumstances— could never prove that there was, is, or will be a

person who is just, virtuous, or heroic without at the same time being

aided by the anxiety as to how future centuries will judge him. Diderot's

statement is too general to be a factual or absolute truth; it is too

venturous a wager to affirm that a judgment will be invariable throughout the ages. Diderot sometimes tried to convince himself that he was right; but because of his idealism and impracticability, he was unable to prove it. His difficulty was not a result of his incapability; perhaps it was because he let himself fall into the field chosen by his adversary, who many times forgot that this was not a question of analysing individual cases, but rather of a general truth, valid and necessary for society as a whole. What is important in this judgment of posterity, which Diderot brandished with a strong hand without know­ ing where it would lead him, is that he used it although he was aware that the world is forever changing. He believed it necessary for a man of genius to take some risks in order to lay the foundation of tomorrow’s world— a world that he and his contemporaries would never see. In order to convince Falconet of the validity of his argument, many times he used as an illustration his favorite philosopher, Socrates. In his letter of

February 15, 1766, Diderot wrote, after having mentioned several cases where posterity paid tribute to great men:

Je n’ai trouve qu'un moyen de m*assurer la duree de votre eloge quand je l'ai merite, de l’esperer quand il m*a manque, de me consoler quand j'en desespere, c’est d'avoir sous les yeux le grand juge qui nous jugera tous: la posterite.'

7A. T., Vol. XVIII, p. 10?. 60

He continued by paraphrasing Plato's Apology:

Socrate disait aux Atheniens, lorsqu'il oubliait devant eux la cause de sa vie, pour plaider celle de leur honneur: "Atheniens, je sais bien comment on vous flechit, comment on vous touche, comment on obtient grace de vous; mais j'aime mieux perir que de recourir a des moyens que je ne blame pas dans les autres, mais qui ne vont point a mon caractere. C'est quand je ne serai plus que vous vous rappeleret ma conduite et mes discours. Atheniens, vous me regretteres." Est-ce que nous ne sommes pas tous deux dans Athenes? Est-ce que le raeme dernier exil ne nous attend pas? Est-ce qu'il ne nous est pas doux de jouir par anticipation des regrets d'une patrie ingrate? Heureux celui que cette idee accom- page jusques aux portes de la ville!°

It appears then that Diderot counted on Socrates' fate and his recogni­

tion by posterity to justify to himself his own fate.

Perhaps we attempt to overemphasise the image of Socrates in

Diderot and the latter's desire to assimilate his fate to that of the

Greek philosopher, but it occurs over and over again in his works. In

the above passage, it seems that Diderot expressed it very clearly to

Falconet when he said, "Est-ce que nous ne sOrames pas tous deux dans

Athenes" In other words, Socrates died and posterity immortalised him;

we, too, are misunderstood by our generation, yet we hope that the future

will pay us the same tribute that it paid Socrates, if we are worthy of

it. lhis is even more plausible if we take into consideration the fact

that in a letter to Sophie Volland, December 10, 1?65, he used a passage

almost identical to the one above.

In his controversy with Falconet, Diderot seemed to use Socrates

as a means for giving complete freedom to his thoughts. It appears that

he was not seeking any kind of comfort during his life except that of

8 Ibid. 61 not dying before having accomplished the great work of art that he felt capable of creating. This is the idea from which Diderot never seemed

to vary and of which Falconet never seemed to be aware. Diderot wanted to modify a human being who was not free, but how to modify him is a problem which was difficult to solve. Although Diderot did not find the

solution during his dispute with Falconet, he had an opportunity to return

to this problem again, especially in 1773-7^ when he wrote the Rlfutation de l’ouvrage d*Helvetius intitul6 "L’homme." In this work against a

dead friend, the interrupted dispute with Falconet was continued on

another level. There are questions which may be very simply stated but

difficult to understand, for example the following:

Voules-vous une question plus simple? la voici. Le philosophe appele au tribunal des lois, doit-il ou ne doit-il pas y avouer ses sentiments au peril de sa vie? Socrate fit-il bien ou mal de rester dans la prison? ... Et combien d*autres questions qui appartiennent plus au caractere qu’a la logique! Oserei-vous blamer l’homme courageux et sincere qui aime mieux perir que de se retractor, que de fletrir par sa retractation son propre caractere et celui de sa secte? Si le role de ce personnage est grand, noble et beau dans la tragedie ou 1'imitation, pour- quoi serait-il insense ou ridicule dans la realite.9

If this appears simple on the surface and yet difficult to completely

understand, it is because of Diderot’s actions. In 17^+9 he would have

answered that the "philosophe" should not express his feelings if it

might endanger his life. During the time when he wrote this work, how­

ever, he would perhaps say, "yes." In order to support his statements,

he used as an example again the image of Socrates and his unjust death;

but he gave no apparent solution to these problems. When we say that 62

Diderot did not solve these problems, we mean that he was not able to find a theoretical formula for a solution. In everyday life, these are the prolbems which might have arisen in his mind many times and to which he had to give an answer by his own actions. It has been stated that during his imprisonment he denied the authorship of his works.

After his release and for the next fifteen years or more, he tried to avoid persecution so that he would be able to publish the Encyclopedic.

Perhaps this is the reason when Helvetius in 1758-59 saw his book,

De 1*Esprit, condemned he chose to retract his ideas rather than sup­

port them at the expense of his life. If Diderot could not approve his

actions in principle, it did not mean that he ever reproached Helvetius’

attitude. When he later wrote:

C'est qu’Helvetius et moi nous nous serions fait unitaires dans Athenes, sous Socrate; Chretiens sous Constantin; disciples d'Aristote, il y a deux cents ans etc. ^

it may be that he was right; and yet his actions and his attitude during

his life disprove the above statement because he did not accept the

established institutions during the eighteenth century, even though he

had to suffer a great deal. If Diderot did not defy the laws openly, it

seems that he was not sure that by defying them it would be more effica­

cious for him since he was working on the greatest project of his life.

Perhaps it was this struggle within himself that he expressed in

Jacques le fataliste. 1773* Jacques thanked a person who saved his life 63 without knowing that he was a hangman. After joking with Jacques about this matter, the master asked: "Jacques, saves-vous l*histoire de la mort de Socrate?" When Jacques replied "no," he continued:

C'etait un sage d'Athenes. II y a longteraps que le role de sage est dangereux parmi les fous. Ses concitoyens le condamnferent a boire la cigue. Eh bient Socrate fit comme vous venes de faire; il en usa avec le bourreau qui lui presents la cigue aussi poli- rcent que vous. Jacques, vous etes une espece de philosophe, convenes-en. Je sais bien que c'est une race d'hommes odieuse aux grands, devant lesquels ils ne flechissent pas le genou; aux magistrats, protecteurs par etat des prejuges qu'ils poursuivent; aux pretres, qui les voient rarement au pied de leurs autels; aux poetes, gens sans principes et qui regardent sottement la philoso- phie comme la cognee des beaux-arts, sans compter que ceux meme d'entre eux qui se sont exerces dans le genre odieux de la satire, n'ont ete que des flatteurs. ... Jacques, mon ami, vous etes un philosophe, j'en suis fache pour vous; ... Je presume que votre mort sera philosophique, et que vous recevres le lacet d*aussi bonne grace que Socrate re jut la coupe de la cigue.

It seems that in this passage Diderot tried to attack all the established institutions which are based on lies. Not only does he attack the government, the church, the magistrates, but also the poets— the Palissots, the Frerons, etc., who were the enemies of the philosophers. Ihe philosophers seem to be the only ones who believe in truth, and this is the reason for their persecution and death. Diderot, however, mentioned these facts only briefly. He did not expand this idea; the reason he told us through the master:

J'y crois; mais je n*y croirais pas que ce serait sans conse­ quence.

Jacques: Et pourquoi?

Le Maitre: C'est qu'il n'y a du danger que pour ceux qui parlent; et je me tais.^2 6k

Diderot preferred to be silent rather than endanger himself; therefore, he changed the subject after having scratched only the surface. As he said later in his essays on Seneca between 1778-82, after mentioning that daring is inherent in a certain profession (meaning philosophy), he recalled several philosophers, such as Seneca, Democritus, Socrates,

Plato, Cicero, Marcus Aurelius, as having defied the laws. He continued:

Celui qui dine et soupe de mensonge n'aime pas celui qui preche la verite.^3

Since the priests and magistrates during that time in France were wearing masks of hypocrisy, they could not like the truth and the philosophers.

Diderot attacked them in the following passage:

L'hypocrisie est l*attribut distinctif de la classe, sans etre le vice commun de tous les individus qui la composent. Socrate etait philosophe, Charles Borromee etait pretre; et Socrate ne fut point un effronte, ni Charles Borromee un hypocrite.

Mais voulez-vous exposer Socrate It des invectives atroces, a des imputations mille fois refutees, ressusciter des Anites et des Melites? ecrive* l'apologie de Socrate. Ceci n*est point une con­ jecture, c'est un fait. Un pieux et savant ecclesiastique prussien publia, il y a quelques annees la vie de ce philosophe: aussitot des cris s'eleverent; l'on persuada aux peuples que leur pasteur etait palen, et le pauvre cure n'eut plus un enfant a baptiser.^

It appears that Diderot not only attacks the Anytuses and Meletuses of

his time, but the people who, because of their ignorance and supersti­

tions, believe the decadent servants of the church. According to

Diderot, there are, however, some exceptions; there are some good priests

and magistrates. Although Diderot believed in truth and justice, it does

not seem then that he took many risks to defend these principles. In 1780, however, when Raynal took some risks by publishing the third edition of his book, Histoire phllosophique. and when the book was condemned,

Diderot reacted. Hearing that his friend Grimm had reproached the Abbe by saying that he was either a coward or a fool, Diderot could not remain silent. It was then that he wrote 1 'Apologia de 1 *Abb! Raynal, one of his last works, against his life-long friend who had turned

"anti-philosophe" (according to Diderot). In this "apologie," Diderot wrote:

Comment sommes-nous sortis de la barbarie? C'est qu'heureusement il s'est trouve des hommes qui ont plus aim! la verite qu'ils n'ont redout! la persecution. Certes ces hommes-la n'etaient pas des laches. Les appellerons-nous de fous?!5

Here it appears that we are close to the essential theme of the dispute on posterity. The word "posterite'' is mentioned in this work:

J'ai fini la lecture du premier volume de l'abbe, et dans plus de sept cents pages je ne lui ai pas vu une seule fois, pour me servir de votre expression, 1*image de la posterite collee sur le nes, image imposante qu'a vous parler vrai, j'airaerais mieux voir trop frequente dans les ecrits d'un auteur qu'entierement absente de sa pensee.^®

Contrary to Falconet, it appears that Diderot did not seek an answer to

the question of posterity in a determined act of heroism in a particular

circumstance or posterity's judgment of this act. More likely, Diderot believed in the power of man's will to modify or overthrow the beliefs

of any institution according to the dictation of reason and what is con­

sidered to be the truth. Although Diderot believed that what exists,

does exist, he did not mean that it has to exist in an absolute sense,

15^Herbert Dieckmann, Inventalre du fonds Vandeull et inedits de Diderot (Geneve: Dros, 1951)t PP* 23^-253* 1 6__ 66 as one can see from the following affirmation in "Les Observations sur

l'instruction de sa Majest! Imperials aux deputes sur la Confection des

Lois," 177^: Voici pourtant une difficult!. Les lois naturelles sont eternelles et communes. Les lois positives ne sont que de corollaires des lois naturelle. Done les lois positives sont !galament eternelles et communes. Cependant il est certain que telle loi positive est bonne et utile dans une circonstance nuisible et mauvaise dans telle autre; il est certain qu'il n'y a point de code qu*il ne faille reformer avec le temps. Cette _ difficult! n*est peut-etre pas insoluble; mais il faut la r!soudre. '

Reading Diderot's letters to Falconet, one would tend to believe

that there is a conflict between idealism and materialism. No matter what

terms we use, it seems that it is not his idealism which triumphs, judg­

ing from the examples invoked by the French philosopher, but his preoccu­

pation to supply his materialism with all its human content. This is

neither Falconet's stoicism, more or less authentic and immured in the

solitude of his own justice, nor the apology for pleasure which emanates

in different ways from La Mettrie's and Helv!tius' works which, contrasted

to Diderot's ideas, represent integral materialism. Moreover, Diderot's

psychological animosity has its reasons for existing without being con­

sidered idealism. It appears that there is an abstract and immaterial

categorical imperative which can be either moral or political He

attempts to distinguish between the idea of a certain virtue and the

behavior of men who make this idea a reality— a direct tie, one might

even say carnal. Ihe problem is not simple; it was never simple. Hiis

^ D . Diderot, "Les Observation sur l'instruction de sa Majest! Imp!riale aux deputls sur la Confection des Lois," La Revue d'histoire !conomique et sociale. 1920, p. 288. point could be judged according to Diderot’s individual works. Again, in his reply to Helvetius, Diderot wrote:

On persecute la verite, mais on ne la meprise pas, on la craint.

Que peut-elle alors en favour de l'humanite? Tout, avec le temps. Je ne sais comment cela se fait. Mais elle finit et finira eternellement par etre la plus forte. Horames rares, a qui la nature a departi du genie et du courage, votre lot est assure: Une longue memoire, des benedictions qui ne finiront jamais. Hommes envieux, hommes ignorants, hommes hypocrites, hommes flroces, hommes laches, le votre l'est aussi: L'execra­ tion des eiecles vous attend, et vos noms ou seront oublils ou ~ ne seront jamais nomm£s sans les epithetes que je vous donne ici.

As we note, Diderot was set on the idea of the judgment of posterity;

but the triumph of the future will be enjoyed by the just and the unjust

at the same time, as we can see from the above quotation and the following

Nous sommes la posterite pour ceux qui nous ont precedes; ... II importe peu aujourd'hui a ces ancetres ce qu'on dit d'eux, soit en bien, soit en mal; cependant ce bien s'ecoute avec plaisir; ce mal nous afflige et lorsque ce mal est bien fonde, il est des circonstances ou le sort d'un batard serait digne d'envie.^-9

In his letter to Falconet of January 10, 1766, he wrote:

L'habile homme deprime, le sage persecute attendent leur ven­ geance de la posterite; c’est elle qui reverse sur des magistrats injustes, 1'ignominie dont ils ont quelquefois couvert 1 'homme eclaire; 1 'auteur intrepidel Socrate disait aux Atheniens: "Ce n ’est pas ma cause que je plaide, c'est la votre. J'entends li present ce qu'on dira de vous quand je n'y serai plus. Mes concitoyens, songe* a vous. Vous alles vous deshonorer aux yeux des nations presentes et des races futures."20

Diderot believed, it appears, that not only the great men would enjoy the

fruits of immortality but the wicked as well. An example of this would

18A. T., Vol. II, p. 446. 19Ibid.. Vol. XVIII, p. 86. 68 be "un batard serait digne d'envie," and today even Socrates* execu­

tioners are remembered because of their crime and are immortalized.

In reply to Helvetius, Diderot defends the truth. What truth?

He does not clearly say what truth or virtue. He does, however, offer

the blessings of posterity. One has to die or at least suffer persecu­

tion in order to enjoy this blessing. Therefore, we must agree that by

reading only Diderot’s letters to Falconet the idea of truth, virtue,

posterity, etc., is not very clear. It becomes somewhat clearer when one

familiarizes himself with Diderot's complete works and becomes aware of

his attacks on inhuman priests, ferocious tyrants, or against all those

who wanted to keep people in ignorance. If Diderot attacked most of the

established institutions, in his case this was not a matter of negative

truths. To become aware of this fact, it is enough to read "Les

Observations ..."

II n'y a point de vrai souverain que la Nation, il ne peut y avoir de vrai Legislateur que le Peuple. II est rare qu'un peuple se soumette sincerement a des lois qu'on lui impose; il les aimera; il les respecters, il y obeira, il les defendra comme son propre ouvrage s'il est lui-meme 1'auteur. ... La premiere ligne d'un code bien fait doit lier le souverain; il doit commencer ainsi: "Nous, Peuple, et Nous, Souverain de ce peuple, jurons conjointement ces lois par lesquelles nous serons egalement juges; s'il nous arrivait a Nous souverain, de les changer ou de les enfreindre, ennemi de notre peuple, il est juste qu'il soit le notre, qu'il soit delie du serment de fidelite, qu'il nous poursuivre, qu'il nous depose, et raeme qu'il nous condamne a mort si le cas l'exige. ^

This aspect of Diderot seems to be known very little. Perhaps it was

because it was forgotten for more than a century by his descendants. It

21 Diderot, La Revue d'histoire economique et sociale . p. 281. 69 is, however, an essential aspect— a key to his thoughts which, one might say, sums up Diderot’s beliefs and ideas. Here it appears to express an attack against despotic government; but as we mentioned previously, it is not a negative truth but rather a positive and constructive one. Until a few decades ago, there was a common belief that only Rousseau in his

Contrat Social. 1762, defended the power and the rights of the people; judging from the above lines, Diderot also believed in the sovereignty of the people.

In tracing the development of these ideas and the dispute with

Falconet, we are also faced with the following problem: How can one

transform a society, that is to say, a social regime? Diderot seemed

to say that experience is very slow, the genius who can do it is very

rare, and the people or the victims are very patient— everything is hope­

less. We note in "Les Observations ...":

On se consolerait des maux passes et des maux presents, si l'avenir devait changer cette destinee: mais c'est une esperance dont il est impossible de se bercer, et si l'on demandait au Philosophe it quoi servent les conseils qu'il s'opiniatre d'adresser aux Nations et a ceux qui les gouvement, et qu'il repondlt avec sincerite il dirait qu'il satisfait un penchant invincible a dire la verite, au hasardd*exciter l'indignation et meme de boire dans la coupe de Socrate.

It appears that Diderot did not change his feelings with regard to truth.

After 1766 he always believed that for truth to triumph one must be will­

ing to suffer and even drink the hemlock if necessary. However, there

seems to be a bitter tone in the above lines. Perhaps it is because this 70 kind of truth, although it cannot be rejected categorically, cannot reign absolutely at any given time. If the above lines appear bitter, we should recognise that this bitterness is because of Diderot's evolving thoughts. Unis feeling can be noticed in the following lines of "Les Observations ... ,H which seem to be almost a reply to Falconet who supported the idea that fear of blame, fear of what people will say, and the individual conscience are reasons enough to force someone

to act correctly. Diderot replied:

La honte et la crainte du blame, freins d'un petit nombre d'ames honnetes, ne foraeront jamais 1'esprit et les moeurs d'une grande nation, n faut remplacer ces moyens par la liberte et la surete des personnes, des proprietes, par le bonheur.^3

This time it appears that the opposition is clear for Diderot. Here is

the distinction between the problem of individual morals which he is

ready to impale, and the notion of human desire to create and antici­

pate the future which he called, more or less, the sentiment of

posterity. He was, however, judging posterity according to the present

world— a world which was in the process of change, and perhaps this is

one of the reasons why sometimes he played Falconet's hand. As one

notes in l'Apologie de l'Abbe Raynal. 1781, Diderot never stopped believ­

ing that there is a tie between one generation and another. He seemed to

have a remote feeling that history was to be rewritten.

Diderot's polemic with Falconet did not develop in this perspec­

tive, however, partly because of the latter's deviation from the subject. At the beginning, Diderot and Falconet believed that their ideas were based on solid ground, and each one seemed to be willing to claim that his views were the only valid ones. From the start, Diderot said:

"Nous somme la posterite pour ceux qui nous ont precedes.* Therefore, the respect given by us to the ancients, such as Homer, Milton, Bacine, etc., guarantees us the survival and immortality of our own works. In his dispute with Falconet, Diderot, who was usually prompt in grasping everything that was new in politics, literature, science, art, etc., during the age of enlightenment, did not take into consideration the new archeological discoveries. Falconet, on the other hand, took advantage

of them. If we follow the debate on posterity, we will notice the fact

that Falconet admitted in their controversy that it was not a matter of

ideas but rather of technique. Furthermore, it appears that for Falconet

the only thing that counts is technique, while for Diderot the ideas.

If this were true, the dispute, more than a philosophical controversy*

was a "whistling in the wilderness," for the two opponents were acting

in different fields. It seems that Diderot attempted obstinately to

defend the ancient art as a whole rather than individual artists without

taking into consideration the contemporary trend. Falconet used only

arguments by contemporary scholars in order to convince his opponent.

Diderot rejected these arguments because they were capable of ruining

the great ideas of the past that he treasured so much. The only time

that he seems to agree with Falconet is when he pointed out that

ZkA. T., Vol. XVIII, p. 82. 72 individual tastes vary and change, not only according to style and caprice, but also because of new needs and aspirations during each epoch. Diderot seemed to be very sincerely in favor of the ancients because he felt that by defending them he defended himself for he believed very firmly in the ideas of immortality through creative works, as we can notice from his letter to Falconet where he exclaimed:

St ces philosophes, et ces ministres et ces hommes veridiques qui ont et4 la victims des peuples stupides, des pretres atroces, des tyrans enrages, quelle consolation leur restait-il en mourant? C'est que le prejuge passerait et que la posterite reverserait 1*ignominie sur leurs ennemis. 0 Posterite sainte et sacree, soutien du malheureux qu'on opprime; toi qui est juste, toi qu'on ne corrompt point, qui venges 1'homme de bien, qui demasques l'hypoerite, qui traines les tyrans, idee juste, idee consolante, ne m'abandonne jamais. La posterite pour le philosophe, c'est l'autre monde de 1'homme religieux.^

Diderot, who considered himself an atheist, seemed to believe that the only way to immortalize himself was through his creative works and the

judgment which would be passed on him by subsequent centuries. Perhaps

this is the reason why he was so eager to defend the ancients and even

suffer the persecutions inflicted by his contemporaries.

We also notice that Diderot did not limit himself to art. Lit­

erary creation was also introduced in the debate. He mentioned Homer,

Sophocles, Aeschylus, Milton, Racine, Voltaire, and many other literary

figures. This may appear somewhat strange because Diderot often broke with the ancient forms and expressions. He tried some innovations,

creating expressions which were necessary to express a more complex

25Ibld.. p. 120. thought which was difficult to incorporate within traditional frames.

Diderot believed very strongly in antiquity, but this did not prevent him from being modern in his way, especially in political ideas which led the philosophers, the writers, the artists, etc., toward the

Revolution. When there was a question of literary creativity, Diderot was very much in favor of the ancients for the reasons mentioned above; and he could not accept Falconet’s viewpoints even if the latter was right because it seems that Diderot was seeking a theoretical justifica­ tion which was difficult to find. In fact, we might even say that

Diderot’s thoughts go even further than that. His obstinate refrain regarding posterity and immortality, true or false, certain or uncertain, means something more than the so-called love for the ancients. It is the road through which the artist or the writer acquires the right to innovate and to defy contemporary criticism even if this challenge were to last an entire life, for criticism is a matter of taste or the judgment of the connoisseurs. Without wishing to go resolutely as far as that, it looks as if Diderot was aware of the fact that eventually the creator would have to defy the judgment of his entire era; however, he does not express this very clearly. There seems to be a hint here and there. When he returns to these questions in the reflexions recently published by

Dieckmann, what he tried to specify was the behavior and the Value of

the judgment of the century. He attempted to determine the elements of

the various judgments which form that invisible chain that will lead to

Dieckmann, p. 252. 7^ the most remote posterity. This way the writer could contribute to the progress of mankind, as well as immortalise himself.

As mentioned early, Diderot could have found many examples throughout history to which he might have compared the destinies of the

French philosophers, yet he preferred Socrates. This is not only true when he speaks of philosophy and literature, but also when he deals with art. In his salon of 1761 with respect to Challe, a painter whom he did not like* when the latter presented a painting entitled "Le Socrate sur le point de boire la cigue," Diderot wrote:

Le Socrate condamne en vaut le peine autant qu'aucun autre morceau du salon. ?

Speaking of Vernet's painting in the salon of 1767, it seems that Diderot forgot art for a moment and gave freedom to his imagination or philosophi­ cal meditations. In the "cinquieme site" he discussed the idea of virtue and law. Again, he distinguished between good and bad laws and the responsibility of the individual to choose between them. If one thinks that the laws are just, he can accept them; if one thinks that they are unjust, he can reject or criticise them; and if rejection of the laws constitutes a capital crime, the individual may keep quiet or flee. It

27A. T., Vol. X, p. 128. 75 is in these circumstances that he refers to Socrates again:

Socrate dira, lui: Ou je parlerai ou je p£rirai. L'apotre de la verite se montrera-t-il done moins intrepide que l’apotre du aensonge? Le mensonge aurait-il seul le privilege de faire des martyrs? Pourquoi ne dirais je pas: La loi l'ordonne, aais la lois est mauvaise. Je n’en ferai rien. Je n'en veux rien faire. J'aime mieux mourir. ... Mais Aristippe lui repondra: Je sais tout aussi bien que toi. 0 Socratet que la loi est mauvaise; et je ne fais pas plus de cas de la vie qu'un autre. Cependant je me soumettrai a la loi, de peur qu’en discutant de mon autorite privee, les mauvaises lois, Je n’encourage par mon exemple la multitude insensee a discuter les bonnes. Je ne fuirai point les cours comme toi. Je saurai me vetir de pour- pre. Je ferai ma cour aux maltres de monde; et peut-etre en obtiendrai-je ou l'abolition de la loi mauvaise, ou la grace de l ’homme de bienqui l'aura enfreinte.®

Again, we note in the above lines the duality which is so common in

Diderot. He attacks the evil laws but only to a certain extent. It is a known fact that Socrates preferred to die in order not to infringe the laws. Diderot seems to portray him as if he were trying to escape

the unjust laws; and if we stipulate that Aristippus is Diderot, then

the latter is willing to court the masters of the world. It also appears

that Diderot is Socrates, as well as Aristippus, in this case. There is a continuous struggle within himself which remains almost to the end of

his life because he tells us that he was considering this question,

leaving it, reconsidering itfand still he did not arrive at any posi­

tive conclusion. It was only toward the end of his life that there was

a definite split between Socrates and Aristippus. In 1781 in l’Apologie

28Ibld.. Vol. XI, pp. 122-23. 76 de l'Abbl Raynal. Diderot emerged as Socrates, while his friend Grimm appeared as Aristippus. Diderot exclaimed:

Et Socrate, lorsqu'il bravoit la tyrannic des Trente, et que par la h&rdiesse des logons qu'il donnoit a la Jeunesse athenienne(sic) s'avouoit A lui meme, que sa vie etoit employee toute entiere A accelerer l'heure de sa mort et Soorate etoit un fout^°

During the latter part of his life, Diderot seemed to believe that a writer should express his opinions and his ideas even if it meant risk­ ing his life because Socrates and many other writers and philosophers did it before him. He believed so strongly in this idea that he did not hesitate for a moment to accuse his friend of being a hypocrite, a flatterer, and an enemy of the philosophers.

It is important to note Diderot's esteem for Socrates. From his first work, Les Bi.ioux indisc rets. 17**8» when he introduced for the

first time Socrates' name until his last work, l'Apologie de l'Abbe

Raynal. he never deviated from his original respect for Socrates— the

ideal "philosophe." Even when Diderot began to read Seneca between the years 1778-1782 and when he expressed a great admiration for the Roman

philosopher, he never sacrificed Socrates for him. He only exclaims:

0 Senequet tu est et tu seras A jamais, avec Socrate, avec tous les illustres malheureux, avec tous les grands hommes de l'antiquite, un des plus doux liens entre mes amis et moi, entre les hommes instruits de tous les ages, et leurs a m i s . ™

29 Dieckmann, p. 1^7.

30A. T., Vol. Ill, p. 12. In the same work, speaking of Seneca's life and death, he states!

Ne serait-il pas tente de s'Verier de Seneque, comrae firasme de Socrate: Sancte Seneca? . . . Les deux hommes les plus sages, les deux plus grands philosophes, l'un d'Athenes, 1'autre de Rome, sont morts d'une mort violente; tous deux ont et£ tourmentes pendant leur vie, et calomnies apres leur mort. ” i marches sur leurs traces, plaignes-vous si vous

It would appear from the above lines that Diderot did not denigrate

Socrates, but only compared another "philosophe" and victim of a totali tarian and decadent government to him.

In conclusion, it seems that what Diderot attempted to prove to

Falconet concerning immortality and the judgment of posterity became a reality after his death, since contemporary scholars consider Diderot as one of the greatest thinkers of the eighteenth century. As for the idea that he considered himself "the Socrates" of the eighteenth cen­

tury, we have mentioned several critics and writers of the "age of ideas" who considered him as such, or at least implied this idea. The best

example, however, can be found in his own works. In Les Bijoux indiscrets.

Diderot exclaims with pathos when he referred to Socrates' torn cloak:

"Qui rassemblera ces morceaux, ... et nous restituera la robe de

Socrate?^ At this time the question remained unanswered for young

Diderot. It seems that Diderot answered it in l'Apologie de 1'AbbS

Raynal. when he said in his attack against Grimm:

Celui qui a pris le manteau de Socrate, et qui aime la verite et la vertu plus que la vie., dira, lui, philosopher d'abord, et vivre ensuite

32 31Ibid.. p. 2?5. Ibid., Vol. IV, p. 258

•^Dieckmann, p. 250 If "eelui" refers to Diderot, the French philosopher seems to have considered himself as "the Socrates" of his time. Diderot of 1?48 could not have challenged openly the established institutions because he was trying to immortalize himself through creative works, and he could not endanger his life until he accomplished his aim. In 1781, however, when he thought that he had accomplished this goal and his mission in life, he did not hesitate to express his opinions openly even at the risk of his life, as did his predecessor, the Greeu "philosophe." CHAPTER SIX

ROUSSEAU AND SOCRATES

Although Diderot was known as "the philosophe" of the eighteenth century, he was not the only philosopher of his time who was identified with Socrates. Another writer of this period, who in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has been considered hy some scholars and critics as

"Socrate,** was Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau was born in Geneva,

Switzerland; and in 17^1 went to Paris where he made the acquaintance of several men of letters, among whom was Diderot, then a young unknown writer. This meeting was mentioned by Rousseau in Les Confessions:

Mais j*y trouvai un M. de Bonnefond, hobereau boiteux, plaideur, faisant le puriste, auquel je dus la connoissance de M. Roguin, maintenant le doyen de mes amis, et par lui celle du philosophe Diderot,

The two philosophers became friends, and their friendship is important in that it partly deals with our topic. Rousseau was among the first to visit Diderot in prison, and he saw him frequently during the last two months of his detention. Rousseau wrote in this regard:

Je le trouvai tres-affecte de sa prison. Le Donjon lui avoit fait une impression terrible. ... II avoit besoin de la societe de ses amis pour ne pas se livrer & son humeur noire . . ., et tous les deux jours, au plus tard, malgre des occupation tres exigeantes, j'allois, soit seul, soit avec sa femme, passer avec lui les apres-midi.2

^Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Les Confessions, ed. Van Bever (3 vols.; Paris: Garnier, 1926), Vol. II, p. 80. 2„ . , 80

This was during the struggling years when Rousseau had attempted to compose music,as well as be a playwright, but without success. It was the time when both friends were striving to attain recognition. They seemed to be united in misery and suffering. During one of Rousseau's visits at Vincennes, he related that he did not have enough money for transportation and was compelled to walk for two miles. Before arriving at the prison, he came across the following advertisement which was the impetus to his literary career:

Je pris un jour le Mercure de France ettout en marchant et le parcourant, je tombai sur cette question proposes par l'academie de Dijon pour le prix de l'annee suivante: "Si le progres des sciences et des arts a contribue a corrompre ou a epurer les moeurs."3

This contest inspired Rousseau to write his first Discours; and when he arrived at Vincennes, he related:

J'etois dans une agitation qui tenoit du delire. Diderot l'aperqut: Je lui en dis la cause, et je lui lus la prosopopee de Fabricius, ecrite en crayon sous un chene. II m'exhorta de donner l'essor a mes idees, et de concourir au prix.

According to Marmontel, however, Diderot spoke otherwise concerning this meeting, when the latter became Rousseau's enemy: Rousseau arrived at prison preoccupied with the idea and determined to follow the side which favored the arts and sciences. Marmontel quoted Diderot as having said:

C'est le point aux anes; tous les talents mediocres prendront ce chemin-la, et vous n'y trouverez que des idees communes, au lieu que le parti contraire presente a la philosophie et 1'eloquence un champ nouveau, riche et fecond.5

3Ibid. 4Ibid.. p. 172.

^George Havens, Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Discours sur les sciences et les arts (New York: The Modern Language Association, 19^6), p. 7* 81

Diderot never admitted this fact in writing. On the contrary, he wrote:

J'etais alors au chateau de Vincennes. Rousseau vint m'y voir, et par ocasion me consulter sur le parti qu'il prendrait dans cette question. "II n'y a pas a balancer, lui dis-je, vous prendre* le parti que personne ne prendra. Vous avez raison, me r^pondit-il," et il travailla en consequence. ... Rousseau fit ce qu'il devait faire, parce qu'il etait lui. Je n'aurais rien fait, ou j'aurais fait tout autre chose, parce que j'aurais ete moi.°

Diderot's influence in this matter does not play an important part with

the exception of the passage where Rousseau speaks of Socrates. Before we consider this passage, let us briefly analyze Rousseau's Discours.

Ihe work is divided into two parts. The first is historical,

pointing out the decadence of all nations where progress was achieved

through the development of letters. Ihe second part is rhetorical; it

is the explanation of the disastrous influence exercised by pretentious

progress on morals, beliefs, and all social forces. This division, how­

ever, is only superficial lure. Both parts of the Discours were derived

equally from Rousseau's conception concerning the natural and primitive

goodness of man (which later became the central point of his philosophy).

Concerning nature, Rousseau said: On ne peut rlflechir sur les moeurs, says he, qu'on ne se plaise a se rappeler 1'image de la simplicite des premiers terns. C'est un beau rivage, pare des seules mains de la nature, vers lequel on tourne incessamment les yeux, et dont on se sent eloigner a regret.7

As one may see in the above lines, nature and the primitive are the only

truths for Rousseau; and everything that we call progress is nothing more

6A. T., Vol. II, p. 285.

7Havens, p. 1**0. 82 than decadence. Since Rousseau stated that his Discours was written under a spell of enthusiasm, we do not have to accept his ideas literally. When he wrote this work, he was competing-for a prize; and as an outcome of this competition, he became famous as a writer and a leader of a new doctrine.

Returning to our thesis, the death of Socrates among the eigh­

teenth century philosophers, we also note that Rousseau was called the

"new Socrates" of the epoch. Abbe Brizard in a work entitled Parallele wrote:

Dans aucun age peut-etre deux hommes, chez des peuples et dans des temps si differents, n'ont offert autant de traits de ressemblance.

Abbe Brizard identified Rousseau as Socrates in the above lines. (Not

having access to Brizard*s work, I do not know what influenced him to

write this Parallele. Rousseau-Socrate.) In Le Journal encyclopedique.

1764, there is a reference to Linguet*s play, Socrate. Linguet was

accused of representing the fall of the Jesuit party in the death of

Socrates. He denied the accusation in the following terms:

Si l*on avait pu se flatter de trouver dans ma piece quelque allegorie, ce serait certainement celle de l*illustre Jean- Jacques Rousseau.°

By Linguet*s avowal, one more "Socrate" play arose in defense of a

"philosophe." It is, however, only in the vaguest way that allusions are

made to Rousseau. In La Comedie satirique en France au XVTIIe siecle.

Q Jean Seznec, Essals sur Diderot et l*antiquite (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957)* p.

^journal encyclopedique. 1764, Vol. VIII, p. 118. 83 Desnoiresterres mentioned that Sauvigny's play, La Mort de Socrate.

1763, was a defense of Emile and Le Contrat Social. He continued:

Sa tragedie etait . . . une replique aux Philosophes de Palissot, une revanche du parti encyclopedique sur le parti de la cour.10

Here, too, there are only vague allusions; moreover, the facts are not

true because at this time Housseau was no longer a member of the Encyclo­ pedic group. In fact, in Diderot’s "Socratique," after having passed

Socrates* disciples in review, he mentions limon, the misanthrope. From

the description, one cannot fail to recognise Rousseau's traits in Umon:

On met encore du nombre des disciples de Socrate Umon, le misanthrope. Cet homme crut qu’il fuyait la societe de ses semblables, parce qu'ils etaient mechants; il se trompait: C ’est que lui-meme n'etait pas bon. ... Quel judgement porter de celui qui se sauve d’une ville ou Socrate vivait, et ou il y avait une foule de gens de bien, sinon, qu’il etait plus frappe de la laideur du vice que touche des charmes de la vertu? Ce caractere est mauvais. Quel spectacle plus grand et plus doux que celui d ’un homme juste, grand, vertueux, au-dessus de toutes les terreurs et toutes les seductions? Les dieux s'incli- nent du haut de leur demeure bienheureuse pour le voir marcher sur la terre, et le triste et mllancolique Umon detourne ses regards farouches, lui tourne le dos, et va, le coeur rempli d'orgueil, d’envie et de fiel, s’enfoncer dans une foret.H

If we replace the Greek names with Diderot and Rousseau, the description

would be more realistic to eighteenth century Paris than to ancient

Athens, especially when Diderot says: "celui qui se sauve d'une ville

ou Socrate vivait," and "le triste et melancolique limon . . . va

s'enfoncer dans une foret." This speculation becomes more valid when

we consider Diderot’s criticism of Rousseau in Essai sur les regnes de

^Gustave Desnoiresterres, La Comedie satirique en France au XVIIIe siecle (Paris: Didier, 1885), p. 83.

1XA. T., Vol. XVII, p. 166. 84

Claude et de Neron where he expressed almost the same idea:

Jean-Jacques eut ete chef de secte il y a deux cents ans; en tout temps, demagogue dans sa patrie. Le sejour et la solitude des forets l'ont perdu.^2

In the same work when he talks about Rousseau*s religious beliefs, as he expressed them in "Profession de foi du vicaire Savoyard," Diderot stated:

Precisement comme il se fit catholique parmi les protestants, protestant parmis les catholiques, il se fit anti-philosophe.^3

This wfts Diderot’s answer to the hypothetical question that he had asked himself in regard to Rousseau's becoming an "anti-philosophe." Therefore, according to Diderot, when Rousseau was considered to be a "philosophe" after 1755, he was actually an "anti-philosophe."

Returning to Abbe Brizard's Parallele. his comparison, Socrate-

Rousseau, is not based on true facts because Rousseau was not a member of the Encyclopedic group, but rather against it. It seems probable that the vague allusions expressed by Linguet influenced Brizard to make this parallel. There is, however, another statement made by Brizard which better explains Diderot's comments regarding Rousseau. According to

Seznec, Brizard does not identify Anytus and Meletus as fanatical priests and "anti-philosophes," but rather with the "philosophes" themselves:

Quand Rousseau se presenta dans la carriere des lettres, les Philosophes jouaient It Paris le raeme role que les Sophistes dans Athenes. ... Le vertueux Jean-Jacques les denon$a comme des imposteurs, et devint leur vietime.

12Ibid.. Vol. Ill, p. 96. 13Ibid.. p. 97-

14 Seznec, p. 6.✓ 85 In Diderot’s Essai sur les reenes de Claude et de Neron. he remarked that his references to Rousseau were similar to an attack on his Confessions and followers, rather than an attack on Rousseau himself. It may be that Diderot was familiar with Brisard’s work, and his criticism of

Rousseau was a reply to Brizard*s last statement regarding Rousseau and the ’’philosophes.”

Having examined some documents for and against Rousseau, let us consider Rousseau's works and see if what Brizard said is true. The first time that Rousseau mentioned Socrates was in his first Discours:

Quelques sages, il est vrai, ontresist! au torrent general et se sont garantis du vice dans le sejour des Muses. Mais qu'on ecoute le jugement que le premier et le plus malheureux d'entre eux portdit des Savans et des Artistes de son terns.15

In the above quotation, the only praise given to Socrates is to call him

"le premier et le plus malheureux” among the wise men of his time. The only reference to Socrates* death and unjustice of this death is expressed in the adjective "malheureux" which is very pale when compared to those used by Diderot and at times by Voltaire, when they wrote of the unjust death of the just man. Apparently Rousseau was not interested in

Socrates' unjust death; he was concerned with Socrates* statement that

he did not know anything. Rousseau attempted to prove his conviction

that learning is not progressive. On the contrary, he believed that it

is retrogressive, for it affects the morals of men and renders society

^Havens, p. 118. 86 evil. Tb support his statements, Rousseau paraphrased the Socratic

¥■ Apology;

J'ai examine, dit-il les Poetes, et je les regarde comme des gens dont le talent en impose a eux-memeset aux autres, qui se donnent ppur sages, qu'on prend pour tels et qui ne sont rien moins.

After examining the poets, Socrates questioned the artists; and Rousseau continues paraphrasing the Platonic dialogue in the same tone;

Des Poetes j'ai passe aux Artistes. Personne n'ignoroit plus les arts que moi; personne n'etoit plus convaincu que les Artistes possedoient de fort beaux secrets. Cependant, je me suis appergu que leur condition n'est pas meilleure que celle des Poetes et qu'ils sont les uns et les autres, dans le meme prejuge. ... Nous ne savons, ni les Sophistes, ni les Poetes, ni les Orateurs, ni les Artistes ni moi, ce que c'est que le vrai, le bon et le beau; Mais il y a entre nous cette diffe­ rence, que, quoique ces gens ne eachent rien, tous croyent savoir quelque chose; Au lieu que moi, si je ne sais rien, au moins je n'en suis pas en doute. De sorte que toute cette superiorite de sagesse qui m*est accordee par l'oracle, se reduit seulement a etre bien convaincu que j*ignore ce que je ne sais pas. '

It appears that Rousseau was not interested in Socrates' philosophical

ideas. As mentioned previously, he was only concerned with Socrates'

belief that he did not know anything. Although Socrates admitted pub­

licly that his wisdom consisted in not knowing anything, he accepted

death when he was asked to renounce his vocation rather than disown his

beliefs. Rousseau, on the other hand, attacked everyone connected with

letters, with the exception of the politicians who were responsible for

Socrates' death. In the quotation from the Apology. Rousseau did not

mention the politicians and the government; yet, Socrates stated in the

^Ibld. 17lbid.. p. 119. 87

Apology that he began his inquisitive philosophy with the politicians s

Well, I gave a thorough examination to this person— I need not mention his name, but it was one of our politicians that I was studying when I had this experience— and in conversation with him I formed the impression that although in many people's opinion, and especially in his own, he appeared to be wise, in fact he was not.18

We do not know the reason for the omission of this passage by Rousseau.

We might assume that he was attempting to gain the favor of the politi­ cians in his struggle for recognition. If this were true, what a difference there is between Rousseau and Diderot, who had written in

La Promenade du sceptique before he was arrested:

Imposez-moi silence sur la religion et le gouvernement, et je n'aurai rien a dire. °

Perhaps Diderot was afraid when he was arrested in 1749, but his fear did not impede him from expressing his ideas openly and using the unjust death of Socrates as a weapon against the eighteenth century French government.

Ihe only time that Rousseau mentioned Socrates' death in the first Discours was when he said:

Parmi nous, il est vrai, Socrate n'eut point bu la cigue; mais il eut bu dans une coupe encore plus amere, la raillerie insul- tante et le raepris pire cent fois que la mort.^O

It appears here that Rousseau became somewhat personal and expressed the bitterness of an unknown writer. Ihis is why, according to Rousseau,

Socrates would have experienced the bitterness of failure in eighteenth

■^Livingstone, p. 11. 19A. T., Vol. I, p. 184.

^Havens, p. 125. 88 century France— a bitterness which is worse than death. It may be that it was because of these lines that Rousseau's partisans identified him with Socrates.

It has been stated above that there was a belief that Diderot played a greater part in the creation of the Discours than he was given credit; however, Diderot never admitted this fact. With reference to this,

Hachette^- stated that Rousseau had read a Latin translation of Plato's

Apology, but I am inclined to disagree with him. It seems to me that if

Rousseau was influenced at all by Diderot it was precisely by the above­ quoted passage. In Chapter TVo we established from different documents that during Diderot's detention at Vincennes he translated the Apology.

In fact, the first page of the manuscript reads:

Apologia de Socrate traduit de memoire pendant son sejour a Vincennes par M. Denis Diderot

We know from Rousseau that he went to see Diderot during those days. We could assume, therefore, that it was quite probable that Rousseau read his friend's translation and took from it the passages that he needed,

since we are told by Rousseau that he discussed the theme with Diderot.

This discussion was also mentioned by Diderot in Essai sur les regnes de

Claude et de Neron. Moreover, Diderot at that time already considered

himself to be wearing Socrates' cloak. He translated the Apology and then

began the translation of Crito, which was never completed. Although there

is no evidence, it is a possibility that the French "philosophe" con­

sidered Rousseau as being Crito.

^Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Oeuvres completes, ed. Hachette (Paris: Hachette, 1885-1905), Vol. I, p. 259. 89 In Rousseau's Discours sur les sciences et les arts. Havens also stated that Rousseau had read a Latin translation of the Apology. If this were so, then it seems that Rousseau would have translated more literally from the original. For example, when referring to the poets,

Plato's Apology reads as follows:

Je m'aperjus que les poetes croyaient, en raison de leur talent, etre les plus savants des hommes en beaucoup d'autres choses, sans l'etre le moins du monde.22

Rousseau wrote regarding the same topic:

J'ai examine les poetes et je les regarde comme des gensdont le talent en impose a eux-memes, et aux autres.23

In comparison with Rousseau, Diderot's translation reads:

Voili le jugement que je portai des poetes: je les regardai comme des gens a qui leur talent en imposait, et aux autres.2^

Another comparison of texts is as follows. Plato's Apology states:

J'en venais a me demander si je n'aimais pas raieux etre tel que j'etais, n'ayant ni leur savoir ni leur ignorance, que d'avoir, comme eux, 1 'ignorance avec le savoir. Et j'ai rlpondu qu'il valait mieux pour moi etre tel que je suis. ^

Rousseau wrote:

Me demandant ce que j'aimerais le mieux etre, ce que je suis ou ce qu'ils sont, savoir ce qu'ils ont appris ou savoir que je ne sais rien, j'ai rlpondu: Je veux rester ce que je suis.2^

Diderot's translation reads:

Me demandant si j'aimerais mieux etre ce qu'ils sont ou rester ce que je suis, c'est-a-dire savoir ce qu'ils savent ou ignorer (sic) que je ne sais rien, je me repondais: Je suis mieux comme je suis.27

22Havens, p. 202. 23Ibid.. p. 119. 2k 2*5 Diderot, Apologie de Socrate. p. 27. ^Havens, p. 202. 26 27 Ibid. Diderot, Apologie de Socrate. p. 28. 90

It is possible that Rousseau may not have used the Latin translation of the Apology for his purpose, but rather Diderot’s more liberal transla­ tion. If so, it is probable that he got the idea of Socrates from

Diderot. We saw that when Brisard referred to Rousseau's life after

1762 he considered.him a victim, not of the poets, artists, or govern­ ment as Socrates had been, but of the •'philosophes"— a victim of his former friends. This Parallele seems to be based on vagueness. Socrates was an extrovert and his friends and disciples were faithful to him until the last moments of his life. Even after his death some of them, Plato and Xenophon, tried to compile his ideas and immortalise his name.

However, Rousseau— the new Socrates of the eighteenth century, accord­ ing to Brisard and Linguet— was an introvert and a victim of his own friends.

Let us now consider briefly Rousseau's break with his friends, the Encyclopedists. During the first half of the eighteenth century, there was a battle between the "philosophes" and the "anti-philosophes."

As we shall see in Chapter Eight, the latter were successful on the stage where they satirised the philosophic group. During this period, however,

the anti-philosophic group did not satirise an individual, but the entire group of "philosophes." In the second half of the century, they began

their attack against individuals. At Nancy in 1755* Palissot presented

Le Cercle ou les Qriginaux where he satirised the author of Discours sur

les sciences et les arts. Rousseau is depicted as the cosmopolitan

Blaise-Gille-Antoine, who published signed works, informed the public in

\ prefaces that he cared not a farthing for its suffrage, and wrote— merely for the sake of gaining renown by means of paradoxes— a treatise

in which he proved that the misfortunes of humanity came from what it

adored. The public could not fail to recognise Rousseau under these

characteristics. Why did Palissot choose Jean-Jacques instead of another

philosopher of that period? Once he decided to introduce a "philosophe"

on the stage, he had a big choice— four individuals offered him this

opportunity: Voltaire, Diderot, D'Alembert, and Rousseau. Voltaire,

whom he both admired and feared, could not be attacked; D'Alembert, who

was a mathematician and whose writings were abtruse, was very difficult

to dramatise. Among the remaining two, Rousseau was a better choice

because he afforded Palissot greater possibilities. His eccentricities,

with regard to his independence, his ethical reforms, and above all his

Armenian costume; made him quite unique for this role. In the literary

controversy, D'Alembert-Palissot, that followed the presentation of

Le Cercle. Rousseau was the buffer between the philosophic party and its

opponents. He was the "philosophe" who had retained the most indepen­

dence and could be attacked with the most impunity by the anti-philosophic

group. While the "philosophes" and their opponents were struggling for

victory, Jean-Jacques, who should have been most concerned because he had

been satirised in Palissot's play, did not care at all. On the contrary,

he interferred and ended the discussions, thus making D'Alembert furious

because he had been trying to silence Palissot and his group forever. 92

Palissot*s criticism of Rousseau is based on the latter*s

Discours. In his opinion, Rousseau defends an untenable position, for his life is as much a paradox as his philosophy. He complains that he

is a philosopher yet refuses to stop being one because it would mean loss of prestige, lb maintain his prestige, he piles paradox upon paradox; and with each new one, he runs the risk of being called a mad­

man rather than a wiseman. In other words, Jean-Jacques had created a

situation for himself which was undignified for a "philosophe." He was

aware of this and still he persisted in his madness. Ihat, in itself,

was sufficient proof of his insincerity. Rousseau’s paradoxes have

gained for him disciples who are doing nothing more than searching for

more paradoxes. It is here that the real menace rests. Ihis could be

remedied only by unmasking the leader who admits that he does not

believe in what he says or does and acts only "dans l'idee qu’un

philosophe devait penser, parler, ecrire et meme s'habiller autrement

que le vulgaire." When D'Alembert challenged Palissot on the grounds

of the impropriety of presenting worthy citisens on the stage, Palissot

defended his position by giving instances where Rousseau had been held

up to the ridicule of the public.

If Palissot spared the Encyclopedists in Le Cercle. he did not do

so in his play, Les Philosophes. produced in 1760. In this play, again

Rousseau is among those satirised although he was breaking away from the

Encyclopedists by this time. Ihe real reason for his departure is not

known, but there were several small incidents which piled up. Ihe satire against him in Le Cercle could be one reason. In 1757 when Mme d'Epinay decided to go to Geneva, she asked Rousseau to accompany her. Rousseau thought that this was a plot against his reputation and refused to go with her. His action toward Mme d'Epinay, who protected him,was judged very severely by his friends. Among the many people who disapproved was

Diderot, who was Rousseau*s friend as well as Grimm’s. Diderot attempted

to reconcile his two friends but did not succeed in doing more than con­ fusing the matter. Rousseau accused him of perfidy and wished to break his relations entirely with him. He took advantage of a letter to

D*Alembert to accomplish this great act before the world, and in the

"Preface" he inserted a statement against Diderot which was very injur­

ious. He chose his time well for the Encyclopedie had been suspended,

and Diderot’s fortune and even his freedom were in peril. Rousseau's

attack on Diderot of an unusual and defamatory form was considered a

cowardly act. Saint-Lambert wrote him on this occasion:

Vous allex meler la voix d'un ancien ami aux cris de l'envie! ... Je ne puis vous dissimuler combien cette atrocite me r ^ v o l t e . 2 ®

Such was the opinion among the Encyclopedists about Rousseau. Between

them the break was definite. From some aspects this situation was advan­

tageous for Rousseau because he became affected by religious sentiments.

This is apparent in his Lettre %. d ’Alembert, where he made this signifi­

cant declaration:

Je n'entends point qu’on puisse etre vertueux sans religion: J'eus longtemps cette opinion trompeuse dont je suis desabuse.29

28 L. Brunei, Extraits de J.-J. Rousseau (Paris: Librairie Hachette, n.d.), p. xxxv. 9^

In the Nouvelle Helolse and Eatle. this philosophical evolution appears complete. His friends accused him of apostasy, but he does not care.

The Encyclopedists had been for him, although friends, adversaries. He was now free from them. This brings us to the theme of Socrates again.

In 1762 Rousseau published Emile ou de 1'Education. Ihe first

three books deal with the physical education of Emile. The fourth book begins with the education of the mind. It was in this work that Rousseau

sacrificed the Greek philosopher, the man whom he considered as the "plus

sage" in his Discours. Emile, who is almost eighteen years old, begins

to consider the great question of a Supreme Being. This is the natural

order of morality, the need to develop one's conscience. Then the moment

of philosophy or religion has arrived. Emile's own conscience must

answer this question and not the wisdom of his master. It is here that

Rousseau introduced the "Vicaire Savoyard," but the "Vicaire" is Rousseau

himself. It was he who scrutinised his conscience and that of all

humanity; it was he who professed his faith in a personal, living God,

creator and guardian of all goodness and justice. Finally, Christianity

appears as the desirable goal of this aspiration to the Divine. The

"Vicaire" regulates his entire life as though he possessed that faith

which venerates and identifies his moral ideals as being the ideals of

the Gospel. Rousseau, however, did not go beyond the point where his

adherence would become submissive— the man of nature remained at the

entrance of the sanctuary. Emile was free to go further than his master 95 if he had the power. He could become a real and pure Christian. Thus,

“Profession de foi“ remained on the ground of free philosophy.

Since the last book deals with Smile's love, which is of no importance to our topic, let us consider Rousseau, "le philosophe," according to his disciples and in regard to the fourth book. Rousseau said that he began his search for truth which would satisfy his pupil's desire for learning by applying the Socratic method, with the difference that, while the Greek philosopher started his inquiry with politicians, poets, and artists, Rousseau began with the "philosophes."

Comment peut-on etre sceptique par systeme et de bonne foi? Je ne saurois le comprendre. Ces philosophes, ou n*existent pas, ou sont les plus malheureux des hommes— Je consultajs les philosophes, je feuilletais leurs livres, j'examinais leurs diverses opinions; je les trouvais tous fiers, affirmatifs, dogmatiques, meme dans leur scepticisms pretendu, n'ignorant rien, ne prouvant rien, se moquant les uns des autres.-'

Here is Rousseau, the man who was identified as the "philosophe" of his time attacking philosophy and philosophers in general. By so doing, he is preparing the basis for introducing religion as the supreme truth and

30 Rousseau, Oeuvres completes. Vol. II, p. 58* 96 the only answer to the question that has pussled philosophers of all times. He continues:

Imagine* tous vous philosophes anciens et modernes ayant d'abord epuisl leurs biztares systemes de force, de chances, de fatalite, de necessite, d'atomes, de monde anime, de matiere vivante, de materialisme de toute espece, et apres eux tous, l'illustre Clarke, eclairant le monde, annonjant enfin 1'fitre des etres et le dis- pensateur des choses; avec quelle universelle admiration, avec quel applaudissement unanime n'eut point ete reju ce nouveau systeme, si grand, si consolant, si sublime, si propre & elever l'ame, li donner une base & la vertu, et en merae temps si frappant, si lumineux, si simple, et, ce me semble, offrant moins de choses incomprehensibles Si 1'esprit humain qu’il n ’en trouve d'absurdes en tout autre systeme.

If one judges from the above lines, it seems that Rousseau sacrificed philosophy to theology— he immolated the ’’philosophes,” of whom he was considered one, to the theologians. He began by attempting to find the

truth in philosophy, but he was incapable of doing so. He then intro­

duced religion and made a parallel between the two disciplines, ending

his parallel with the triumph of religion. Diderot also attacked the

philosophers of Plato’s time to his; however, he respected Socrates. He

made this one exception because he considered Socrates as "the Philosophe"

of all times. When Diderot asks Plato in the dream of Mangogul: "Socrate

avait-il un chalumeau et soufflait-il aussi des bulles?" Plato answers:

Non, non. ... C'est a faire des tetes, c’est S, former des coeurs, qu'il s'occupa tant qu'il vecut. Le secret s'en perdit a sa mort. Socrate mourut, et les beaux jours de la philosophie passerent.-'

What a difference there is between Diderot, the "philosophe," and Rousseau,

the theologian! One creates a vivid image of Socrates, an image that

31Ibid.. p. 298. 32A. T., Vol. II, p. 257. 97 would be carried until the last moments of his life; the other, sacri­ fices philosophy entirely to a natural religion.

After comparing philosophy and religion, Rousseau’s comparison leads to the two leaders— Socrates and Christ. He introduces Christ through the Gospel:

Je vous avoue aussi que la saintete de l'fivangile est un argu­ ment qui parle k mon coeur, et auquel j'aurois meme regret de trouver quelque bonne reponse. Voyee les livres des philosophes avec toute leur pompe: Qu’ils sont petits pres de celui-la. ... Ou est l ’homme, ou est le sage qui sait agir, souffrir et mourir sans foiblesse et sans ostentation? Quand Platon peint son juste imaginaire couvert de tout l'opprobe du crime, et digne de tous les prix de la vertu, il peint trait pour trait J!sus-Christ.33

In order to reach his goal, Rousseau had to deny even Socrates* person­ ality. When he asked the question, "ou est l’homme, ou est le sage," he feared that he would find the answer to be Socrates. Being aware of this, he had to deny Socrates' existence by implying that the man Plato described in his works was Christ. He knew that this was a heresy and exclaimed:

Quels prejugls, quel avenglement ne faut-il point avoir pour oser comparer le fils de Sophronisque au fils de Marie? Quelle distance de l'un A 1*autreJ Socrate, mourant sans douleur, sans ignominie, soutint aisement jusqu'au bout son personnage; et si cette facile mort n'eut honor! sa vie, on douteroit si. Socrate, avec tout son esprit, fut autre chose qu'un sophiste.

Rousseau tried so hard to prove that Christ's death was more noble than that of Socrates' death that he did not realise he was contradicting him­ self. He was dealing with two different beings— one was the Son of God

33Rousseau, Oeuvres completes. Vol. II, p. 100. 98 while the other was a simple human being. Each one was great in his own way and there is no comparison. Rousseau continues:

n inventa, dit-on, la morale; d'autres avant lui l'avoient fait, il ne fit que mettre en legons leurs exemples. Aristide avoit iti juste avant que Socrate eut dit ce que c'etoit que justice; ... avant qu'il eut defini la vertu, la Grece abondoit en hommes vertueux. Mais ou J^sus avoit-il pris cher les siens cette morale elevee et pure dont lui seul a donne des lejons et l*exemple? ... La mort de Socrate, philosophant tranquillement avec ses amis, est la plus douce qu'on puisse d£sirer; celle de j£sus expirant dans les tourments, injurie, raille, maudit de tout un peuple, est la plus horrible qu'on puisse craindre. Socrate prenant la coupe empoisonee benit celui qui la lui presente et qui pleure; Jlsus au milieu d'un supplice affreux, prie pour ses bourreaux acharnes. Oui, si la vie et la mort de Socrate sont d'un sage, la vie et la mort de Jesus sont d'un D i e u . 3 5

Here we have a picture of Socrates, the man to whom Rousseau was compared, deprived of all greatness and wisdom. At first, Rousseau attempted to negate Socrates' existence entirely; but when he became aware that he could not support his arguments, he attempted to divest him of his great­ ness a3 the "philosophe" of all times. In his passion to prove the superiority of Jesus over Socrates, he forgot even the Gospel. For

Jean-Jacques, Socrates was nothing more than a copyist who took the ideas of his predecessors, making his contribution to mankind nil; while Christ was original, having no predecessors to imitate. Rousseau forgot to consider the Bible where Christ compared his morals to those of Moses:

Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Ihou shalt not kill, and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment.36

35Ibid.

36Mathew, 5:21. We see from the above lines that Christ, too, had predecessors.

Rousseau would not admit this. First, we noted that he repudiated philosophy in favor of religion, and then he proceeded to destroy the hero of the Encyclopedists (especially of Diderot) by denying Socrates for Christ. One might even go so far to say that he sacrificed the

Encyclopedists to their enemies. It seems that if Rousseau were "the

Philosophe" of his time, as Brixard and Linguet would have us believe, he would have been able to harmonise philosophy and religion, as Voltaire did in his Traite sur la tolerance, without denigrating either of them.

It appears that while Rousseau was under the influence of Diderot in

1749, Socrates was "le premier et le plus malheureux d'entre les sages."

When he broke away from the philosophic group and became Diderot*s

enemy, Socrates changed to "le fils de Sophronisque qui ne fit que

mettre en le§ons les exemples des autres." From this aspect rather

than prove Rousseau's greatness and Rousseau-Socrate, Brixard only proved

that Rousseau was a parrot who had taken his predecessors* ideas and put

them into eloquent paradoxes.

From the facts considered in this chapter, it appears that Rousseau

was not the eighteenth century Socrates, nor was he the "philosophe" of

his time. The assumption we make from the documents considered here is

that of an "anti-Socrate" and "anti-philosophe." If Brixard wished to

compare Rousseau to anyone at all, perhaps he should have compared him

to a theologian. As for the "philosophe" of the eighteenth century,

this title can only be applied to Diderot, as we shall try to prove in 100 the course of this study after having compared Diderot with some of the leading philosophers of his time.

To conclude this chapter on Rousseau, a few lines from Seinec

(with which I agree), have been chosen:

Socrate n*est done pas, apres tout, le heros de Rousseau, peut- etre justement parce qu’il est celui des philosophes: e'est contre eux qu*il exalte Jesu3. Mais e'est aussi qu'au fond le sombre Jean-Jacques est plus pres du misanthrope que du sage.37

Sesnec, p. 14. CHAPTER SEVEN

VOLTAIRE'S TREATMENT OF THE "DEATH OF SOCRATES"

Among those considered "philosophes" of the eighteenth century,

one of the most prominent figures in the literary world at that time

was Voltaire. Unlike Diderot and Rousseau who had to struggle for many years to be recognised in the realm of letters, Voltaire's Qedipe. pre­

sented for the first time in 1718, brought him fame as a playwright when

he was only twenty-four years old. Since his works are very extensive,

only those in which Voltaire refers to Socrates and his death will be

considered here.

The first occurrence of the "death of Socrates" in Voltaire's

writings is found in Remarques sur les pensees de M. Pascal. 173^•

Pascal had written in Les Pensees:

Les sages, parmi les palens qui ont dit qu'il n'y a qu'un Dieu. ont ete persecutes, les juifs hals, les Chretiens encore plus.

To which Voltaire replied:

Socrate n'a pas ete condamne pour avoir dit: " H n'y a qu'un Dieu," mais pour s'etre eleve contre le culte exterieur du pays, et pour s’etre fait des ennemis fort mal a propos.

By introducing Socrates' sentence which led to his death, it appears that

1 2 1Voltaire, Vol. XXII, p. 45. Ibid.

101 102

Voltaire was pointing out that Socrates was not condemned for being a monotheist but for denying the official deities of the state. Accord­ ing to him, every state or religion condemns heretics. It is important to recall that at this time Voltaire was not the "r^volte" that he became later in his literary career, nor was he perhaps sure of himself.

Nevertheless, it seems that he was trying to express more when he stated,

"de meme que le serait aujourd'hui un homme qui viendrait enseigner l'adoration d ’un Dieu, independante du culte regu,"^ for he was aware

that the church had executed many thinkers throughout the centuries for being unorthodox. In 1769 he took up this argument when he wrote to

Frederick the Great concerning his "Comments on the Writings of the Most

Eminent Authors, Who Have Been Accused of Attacking the Christian Religion."

It is evident that Voltaire knew the injustice done to many writers by o Christian theologians, but he was influenced at this early stage of his

career by such English writers as Pope, Shaftesbury, and Bolingbroke,

all of whom were deists. Pope's influence is apparent in Discours en

vers sur 1*homme. 1736, one of Voltaire's most optimistic works.

Voltaire refers to Socrates again in Lettres philosophiques. 173^«

This work consists of twenty-four letters divided as follows: The first

seven deal with religion; the next three, with the political regime in

England; six deal with philosophy and the English philosophers; and the

last eight deal with literature and social conditions in the world of

letters. Voltaire approached all of these subjects almost superficially,

^Ibid. 103 but with consistent irony that sometimes seems very sharp and malicious and other times appears naive and inoffensive. He passed in review the various aspects of Protestant sects: Anglicans', Quakers, Presbyterians, etc., poking fun at all of them. Under the mask of mockery, he attempted to make a comparison between tee Anglican and Catholic clergy. While he mocked the Quakers* hats or their goal to befriend the entire world,on the other hand, he praised their austere virtue, Biblical morals, and tolerance— turning these analogies against the French Catholic clergy.

With reference to political matters, Voltaire was no less daring. Since this subject was not as delicate as the religious one, he did not hide his enthusiasm and exalted English institutions, parliamentarianism, public freedom, and wealth. Even before Montesquieu*s L*Esprit de Lois, he was attacking French intolerance. With regard to taxes, he wrote in

"Lettre sur le gouvemement":

Un homme, parce qu*il est noble ou parce qu*il est pretre, n*est point ici exempt de payer certaines taxes.

Here is a powerful attack on tee aristocracy by birth and a eulogy to

the aristocracy which became such by hard and honest work. (In these

remarks, we can almost see the first sparks which lighted the fires of

the Revolution.) The letters concerning the English philosophers con­

tain sealous praise for the experimental method and its application, not

only to physics but to metaphysics as well. Ihis was done at the expense

of Descartes, but it was not only the victory of one school over another.

Above all, this was a new orientation given to thought— disrepute thrown 10k upon metaphysics, as well as theology. Attention was turned away from idealistic speculation and carried toward the positive objects of science or toward a psychology and morality entirely sensualistic. Voltaire is less daring in literature than he is in the other topics mentioned above because he had a classical education. He did not restrain himself, however, from criticising the lack of taste and the irregularity of the

English writers, especially the playwrights. Yet, he recognised the powerful mark of independence of their thoughts in their writings.

In the following passage of this work, Voltaire referred to

Socrates as "the divine":

Le divin Platon, maitre du divin Aristote, et le divin Socrate maltre du divin Platon, disaient l ’ame corporelle et etemelle. Le demon de Socrate lui avait appris san doute ce qui en &tait. XL y a des gens a la verite, qui pretendent qu’un homme qui se vantait d*avoir un genie familier etait indubitablement un peu fou ou un peu fripon; mais ces gens-li sont trop difficiles.^

It appears that Voltaire was sarcastic and humorous when he referred to

Plato and Socrates as "divin." If he had mentioned only Socrates as the

"divin Socrate," then this statement would have been more verisimilar

rather than have a comical effect, which is the result of anything that

is overdone. Also, we should not overlook Voltaire’s irony and satire

which appears to be quite sharp throughout this work. In one breath he

both made fun of the Quakers and praised them, creating uncertainty and

doubt as to what one should believe.

In the Discours en vers sur 1'homme and Tfraite de mltaphysioue.

in which Voltaire had an excellent opportunity to express his admiration

5Ibid.. p. 121 105 for Socrates, especially when he spoke of virtue, he mentioned Socrates without making any important remarks. Also, we do not find any traits of Socrates* personality reflected in these works. In his correspondence with Frederick the Second in 1737, there is a clear description of

Voltaire’s impression of Socrates during the early years of his literary career. On January 16, 1737» Frederick, who at that time was still a prince, wrote to Voltaire:

J'espere que vous voudres bien accepter, comme une marque de mon souvenir, le buste de Socrate que je vous envoie en faveur de ce qu'il fut le plus grand homme de la Grece. et le maitre qui forma Alcibiade. Fesant abstraction de ce dont la calomnie le noircit, je pourrais le mettre en parallels avec vous.°

Since the Prussian prince was attempting to identify himself with Alei- biades, he wanted to identify Voltaire with Socrates. Voltaire expressed a feigned disappointment with the gift, believing that he had been cheated for he had expected to receive a bust of Frederick. He wrote to Frederick:

Vous voules done exceller en tout? J’ai appris que c*est done Socrate et non Frederic que v.a.r. m'a donne. Encore une fois, monseigneur, je deteste les persecuteurs de Socrate, sans me soucier infiniment de ce sage au nez epate.

Socrate ne ra*est rien, e ’est Frederic que j'aime. Quelle diffe­ rence entre un bavard athlnien avec son demon familier, et un prince qui fait les delices des hommes et qui en fera la felicite.?

It seems that Voltaire was trying to flatter Frederick by considering him

superior to Socrates. He admitted that he detested Socrates' persecutors,

not because they condemned the philosopher to death, but perhaps because

7 ^Besterman, Vol. VI, pp. 24-25. Ibid.. p. 77* 106 they represented the tyrants and persecutors of all times. Voltaire con­

sidered Socrates nothing more than a "sage au nez epate" or "un bavard ath^nien," whose only distinction was that of being the first philosopher

in the history of philosophy. Frederick was a powerful prince and

Voltaire could benefit from him. Thus, Voltaire sacrificed the just man

who died for justice and truth for a prince from whom he could obtain

material compensation— Voltaire’s only reality at this time. Later we

shall see that the "prince qui fait les delices des hommes" will become

the tyrant.

Voltaire did not stop here with his attempt to degrade Socrates

in favor of Frederick. In a letter of March 1, 1737* to Frederick, he

wrote:

Je rejois a la fois quatre lettres de v.a.r.; le buste de Socrate est a Cirey. Je suis ebloui de tant de biens; j'ai une peine extreme II me recueillir assez pour vous remercier. Les grandes passions parleront les premieres: ces passions, monseigneur, sont vous et les vers.8

While in the letter he merely stated that he had received the bust of

Socrates, in the verse that follows the letter he went out of his way

to please Frederick and call him modern Alcibiades, with all the latter*s

virtues but not vices:

Modeme Alcibiade, . . . Je ne suis point Socrate: un oracle des dieux Ne s’avisa jamais de me declarer sage, Et mon Alcibiade est trop loin de mes yeux. C ’est vous que j’aimerais vous qui seriez mon m a i t r e , 9

a 9 Ibid., pp. 83-84. Ibid.. March 1, 1737, p. 84. It seems that Voltaire goes too far with his flattery. In spite of his defects, Alcibiades proved to be a patron or lover of philosophy and also proved himself on the battlefield; while Frederick, a prince at this time, had not shown anything to the world. His only greatness, if one can call it that, was to patronise the writers and thinkers of his time. Even here there is some doubt whether he did this out of pure love for philosophy and letters or for selfish interests. Alcibiades, on the other hand, joined the group of Socrates* disciples, not because he con­

sidered himself a "philosophe** nor because he was a mediocre writer seek­

ing flatteiy, but simply because he loved Socrates and his ideas. When

Voltaire wrote:

Protecteur de Socrate, ennemi d*Anitus, Vous ne redoutez point qu'on vous excommunie.

perhaps he meant that Frederick was gifted by nature with a crown, thus,

no one could challenge his actions. Persecuted and condemned by his

countrymen and especially by the church, Voltaire considered himself to

be the new Socrates in France; and under the protective wing of Frederick,

he could also be quite safe. This interpretation of the above-quoted

lines may not seem too exaggerated for it seems to be supported by:

Vous, contre la cigue illustre et sur appui Vous sans qui tot ou tard un Anitus, un pretre, Pourrait devotement m*immoler comme lui.H

Although Voltaire wrote "Je ne suis point Socrate," the last three lines 108 of the verse seem to be contradictory, for in the same year when

Frederick wrote to him:

On m'a assurl que vous etiez amateur de la peinture; e'est ce qui m'a ditermini & vous envoyer la tete de Socrate, qui est assez bien travaillee.^2

Voltaire replied:

J'ai vu encore le Socrate dont v.a.r. m'a daigne faire le pre­ sent: ce prlsent me fait relire tout ce que Platon dit de Socrate. Je suis toujours de mon premier avis.

La Grece, je l'avoue, eut un brillant destin, Mais Frederic est ne: Tout change; je me flatte. Qu'Athenes quelque jour doit elder a Berlin;, Et deja Frederic est plus grand que Socrate. ^

Frederick was not as great a writer or philosopher as Voltaire, yet he

recognized Socrates' genius. He attempted to convince Voltaire of this

fact, or perhaps he knew that Voltaire would deny it and consider him

greater than Socrates, thus satisfying his ego. If this was Frederick's

aim, he succeeded completely. It is also quite possible that Voltaire

knew what he was doing when he sacrificed the memory of Socrates for an

egocentric tyrant in order to gain his favor. Diderot, who worshipped

Socrates, would never have made such a sacrifice. It is true that

Diderot was patronized by Catherine the Great of Russia, but we do not

find anywhere in his writings such flattery as that used by Voltaire.

^•2ibid.. p. 89.

•*•3 Ibid. • p. 105. 109

The letter continues in the same tone pointing out the reasons why Frederick was greater than Socrates*

Aussi degage des superstitions populaires, aussi modeste qu'il etait vain. Vous n'allez point dans une eglise de luth£riens vous faire declarer le plus sage de tous les hommes: Vous vous bornez & faire tout ce qu'il faut pour l'etre. Vous n'allez point de maison en maison comme Socrate, dire au maitre qu'il est un sot, au precepteur qu'il est un ane, au petit garjon qu'il est un sot. ^

Of course, Frederick did not find it necessary to harass people in order

to verify that he was wise and great. His title and fortune did it for

him. Although he was a mediocre writer, the "modest" prince persisted

in his endeavor to be recognised as a poet. In comparison, Socrates

tried to substantiate the mediocrity of those who considered themselves

wise, but he never stated that he was such. Evidence of Socrates'

modesty is found in his life and ideas:

It seems to me that he i3 not referring literally to Socrates, but has merely taken my name as an example, as if he would say to us, "The wisest of you men is he who has realized, like Socrates, that in respect of wisdom he is really worthless."1*

Among the many mercenary writers who forgot their goals and gave Frederick

the title of "poet," there was Voltaire. Ihis fact is evident from his

own letters. In 1751 he wrote to Mme Denis from Berlin. According to him,

La Mettrie told him that Frederick had said: "J'aurai besoin de lui

encore un an, tout au plus; on presse l'orange, et on en jette l'ecorce."

14Ibid.

^Livingstone, p. 14. 110

In 1750 Frederick wrote to Voltaire the following:

Vous etes philosophe, je le suis de meme; qu'y a t-il de plus naturel, de plus simple et de plus dans l'ordre que des philosophes faits, pour vivre ensemble reunis par la meme etude, par le meme gout et par une fajon de penser semblable, se donnant cette satisfaction?^" If Frederick lacked anything, it was modesty. Socrates in the Apology said: Well, although I do not suppose that either of us knows anything really beautiful and good, I am better off than he is— for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I neither know nor think that I know.!?

There is quite a difference between the egocentric Socrates and the modest

Frederick, according to VoltaireI

After his visit to Berlin in 1750* Voltaire’s attitude toward

Frederick changes considerably. It will be after this date that he will

sometimes be faithful to the true image of Socrates. In fact, in July,

1753* he wrote to Mae Denis:

II est bien triste, sans doute, pour le roi de Prusse de n'avoir pas encore repare cette indignite commise en son nom par un homme qui se dit son ministre. ... II aurait pu se souvenir que, depuis plus de quinze ans, il m'avait prevenu par ses bontes seduisantes ... que j'avais travaille avec lui deux ans de suite St perfec- tionner ses talents; que je l'ai bien servi, et ne lui ai manque en rien; qu'enfin il est bien au-dessus de son rang et de sa gloire. "

We note how much modern Alcibiades who was greater than Socrates has

changed in Voltaire's esteem during the fifteen years that followed the

correspondence of 1737. It has been mentioned that when Frederick tried

to convince Voltaire of Socrates' greatness in order to stimulate Voltaire

16Besterman, Vol. XVIII, p. 128. 17Livingstone, p. 11.

10Besterman, Vol. XXIII, pp. 48-49. Ill to flatter him t?y considering him superior to Socrates he had succeeded.

Perhaps the following lines will prove our point:

En un mot, Socrate a pr£fer£ la cigue & la gene de contenir sa langue; mais je ne sais s*il y a plaisir «i etre le martyr de l'erreur d'autrui. Ce qu'il y a de plus r£el pour nous dans ce monde, e'est la viel!9

Frederick did not call Socrates openly "un bavard athenien" as Voltaire had done, but the idea is almost the same— the old fool cannot keep quiet and does not know that the only reality in this world is life. Frederick was not capable of comprehending the nobility of sacrifice. He did not know that there is more truth in death for one's beliefs than in a life without dignity.

This "jeu de mots” between Voltaire and Frederick does not end here. In 17^0 in an "fipitre au Roi de Prusse, Frederic-le-Grand,"

Voltaire again calls Frederick "Socrates." Referring to Wolff, who was

accused of atheism by the theologians of the University of Halle and

exiled by the king but later became president of the same University when

Frederick was crowned, Voltaire wrote:

Et toi dont la vertu brilla persecutee, Ibi qui prouvas un Dieu, mais qu'on noramait athee, Martyr de la raison, que l'Envie en fureur Chassa de son pays par les mains de l'erreur Reviens, il n'est plus rien qu'un philosophe craigne; Socrate est sur le trone, et la verite regne. ®

Here Socrates has a new aspect. Ho longer is he "le sage au nez epate"

nor "le bavard”; he has become a symbol of truth, of all just men con­

demned unjustly. It is this symbol that Socrates will represent during

^•9Ibid.. Vol. VI, p. 181. ^Besterman, Vol. X, p. 181. 112 the second half of the eighteenth century, especially for Diderot. It is also important to stress the fact that for the first time Socrates

is portrayed by Voltaire as respresenting the universal struggle of man for truth. In the Apology. Socrates asked Meletus, "And so, Meletus, you really think that I do not believe in any god?" To which Meletus 21 replied, "I swear by Zeus that you believe absolutely in none at all."

Perhaps this accusation was the most serious one made by Socrates'

enemies. Wolff, too, was accused unjustly hy the theologians of his

time. If we should believe Voltaire when he said, "Toi quiprouvas un

Dieu," Wolff was not an atheist; however, he was persecuted because his

religious theories did not agree with those of the Christian church.

While Socrates was sentenced to take the hemlock, Wolff was more fortun­

ate because he was Frederick's friend and did not have to follow the

destiny of many other thinkers who had unjustly been put to death either

by Athenians or hy Christian theologians. In this case when Voltaire

calls Frederick "Socrate," it seems to be sincere because Frederick had

respect for the truth.

From this time on, the idea of the "death of Socrates" in Voltaire's

works begins to have a certain and definite implication. In his Poeme sur

la loi naturelle. 1752, for example, it expresses the idea of injustice

again. The purpose of the poem is to establish the existence of a uni­

versal and independent morality, not only of every revealed religion, but

of every system on the nature of a Supreme Being. The poem, therefore,

is a confession of faith or rather the outline of a religion without the

21 Livingstone, p. 21. 113 supernatural. This philosophical credo is worth mentioning above all for its omissions which put it in opposition to positive religions and, especially, with the Chrisitan religion. On the other hand, it presents in certain general themes elevated developments which sometimes are very prosaic, but more often happy.

Poeme sur la loi naturelle is divided into four parts. In the first, Voltaire asks himself what obeisance God demands from us; and after mentioning briefly the contradictions of the different religions among

themselves, he states that God speaks to man through reason and he makes

Himself known through conscience. It is here that he refers to Socrates

as representing a universal morality:

La morale uniforme en tout temps, en tout lieu, A des siecles sans fin parle au nom de ce Dieu. C*est la loi de Trajan, de Socrate, et la votre.

But Socrates was sentenced to death for not believing in the established

religion of Athens; and even if Voltaire does not say it openly, perhaps

he intended to bring out this point. We can only speculate that this

reference to Socrates, who was executed for believing in a universal

religion rather than a positive and finite one, is the understood meaning.

In the second part, Voltaire answers the objections against the principles

of a universal morality. The errors, weaknesses of individuals and even

22 Voltaire, Vol. IX, p. W 4-. 114 nations, are only momentary storms which do not affect the basis of the hope that God offers to man:

Les vents contagieux en ont trouble les eaux; En vain sur sa surface une fange etrangere Apporte en bouillonnant un limon qui l'altere; L'homme le plus injust et le mois police S'y contemple aisement quant l'orage est pass£. Tous ont regu du ciel avec 1*intelligence Ce frein de la justice et de la conscience ^

It is evident from the above lines that if the storm does some damage, the wreckage is repairable.

It is in respect to conscience that Voltaire mentions Socrates in the second part of the poem. Habit and example may determine many of man's actions, but conscience is not the product of habit— it is innate.

De la raison naissante elle/la conscience/ est le premier fruit Arme que la nature a mise en notre main, Qui combat l'interet par l'amour du prochain. De Socrate, en un mot, e’est 1& l'heureux genie; C'est 1& ce dieu secret que dirigeait sa vie, Ce dieu qui jusqu'au bout presidait & son sort Quand il but sans palir la coupe de la mort. Quoil cet esprit divin n'est-il que pour Socrate? Tout mortel a le sien, ...

From the above passage it appears that Voltaire tried to identify

Socrates' demon with "conscience." Here the Greek philosopher acquires a new personality— he becomes a symbol. Having reached this ideal, the nyth of Socrates, his life, and even his existence becomes unimportant; for Socrates as "conscience" is the symbol of all humanity. No matter what others thought of him, he was sure of his mission because his 115 conscience told him so. If this were true for Socrates, why could it not be time for every man in every age? Why could it not be true for the

"philosophes" who were attacked by the government and the church for their beliefs? When Voltaire identified Socrates with "conscience," it may be that he referred to the unjust death of the "philosophe," or per­ haps he was trying to point out to the adversaries of the "philosophes"

that regardless of how much they might persecute them, truth (conscience) will prevail as it did in the case of Socrates. Moreover, as mentioned before, in 17^9 when Diderot was at Vincennes (three years before Voltaire wrote Poeme sur la loi naturelle), he identified the persecuted "philosophe"

as "Socrate-Diderot" in a letter to Raynal. Later in 1765 when the

battle between "philosophes" and "anti-philosophes" reached a crucial

point, he wrote an "Apologie des philosophes" to M. Damilaville in which

he stated:

J'ai suivi mon penchant. Celui d'un philosophe n'est pas de plaindre les malheureux, c*est de les servir. Je sais avec quelle fureur le fanatisme s'eleve contre la philosophie. Elle a deux filles qu'il voudrait faire perir comme Calas, ce sont la Verite et la Tolerance, tandis que la philosophie ne veut que desarmer les enfants du fanatisme, le mensonge et la persecution. ... Le vrai philosophe defriche les champs incultes, augmente le nombre des charrues, et par consequant des habitants;2^

It seems that Voltaire continued to attack the fanaticism of the church

all his life. According to him, a philosopher is not bound to any posi­

tive religion or moral, but to truth and tolerance which are dictated to

him by his conscience. The church, proclaiming a positive religion,

represents lies and intolerance. While the theologian claims to know

25Voltaire, Vol. XXXXIV, p. 153. 116 everything concerning God and religion, the philosopher begins from the assumption that he does not know anything. Voltaire expressed this same concept in a letter to D*Alembert, dated April 5 of the same year, in which he said:

Je ne parle pas des impies qui embrassent ouvertement le systerae de Spinosa; je parle des honnetes gens, qui n'ont point des prin- cipes fixes sur la nature des choses, qui ne savent point ce qui est, mais qui savent tres bien ce qui n'est pas: voila mes vrais philosophes.26

Although Voltaire did not mention Socrates in the above lines, the Greek philosopher seems to be present because these lines were conceived in

the Socratic tone. In the Apology. Socrates said almost the same: "I am better off than he is— for he knows nothing, and thinks that he knows; I

neither know nor think that I know."2? Hence, it appears from the tone

of the letter that he identified himself with Socrates.

In the third part of Poeme sur la loi naturelle. Voltaire

attacked very bitterly those who persecute other men in the name of

individual religion and try to impose by force their beliefs on others.

He mentioned the horrors of the Inquisition and religious wars. After

having stated that because of philosophy man became more human, Voltaire

26Ibid., Vol. XXXXIII, p. 520.

27'Livingstone, p. 11. 117 attacked the theologians of his time who condemned the dissidents and accused pagan virtues of being crimes.

Les vertus des palens Itaient, dit-on, des crimes. Rigueur impitoyablet odieuse maximes! ...... Gazetier clandestin ...... N ’est-tu pas satisfait de condamner au feu Nos meilleurs citoyens, Montaigne et Montesquieu? Penses-tu que Socrate et le juste Aristide, . . . Noms cheris, noms sacres, que tu n'as jamais lus, Aux fureurs de demons sont livres en partage Par le Dieu bienfaisant dont ils Itaient 1 'image;

According to Voltaire, God does not condemn anyone for his actions if

his conscience tells him that his deeds are good. It was not God who

condemned Socrates; it was man. Nor was it God who condemned the eigh­

teenth century "philosophes,1* but man assuming that he was God's repre­

sentative on earth who knew everything and had the right to use any means

to impose his beliefs on other men. If the theologians condemn the works

of the philosophers, it is only because of their ignorance and "ils n'ont

jamais lu ces noms chlris, ces noms sacres." Socrates, too, was condemned

because he unmasked ignorance and mediocrity among those who considered

themselves wise. As Voltaire pointed out later, truth willprevail in the

end because man will recognize his errors and try to amend them. In

"Democratic," Dictionnaire philosophique. 1771, with reference to Athens

and Socrates' fate, he stated:

II est difficile de peser dans une balance bien juste les inquitls de la republique d'Athenes et celles de la cour de Macedoine. Nous reprochons encore aujourd'hui aux Athenians le bannissement de Cimon, d'Aristide, de Ihemistocle, d'Alcibiade; les jugements a mort portes contre Phocion et contre Socrate, jugements qui ressemblent & ceux de quelques-uns de nos tribunaux absurdes et c r u e l s .

28Voltaire, Vol. IX, p. 454. 29Ibid.. Vol. XVIII, p. 331. 118

Finally, Voltaire openly condemned the people of Athens for the persecu­ tion of so many great men and, above all, for the death sentence given to Socrates and Phocion. When he refers to the unjust death of the two philosophers, he attacks the courts of justice for having carried out such an injustice. It is also important to note that Voltaire compared the Greek court of justice with some of the French courts— the Greek court condemned the philosophers to death and the French court persecutes and condemns the eighteenth century "philosophes." Ihus, it seems that

Voltaire attempted to identify the injustice of Athens with that of

France. If Athenian justice during Socrates' time executed him unjustly,

French justice is committing the same error by persecuting the "philosophes."

We might assume, then, that Voltaire identifies in the above lines the fate of the entire philosophic group with that of Socrates.

After Voltaire's bitter attack against the courts of justice and following the enumeration of the crimes of the totalitarian government of Macedonia and the democratic government of Athens, Voltaire continued:

Le peuple s'est toujours repenti et dont il a fait amende honorable. II demanda pardon A Socrate apres sa mort, et lui erigea le petit temple du Socrateion. II demanda pardon A Phocion et lui eleva une statue.30 It appears from the above that Voltaire might have been considering the

idea of the immortality of writers and philosophers through their works.

Also, we have seen that Voltaire identified the Athenian court of justice with that of eighteenth century France. He considered the judges res­

ponsible for the unjust death of Socrates and the persecution of the French "philosophe1*— the people are innocent. Even if Voltaire does not say it outright, it appears from the tone of these lines that he believed the masses are innocent because they are easily influenced by people who have certain social status. In a moment of passion, the masses can commit a crime; but this does not make them a criminal. As he stated in Poeme sur la loi naturelle. "le crime et le malheur est comme un orage qui passe." The real criminals are the leaders. In Socrates* case, the leaders influenced the people, who in a moment of blind emotion cried for the philosopher*s life. However, after the moment of fury had passed, the people realised their error and tried to make up for it by building a temple to Socrates and a statue to Phocion. During the eigh­ teenth century in France, there were the theologians and the government who were responsible for the sufferings of the "philosophes." The French people were innocent; and if they took part in any miscarriage of justice,

they did not do it because of malice but rather because of ignorance.

Just as the people of Athens recognized their error and remedied it, so would the people of France realize their mistakes and honor the memory

of the "philosophes." In other words, Voltaire tried to point out to the

French people and especially to his adversaries that truth and justice will triumph in spite of the efforts of anti-philosophic groups to suppress

it. Seen in this light, the image of Socrates— the unjust death of

Socrates— becomes a symbol of justice. The death of the "philosophe" and

the resurrection of his memory by his countrymen after his death symbol­

izes the triumph of truth and justice in every age, in every nation, and

in every individual with a clear conscience. This was not the only time that Voltaire brought forth this

symbol of Socrates* death representing the triumph of truth. In 1769 in

"fipitre Si l*auteur du Livre des Itois Imposteurs," Voltaire attacked all

the mediocre writers who dared to satirise the "philosophes."

De lesards et de rats mon logis est rempli; Mais l*architecte existe et quiconque le nie Sous le manteau du sage est atteint de manie. Consulte Zoroastre, et Minos, et Solon, Et le martyr Socrate;...... *

Here again we have another example of the injustice done to Socrates. It was by mediocre people that Socrates was executed. They did not under­

stand his greatness. Ihey were afraid of the truth; it was through lies

that thqy dominated the masses. Ihey were afraid of men of genius who

preached freedom and justice; hence, they had to destroy these virtues.

The eighteenth century French politicians and theologians also were

dominating the masses with lies. Anyone who tried to advocate the truth

was a threat to their power and had to be silenced. Just as the Greek

philosopher became Hle martyr Socrate" honored by his countrymen, so

would the French philosophers become "les martyrs philosophes" with their

temples erected to them by posterity.

Voltaire seems to be very much against the priests and theolo­

gians, perhaps considering them to be the main force behind the anti-

philosophic movement. Even if this were not true, he succeeded in making

a strong argument when he referred to this matter. One of the best

examples in this respect is "L'Affaire Calas," in Traite sur la tolerance. 1763. Ihis incident was very important to Voltaire’s career. Up to that time, he was only a man of letters, the most witty and personal of all.

From this point on, he appears as the defender of the oppressed, the avenger of innocence, and the rectifier of abuses. Until this time he had been preoccupied principally with business and glory, and from this time on he undertook the task of being the champion of humanity.

Hie reasons that caused this change in Voltaire are as follows: On

March 9, 1762, a protestant from Tculouse, Jean Calas, was accused of having killed his own son who was about to be converted to Catholicism.

He was sentenced by the parliament of Toulouse to die on the wheel of tor­ ture. After looking into the case, Voltaire concluded that this was an act of injustice and he became the defender of the Calas family. He took advantage of his influence among the highly placed personalities, such as Marechal de Richelieu; and he was successful in transferring the case from Toulouse to Paris. After two years of struggle, the verdict was pronounced by the parliament of Paris in 1764. Finally, on March 9»

1765, after three years, the result of the new deliberation was announced by forty judges, affirming Calas' innocence. During all this time,

Voltaire fought veiy strongly for the triumph of justice.

It has been stated in Chapter Six that in Rousseau's Emile a com­ parison was made between Socrates and Christ, and we saw that he sacri­

ficed the Greek philosopher to Christ. In 1763 in Traite sur la tolerance.

Voltaire also compared the two great men; unlike Rousseau, he did not

renounce one in favor of the other. Voltaire approached them from a human point of view. After having reviewed the life of Christ and proved that He was very tolerant, he continued:

II n*eclate pas meme contre Judas qui doit le trahir; il ordonne a Pierre de ne se jamais servir de l ’epee; il reprimande les enfants de Z4bed4e, qui «i l*example d*l2lie, voulaient faire des- cendre-le feu du ciel sur une ville qui n'avait pas voulu les loger.-*

Here Voltaire attempted to reprimand the priests and theologians for their fanaticism and condemn them for their actions by taking as an example their own Master, Christ, in whose name they fight and commit injustices.

He pointed out to them that Jesus was tolerant and forgave even the dis­ ciples who betrayed him. Voltaire did not stop with this example of

Christ, who represents a positive and partial religion in the universe; he introduced Socrates, the symbol of philosophy, and attempted to focus the similarities of these two men and their death.

Enfin il meurt vietime de l*envie. Si l*on ose comparer le sacre avec le profane, et un Dieu avec un homme, sa mort, humainement parlant, a beaucoup de rapport avec celle de Socrate. Le philosophe grec perit par la haine des sophistes, des pretres et des premiers du peuple: Le legislateur des chretiens succomba sous la haine des scribes, des pharisiens et des pretres. Socrate pouvait eviter la mort, et il ne le voulut pas: J^sus-Christ s'offrit volontairement. Le philosophe grec pardonna non seulement It ses calomniateurs et a ses juges iniques, mais il les pria de traiter un jour ses enfants comme lui-meme, s'ils etaient assez heureux pour meriter leur haine comme lui: le legislateur des chretiens, infiniment superieur, pria son p'ere de pardonner ses ennemis. ^

Although Voltaire was very favorable to Socrates, he had to prove the

superiority of Christ, for more than human, He is the Son of God, and

also because of the cause he was defending. Nevertheless, there is a 123 great difference between Rousseau’s comparison of the two men and that

of Voltaire. Rousseau's Emile could not even conceive the idea of a

similarity of the two. In fact, he exclaimed very indignantly:

Qdels prejuges, quel aveuglement ne faut-il point avoir pour oser comparer le fils de Sophronisque au fils de Marie.'

Since Voltaire’s Tfraite sur la tolerance was published in I763 and

Rousseau's Emile in 1?65, it could be possible that Rousseau's revolt

against those who dared to compare Socrates to Christ was a revolt

against Voltaire. If we omit the last remark in Voltaire's work, e.g.,

"le legislateur des chretiens,§> infiniment superieur," the other part of

the comparison expresses the equality of Socrates and Christ as far as

their virtues and beliefs in tolerance are concerned. Since Rousseau at

this time had turned against Voltaire and the entire philosophic group,

blinded by his passion he neglected to notice the remark "infiniment

superieur" and cried blasphemy.

We stated that when Voltaire wrote Traite sur la tolerance he was

trying to arouse emotion and sympathy for his defendant; therefore if he

mentions the infinite superiority of Christ over Socrates, he did it

unselfishly and for a noble cause. In appearance it looks as if Voltaire

was honest in his statement; but if we look more closely at the passage,

it seems that this remark contains Voltairian sarcasm and irony and that

the really "infiniment superieur" being is Socrates. Let us look at the

3^ Rousseau, Oeuvres completes. Vol. II, p. 100. 124 text more closely. Referring to Socrates, Voltaire wrote the following:

Le philosophe grec pardonna non seulement & ses calomniateurs et a ses juges iniques, mais il les pria de traiter un jour ses enfants comme lui-meme, s*ils etaient assez heureux pour meriter leur halne comme lui.

In these lines the image of Socrates, his personality, emerges with great power. We saw that in Poeme sur la loi naturelle Voltaire identified

Socrates with "Conscience." Now, it is this conscience that has the

power to forgive. Socrates is not bound to any Superior Being for his

actions. If he forgives, this action emanates from within himself.

This is the action of an individual who is a free man and who establishes

his own moral values. He acts according to these values and according

to his own conscience. Let us also look more closely at the passage

which refers to Christ:

Le legislateur des chretiens, infiniment superieur, pria son pere de pardonner h. ses ennemis.

We see that in this quotation Christ asked God to forgive his enemies;

we saw that Socrates also forgave his executioners. In this respect,

both are alike. If Christ is far superior, it is because he is the Son

of God. However, what matters is the fact that in a work which deals

with intolerance and injustice, Voltaire mentioned the unjust death of

Socrates. This factor strengthens our theory that Socrates* death became

a symbol, the champion of the "philosophes," the weapon which they used

against their adversaries— in short, the symbol of truth and justice

against falsehood and injustice. In Letters to his Highness the Prince of . . . where Voltaire comments on the writings of the most eminent authors who have been accused by the church as having attacked the Christian religion, he compared several times the victims of the church and their unjust death to that of

Socrates. For example, in the letter about Vanini, who was sentenced to death under the accusation of atheism, Voltaire wrote:

The unhappy end of Vanini does not move us to indignation and pity, like that of Socrates, because Vanini was but a foreign pedant, without merit. However, Vanini was certainly no atheist, as has been pretended. He was precisely the contrary.35

The fact that Vanini's death does not move us as does that of Socrates is not important; the important factor is the injustice of his death which

Voltaire identifies with that of Socrates. It is the image of Socrates* death, appearing as a symbol of injustice that matters. In the same work,

Letter IV, on the English authors, Voltaire wrote with reference to

Thomas Chubb:

Our Saviour appears to him j_Thomas Chubb7 a philosopher, like Socrates, who, like him, was put to death for having combated the superstitions and the priests of his country.36

Here again Socrates is compared to Christ, and this time on an equal

basis. Both died because they preached the truth and the love of justice.

The ignorant masses cannot be dominated with truth, only with lies and

false promises; hence, Socrates and Christ had to be removed. In Letter

VII, on the French authors, with reference to Barbeyrac, again he attacked

3^Voltaire. Letters to His Highness the Prince . . . (Glasgow, 1769), p. 30. 126 the priests. Barbeyrac was accused of wanting to destroy Christianity.

Voltaire wrote in this regard:

He defended himself; but in his defense he let appear so pro­ found a contempt for the Fathers of the Church; he testifies so much disdain for their false eloquence, and for their dia­ lectic; he so highly prefers to them Confucius, Socrates, etc.

In these lines we notice again Voltaire’s contempt for the church and the theologians. Perhaps it was Barbeyrac who preferred Socrates and

Confucius to the Christian theologians, or perhaps here is Voltaire who expresses his preference for the Fathers of philosophy.

In conclusion let us attempt to sum up Voltaire's treatment of

Socrates and his unjust death. From the texts consulted in this chapter, it seems that there are two images of Socrates in Voltaire's works. At the beginning of his literary career when he was eager to acquire fame and fortune, Voltaire did not portray the image of Socrates in its full light. We saw that on many occasions he renounced the "divin Socrate"

to Frederick of Prussia; however, he never sacrificed philosophy. Even when he considered Frederick superior to Socrates, he still believed

that Socrates was a philosopher. In Poeme sur la loi naturelle dedicated

to Frederick, he calls him "Philosophe intrepide." Voltaire's fault is

that of having renounced Socrates for a mediocre tyrant. After the 1750's

Voltaire's attitude toward Socrates changed considerably. He created a

symbol out of the unjust death of the Greek philosopher, the symbol of

truth and justice which helped as a weapon against the injustice which ruled in the world. This symbol, created by Diderot and Voltaire and the other "philosophies" during the eighteenth century, has now acquired universal values. CHAPTER EIGHT

THE ENCYCLOPEDISTS AND THE ANH.PHILOSOPHIC GROUP

Since our topic deals with Socrates, let us now refer to a

passage from the Apology which will help us more fully to understand

Socrates* struggle in Athens and the philosophic struggle in France

around the 1760*s. With reference to the accusations brought against

him, Socrates said:

I will sum up their words in an affidavit: "Socrates is an evil­ doer, and a meddler, who searches into things under the earth and in heaven, and he makes the worse appear the better cause; and he teaches the aforesaid doctrines to others." Such is the nature of the accusation: it is just what you have yourself seen in the comedy of Aristophanes, who has introduced a man whom he calls Socrates, swinging about and saying that he walks in air, and talking a deal of nonsense concerning matters of which I do not pretend to know either much or little—

In fact, Socrates distinguished two types of accusers: those who had

slandered him before the people for some time, and those who now brought

formal charges against him. He considered Aristophanes among the former

accusers. It appears that Socrates presented the substance of the

charges made by the playwright in the form of a formal accusation—

"Socrates violates the laws and spends his time investigating things sub>

terrene and celestial ...” Addressing the judges he continues: "You

^Livingstone, p. 6.

128 129 have yourselves seen In Aristophanes' comedy one Socrates, born aloft in a basket ..." This is the charge made by his earlier accuser and which he distinguished clearly from that made by Anytus, Meletus, and

Lycon.

And then those who are examined by them instead of being angry with themselves are angry with me: This confounded- Socrates, they say; this villainous misleader of youth! —

By reading the Clouds carefully, one will notice that half of Anytus* accusations are also suited to Aristophanes* comedy. The corruption of the youth by Socrates could not have been portrayed in stronger colors than in the representation of Fheidippides who learns through the contest of the two Discourses, the just and unjust, and puts into practice at once the principles of the new era— contempt for all that is holy, the overthrow of every obstacle for egotism, and the elevation of the common­ est selfishness as the sole rule of action. Thus, one cannot see wherein lies the characteristic difference between the charges made by the comedy and those of Anytus. With regard to the second half of the charge, the disbelief in the recognized gods of Athens and the introduction of new ones, it differs slightly. The two are basically the same, however.

Anytus accuses Socrates of attempting to overthrow the state divinities and replace them with new ones; while in the Clouds. Zeus is represented as being dethroned and supplanted by the "Aetherial vortex." Along with

this new master, an entire troop of new divinities is introduced.

Therefore, there appears to be very little difference between the two

charges. Aristophanes did not attack Socrates as a person in the Clouds; he attacked his ideas. During that time the cause of hostility originated because of the antagonism between two methods: that of the Sophists who sought to establish their principles by means of continuous discourse, and that of Socrates who employed the quick method of teaching which was based on questions and answers. The latter appealed to the young people who were bored and exhausted by the continuous repetition of the Sophistic method. Contrary to the Sophists and Socrates, Aristophanes occupied a well-defined position. He was one of the strongest partisans among the group of men who saw in this new method a danger to the Athenian common­ wealth. This is the reason he classed himself with those who opposed with

zeal and energy the dangers of innovation, who with indignation resisted

the attacks of the free thinkers upon Athenian religion and morals, and who sought to destroy in their infancy the ruinous new theories. Until

then accessible only to young people of rank and wealth, Socrates' ideas

now began to penetrate into the middle and lower classes of society.

Being received by people untrained in thinking, they were sure to produce

serious confusion. Socrates was the most dangerous of all the new

thinkers because he did not charge a fee for his teachings; consequently,

whoever wished to associate with him was received. He strove to arouse

all classes of citizens without regard to social position. Socrates had

to be stopped. According to C. C. Felton in "Preface to the Clouds," 131 the coralc stage was the best way of defamation. Felton wrote as follows:

In modem times, such a man, Aristophanes, would resort to the press as the mightiest engine to aid him in waging the holy warfare. In ancient Attic days, he resorted to the comic stage. The freedom of the old comic theatre, before the bloody reign of the Thirty, was to the Athenians what the freedom of the press is to the modern constitutional states

While the press in modem times is one of the most powerful weapons for the propagation of truth and freedom, during the eighteenth century in

France, the Jesuits and the anti-philosophic group also employed the stage as one of the means to degrade the "philosophes."

The following statement by Felton could serve as an introduction to the eighteenth century in France:

No class of men known to history have ever been so worthy of the execrations of the world as the Greek sophists of that age, except, perhaps, the philosophers— those birds of evil omenr-whose boding cries foretold the storms of the French Revolution.

It is unfortunate that Felton saw only the evils in the teachings of the

"philosophes** and failed to see the greatness and nobility of their ideas.

It is also unfortunate that he mentions only the storms of the French Revolution and not the results of it.

Having mentioned the influence of the Clouds on Socrates' trial and the reasons that prompted Aristophanes to satirise Socrates, let us

see if there are any similarities between the Athenian society of that

time and the second half of the eighteenth century in France. It was

stated that by teaching without remuneration, Socrates was striving to

arouse all classes of society. In Les Philosophes. the chapter, "Les

3 C. C. Felton, The Clouds of Aristophanes (Boston: John Allyn Publisher, 1873)» P« vi. k Ibid.. p. vii. philosophes et le peuple," M. Roustan states as follows:

Tout le monde sent bien qu'il y a quelque chose qui se prepare. Le gueux, qui ne salt pas lire, en admettant raeme qu*il n*aime pas a causer, est, malgre lui, entrain! par ce courant de l'opinion, qui gross!t i mesure que le siecle s'avance, et ce courant, ce sont les philosophes qui l*ont cr!e, ou, si l*on veut, qui l'ont dirig! et rendu irr!sistible.5

It appears that the people are carried away by the current of the new ideas. He continues:

En admettant qu'alors les trois quarts des miserables soient incapables de lire un de ces ouvrages qui fourmillent dans la capitale, lanc!s par les philosophes ou inspires par la philoso­ phic, en admettant qu'ils n'en aient pas connu la substance par des camarades plus !dair!s et plus r!fl!chis, en admettant qu'ils n*aient jamais mis les pieds au theatre, tous vivent dans une atmosphere ou flottent les idees qu'ont lancees les r!formateurs; tous les respirent en quelque sorte, serait-ce & leur insu. Mais on voit bien que cette hypothfese n'est pas exacte: en r!alite, il y eut dans la Ndemocratien un public toujours plus nombreux pour lire; ce public diminue de qualite, mais il augmente sans cesse en quantit!. C'est lui qui se met Si traduire, sous une forme ou sous une autre, le credo des encyclopldistes, qui devait etre le dogme de la societe future; c'est lui qui se charge de l'assimiler A ces classes situees tout a fait "en bas," comme disait Brunetiere, et qui peuvent ainsi recevoir leur part de lumi^res et de rayons.®

These new ideas spread throughout the entire country. What was even more

dangerous, they reached the oppressed people who attempted to adopt them

to suit their fate and destiny. The conservatives of Athens became alarmed

and tried to stop the diffusion of new ideas by exposing and satirizing

their best exponent. It was these advanced ideas that also alarmed the

party of the "devots," who employed every means to hault their circulation.

^M. Roustan, Les Philosophes aux XVIII si&cle (Paris: Hachette et Cie., 1911), P. 318. 133

The government and the church feared an educated mass— it represented a new force, a new danger and threat to the monarchy and to the Jesuits.

In another passage, Roustan states:

Un public nouveau se forme, lentement, moins dllicat, mais plus nombreux, plus etendu, plus divers que l'ancien. Quelques ann£es encore, et, les mSmes causes continuant d'agir, le besoin crlera, comme on dit, son organe; il suscitera d'en bas les £crivains propres & le satisfaire; et les Diderot et les Jean-Jacques pour ne rien dire des moindres, encore qu'ils ne laissent pas d'y avoir eu leur part— introduiront pour la renouveler, dans la literature, le ferment de la democratic.'

Not all the "philosophes" were in favor of mass education. When Voltaire

discussed with Damilaville on March 19 and April 1, 1?66, the question of

whether or not the people should be educated, he said:

Le roi de Prusse mande que, sur mille hommes, on ne trouve qu'un philosophe; mais il excepte l'Angleterre. A ce compte il n'y aurait gufere que deux mille sages en France; mais ces deux mille en dix ans en produisent quarante mille, et c'est A peu pres tout ce qu'il faut; car il est It propos que le peuple soit guide et non pas qu'il soit instruit; il n'est pas digne de l'etre.®

In April of the same year, he wrote:

Je crois que nous ne nous entendons pas sur 1 'article peuple, que vous croyez digne d'etre instruit. J'entends par peuple la populace qui n'a que ses bras pour vivre. Je doute que cet ordre de citoyens ait jamais le temps ni la capacity de s'instruire; ils mourraient de faim avant de devenir philosophes. II me paralt essentiel qu'il y ait des gueux ignorants. Si vous faisiez valoir comme moi une terre, et si vous aviez des charrues, vous seriez bien de mon avis. Ce n'est pas le monoeuvre qu'il faut instruire, c'est le bon bour­ geois, c'est 1 'habitant des villes; cette entreprise est forte et assez grande.^

Since Voltaire belonged to the bourgeoisie, he believed that the nobility

and the middle class should be the only ones to be educated. The mass did

7Ibid., p. 312.

8Ibid.. p. 322. 9Ibid.. pp. 322-23 13^ not have a right to education. In this respect, Voltaire agrees with

the nobility, government, and church. The reason for Voltaire's attitude was very clearly expressed by him: "Si vous faisiez valoir comme moi une

terre, et si vous aviez des charrues ..." On the other hand, Diderot's

ideas concerning this matter were very different. In Plan d'une universite.

he stated that the progress of civilization was closely related to that of knowledge:

Instruire une nation, c'est la civiliser; y £teindre les connaissances, c'est ramener II l'etat primitif de la barbarie. ... Lorsque les_arts et les sciences den eloignerent, que devint-elle? j l *Italie/ Barbare. ®

These are the very first words in Diderot's work. It seems that the

"philosophe" believed in the education of an entire nation. Greece was

great and flourishing when all of Athens was educated; but when education

became the property of a small privileged group, Greece fell into a primi­

tive stage of barbarism and decadence. The same thing occurred with Italy

during the Golden Age of the Renaissance. Tb the question, "What is a

university?" he answered:

Une universite est une ecole dont la porte est ouverte indistincte- ment a tous les enfants d'une nation et ou des maitres stipendies par l'fitat les initient Si la cormaissance elementaire de toutes les sciences. Je dis indistinctement, parce qu'il serait aussi cruel qu'absurde de condamner Si l'ignorance les conditions subaltemes de la soci£te. Dans toutes, il est des connaissances dont on ne saurait etre prive sans consequence. Le nombre des chaumieres et des autres Edifices particuliers etant Si celui des palais dans le rapport de dix mille St un, il y a dix mille Si parier contre un que le glnie, les talents et la vertu sortiront plutot d'une chaumiere que d'un palais. La vertu! Oui, la vertu, parce qu'il faut plus de raison, plus de lumieres et de force qu'on ne le suppose commune- ment pour etre vraiment homme de bien. Est-on homme de bien sans justice, et a't-on de la justice sans lumiferes?^-

10A. T., Vol. Ill, p. ^29. 11Ibid.. p. ^33- 135 We note that there is quite a difference between Voltaire, the man of letters, and Diderot, the "philosophe," with regard to mass education.

The latter was not affected by such worries as who would work his land for he owned none and, therefore, he was more logical than Voltaire.

Since the new ideas were too advanced for the eighteenth century, it was natural that the enemies of the "philosophes" attacked them.

Mme de Grafigny in her play La Fille d*Aristide introduced a scene where

Parm£nion said to Cleomene, the philosopher:

iSclairer les esprits? Eh! Seigneur, le vulgaire ne doit point etre 6claire, et vos philosophes apprennent peu de chose a ceux qui sont au-dessus de ce meme vulgaire. Les lumieres que l'on donne au peuple (eh! combien des gens sont peuple!) ne font que l'egarer, en lui otant ses principes et meme ses pr£jug£s utiles, ses prejuges respectables, k la place desquels on ne puet rien mettre. La corruption genlrale d'Athenes ne vient peut-etre que de ce qu*on a trop eclaire les esprits.

According to Mme de Grafigny, in Athens the philosophers were to blame because they educated the people; hence, it was up to the Aristophaneses,

Palissots, and Frerons to satirize the philosophers on the comic stage.

One of the most successful among the playwrights of comedy in the eigh­

teenth century--the one who almost succeeded in his task to harm the

Encyclopedists— was Palissot, ironically identified as Aristophanes in

some satirical verses:

Un petit Grec, singe d'Aristophane, Veut l'imiter dans ses emportements. Le roquet mord, et, de sa dent profane, Va dechirant et sages et savants . . . ^-3

*2Roustan, pp. 332-33

^3Le Gras, p. I k l . The idea of portraying the "philosophe” on the stage did not originate, however, with Palissot. DeLeris, in Dictionnaire des theatres. ^ l?6l, stated that the Abbe Poncy de Neuville presented a comedy around

17*H entitled Damocles. The plot of the play is very elementary. The

king of Sicily, trying to ascertain the trend of public opinion, learns

that Damocles, a philosopher and author of The Art of Reigning, is the

only man in the country who dares to openly criticize royalty. Damocles

is summoned by the king and the former, while presenting his book to the

king, states that only a philosopher can govern wisely. The king sur-

renders the crown to him and he accepts it. Since Damocles was inexperi­

enced in the art of reigning, Sicily was about to be swept away by enemies

and his own life was in danger. In a moment of panic, he returns the

throne to the king who, upon resuming authority, condemns Damocles to die

because of his incompetence. Later the king retracts the sentence on

Damocles' promise to have his beard cropped. More than the plot, the

portrayal of the philosopher is important. He is an idealist, believing

in a simple life, simple attire, the abolition of unnecessary ceremonies,

the happiness of humanity, the fostering of the Golden Age, peace, and

moreover, he has faith in the goodness of mankind. If in theory he is an

idealist, in practice he is a misanthrope. He reproaches a servant for

showing deference to his king; he finds fault consistently with laws and

conduct; and in a moment of anger he curses the stupid, blind human race

for opposing his king. Another trait in his characteristics is his

obsession for writing. This is evident by his enormous book on The Art

^ A . DeLeris, Dictionnaire portatif des theatres (Paris: C. A. Jombert, 175*0 • 137 of Reigning* The title is important for it brings out an important characteristic in the make-up of the man. He is a political theorist, believing that first a king should seek to make his subjects happy by forestalling their complaints. All wars should be condemned and all taxes abolished. A king who seeks the happiness of his people needs no tax revenue. He should govern without assistance from his subordinates; or if he needs assistance, he should consult the philosophers of his country.

The author of the comedy is not very severe toward Damocles. He does not question his sincerity, but he calls him a visionary. The author believes that, for a man who has done nothing more than create an imagin­ ary wisdom, he is too proud of his attainments and too blind to see his

defects. The greatest defect is his belief that his idealism is practical.

When put to the test, he fails completely. Damocles is not a modern

philosopher nor a purely ancient one. He has some traits which show a

resemblance to both. His name, dress, and character are ancient. Also,

his long beard is a traditional sign of a philosopher. He sits in public

places to teach the masses as did the Greek philosophers. His humor is

similar to that of Diogenies, and his independence bears a similarity to

that of Socrates. Damocles, also, possesses several traits common to the

eighteenth century "philosophes." He is a man of letters and a student

of political philosophy, interested in the art of reigning and becoming

the counselor of kings and rulers in general. Ducros, in Les Encyclopedistes 138 while discussing the political theories of the Encyclopedia. wrote:

Que le Roi soit done aussi puissant, aussi authoritaire qu'il . _ voudra, pourvu qu'il soit, avant tout, le Roi des Philosophes.

A few pages later he stated: Le principal grief des Encyclopediates contre Louis XV, c'est qu'il ne goute pas leur philosophic et qu'il n'aime pas leurs personnes. S'il await eu 1*esprit de proteger 1'Encyclopedic. les Ehcyclopedistes 1*auralent lou£ sans reserve, comme £Ls ont lou£ le Marc-Aurele de Berlin et la S&niramis du Nord.*®

In these lines we nay find some common traits between Damocles and the

"philosophes." Some of the details of his idealism later became the fundamental principles of the Encyclopedic group. For example, there is

Damocles* theory of the goodness of mankind, the perfectibility of the human race, and the abolition of wars which can be found in many of the works of the philosophic party. The most severe accusation against

Damocles is made on the basis that he supports theories which are sub­ versive to the existing institutions. This is, in a way, similar to

Palissot's play, Les Philosophes. written in 1760.

Until the 1750*s the comic stage portrayed philosophical theories

rather than satirizing individual philosophers. The playwrights of the

first half of the century attacked the growth of the new philosophy along

general lines, without direct reference to individual exponents. At the

beginning of the second half of the century, however, there was a tendency

to designate the "philosophes•" The philosophic movement had progressed

to such an extent that it developed leaders who singled themselves out

■^L. Ducros, Les Encyclopediates (Paris: 1900), p. 163.

l6Ibid.. p. 165. above the masses. The anti-philosophic group could not single out the defects of these leaders as representative of the class. Moreover, the

Encvclop^die. under the leadership of Diderot and D'Alembert, became

increasingly important. It acquired such importance as to represent a

threat to the conservative and established institutions. The drama was

well adapted to ridicule the individual "philosophe." In the opening

years of the second period, a group of playwrights identified the term

"philosophe" with specific individuals in an effort to suppress a doc­

trine by heaping personal abuse upon its protagonists.

It was stated in Chapter Six that in Le Cercle Palissot satirized

Rousseau mercilessly and that his play aroused a storm of criticism.

Three years before Le Cercle in 1752 there appeared a comedy entitled

Les Hult philosophes aventurlers de ce sifecle^ which was never staged

because of its complexity. This complexity arises from the fact that the

author attached two characters to each of the eight philosophers— a mis­

tress to represent the inclinations of the "philosophes," and a valet to

suggest his method of writing. Thus, Uranie Hermaphrodite, Voltaire's

mistress, has l'Enthousiaste as her valet; Marivaux, Marianne's lover,

has Pierrot le Naif as his valet, etc. The play is staged at the fron­

tier, in the inn of Mae TJripaudiere at the sign of Uranie because "ces

Messieurs ont toujours, les uns ou les autres, quelque noise avec les

ministres ou magistrate." It is a weak play in plot and lacks dramatic

action. The author explains that he created his heroes according to

^ M . Soleinne, Table general de la blbllothecue dramatiaue (6 vols Paris: Administration de l'alliance des arts, 1843-^5)> Vol. Ill, p. 315 their individualistic traits. They talk and act in the same style that we find in their writings. He even states that he copied several passages which can be found in the works of the "philosophes," and he places these passages in the mouth of the respective "philosophe" in such a way as to fit perfectly into the conversation. He stated in the preface:

Ces messieurs ne peuvent croire qu'on ait voulu leur faire de la peine, comment pourraient-ils se trouver critiques par leur propres idees.19

The intention of the author by selecting an individual "philosophe" and by having him talk and act as he has written was to expose the folly and pettiness of the philosopher*s ideas and deeds.

The most important feature of this play is that "philosophe" and

"homme de lettres" seem to be interchangeable, although the author stressed

the term "philosophe" more often. When Voltaire sees the inn of Uranie

and expresses his political and philosophical ideas regarding the pleasure

of love and of good cheer, his valet calls him, not a poet but a "philosophe.

Mainvilliers is "le petit-maitre philosophe," which for Mme Tripaudiere

means that he does not have sufficient funds to pay for his lodging:

Ah, juste ciel! II est peut-etre petit-maitre par le babil et par l'habit; philosophe par la bourse.19

Voltaire compliments the company on its behavior after he learns that the

company had performed a comedy:

Digne assur&nent, du caract&re extraordinaire de 1'heroine Madame Tripaudiere et des heros philosophes qui y jouent leurs roles. 141

From time to time, there can be noted a sharp criticism of the group.

L'Ehthousiaste thinks that it would be well for the NphilosophesN to get their minds straight, this being presumably the normal position of a thinker's mind. Mme Tripaudiere, to whom "philosophe" and "Bohemien" are synonymous, believes that a "philosophe" has an empty head; but he may be tolerated provided his purse is full. Finally, she exclaims:

Les bonnes pates de gens avec leur philosophic! II n'en faudrait plus qu'autant pour nous rendre tous fous. Allons, allons, du courage, & table, et venez armes jusqu'aux dents pour attaquer les ennemis que vous allez avoir en tete.21

Mainvilliers replies sarcastically: "Le charmant denouement pour les

philosophes du temps.At the end of the play, there was a note attached

which read: "L'on donnera leurs conversation a table et autres endroits,

si ce debut plait."^3

TVo years later in 1754 another play appeared entitled Les Huit

philosophes errans. which is modeled closely after Les Huit philosophes

aventuriers. The plot is concerned solely with the marriage of Follette,

the daughter of Mme Dubongout, to one of the wandering "philosophes."

Again the setting of the play is at an inn situated at the French fron­

tier, "rendezvous ordinaire des auteurs disgracies ou qui voudraient

l'etre." Each philosopher is accompanied by a valet whose name evokes a

characteristic element of the author's work. Voltaire is accompanied by

l'Enthousiate, "son ecuyer, et anglais de nation"; Maupertuis, by

Lapponnardifere, "son valet heros"; Montesquieu, by le L^giste, "son sec­

retaire valet li deux mains, romain de nation"; Mainvilliers, by "son 142 fiddle Achate, et ne dans la maison de son Maitre"; etc. Also, in this play "philosophe" and "homme de lettres" seem to be interchangeable; but in contrast to the first play, the stress is on the man of letters. For example, Voltaire is considered as the best poet of his age and the author of the greatest epic of France. As far as the activities of the

"philosophe" are concerned, there are very few references in the play.

However, if the references to the activities of the philosophers are few, the statements regarding the private life of the authors are frequent.

The fact that Voltaire is very fond of gold, that he has an income of

twenty thousand livres, and that he received an enormous profit from his

epic poem are well stressed. His conflict with Frederick of Prussia is mentioned; his enmity with Maupertuis is outlined in some detail; and his

quarrelsome, irritable, and sarcastic nature is emphasized. On the other

hand, there is no allusion whatsoever to his historical and philosophical

works. Voltaire, the historian and philosopher, is completely over­

shadowed by criticisms of Voltaire, the poet and private citizen.

If we accept Soleinne’s ^ statement that Les Huit philosophes

aventurlers was written by Mainvilliers, it could be possible that Les

Huit philosophes errans was also written by him because it resembles in

form and expression the play of 1752. Mainvilliers, however, was not an

opponent of the "philosophes." According to Querard,^5 at the time of the

writing of the first play, Mainvilliers was in good relations with Voltaire

and had just annotated an edition of Le Si&cle de Louis XI\f. Although

^J. Qulrard, La France litteraire (12 vols.; Paris: Fermin Didot, 1827-64), Vol. V, p. 448. 143 these two plays in a certain way partook of the spirit of the opponents of the Encyclopedists, they were not directed against the philosophic movement. More than anything else, these two plays are of interest to us as an indication of the trend of the discussion at that particular time. They bring into the philosophical struggle of the years 1752-1754 several new elements which had been absent in previous plays. First, they introduced a confusion by using the term "philosophe" and "homme de lettres." Secondly, the satire of the eight philosophers was aimed at their personal characteristics rather than at the defects in their philosophy. At that particular time, it seems that it was more dangerous for the "philosophe" to be attacked as an individual with faults in his character than as a philosopher with defects in his doctrine. Those who opposed the movement were quick to sense the possibilities of this new

type of attack. In Les Nouvelles litteraires. Clement welcomed these possibilities in the following terms:

En voici bien une autre qui m'arrive de Hollande, c'est-a-dire dont je rejois & 1*instant le titre imprim£: Les Huit philo­ sophes aventurlers de ce siecle. ou Rencontre iraprevue de. ... II n ’est pas douteux que cette entrevue ne soit un coup de theatre. M. de Mainvilliers, qui l'a imagine, et qui dans Le Petit-maitre philosophe que vous me fites l ’honneur de me presenter il y a six mois, a fait ses preuves d ’horame d ’esprit sans gout et sans idee de bienseance, n'aura surement rien negligl pour se rendre digne de la curiosite du lecteur male- vole. ... Quiconque sait un peu l ’histoire litteraire entendra ce que cela veut dire; & tout autre qui ne la sait point, on ne s'en soucie gueres, s a l u t . 2 6

The "anti-philosophes" learned from these two plays how to assail the

philosopher by placing the individual, himself, upon the stage, as well

as how to attack the "bureaux d'esprit" of that time.

^P. Clement, Nouvelles litteraires (2 vols.; Berlin: 1748-52), Vol. II, p. 243. 3 M

There was no protest against these two plays which had attempted to satirize specific individuals as representative of a party. However, one year later in 1755 during the festivity of the unveiling of a statue of Louis XV when Palissot staged Le Cercle ou Les Orieinaux. it caused a great amount of protest. The play originated as a request to amuse the people, and Palissot chose as his form a comedy-parade. The author por­ trays in his comedy a poet, "une femme savante," a financier, a doctor, and a philosopher. The first four characters do not have any character­ istic traits since they could be found in the traditional types of

Palissot*s predecessors; but in the cosmopolitan Blaise-Gille-Antoine, the public recognized Rousseau. In Les Orieinaux. Rousseau is "le philosophe." Why did Palissot choose Rousseau among all the other philosophers? Since the play was written to be presented before Stanislas, author of a reply to the Discourse, to which Rousseau answered, Palissot was perhaps seeking to gain Stanislas' favor. Another reason could be

Palissot*s respect and admiration for Voltaire and his desire to keep in his good graces, since the future author of Candide had just written his famous letter to Rousseau from Delices, 1755, in which the following lines express his ideas very clearly:

On n'a jamais employe tant d'esprit k vouloir nous rendre betes: il prend envie de marcher Si quatre pattes, quand on lit votre ouvrage.27

Palissot may have hoped to attract the favor of Voltaire. According to

D'Alembert, however, who was the most severe critic of Palissot's comedy,

27Besterman, Vol. XXVII, p. 23 1*5 there was another reason for Palissot*s choosing Rousseau as his scape­ goat. In his letter to the Comte de Ttessau, D'Alembert wrote:

Permettez-moi, au reste, mon cher illustre confrere, de vous faire observer que sa majesty n'est pas bien informee, quand elle croit que l'insulte faite It Rousseau n'a rien de commun avec les feuilles de Frlron; elle ignore sans doute l'indignite et la brutalite avec laquelle Freron s'est dechaine en toute occasion contre Rousseau.28

As it was stated in Chapter Six, a generous impulse prompted Rousseau to interfere in this battle between Palissot and D'Alembert and, thus, end the polemics. This infuriated D'Alembert, and because of the interfer­ ence, D'Alembert was forced to desist. Instead of silencing Palissot, his stir served to increase the sale of Le Cercle and to prepare the

author for his next great satire against the Encyclopedists—

Les Philosophes.

The philosophic quarrel was particularly acute between 1758 and

1762. On January 23, 1759, the Court of Justice cited eight subversive

works, among which the Encyclopedic was also listed. Outer Joly de ELeury

began his requisition as follows:

Messieurs, la Societe, l'Etat et la Religion se presentent aujourd'hui au Tribunal de la Justice pour lui porter ses plalntes. ... Leurs droits sont violes; leurs lois m£connues; l'impiete qui marche le front leve, parait en les offensant, promettre l'impunite A la licence qui s'accredite chaque jour. °

After enumerating several other works, he reaches the most important point

28i)»Aiembert, Oeuvres (Paris: 1805), Vol. V, p. 389*

^9Le Gras, p. 126. 146 of his speech— the examination of the Encyclopedle. in regard to which he says:

Cet ouvrage trop fameux, qui, dans son veritable objet, devait etre le livre de toutes les connaissances et qui est devenu celui de toutes les erreurs.30

In September of the same year, Pope Clement VIII proclaimed the condem­ nation of the Encyclopedic as a work which contains "des choses trls nuisibles & la plete chretienne et a la regie des moeurs."^! However,

the philosophic parly was victorious. M. de Sartine, Chief of Police, understood the importance and usefulness of the Encyclopedic and favored

the continuation of its publication. It was during this period of tur­ moil that Palissot grasped the opportunity to attack the philosophic party again on the stage.

On May 2, 1?60, Palissot staged for the first time at "Theatre-

Franjais" his new comedy, Les Philosophes. While in Le Cercle. Palissot

ridiculed only one "philosophe," in Les Philosophes he attempted to ridi­

cule a group of individuals. Favart identifies in his Correspondance32

some of the characters with the "philosophes" of that period. He mentions

Diderot, D*Alembert, Rousseau, "et tout les auteurs de 1* Encyclopedia."

D'Alembert states in a letter to Voltaire (May 6, 1760)33 that "les seuls

maltraites sons Helvetius, Diderot, Rousseau, Duclos, Madame Geoffrin, et

Mile Clairon ..." Finally, in the 1785 edition of Voltaire's Oeuvres

3°Ibid.. p p . 126-27. 31Ibld.. p. 135. 3^c. Favart, Correspondence de Favart avec le Comte de Durazao (3 vols.; Paris: 1809)•

33Voltaire, Vol. VIII, p. 79. 14? c o m p l e t e s .34 a note cites Duclos, D’Alembert, Diderot, and Helvltius.

Nevertheless, it is very difficult to identify any particular character in the play. Perhaps Rousseau and Diderot are distinguishable, but inadequately characterized. For example, in Act II, Scene 5* Damis says:

Et J’ai vu quelquefois, par un plaisant contraste, De ce systeme outre les plus chauds partisans Ch!rir tout l’univers, excepte leurs enfans.35

These lines could apply very well to Rousseau. The story that Rousseau sent his children to an orphanage was well known. The scene where

Crispin "marche quatre pattes" could also apply to Rousseau because, as it was mentioned above, Voltaire’s letter to Rousseau in 1755 stated:

"II prend envie de marcher Si quatre pattes, quand on lit votre ouvrage."

It is possible that Palissot knew about this letter and imitated Voltaire

in his description of Rousseau. In the character of Marphurius, many of

the critics recognized Diderot. It seems that Palissot was very bitter

against the editor of the Encyclopedia. Darais described him as a scoun­

drel, a hypocrite, and a shallow charlatan, notoriously insincere:

Je ne connais entre eux que ce Marphurius.

Je l’ai connu, vous dis-je; excusez ma franchise. Apparemment qu'alors il cachait bien son jeu; Mais ce n'ltait qu'un sot, presque de son aveu.

Malgre son ton capable et son air hypocrite, , Je ne fus point tent! de croire a son merite.*

^Voltaire, Vol. XIV, p. 191.

■^Charles Palissot, Les Philosophes. Vol. VI of Suite du Rfeertoire du Theatre Francais. ed. M. Lepeintre (Paris: chez Mme Veuve Dubo, 1823), p. 47.

^ Ibid.. pp. 45-46. 148

Voltaire wrote to Palissot on this occasion using rather moderate terns.

First he commented on the quality of the play:

Je commence par vous dire que je tiens votre piece pour bien ecrite; je congois meme que Crispin philosophe, marchant It quatre pattes, a du faire beaucoup rire, et je crois que mon ami Jean-Jacques en rira tout le premier.3'

It appears from the above lines that Voltaire, who turned against Rousseau, congratulates Palissot for his satire against the author of Bmile. In fact, as we stated above, he sees in Palissot*s description his own sketch of Rousseau. With regard to Diderot, however, he was not pleased with Palissot*s attack; and he reproached him for the injustice done to

Diderot:

Je vous parle net; ceux que vous voulez dishonorer passent pour les plus honnetes gens du monde; et je ne sais meme si leur probite n*est pas superieure It leur philosophic. ... Je ne connais point du tout M. Diderot; je ne l*ai jamais vu; je sais seulement qu'il a et! malheureux et persecute; cette seule raison devait vous faire tomber la plume des mains.^

This is what Voltaire, "le philosophe," had to say to the greatest and

most bitter adversary of the philosophers. He handled Palissot as a

naughty child who had to be scolded. Such methods could not change

Palissot. As Lepeintre says in "Notice sur Palissot":

Rien ne put detoumer le jeune imitateur d ’Aristophane d'ecrire contre les philosophes. II continua & leur faire la guerre."

It was natural for Palissot to feel confident because the only man who

had the power and the ability to stop him did not do more than reprimand

^Besterman, Vol. XLI1, p.89*

38Ibid.. pp 91-92.

^Palissot, p. 5. 149 him. After these letters, Palissot replied to Voltaire as follows:

Enfin, monsieur, je n'ai trac£ raes caracteres d'apres aucun philosophe en particulier; mais d'apres les principes de quelques philosophes.

If we can believe Palissot that his play is not a realistic character

sketch, it seems that in txying to embrace so many philosophical princi­

ples, he confused himself as well as the audience. They found it much

easier to attach specific phrases to individual philosophers, rather than

attempt to trace the details of a system as Voltaire told him in his

letter. He pointed out various errors made by Palissot, mainly his attri­

bution to the "philosophes” of ideas which were, in reality, held by

others. If Palissot would have limited himself to one work, or even to

one individual philosopher, perhaps his criticism would have been less

confusing and more powerful. It seems that Palissot's main aim could not

have been that of satirizing individuals. He was shrewd enought to realize

that ridiculing a few individuals would not silence the Encyclopedists.

They could only be stopped by showing the effects of their doctrines upon

society, and the attack shifted from individuals to a now recognized

party. However, the "new Aristophanes" did not have either the clair­

voyance or the ability of his predecessor. In the Clouds. Aristophanes

attacked the Sophists and their doctrines, but he chose one individual

philosopher to connect with the Sophistic doctrine— Socrates. This may

be one of the reasons why, unlike the Greek playwright who indirectly

helped denigrate his victim, Palissot helped them to their victory.

40 Charles Palissot, Oeuvres (Paris; 1777)* Vol. VI, p. 327* 150

Palissot*s criticism of the "philosophes" seems to amount to this: A sect, pretending to advance civilization but in reality retard­ ing its progress, is inducing the credulous masses in error by such pompous words as "humanity," "prejudices," "personal interest," "interpretation of nature," etc. The leaders of the group are disturbers of public peace, better at destroying than at constructing. What is worse, they are making proselytes, as Marton states:

Tbus charlatans adroits et flatteurs agrlables, Ravis de presider dans sa societe, D*y porter leur erreurs, et fesant vanite De dominer ici sur un esprit credule, Qu’ils ont l*art d'aquerrir contre le ridicule.

And when Damis asks her:

Et ce sont la, dis-tu, des philosophes? she exclaims:

Oui, du plus grand air encore; Paris en est rempli.^

The adversaries of the Encyclopedic could not neglect the fact that France was stimulated by the new ideas. They could not fail to notice the dan­ ger that these new ideas were representing for the government and the church. Thus, they had to try by every means to silence the propagators of these ideas. The best weapon was that of ridicule. Palissot*s play was one of the most powerful satires against the philosophic party.

Never before had any individual been ridiculed so mercilessly before the public. For a comparison, the critics were forced to go back to the

Clouds, and even there Palissot could not find much favor since the public

41 Palissot, Les Philosophes. p. 13* 151 in the eighteenth century preferred Socrates to Aristophanes. It seems that some critics in the Mage of ideas" were consciously thinking about the parallel between Socrates and the "philosophes." During the quarrel that followed the presentation of Palissot*s play, a brochure appeared entitled Dlscours sur la satire des philosophes. In connection with this brochure, Grimm wrote:

Dans la foule des brochures et des feuilles de toute espece que cette triste querelle a fait naitre, et dont je n*ai garde de vous ennuyer, il en faut indiquer une intitulee Dlscours sur la satire des philosophes. Ce discours a beaucoup reussi; il est d*un homme sage et f e m e qui juge sans passion, mais qui parle sans detour. Le tableau de l*6tat ou se trouvait la repub- lique d*Athanes dans le temps que Socrate fut joue sur le theatre ne manque point de hardiesse. Vous serez frappe de plusieurs circonstances rapprochees de nos temps avec beaucoup d'art. L*auteur de ce discours ne s*est point fait connaitre; mais, quel qu*il soit, vous lui trouverez du talent pour ecrire. Au reste, il a confondu Demosthenes, qui £tait dans ce temps general de troupes de la republique, avec l'orateur de ce nom, qui a vecu longtemps aprfcs Socrate et Aristophane. 2

In the same work, there is also a note referring to this topic:

Discours sur le satire contre les philosophes. representee par une troupe qu'un poete philosophe (Voltaire) fait vivre, et approuvee par un academician (Crebillon) qui a des philosophes pour collegues. Athenes, chez le libraire antiphilosophe, 1760, en-12. Cette bro­ chure^ de l*abbe Coyer a eti reimprim^e au tome ler de ses Oeuvres completes. 3

Perhaps the play that Grimm speaks of in the Correspondance is

Aristophanes* comedy, the Clouds. Grimm mentions still another work

Grimm, Vol. IV, p. 275.

**3ibid.. p. 303. 152 which refers to the quarrel of Les Philosophes. He states as follows:

L'Heroide du disciple de Socrate aux Athlniens n*a pas eu le meme succ£s. C*est encore l'histoire de Socrate appliquee 1 ce que nous avons vu de nos jours; cet ouvrage ne manque point de hardiesse, mais il faut ascerter quelques beaux vers par la lecture de quantitl de froids et de mauvais, et voilA pourquoi il ne s'est pas fait remarquer. On l'attribue & un jeune homme, M. Du Doyer de Gastel.^

It seems that the eighteenth century "philosophe" was identified as

Socrates. On April 25, 1?60, Voltaire wrote to D*Alembert regarding

Palissot*s play:

Est-ce possible qu*on laisse jouer cette farce impudente dont. on nous menaoe? C*est ainsi qu*on s*y prit pour perdre Socrate.5

After the presentation of the play, Voltaire said: "Ces pauvres Socrate."**®

One might be ^tempted to believe that Voltaire was not affected at all by the spirit of the philosophic struggle and that he was playing games.

First, he wrote to Palissot praising him for the quality of his play; then, he wrote to D'Alembert, a "philosophe," and calls the play "une farce impudente."

The identification of "philosophe-Socrate," however, was done by others as well. In the September, 1760, issue of Journal encyclopedioue.

there is a discourse entitled "Un Disciple de Socrate aux Atheniens";**? and in the August issue**® of the same year, another discourse compares

Socrates and Aristophanes with the "philosophes" and their opponents.

There were striking parallels between Socrates and the eighteenth cen­

tury philosophers. Socrates had tried to overthrow the superstitions which had grown out of natural phenomena; he was considered a corrupter

****Ibid. p. 303. 45Voltaire, Vol. XL, p. 418. 46 4? * 48 Ibid. Journal encyclopedioue. p. 114. Ibid.. p. 105 153 of the youth, the instigator of a pernicious doctrine, and a menace to the recognized social and religious institutions. Like Diderot and others, he had been ridiculed on the comic stage, but had persisted with courage in his work. His virtues were simplicity, desire and courage to extend the frontiers of knowledge, generosity, and true devotion to the state and its laws. These were also the virtues that the “philosophes" of 1?60 wished to consider as their attributes. Therefore, what other weapon could be more effective against their opponents than the field of tragedy and Socrates as their hero? We saw that in 1757 Diderot twice used the theme of the last moments of Socrates* life in Discours sur la poesie dramatlque as an outline for a philosophical tragedy. In 1759 Voltaire wrote a tragedy entitled La Mort de Socrate. Even Palissot could not neglect mentioning Socrates in his comedy. He also was aware of the similarities of Socrates* fate and that of the Encyclopedists. In fact,

Valere while speaking with Carondas says:

Ces grands mots imposans d*Erreur, de Fanatisme, De Persecution, viendraient & son secours. C'est un ressort use qui reussit toujours. N*avons-nous pas encore l*exemple de Socrate Opprime, condamne par sa patrie ingrate? . Tbus nos admirateurs parleraient la fois.^9

It was "Socrate opprime, condamn£ par sa patrie ingrate" that the partisans of the philosophic party chose to bring on the stage as their champion in reply to the "new Aristophaneses". There were several tragedies dealing with the death of Socrates. They will be discussed in the next chapters.

^Palissot, Les Philosophes. p. 33* CHAPTER NINE

VOLTAIRE'S TRAGEDY, LA MORT DE SOCRATE

In Chapter Seven we dealt with the image of Socrates in Voltaire'3 works. The topic for this chapter will be his tragedy, La Mort de

Socrate. Before we discuss the play, let us consider some of the factors which led to the composition of this work.

In 1758 several pamphlets appeared against the Bncyclopedie and

the "philosophes." The same year Abraham Chaumeix published a book

entitled Pre.iugls legitimes contre 1'Encyclopedic et essai de refutation

de ce dietlonnaire.^ which contained eight volumes. In the preface of this

work he quoted a phrase by Callimachus— "a big book, a great evil." During

this time, Diderot was becoming discouraged because he saw his work being

destroyed. As mentioned in Chapter Eight, the government considered it

imperative to take some measures, and in 1759 the Court of Justice declared

the Encyclopedic and seven other works to be subversive. On this occasion,

Omer Joly de Fleury addressed the assembly, attacking the Encyclopedia:

Receptacle de mat£rialisme, cette Encyclopedic emploie le langage du d£isme, ennemi de la Revelation, reclame, chose inouxe, et, faisant l'apologie de l'atheisme, va jusqu'i pretendre qu'un athee peut etre honnete homrne. Laisser subsister d'aussi monstrueuses erreurs, e'est entr'ouvrir la porte aux scandales de toutes sortes.

xLe Gras, p. 126 2Ibid.. p. 127.

15^ 155

After this attack, the court pronounced its verdict on February 6, 1759*

The condemned works were to be destroyed and burned, and the seven volumes of the Encyclopedia which already had been published, were to be censored by a committee. This unjust verdict infuriated the "philosophes," and in their defense they brought out the fact that the original censors were named by the King’s counselor, and the Parliament did not have the right to name other censors. These were Diderot’s most unhappy days, while

Rousseau was quite pleased with the verdict, considering it the triumph of virtue, and D'Alembert was glad to wash his hands of such a dangerous enterprise before he became deeply involved. In an attempt to save the

Encyclopedia. the "libraires associes" wrote to Malesherbes. They con­

sidered the false accusations found in Chaumeix's book the cause of the

censorship of the Encyclopedia. The letter stated:

Monsieur, sur la facheuse nouvelle que Le Breton vient de nous annoncer, nous prenons la liberte de vous supplier de ne pas sacrifier aux impressions defavorables qu'a fait naitre contre 1*Encyclopedic un £crivain qui a pass! les bornes de la critique judicieuse en alterant les passages qu'il cite, ou en les presentant sous un faux jour.3 The judges, however, paid no attention to these complaints. On March 8,

1759* with a new order from the King, the Council annulled the privilege

given to the Encyclopedists in 17*+6» and any sale of the volumes already

published would be severely punished. Thus, after the court order, the

Bncyclopedie did not legally exist.

Following these events, the "philosophes" began their counter­

offensive. They attacked and ridiculed Chaumeix in Memoire pour Abraham

3Ibid.« p. 128. 156 Chaumeix contre les prltendus philosophes Diderot et D'Alembert.** It was at this time that Voltaire portrayed Chaumeix in Le Pauvre dlable as follows:

Je me suis fait auteur, disant la messe, Perslcuteur, delateur, espion; Che* les divots je forme des eabales: Je cours, j’ecris, j'invente des scandales Pour les combattre et pour me faire un nom, Pieusement semant la zizanie Et 1'arrosant d*un peu de calomnie. Imite-raoi, mon art est assez bon, Suis, comme moi, les mechants It la piste, Crie & l'impie, It l'athee, au deiste, Au glometre; et surtout prouve bien Qu'un bel esprit ne peut etre chrltien: Du rigorisme embouche la trompette; Soi hypocrite, et la fortune est faite.5

It seems from these lines that Voltaire attempted to identify three

"philosophes" as being the ones who were mainly persecuted: Diderot,

Voltaire, and D'Alembert. In such works as La Promenade du sceptioue.

Lettre sur les aveugles. etc., Diderot had expressed atheistic ideas;

Voltaire was a deist; and there is little doubt as to who was the

"glomfetre." Voltaire, therefore, identifies the three "philosophes" as

"l'athle, le dliste, le geomfctre." He was not satisfied with only this satire against Chaumeix. Grasping the opportunity of the similarity of

Socrates' situation during his trial and his unjust sentence with that of the "philosophes" and the Bncyclopedie. he wrote La Mort de Socrate.

**Ibid., p. 129.

^Voltaire, Vol. X, pp. 109-110. 157

The satirical intention of Voltaire is evident in La Mort de

Socrate. La Harpe^ noted that the play was modem rather than ancient and that the author, with his eyes turned toward Paris, sometimes seemed to forget that his play was to represent Athens, the Areopagus, and the priest of Ceres. Grimm said referring to Voltaire's play:

A £choue par le defaut de profondeur et de gravitl. II y a, en effect, place, sous des noms grecs, ses ennemis litt£raires et n'a su tirer de ce beau sujet qu'une satire.7

Regarding the symbolism of the names of the characters in the play,

Le Gras wrote:

H /Voltaire/ ecrit un drame en prose, Socrate. claire trans­ position des evenements parisiens. Socrate, c'est Diderot; le grand pretre Anitus, Qber Joly de Fleury. Et l'on reconnalt en Chomos, Chaumeix, en Bertillos, le P. Bertheir, et en Grafios, le Jesuite Nonoti, ennemi personnel de Voltaire. C'est une satire aigue des moeurs, des idees et des arguments en faveur dans le parti devot.8

It is important to notice the identification of Socrate-Diderot. Le Gras

does not give any references to support this statement, and I was unable

to find any direct reference anywhere else except in Voltaire's letter to

Abbe Raynal of 17^9 during Diderot's imprisonment at Vincennes. There

were, however, many stories circulating during that time, identifying

Diderot as Socrates and his wife as Xanthippe, as we have noted in pre­

vious chapters. As for Voltaire's play being a satire against eighteenth

century Paris, the author himself suggested that he had contemporary

^J. La Harpe, Correspondence de La Harpe avec le Grand Due de Russie (6 vols.; Paris: Migneret impriraeur, 1804-1807), Vol. VI, pp. 76-77.

^Grimm, Vol. IV, p. 120.

®Le Gras, p. 130. 158

France in view when he wrote the play. M. Fatema, i.e., Voltaire, assured us that:

La mort de Socrate aurait fait peu d'impression peut-etre dans un pays ou l'on ne persecute personne pour sa religion et ou la tole­ rance a si prodigieusement augment^ la population et les richesses ainsi que la Hollands, raa chere patrie.9

Let us now refer again to the historical events that led to

Socrates' death. After the counter-revolution in Athens which ended the terror of the Thirty, a distrust for Socrates arose because of his connec­ tion with traitors. This caused the leaders of the restored democracy to bring him to trial. Alcibiades and Critias were both dead, but the leaders did not feel safe while the man who was believed to have inspired their treason was still an influence in public life. Anytus, the insti­ gator of the proceedings, seems to have had no unworthy motives, nor was he a political or religious fanatic. In politics he was a moderate democrate and a chief promoter of amnesty between conflicting factions after the downfall of the Thirty, and he had refused to seek any compen­ sation for his personal losses after the usurpation. He was not a religious fanatic because in the year when he had accused Socrates for impiety, he was also aiding the defense of Andocides, the orator then on

trial for the same charge. Perhaps the object of demanding the death

sentence— "if you let me go now, and are not convinced by Anytus, who said that since I had been persecuted I must be put to death"— was merely to

induce Socrates to withdraw into exile. In the Apology. Socrates identi­

fies Anytus as the representative of the politicians and artisans. There

is no evidence that he is a religious leader.

^Voltaire, Vol. V, p. 362. l0Livingstone, p. 25 A prominent, moderate politician such as Anytus could not, of course, appear as the actual prosecutor in this type of case. This task was assigned to an obscure young person named Meletus. Andocides' prosecutor for impiety was also called Meletus, and he had been one of

the group who had executed the illegal arrest of lycon. Meletus* speech delivered against Andocides is found in the collection ascribed to the

orator Iysias, and it is the utterance of an extravagant and religious fanatic. If this was the same man who prosecuted Socrates, it would

explain why impiety was selected as the formal charge. Also, if the two

men were the same, Anytus* character appears more contemptible for having

employed a person whom he must have despised. Ihis is also portrayed in

Voltaire's play. Anytus' part in the proceedings was confinded to the

delivery of a formal speech in support of the prosecution, while Meletus

is the main prosecutor. Voltaire's portrayal of these two characters is

closer to the historical ones. In the Apology, however, Socrates identi­

fies Meletus as the one who "has a quarrel with me on behalf of the

poets"; therefore, he must have been Meletus the poet. There was another

accuser named lycon of whom nothing is known except that Socrates speaks

of him in the Apology as a professional orator. The other characters

which occur in the play are ficticious with the exception of the dis­

ciples and Xanthippe. She appears in Phaedo— the only place where Plato

mentions her by name— simply as an affectionate wife with whom Socrates 160 has a prolonged last interview immediately before his death. Her visit is related as follows:

On entering we found Socrates just released from chains, and Xanthippe, whom you know, sitting by him, and holding his child in her arms. When she saw us she uttered a cry and said, just like a woman: "0 Socrates, this is the last time that either you will converse with your friends, or they with you." Socrates turned to Crito and said: "Crito, will one of you take her home?"H

In "Pantomime," Essai de la polsie dramatioue. Diderot is almost faithful to the original:

Les philosophes entrerent. A peine Xantippe les apergut-elle qu'elle se mit It dlsesplrer et & crier, comme c'est la coutume des femmes en ces occasions: "Socrate, voo amis vous parlent aujourd'hui pour la demiere fois; "12

It seems that Diderot wanted to emphasize the fact that not only Socrates' friends would suffer because of his death, but also his wife and children.

Xanthippe continues:

C'est pour la derniere fois que vous embrassez votre femme, et que vous voyez votre enfant.

This last statement is not in Phaedo, and after this insertion, Diderot

follows the original again:

Socrate se toumant du cot£ de Criton, lui dit: "Mon ami faites conduire cette femme chez elle."13

Voltaire, however, did not follow Phaedo with reference to these lines of

the Dialogue. In fact, Xanthippe remained in prison:

Eh bien, pauvre homme, qu'est-ce que ces gens de loi ont conclu? fites-vous condamne & 1'amende7 fites-vous banni? Etes-vous absous? Mon Dieul que vous m'avez donnl d'inquietudet T&chez, je vous prie, que cela n'arrive pas une seconde fois.^

^■Livingstone, p. 89. ^ A . T., Vol. VII, p. 381.

^ Ibld. 14Voltaire, Vol. V, p. 392. It seems that in the above lines Voltaire stresses the idea of injustice,

"ces gens de loi." There is irony and sarcasm in these words. Another important factor here is the dramatic suspense. Xanthippe ignores

Socrates' sentence and asks him about the results of the trial. This gives him an opportunity to discuss his philosophical views with his dis­ ciples and to point out Xanthippe's ignorance of philosophy* In fact, when the philosopher speaks of the Immortality of the soul, Xanthippe exclaims:

C'est bien dit; je n'y entends rien; on pensera toujours parce qu'on a pens£. Est-ce qu'on se mouchera toujours parce qu'on s'est mouche? Mais que nous veut ce vilain homme avec son gobelet?15

Perhaps Xanthippe did not know very much about her husband's philosophical ideas, but she knew one thing— her love for him. Therefore, when she learned the mission of the prison guard, she became furious. This was the justified fury of a wife who was about to witness the execution of her husband because of a verdict pronounced fay a corrupted court. She exclaims

Quoit maudit empoisonneur de la republique, tu viens ici tuer mon mari en ma presence! je te devisagerai, monstretl^

We mentioned before that in the original Dialogues of Plato, as well as in Diderot's sketches, Xanthippe plays a very small role. In Voltaire's play, however, she becomes almost one of the main characters. Perhaps

Voltaire developed Xanthippe's character according to the legends of

Alexandrine biographers. The latter represented her as a shrew with an ungovernable temper and a foul tongue. In fact, in the "Preface" of the

15Ibld. p. 393* 16Ibid. 162 play, he portrays Xanthippe in the following lines as:

Ces deux honmes, toujours consult£s par lui, voulurent qu*il renouvelfit la methode de Shakespeare, d'introduire des person- nages du peuple dans la tragedie, de peindre Xanthippe, femme de Socrate, telle qu’elle etait en effect, une bourgeoise acariatre, grondand son mari, et l ’airaant.^?

We shall now attempt to establish the date of La Mort de Socrate.

There is a note at the end of the ’•Preface" which reads:

H y a eu des gens assez betes pour refuter les verites palpables qui sont dans cette Preface. U s pretendent que H. Fatema n'a pu ecrire cette Preface en 1755* parce qu*il etait mort, disent-ils, en 175^* Quand cela serait voilk une plaisante raison1 mais le fait est qu’il est deced£ en 1757*^®

It seems that Voltaire insisted on having his play dated 1755* Le Gras in Diderot et 1 ’Encyclopedic^ stated that Voltaire was in the habit of falsifying the dates of composition of his works, and perhaps he pre­ dated this play also. If Voltaire set the date of the play at 1755,

it might be because he did not wish to be considered an imitator, i.e.,

influenced by Diderot. The best way to avoid this situation would be

to date his play earlier than Diderot’s work. The two works, however,

are very different. Diderot’s aim was to give a tragic and realistic

picture of the unjust death of a just man, while Voltaire’s aim was to

satirize his personal enemies. In fact, Voltaire himself identified

Anytus, the high priest of Ceres who was responsible for Socrates’

17Ibid. p. 362.

18Ibid.. p. 363. ^ L e Gras, p. 130. 163 persecution, with Joly de Fleury. In a letter to d'Argental dated May 25,

1760, he wrote:

Vous etes un homrae bien hardi de vouloir faire jouer la Mort de Socrate: vous etes un anti-Anitus. Mais que dira maitre Anitus— Joly de FleuryT^O

If we consider the motives which urged Voltaire to write his mysterious

"Preface," it appears that he intended to attack the anti-philosophic group under the disguise of Socrates1 persecutors. With reference to this,

Desnoiresterres wrote:

C*£tait une comedie toute d*allusions, ou les Melitus et les Anitus e talent les messieurs de Paris, dont le public ne serait pas embarrass^ de restituer les vrais noins.

It has been stated that Otter Joly de Fleury was at that time "avocat-

general." As a result of his attack on the Encyclopedie. it was suspended.

Since de Fleury condemned the Encyclopedie before parliament in January,

1759, the same year La Mort de Socrate was published for the first time,

this fact points toward the possibility that Voltaire wrote his play in

1759 and not in 1755, as he would like us to believe.

Let us now analyze the play itself to see how it compares with

Diderot1s sketches. Die best approach is to study the characters in both

works. Voltaire introduced three characters in his play that are his own

creation: Aglae, Sophronime, and Drixa. It is around them and Anytus

that the plot develops. Voltaire attempts to build the action of at least

the first two acts around their love affairs and their intrigues. Anytus

20Voltaire, Vol. XL, p. 395. 21 Desnoiresterres, Voltaire et la societe au X V I H e siecle (8 vols. j 2d ed.j Paris: Didier, 1869-1876), Vol. VII,“p. W 3 . opens the first scene, and the image he conveys is that of a businessman, a man who will not hesitate to do anything for material gains. We see him first at work with his collaborators to whom he says:

Ma chfere confidente, et mes chers affid£s, vous saves combien d*argent je vous ai fait gagner aux demieres fetes de Ceres. Je me marie, et j'espfere que vous ferez votre devoir dans cette grande occasion.22

Here is a picture of the corrupted politician or clergyman who takes advan­ tage of his position to help parasites and outcasts in their illicit business transactions and then collects his share. He continues with his speech try­ ing to convince his collaborators concerning their duties:

II me faudra, madame Drixa, deux beaux tapis de Perse: vous, Tterpandre, je ne vous demande que deux grands candelabres d'argent, et a vous, une demi-douzaine de robes de soie brochees d'or.23

After his three accomplices accept his proposition, we see him promising more rewards in the future:

Vous regagnerez tout cela au centuple. C*est le meilleur moyen de meriter les faveurs des dieux et des deesses. Donnez beaucoup, et vous recevrez beaucoup: et surtout ne manquez jamais d'ameuter le peuple contre tous les gens de quality qui ne font point assez de voeux et qui ne pr£sentent point assez d'offrandes.2**

It seems that Voltaire bitterly attacks the church and its representatives.

He attacks the clergymen who are trying to take advantage of the people's

blind faith in the scriptures. The words Met surtout ne manquez jamais

d'ameuter le peuple contre tous les gens de qualite" convey sharp irony

and sarcasm. Perhaps Voltaire was referring to the "philosophes" when he

mentioned "les gens de qualite.” The Jesuits and Jansenists were against

22Voltaire, Vol. V, p. 365. 2k the Encyclopedia: and if it had been possible, they would not have hesi­ tated for one moment to exterminate all the "philosophes."

In the scene that follows in which Anytus exposes his plans to his mistress Drixa, it appears that Voltaire attempts to attack the absurdity and uselessness of the vows of matrimony in a religious cere­ mony. Anytus represents the clergy; and yet, not only has he a mistress before he is married, but he expresses his intentions to continue having one after he takes the vows of matrimony. Ihis is evident from the follow­ ing lines:

Eh bien, ma chere madame Drixa, je crois que vous ne trouverez pas mauvais que j'epouse Aglae; mais je ne vous en aime pas moins, et nous vivrons ensemble comme & 1'ordinaire.25

lb which Drixa replies:

J'aime le jeune Sophronime; et Xanthippe, la femme de Socrate, m'a promis qu'elle me le donnerait en mariage. Vous aurez tou­ jour s les memes droits sur moi.26

Here we have the portrayal of two characters who represent two different

social classes, ready to take their marriage vows before God, yet both of

them confess their desire to commit adultery and live in sin. The irony

of it is that one of them serves God. This desire for sin, however, is

not the only thing which they have in common. There is a virtuous man who

interferes with their licentious schemes, and both are anxious to get rid

of him. This man is Socrates. He is mentioned for the first time by

Drixa, but only as Xanthippe's husband. Anytus expresses his intentions 166 and plans for the Greek philosopher in the lines that follow:

Je me flatte bien, ma chfere madame Drixa, que M&itus et moi nous perdrons eet homme dangereux, qui ne preche que la vertu et la divinite, et qui s'est ose moquer de certains aventures arriv^es aux mysteres de Cfres.^?

Although he wished Socrates* extermination more than anything else, he must wait to put his plans into action for he wishes to marry Aglae and

Socrates is her guardian. In order to marry Aglae, Anytus needs Socrates' help and he tells this to Drixa. It is at this point that Voltaire intro­ duces the original accusations from the Apology but in a conic way. Ihe accuser is not Meletus but Drixa, and the accusation is somewhat distorted.

Referring to Socrates as being Aglae*s guardian, she says:

Mais comment Agaton a't-il pu laisser sa fille entre les mains de ce vieux nes Ipate de Socrate, de cet insupportable raisonneur, qui corrompt les jeunes gens, et qui les empeche de frequenter les courtisanes et les saints mysteres?28

It was previously mentioned that Voltaire used the term "nez epat£n several

times when referring to Socrates. Not even in his tragedy could he sus­

tain from using it. It appears that he forgot that there are similar references that produce a comic effect and deprive the tragic hero of his

grandeur. Diderot referred to the death of Socrates throughout his works,

and he never used comic expressions which would weaken the tragedy and

nobleness of the protagonist. Here is the difference between the two

eighteenth century French philosophers. It is true that Voltaire's aim

was to satirize the Parisian society; however, he could have done it with­

out using such degrading terms, and what is even worse, without making a

27 Ibid. 28Ibid.. p. 367 167 go-between, a "flrotaconventos," of Socrates. Voltaire could have attri­ buted to Socrates the same traits that we find in the Platonic Dialogues or

in Diderot's sketches. If he had done this, his play would have been a

real tragedy rather than a satirical comedy and perhaps would have helped

the cause of the "philosophes." Once Voltaire began a theme, he could not

stop— he mixed the comic with the tragic, satire with the serious. The

next passage is a good example of this:

Agaton etait entiche des memes principes • • • L sa7 3 Anytus_7 1111 de nos ennemis jures, qui pensent avoir rempli tous leurs devoirs quand ils ont ador£ la Divinite, secouru 1’hvmanite, cultiv£ 1*amitie, et etudi£ la philosophies de ces gens qui pretendent insolerament que les dieux n'ont pas ecrit l'avenir sur le soie d'un boeuf; de ces raisonneurs lmpitoyables qui trouvent 2i redire que les pretres sacrifient des filles, ou passent la nuit avec elles, selon le besoin: vous sentez que ce sont des monstres qui ne sont bons qu'i etouffer. S'il y avait seulement dans Athenes cinq ou six sages qui eussent autant de consideration que lui, e'en serait assez pour m'oter la moitie de mes rentes et de mes honneurs.29

Here it appears that Voltaire employed his satiric tone to point out the

corruption and decadence of the church's representatives. At the same time,

he focalizes the integrity of the "philosophes" and the danger they repre­

sent to the church and government. During the second half of the eighteenth

century, the church and government were afraid of the awakening of the

masses. The "philosophes" were attempting to educate the people and cure

them of their absurd beliefs in superstitions. Ihis is why Anytus says to

Drixa upon leaving:

En attendant que je 1*Strangle, je vais lui parler sous ces porti- ques, et conclure avec lui 1 'affaire de mon mariage.^0

29 30 Ibid. Ibid. 1 6 8

And as soon as he notices Socrates, he says the following:

Eh, bon jour, mon cher Socrate, le favori des dieux et le plus sage de mortels* Je me sens eleve au-dessus de moi-meme toutes les fois que je vous vois; et je respecte en vous la nature humaine.^l

Voltaire portrays Anytus as one of the most corrupted characters, a person without moral principles, without conscience. In the above lines, we saw him flatter the man whom he has made up his mind to destroy. Anytus calls him "le plus sage des mortels"; this is a calculated attitude. He hopes to use Socrates in the pursuit of his plans. When Socrates refuses to help him and when Anytus becomes aware that he cannot use him, he takes advantage of his position and influence to bring Socrates to justice and

to accuse him unjustly. Before he does this, there is still one more

thing to be done— ask Aglae to marry him. When the latter refuses, he becomes furious and exclaims:

Le ciel est interesse; cet homme meprise sans doute les dieux puisqu*il me dedaigne. On a dljSi intent! con tre lui quelques accusations.32

Firom these lines, it appears that Voltaire bitterly attacks the clergy

again. According to him, only those persons who were willing to help the

priests in their pursuit for personal desires and interests were considered

good Christians. Ihere were these corrupted beliefs and misinterpretations

of the Bible that the "philosophes" were trying to destroy. They were

attempting to point out to the people the danger that priests such as

Anytus and corrupted courtisans such as Drixa represented for mankind.

Both the decadent priests and courtisans are admirably portrayed. In the following line, we get a picture of the courtier who flatters his victim.

It was mentioned that Drixa also was seeking her happiness for she wished to marry Sophronime. The success of her marriage depended on the success of Anytus* marriage to Aglae; hence, she flatters Anytus: "Vous paries comme la sagesse elle-meme."33 We notice the sarcasm especially in the

line where Drixa says: NI1 faut que quelque divinit£ vous inspire." If

he is inspired by some divinity in his illicit schemes, then the divinity

must be corrupted and evil also. Although it is a known fact that

Voltaire was against the clergy, he was not an atheist; and the above

expression must have been used only for satiric effect.

Anytus* wretchedness is not apparent only in his speeches with

Drixa and their common desire to destroy Socrates. There is another factor

which strengthens the idea of his complete corruption. This becomes evident

when he expresses his opinions about Meletus. When he tells Drixa that he

will join forces with Meletus to destroy Socrates, Drixa exclaims:

Mais ce Melitus est un petit pedant, un mechant homme, que est votre ennemi.3^

Tb which Anytus replies:

Oui, mais il est encore plus l*ennemi de Socrate; c*est un sc£lerat hypocrite, qui soutient les droits de 1 'Areopage contre moi; mais nous nous reunisons toujours quand il s*agit de perdre ces faux sages capables d*eclairer le peuple sur notre conduite.35

Here is a picture of two hypocrites— one representing the church and the

other the government and justice— who hate each other yet will forget

their differences and join forces to destroy an honest man who represents

33Ibid.. p. 380. 3^ . . 170 a threat to them. Ihere is no doubt that Anytus and Meletus know that they are "scellrats hypocritesfH for when the former meets Meletus, he says:

Je sais bien que nous nous halssons tous deux; mais en se detestant, il faut se rlunir pour gouverner la republique.36

Meletus replies:

D*accord. Personne ne nous entend ici; je sais que vous etes un fripon; vous ne me regardez pas comme un honnete horome; je ne puis vous nuire parce que vous etes grand-pretre; vous ne pouvez me perdre, parce que je suis grand-juge; mais Socrate peut nous faire tort k l*un et k 1'autre en nous deraasquant; nous devons done commencer vous et moi par le faire mourir, et puis nous verrons comment nous pourrons nous exterminer l*un 1*autre k la premiere occasion.37

In these lines we see the eternal struggle between courtesans who are continually trying to exterminate each other because of jealousy and com­ petition, but there are always honest men with strong moral principles and a clear conscience who represent a danger to them. In this play,

Anytus and Meletus represent the church and government, while Socrates represents the "philosophes." Although there was competition among the

two former groups, they were aware that the real danger for them at that

particular time was the Encyclopedists. As long as they were fighting

each other, there was always the possibility for one of them to win;

but with the "philosophes" trying to unmask their schemes, this chance

was beginning to diminish. Ihis is the reason they joined forces to

fight the philosophers together; and if they should succeed in their task,

then they could turn against each other again, lb assure their victory,

37ibid.. p. 382 171 they needed more help. Ihis was not difficult to find because society is always filled with parasites.

To expose Socrates as a danger to the country and its institu­ tions! Anytus asks the help of three mediocre "gazetiers." When Voltaire describes these "gazetiers!H he uses all the irony and sarcasm of which he is capable. They are Nonoti, the defatiguable; Chomos, the profound; and Bertios, the delicate who has slain Socrates with a word in his little journal:

Monseigneur, voici mon dernier journal sur le chaos. Je fais voir adroiteraent, en passant du chaos aux jeux Olympiques, que Socrate pervertit la jeunesse.38

When Nonoti reports to Anytus, he states:

Monseigneur, je n'ai fait qu*une feuille; j*y prouve que l'arae est une quintessence infuse, que les queues ont ete donnees aux animaux pour chasser les mouches, que Ceres fait des miracles, et que par consequent Socrate est un ennemi de l ’fitat qu'il faut exterminer.39

One can notice the confusion of his statement. The reference to Socrates as the enemy of the state has nothing to do with his previous statement that "l*£me est une quintessence infuse." Voltaire meant it as a satire against his enemies, and as such, it is very effective. As for the character of Chomos, it was stated at the beginning of the chapter that

Abraham Chaumeix was the author of Prejugls legitimes contre l*Encylopedie essai de refutation de ce dictionnaire. In this work he misinterpreted

38 Ibid.

39ibid.. p. 381 the passages that he quoted from the Encyclopedie: hence when he reports to Anytus, he uses the same technique:

Monseigneur, n'ayant rien trouv£ It reprendre dans les Merits de Socrate, je 1 'accuse adroitment de penser tout le contraire de ce qu'il a dit; et je montre le venin repandu dans tout ce qu'il dira.

From a satirical point of view, perhaps this scene is one of the best in the play. In the first two acts if seems that Voltaire concentrated on the satirical element rather than on the image of Socrates, the just man. He used the villains as the main characters in order to set the stage for the third act where Socrates becomes the central figure.

In Act III, Voltaire attempted to follow the Platonic Dialogues which deal with Socrates* trial and death. While he tried to be serious and specific, he could not forget his sarcasm. Diderot said when refer­ ring to the same topic in his sketch, "Drame philosophique":

H faut ici s'assujettir au costume; il faut qu'on lise les accusations; que Socrate interpelle ses juges, ses accusateurs et le peuple; qu'il les presse; qu'il les interroge; qu'il leur reponde. U faut montrer la chose comme elle s'est passle: et le spectacle n'en sera que plus vrai, plus frappant et plus beau. 1

What Diderot meant was the dramatization of the Apology. If the drama

were modeled after the original, it could produce a powerful dramatic

effect. Voltaire chose to write a social satire and produced only a

comedy against the customs of his time and against his personal enemies

rather than a tragedy, as we shall attempt to point out. 173

The first scene of the third act opens in the Court of Justice.

Meletus is the high-judge, and he reads the accusations brought against

Socrates. He is not the official accuser but merely the judge who reads the causes for Socrates' trial:

Socrate, vous etes accuse d'etre mauvais citqyen, de corrorapre la jeunesse, de nier la pluralite des dieux, d'etre h£r£tique, deiste et athle: repondez.^2

In the Apology one gets the idea that there is a confusion with respect to the accusation of atheism brought against Socrates. It seems to be very difficult to decide whether Socrates is an atheist or if he does believe in some kind of divinity. Socrates realized this fact and attempts to speculate on this matter and expose the weakness and absurdity of Meletus' accusation. He says:

But if I believe in supernatural activities, it follows inevitably that I also believe in supernatural beings. Is not that so? It is; I assume your assent, since you do not answer. Do we not hold that supernatural beings are either gods or children of gods? Do you agree or not? "Certainly."t S

This last word, "certainly," is a sign of Meletus' confusion to the sharp and clever questioning of Socrates. In Voltaire's play, the same obscur­ ity is evident. Ihe prosecution uses three adjectives which have no

relationship whatsoever. "H£r£tique" does not mean that a person is an

atheist; he may not agree with the orthodox belief, nevertheless he is a

believer. "Deiste," also implies belief. "Athee," however, is in direct

contrast with the other two. Yet, we notice that the same person was

^Voltaire, Vol. V, p. 388. 4.3 -'Livingstone, p. 32. 17^ accused as being all three at the same time. It seems that Voltaire tried to stress in these lines the absurdity and obscurity of the accusations brought against the "philosophes" by the anti-philosophic group. The "philosophes” threatened the morality of the individual more than the state or the church, and a number of their ideas were of a genu­ inely advanced type. Among the advanced political ideas was the negation of nationalism and patriotism, while among the advanced religious ideas there was the importance accorded to the individual to determine his own religion. All of these ideas were considered radical and dangerous; therefore, Socrates was accused of being a "mauvais citoyen" tiying to

"corrompre la jeunesse." To which Socrates replied:

Judges ath£nies, je vous exhorte & etre toujours bons citoyens corame j*ai toujours tache de l'etre. ... A l'egard de la jeunesse dont vous paries, ne cessez de la guider par vos conseils et sur- tout par vos examples; apprenes-lui \ aimer la veritable vertu, et & fuir la miserable philosophic de l'£cole. L'article de la pluralite des dieux est d'une discussion un peu plus difficile; mais ypus m'entendres aisement. Juges atheniens, il n'y a qu'un dieu.^

Here Socrates attempted to defend himself on all three accusation brought against him. First, there is the blunt exposition of the philosopher's virtue. He had tried to be a good citizen and he exhorts his accusers to imitate his actions. In his second statement regarding the youth, however,

Voltaire seems to get confused. His point seems to be that he does not believe in the integrity of the judges, yet he asks them to guide the youth. If they were corrupted and decadent, the youth by following their example would be no better than they were. If they did not know what

Voltaire, p. 308. 175 "veritable vertu" was, how could they teach it to others? Perhaps

Voltaire was trying to convey something here, but the reader gets con­ fused because of the obscurity of the statement. As for the third charge regarding the plurality of God, it is very difficult to deter­ mine what Voltaire meant. We can only speculate that when Voltaire

speaks of the plurality of God he is referring to the many saints within

the church. In the Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches, at times the

saints play a very important part. Perhaps Voltaire was considering this

factor when he had Socrates discuss the problem of the plurality of God.

In a way, many saints seem to have become the counterpart of Greek minor

gods and demi-gods. There also seems to be an attack on the Annunciation

and the unusual pregnancy of the Virgin when Voltaire has Socrates say:

Gardez-vous de toumer jamais la religion en metaphysique: La morale est son essence. Adorez et ne disputez plus. Si nos ancetres ont dit que le Dieu supreme descendit dans les bras d'Alcmene, de Danae, de Seraele, et qu'il eut des enfans nos ancetres ont imagine des fables dangereuses. C'est insulter la divinite de pretendre qu'elle ait commis avec une femme, de quelque maniere que ce puisse etre, ce que nous appelons chez les hommes un adult&re. C'est d£courager le reste des hommes, d'oser dire que pour etre un grand homme il faut etre ne de l'accouplement mysterieux de Jupiter et d'une de vos femmes ou filles. ^

Greek mythology has many cases where Jupiter, under one form or another,

made love to mortal women; from these illicit love affairs, such heroes

as Hercules were bom. From the idea of Jupiter becoming "golden rain"

to reach his victim to the "lily" of the Archangel Gabriel and the

unusual pregnancy of the Virgin, the difference does not seem to be too great. Throughout the centuries, it was this type of similarity that gave men of reason material for speculation. Voltaire was a "raisonneur."

Similar to the other philosophers of the eighteenth century, he was try­ ing to free the masses of superstitions and the belief in miracles. The

Annunciation was an unusual event which could not be explained rationally; therefore, it could be very probable that in the above lines Voltaire attacked the unreality of this miracle. As Voltaire stated:

Miltiades, Cimon, Themistocle, Aristide, que vous avez persecutes, valaient bien, peut-etre, Pers£e, Hercule et Bacchus; il n*y a d*autre maniere d'etre les enfans de Dieu, que de chercher k lui plaire et d'etre juste.**©

According to Voltaire, a man does not have to be the real son of God to be a good man. Every man can be God's son if he will try to be honest

and just and live as the Gospel says.

There have been several factors mentioned in this chapter which

remove the play from ancient Athens and place it in eighteenth century

France. In the trial scene, there is a concrete fact which proves this

more strongly. It is the idea of the "heliocentric theory" that Voltaire

introduces in the play. In fact, when Anytus addresses the court, he says

Vous l'avez entendu, auguste Areopage, institu$ par le ciel; cet homme dangereux nie que le soleil tourne, et que vos charges soient de droit divin. Si ces horribles opinions se repandent, plus de magistrats, et plus de soleil.^7 177

Ihis outburst by Anytus was caused by Socrates' previous speech when he stated that:

La vertu seule est de droit divin, et vous et l'Ar^opage n'avez d'autres droits que ceux que la nation vous a donnes.^°

Here there is evidence of how dangerous the new ideas were for the govern­ ment and the church. Voltaire challenges the power of the government and of justice. When he says that they do not have any other power than that given to them by the people, this statement sounds like a manifesto which attests the awakening of the masses and the rights of the individual.

These dangerous ideas had grown to such an extent that they were embraced

by people of different social standings, different degrees of intelligence,

and different talents, who were adopting and enlarging them until the

ideas threatened to overthrow all the time-honored standards of morality

and all accepted institutions. These were the ideas which became the

reality of the French Revolution. This is why Anytus, Joly de Fleury,

urges the judges to condemn Socrates, the Encyclopedic. If these new

ideas were to spread, there would no longer be any magistrates. He and

his conspirators, however, forgot an important factor. It is easy to

suppress or destroy an individual, but it is very difficult to suppress an

idea.

Voltaire was never more serious, satirical, or flippant than in

these scenes. The merchant woman, Drixa, cries out:

C'est un herltique; il nie la pluralite des dieux; il est deiste, il ne croit qu'un seul dieu; c'est un athee.^

**8 Ibid. 49Ibid.. p. 384. The judge who is "bien aise, apres tout de faire mourir un philosophe: cet gens-lSi ont une certaine fierte dans l’esprit, qu*il est bon de miter un peu.”^

Another judge confides in his neighbor:

Entre nous, Socrate a raison; mais il a tort d*avoir raison si publiquement. Je ne fais pas plus de cas de Cirfes et de Neptune que lui; mais il ne devait pas dire devant tout l'Areopage ce qu*il ne faut dire qu*i 1 'oreille. du est le raal apres tout d'empoisonner un philosophe, surtout quand il est laid et vieux?-*

A third judge who would condemn all geometricians who pretend that three

angles of a triangle are equal to the two right angles, and thereby

"scandalisent etrangement la populace occupee a lire leurs livres."-^ A

fourth judge replies:

Oui, oui, nous les pendrons a la premiere session. Allons diner. ”

All these are characteristic creations of Voltaire with a humor inter­

spersed throughout in an intensely serious effort to vindicate the

Encyclopedic.

In the characterization of Socrates, Voltaire preserved the laud­

able traits because therein is found his reply to his opponents. After

the humoristic and somewhat sarcastic trial scene, Socrates is brought in

the courtroom for the verdict. It is Meletus who reads the decision of the

judges:

Les dieux soient benis, la pluralite est pour la mort. Socrate, les dieux vous condamnent par notre bouche Si boire de la cigue, tant que mort s'ensuive.^ 179

In similar circumstances perhaps others would have reacted differently, crying about their innocence and imploring the judges for mercy, not

Socrates. Instead of revolting and losing his temper because of the injustice done to him, he answered very calmly:

La nature vous condamne It mourir tous dans peu de temps, et probablement vous aurez tous une fin plus triste que la mienne.

He accepts his fate with resignation. As he stated, every human is mortal and destined to die; the only difference is the way one dies. Knowing that he performed his duty as a citizen and tried to live a virtuous life, he was not afraid to face eternity. He reminds his accusers that their fate would be more painful than his because they represent falsehood, injustice, and vice. Perhaps Voltaire could have expanded this idea and brought in the judgment of posterity. We shall see, however, that he did it in his last long speech to his friends. In this scene, he con­ tinues with his speech to the court:

Je dois des eloges aux juges qui ont opine en faveur de 1*innocence; je ne dois aux autres que ma pitie.56

Socrates wishes to thank the judges who voted for his acquittal. He does not mention them by name for that is not important. He thanks them and praises them as the defenders of Hl*innocence" rather than the defenders of Socrates. At this point, Socrates loses his individuality as a man and acquires that of a symbol of universal virtue and innocence. He also becomes the secular defender of the innocent and the oppressed by the injustice of the law. Rather than revolt and hatred against the champions

55Ibid. 56Ibld. 180 of Injustice, he has enough power of forgiveness in his heart to feel pity for them. This is not Socrates the Athenian; he is the eighteenth century Christian Socrates, the man who forgives his persecutors. It was easy for him to act as he did because he was not afraid to die— he had prepared for it "depuis l o n g - t e m p s . **57 How he wished to be alone to medi­

tate and to prepare his soul for eternity. He seemed to be more afraid of his wife than he was of death:

Tout ce que je crains \ present, c'est que ma femme Xanthippe ne vienne troubler mes derniers moments et interrompre la douceur du receuiellement de mon ame; je ne dois m*occuper que de l'etre supreme.5°

Nevertheless, Xanthippe arrives at prison and troubles the serenity of his

last moments. Socrates was consoled by the arrival of his friends and dis­

ciples who gave him an opportunity to speculate on the immortality of the

soul. In this scene, Voltaire is faithful to the original Phaedo.

Although in the Platonic Dialogue Socrates discusses the idea of the

immortality of the soul extensively and Voltaire barely touches the sub­

ject, it is important to note the merit of the following passage:

La pensee est l'etre de l'homme; cet etre paraitra devant du Dieu juste qui recompense la vertu, qui punit le crime, et qui par- donne les faiblesses.59

Here there is the image of a just and human God, not the scholastic God of

the French Catholics. Voltaire's God can pardon weaknesses, for weakness

is human. He awards virtue, but He also can be very merciless with the

oppressors of innocence and justice. We mentioned previously that Diderot

57ibid.

58Ibid., p. 393. 59Ibid. 181 merely touched on the subject of the Immortality of the soul in his sketches:

Ce mot engage la scene sur 1*immortality de l'ame. Tentera cette scfcne qui l'osera; pour moi, je me hate vers mon object.®®

Diderot did not say anything about his reasons for the omission of this subject from his intended play, hence we can only speculate. Since the immortality of the soul deals with metaphysical problems, Voltaire could very well speculate on this matter. Diderot was a confirmed atheist; therefore, metaphysical or theological arguments were not matters to be considered in a philosophical play. His aim was to portray the Greek philosopher in all his grandeur and to stress the injustice done to him by his countrymen. At the same time, Diderot wanted to point out the

similarities between Socrates' fate in Athens and that of the "philosophes" of eighteenth century France. Voltaire attempted to modernize the image

of Socrates by attributing to him some Christian qualities. When the

prison guard brings him the hemlock, Xanthippe curses the guard but

Socrates asks: "Mon cher ami, je vous demands pardon pour ma femme.

Christ did the same when Peter attacked His executioners in the Garden of

Gethsemane. There is a difference between the Apostles of Christ and the

disciples of Socrates. While the former abandoned their Master and left

him to die alone, the latter were faithful to Socrates until the last

moments of his life. Not only were they with him during those critical ______

60A. T. Vol. VII, p. 382.

6lVoltaire, Vol. V, p. 393. 182 moments, but they were ready to die for him if it had been possible. In

fact, we hear one of them exclaim: "Que ne nous est-il permis de prendre

ce poison, diving Socrate!"^2 In this line, it is important to notice

the expression "divin Socrate." In the previous chapter on Voltaire, we

saw that he used the same expression several times, and it seemed to

have a touch of irony. Here it appears that Voltaire was sincere. Another

factor in this passage is the idea of justice and injustice. 'Die dis­

ciple says: "Par quelle horrible injustice nous etes-vous ravi? ... Les

criminels ont condamne le juste! les fanatiques ont proscrit le sage!"

All these expressions are like a cry against those who persecuted the

"sages," i.e., the "philosophes" of the eighteenth century. Regardless

how much the anti-philosophic group will try to suppress the Encyclopedists,

in the end they will not triumph.

When Socrates says:

Non, je vais vivre. Voici le breuvage de l'immortalite. Ce n'est pas ce corps perissable qui vous a aim£s, qui vous a enseignes, c'est mon ame seule qui a vecu avec vous; et elle vous aimera k jamais.^

it seems to point out the immortality of his soul and the immortality of

his ideas. In Phaedo Socrates talks about the immortality of the soul

and eternal life after death. Although Voltaire deals with the Socratic

idea of the soul, in the above lines he considers Socrates' immortality

through posterity. Philosophers throughout the centuries will believe in

the Socratic ideas— posterity will honor the death of the just man. This

62Ibid. 63Ibid. 183 idea of Socrates* immortality through posterity was expressed by Voltaire in Dictionnaire philosophioue. 1756, also. The Athenians recognized their error after his death and they erected a temple in his honor. As a result of the Encyclopedists* attempt to destroy the false beliefs that dom- inated the masses during the 1750's and 1760*3, the Encyclopedic was outlawed and its editors were in danger of being imprisoned. This is to why Socrates became their hero. Their fate was closely related to that of Socrates*. Their common destiny was not the only thing that brought

them together. It was also the triumph of Socrates* ideas~his immortality

through the ages— that gave them hope to carry on their battle. There was

the hope that posterity would judge them according to their merits and

honor their memory. This is why Voltaire’s Socrates says: "Voici le

breauvage de l ’immortalite."

After the speculation concerning the immortality of the soul,

Voltaire returned to Phaedo and introduces the fable of pain and pleasure:

Je souris en reflechissant que le plaisir yient de la douleur. C ’est ainsi que la felicit! etemelle naitra des miseres de cette vie.

These lines are almost identical to those found in Phaedo where Socrates

said:

What a queer thing it is, my friends, this sensation which is popu­ larly called pleasure! It is remarkable how closely it is connected with its conventional opposite, pain. . . . If you pursue one of them and catch it, you are nearly always compelled to have the other as well. 65

^Ibld.. p. 394.

^Livingstone, p. 76. 184

The Idea of pain and pleasure being closely related seems to have puzzled the french philosophers, this was also mentioned by Diderot in his sketches: "Que le plaisir et la peine se touchent de pr&st"^ it may be that this was another way of expressing their hope. The philoso­ phers were persecuted and their works burned, but after the pain and

suffering they were hoping to enjoy to a greater extent the pleasure and happiness of their victory. The idea of the immortality of their works

and their names seems to have been a very important factor among the

french philosophers. In his last long speech in Voltaire's play,

Socrates says:

Je vais mourir; mais l'exemple d'amiti£ et de grandeur d'lme que vous donnez au monde ne p£rira jamais. Votre vertu l'emporte sur le crime de ceux qui m'ont accuse. Je benis ce qu'on appelle mon malheur; il a mis au jour toute la force de votre belle Sme. Ma chfere Xanthippe, soyez heureuse, et songez que pour l'etre il faut dompter son humeur. Mes disciples bien-aimes, £coutez toujours la voix de la philosophie qui meprise les persecuteurs, et qui prend piti£ des faiblesses humaines.®?

Diderot's Socrates says to his disciples:

Dans un moment, je ne serai plus. ... C'est par vous qu'ils me jugeront. ... Ne reprochez ma mort aux Athlniens que par la saintet! de votre vie.®°

The french philosophers did not have any disciples as such, but they had

their conscience and their beliefs. Their works were their disciples;

it was through them that posterity would judge them.

66A. T., Vol. VII, p. 382.

^Voltaire, Vol. V., p. 396.

^®A. T., Vol. VII, p. 384. It was because of this idea of the triumph of justice that

Voltaire in his characterisation of Socrates preserved his main traits.

While he modernised him considerably, he maintained his pure qualities

in their entirety. Accused of corrupting the youth of his time, Socrates

was merely bringing them into accord with the laws of the state and nature;

accused of advocating an injurious doctrine, he was simply expounding a

doctrine consisting of common sense and fearless truthfulness; and accused

of violating the laws of the state, he respected them even when they were

avowedly unjust. Ihus, Socrates— the eighteenth century "philosophe"—

was dangerous, not to the virtuous man, but for the wicked ones. Socrates

was the victim of renegaded priests who sought to sustain superstitions

because superstitions supported them. He was also the victim of judges,

knavish pamphleteers, and stupid gazetteers. Ihis was the situation of

the "philosophe" during the last half of the eighteenth century in france.

By attempting to preserve the main traits of Socrates in his play,

Voltaire perhaps was attempting to defend the Encyclopedists. It may be

that his play was somewhat weakened by its satirical tone when he portrays

the anti-philosophic group; but his image of Socrates, especially in the

last act, is very noble. Frederick of Prussia was in error, therefore, 186 when he attacked the play in the following strong terms:

Grand merci de la tragldie de Socrate. Elle devrait confondre le fanatisme absurde, vice dominant & present en Prance et qui, ne pouvant exercer sa fureur ambitieuse sur des sujets de politi­ que, s*acharne sur les livres et sur les apotres du bon sens.

Les frocards, les mitres, les chapeaux d'ecarlate Lisent en fremissant le drame de Socrate; Si des Atheniens vous empruntez le dos Pour porter k ceux-ci quelques bons coups de patte, Le contre-coups sont tous sentis par vos bigots.

Frederick continues in the same tone:

Ces nouveaux Melites, ne peuvent faire boire la cigue k Voltaire, mais ils peuvent bruler ses ouvrages.°9

It seems strange that Seznec agrees with Frederick and does not find any­ thing worthwhile in Voltaire's play. Frederick's criticism is justifiable because at that particular time his relationship with Voltaire was not very good. It was mentioned in Chapter Seven that after Voltaire's

return from Berlin he attacked the Prussian militarist. It may be possi­

ble that Frederick recognized himself under the mask of Meletus or Anytus.

In fact, after his sojourn In Berlin, Voltaire wrote Dietionnaire

ohilosophique where in the article "Religion" he mentioned Socrates and

Meletus. The two are connected by the idea of justice versus injustice:

Quand nous fumes II Socrate, je le reconnus bien vite It son nez £pate. Eh bien, lui dis-je, vous voillL done au nombre de confi­ dents du Tres-Hautt Tbus les habitants de l'Europe ... prononcent votre nom avec respect. On le revere, on l'aime, ce grand nom, au point qu'on a voulu savoir ceux de vos persecuteurs. On connait Melitus et Anitas; . . . je ne sais pas pr£cis£ment quel etait le scelerat par qui vous futes caloroni£, et qui vint & bout de vous faire condamner !i la ciguS.70

^Seznec, p. 5*

70Voltaire, Vol. XX, p. 3^5. 187 Perhaps at that time "le scelerat" was Frederick, but there is no proof to support this statement. The importance of this passage is in Voltaire's statement: "On connait Melitus et Anitus at cause de vous." It appears that the eighteenth century Encyclopedists were trying to convey the idea that if Socrates' executioners were remembered by posterity, it was only because of their crimes. They were immortalized in spite of themselves.

By using this image, the "philosophes" were attempting to remind their persecutors that if posterity will remember them it will not be because

of their merits but only as the hangmen of free thinkers. It was pointed

out that Diderot tried to relate the same idea of immortality. This

weapon appears to have been used against the "philosophes'" opponents

very effectively.

La Mort de Socrate was never staged. In 1761 after the presenta­

tion of Palissot's play, Voltaire revised and republished it in the hope

that it would be presented on the stage. In the same year, Voltaire wrote

to D'Argental, who evidently suggested staging the play. D'Argental

replied:

Ce Socrate est un peu fortifie depuis longtemps par des nouvelles scenes, par des additions dans le dialogue. Tbutes ces additions ne tendent qu'a rendre les pers£cuteurs plus ridicules et plus execrables, mais aussi elles ne contribueront pas & les desarmer. '

Again, in another letter to Voltaire, he wrote:

Decidezjaour Socrate, pour l'Ecossaise, je ferai tout ce qu'il faudra.7*

71Ibid., Vol. XL, p. 395. 72Ibid.. p. 413 188

In July of the same year, Voltaire was still debating between Socrate and other plays. He wrote to D*Argental:

Je ne sais plus que devenir; je suis entre Socrate. l'Ecossaise, Medime. Thncrede. et le Droit du seigneur. Vous avez r£gle l'orde du service, tous les plats sont prets; mais on ne peut mettre en vers Socrate. & cause de la multiplicity des acteurs. 3

Although Voltaire had intrigued skillfully to stage Socrate. the play

never was produced. Even if the play was never performed, it exercised

some influence among the philosophic group. Because of Voltaire's play

and Diderot's sketches, the dramatists belonging to the Encyclopedic

group were able to stage later a successful play dealing with this sub­

ject. This dramatist was Sauvigny, a hero for the philosophers.

73ibid.. p. k?Q. CHAPTER TEN

SAUVIGNY'S LA MORT DE SOCRATE

The plays which attacked the "philosophes" had their origin in the belief that the latter either professed doctrines or maintained practices which, coupled with insincerity and insufficient training, were a menace to society. These charges had been succinctly drawn up.

How were they met? The defense, though in some respects inadequate, was prompt. Among the first attempts at a reply, only a small number of plays were written. We discussed in the last chapter Voltaire’s attempt to defend the Encyclopedic in La Mort de Socrate. Other efforts were made by Cailleau in Les Philosophes manques and in Les Fourbes punis. and Diderot’s Pfere de famiHe was interpreted by the public as an answer to the opponents of the party. According to Belin,! the critical time for the Encyclopedists was between 1758 and 1762. If one considers the stage, the period of crisis occurred slightly later. An increase in activity was not noticeable until 1760 when a reply to the attacks made by Palissot and his group was attempted by Cailleau. Scandalized by Palissot's allegations, he was

^J. P. Belin, Le Mouvement philosophiaue de 1748 a 1789 (Paris: Belin, 1913), P» 109*

189 190 determined to avenge honest men maliciously maligned, as he declared in the preface to the third edition:

Nous croyons devoir avertir le lecteur que cette comedie a it4 faite "currente calarao," 1* auteur Itant extr&nenent re volte contre la pifece de M. P., qui attaque des savants & qui on ne peut rien reprocher, ni sur la probite, ni sur les moeurs.

Les Philosophes manoues is an indictment of Palissot rather than a defense of the philosophic party. Cailleau asserted that Palissot was a knave and a grafter, and he seemed to think that this would clear the "philosophes" of the accusations brought against them.

While Voltaire with all his fame and efforts could not secure the production of his play, an obscure author named Sauvigny succeeded in staging his Mort de Socrate at the Comedie Frangaise in 1763. He waited, however, for over two years before he got permission for its performance; and even then he was forced to consent to suppress certain passages.

This delay is evident from Favart's M&noires et correspondance. July 7, 1760:

Les memes comediens doivent nous donner cette semaine La Mort de Socrate. tragedie par M. de Sauvigny, garde du corps du roi Stanislas. Cette piece vient d'etre arretee & la Police. On a cru remarquer des allusions it des personnalites. ... Bntre autre personnalites, on a saisi celles qui regardent Palissot. H est depeint odieusement sous les traits d'Aristophane persecuteur de Socrate et des Philosophes. On ne peut se meprendre & 1 'application.3

A. C. Cailleau, Les Philosophes manoues. comedie nouvelle en un acte et en prose (Paris: 1760), p. 7.

3charles-Simon Favart, Correspondance de Favart avec le Comte de Durazzo (3 vols.; Paris: 1809), Vol. I, p. 184. 191 On June 29, 1762, Bachaumont wrote:

H est decid£ que La Mort de Socrate sera restiree, la police ne veut point absolument en permettre la representation.^

On March 23, 1763* he wrote:

Le Socrate de Sauvigny apres bien des contradictions doit se jouer A la rentree. On avait d'abord exigi qu*il supprimat une tirade contre Aristophane comme djsignant trop particulierement le Sr. Palissot; la Marquise de Villeroi avait assur£ 1*auteur qu'il ne serait point represente sans cela. Apres bien des pourparlers il a raye A regret le norceau ou ce michant £tait particulierement caracterise.^

According to Grimm^, Sauvigny*s Socrate was at first suppressed "A cause de l’animosite qu’on a dans ce moment-ci contre la philosophic." Ihe censors authorized its presentation after having examined it very carefully,

"afin de n'y rien laisser subsister qui fut susceptible d'application au merite des philosophes de la nation, et du sort qu'ils y £prouvent." When the play finally appeared in 1763, there was no word in the preface which intimated that it was intended as a reply to the opponents of the philo­ sophic party; and furthermore, the passage about Aristophanes which could only apply to Palissot was deleted entirely.

Let us now consider the play itself and ascertain why the author­ ities and the anti-philosophic group were so strongly against the perform­ ance of this play.

**L. Bachaumont, Memoires Secretes (36 vols.; London: 1762-87).

5Ibid.

^Griram, Vol. V, p. 118. 192

Sauvigny's play seems to consist of three distinct parts: a sum­ mary of the accusations brought against Socrates, a response to these accusations; and an idealized portrait of the "philosophe" as represented by the hero. In the preface, the author explains the reasons for choosing

Socrates as the hero of his play rather than any of the other philosophers.

He says that if he began with such a serious subject it was because he wanted to aid his heart more than his mind. He continues in the same manner:

Quel charme pour un homme qui cultive les Lettres dans la solitude, que cette morale douce et insinuante de Socratet Heureux qui la medite et qui en est vraiment plnltret H jouit de la satisfaction interieure, le seul bien qui soit reel.?

Prom the above lines, it appears that the author was interested in the moral aspects of the Greek philosopher during a time when morals in France

reached their lowest point. The church and government were taking advan­

tage of their authority and were persecuting innocent people in the name

of justice— the Athenian society of Socrates' day was taking hold again

in eighteenth century France. Although Sauvigny was not a member of the

philosophic group, his decency as a human being and as a critic who saw

injustice done inspired him to come to the aid of the persecuted. His

play, however, does not follow the historical facts closely, and the

author explains the reason for this departure in the "Preface."

J'ai vu aux representations, qu'il falloit souvent sacrifier 1'Histoire & l'effet th££tral: on alloit deux fois aux opinions.”

?B. Sauvigny, La Mort de Socrate. tragldie en trois actes et en vers (Paris: Chez Duchesne, Libraire rue Saint Jacques, au-dessus de la Fontaine Saint Benoit, au Temple du Gout, 1763)* P* 1* 8 Ibid.. p. iii. 193 Even so, it has been said that Sauvigny's play was one of the best plays

written on this subject.

In the first scene of Act I, Anytus instructs his priests con­

cerning the necessity of Socrates' eminent defeat. He tells them of

Socrates' intervention among the people during a time when the amorphous

mass was bringing gifts to the altars. Socrates tells his wife and the

others that it is by helping the poor that they can fulfill their duty

toward God:

Chere Spouse usez mieux des dons que vous portez. Vous voyez cette Thoupe \ vos pieds g£missante? Elle leve, vers vous, une main suppliante; H faut s£cher les pleurs qui coulent de ses yeux: VoilA, voilSi, l'encens qui doit flatter les D i e u x . 9

Here Sauvigny strongly attacks the church and the corruption of its minis­

ters. Instead of helping the poor, they are only interested in their own

welfare. It appears that the author does not blame this corruption

* entirely on the servants of the church but on the masses as well. Moved

only by emotion, this mass which cannot reason is blinded to the point

where it cannot distinguish a friend from an enemy. Instead of attacking

the real enemy or the cause of their misery, they attack the innocent who

try to help them. Thus, in the first scene the people scream for

Socrates* life rather than attack Anytus and his followers. They are the

people who arrest Socrates, and by so doing, they are as guilty as their

instigator. Anytus knows that only with the help of the masses can he be

assured of Socrates' condemnation. He also needs the collaboration of the

9Ibid.. p. 2 19^ decadent magistrate of justice. When his priests express their concern about the court of justice, Anytus assures them with these words:

J'ai des plus grands d*Athene obtenu les suffrages. Le conseil est pour nous et meme un Senateur, M^litus, contre lui nous sert d'accusateur. Portant un oeil impie au fond du Sanctuaire, Aux pretres plus qu'aux Dieux, Socrate a fait la guerre. De leurs dons k l'envi les crldules mortels, . Sans lui, viendroient encore enrichir nos Autels.

How much bitterness and disgust can be seen in the last four lines of

this quotation! Anytus, the high priest of Ceres, confesses that Socrates did not break any divine laws, that Socrates is not an atheist, but he is

simply accusing the priests of corruption. Ihis is Socrates' crime for which he must die. If under the mask of Meletus, Sauvigny intended to

attack some of the enemies of the philosophic group, then it is probable

that he meant Joly de Fleury and his group who suspended the publication

of the Encyclooedie. It was this incident more than anything else that

encouraged Palissot, Freron, and others to attack the "philosophes" on

the stage and in their reviews with almost positive results. Since

Sauvigny was not a member of the philosophic group, this is merely a

speculation.

In the second scene, Anytus expresses his joy in a short mono­

logue. With Socrates removed from the scene, the masses will recognise

his power and return to the altars with gifts. He is interrupted from

his meditations by the appearance of the priests. Hie priests tell him

in the third scene that the masses, instigated by Xanthippe, are changing

1 0 Ibid.. p. if 195 their feelings and are ready to avenge Socrates' injustice. Anytus, knowing the sentiment of the masses extremely well, pacifies their fear with these words:

Je connois ce vil peuple, ami, rassurez-vous; Vous le verrez bientot tomber \ mes genoux.H

Here again it seems that Sauvigny condemns the masses for their ignor­ ance. Confident of his power over the masses, Anytus in the fourth scene introduces the charges against Socrates: Socrates has failed to recog­ nize law, religion, and the state. He has corrupted the youth and has also had the audacity to challenge the power of the gods. Therefore, the gods demand his death through Anytus. In this scene, it seems that the

struggle is between religion and philosophy. Anytus represents religion and theology, and Crito represents philosophy. Anytus stresses the fact

that it was philosophy that gave power to Socrates to challenge the gods and disturb the peace of the country. It was through the power of philo­

sophy that Socrates dared to suppress the power of the ministers of the

gods and, thus, the laws. Tb these accusations, Crito defends philosophy

by giving an idealized portrait of the "philosophe" and concludes by cit­

ing the deeds of Socrates:

Que vous connoissez mal un Philosophe, un Sage, Les troubles, les complots, ne sont pas son ouvrage, La paix est le seul but qu'il propose aux mortels. II combat des erreurs sans briser des autels. Imitateur de l'etre eternel et supreme, II a fait des heureux, il dut l'etre lui-meme. Simple dans ses dehors, modeste en ses discours, II plaint qui le noircit, pardonne & qui l'opprime; Son nom fait son malheur, sa gloire fit son crime. Aux complots des mechants n'opposant que ses moeurs. A force de vertus il subjugua les coeurs. ^ Crito continues in this tone by exhalting Socrates* military deeds and his courage during the oligarchic government of the Thirty and ends by

asking a temple built in honor of Socrates. In the fifth scene, Crito

compares Socrates to Prometheus. The latter stole the sacred fire from

the gods and gave it to the mortals in order to illuminate their darkness,

and the former lit the torch of philosophy which will save the masses

from ignorance. If he is judged today, it is because of jealousy and

because:

. . . il a distingue, pour son malheur peut-etre La loi d'avec l*abus, l ’homme d*avec le Pretre *3

Act I ends with a monologue by Crito who expresses his hope that

truth will prevail against the hypocrisy of the Areopagus. He believes

in the virtues and sentiments of the people. He knows that the people

were misled for a moment and that they will recognize their error. It

seems that in Act I the struggle is between two parties which compete to

gain the support of the masses. It was stated that Anytus counted on the

ignorance of the people when he said:

Je connois ce vil peuple, ami, rassurez-vous: Vous le verrez bien tot tomber k raes genoux. ^

While Crito ends his speech with:

Opposons la douceur aux fureurs d*un barbare, C*est ainsi qu'on rara&ne un peuple qui s'egare. 3

Act II opens with Anytus and Meletus. The former wants the death

penalty for his victim; and the latter, although admitting the same hatred

for Socrates, is in favor of a milder sentence. For Meletus, Socrates* 197 exile is enough to satisfy his vengeance; however, there seems to be a contradiction in Meletus' sentiments. He expresses his hate for Socrates; and at the same time, he admits that instead of having harmed him,

Socrates helped him when his life was in danger. It is true that

Socrates had sentenced Meletus' brother to exile, but this is not reason enough to hate Socrates. When Anytus reminds him of this:

Clitus, raon tendre ami, ton deplorable frere En lui trouva son juge, ou plutot son bourreau, , C'est lui qui dans l'exil a marque son tombeau.

Meletus replies:

Ah! sans doute, Anitus, ma haine est implacable,,_ Mais Socrate etait juge, et Clitus fut coupable. '

He confesses that Socrates saved his life and that he is aware his brother was guilty, yet his "haine est implacable." Seen in this light, the image of Meletus is more decadent and corrupted than that of Anytus. At least the latter had personal reasons to destroy the "philosophe." He did not owe anything to Socrates, while Meletus owed him everything by his own admission. Hie historians who mentioned a Meletus as Socrates'

judge had confused the Meletus who was helped by Socrates and another

Meletus who was a priest. Perhaps the same error was made by Sauvigny.

Nevertheless, it seems that by giving us a repulsive description of

Meletus' character, Sauvigny intended to give more power to the idea of

repentence and remorse, as we shall see during the development of the

play, and thus more power to the triumph of justice and truth.

^•6Ibid.. p, 16.

17lbid., p. 17. 198

The first scene of Act II between Anytus and Meletus is an introduction to the trial scene. In the second scene, the reader is introduced to the court, and Socrates' appearance is described by Crito as follows:

Meletus, la vertu ne rend pas furieux. Regarde de quel front ta vietime s'avance La paix est dans les coeurs ou rlgne 1'innocence.

It has been mentioned that Anytus brought the charges against Socrates

in the fourth scene of Act I. In Scene 3* Act II, Meletus brings the

same charges against Socrates. He accuses Socrates of failing to recog­

nise law, religion, and the state, and that:

. . . sous le nom de la Philosophie, Marche \ front decouvert l*impiet£ hardie, Elle foule & ses pieds les autels et les loix Et la licence infame applaudit & sa voix. Si nous ne dltruisons ce monstre en sa naissance, II va nous accabler du poids de sa puissance.^9

He continues by saying that philosophy is like a poison which will destroy

the youth and their morals. In answer to these charges, Sauvigny has

Socrates give an apology, but it seems that it is no longer the Apology

of Plato. Socrates believes that the gods were created for political

and personal interests and that ignorance lies at the root of religion.

His first answer to Meletus' charges is:

Je ne reconnois point ces fitres fantastiques Ces Dieux, l'effroi du peuple, instrumens politiques, Dont on fait des tyrans injustes et jaloux, Plus cruels, plus changeans, et plus foibles que nous. II est un Dieux puissant, dont la main etendue Tient au milieu des airs la terre suspendue, Le souffle de sa voix enfanta l'univers . . • 199 Socrates believes in a God, but the God of justice and wisdom, not the gods of superstition and ignorance. It was ignorance that created all the "cultes bizarres" and the laws which brought man into a state of barbarianism. It was not for glory or a vain science that he wanted to

"briser le joug de 1'ignorance." Socrates, the eighteenth century philosopher, believed in the education of the masses. It seems that only through education can man progress and be free from superstitions.

When Meletus tells Socrates that most of his disciples are trai­ tors and enemies of the state, he replies:

Sans m'abaisser comme eux j'attendrai ma sentence La crainte ne doit point avilir 1'innocence.^1

Socrates is not afraid to face justice. He does not condemn the laws of

Athens; he respects them. When Crito expresses his revolt against Athens and the law, Socrates reminds him of his duty and respect for his country:

Eh quoi, votre vertu, Criton s'est dementie, Respectez le s£nat, chlrissez la patrie. Je naquis pour mourir, 1*arret de mon trepas, Vient de m'ouvrir la tombe ou j*allois \ grands pas.

Qui cherche \ vivre heureux, apprend I. bien mourir, 0 vous tous dont la bouche a dicte ma sentence Vous connoitrez, sans doute, un jour mon innocence: Puisse mon sang verse pour l ’interet des Cieux Faire multiplier les sages dans ces lieux.

It seems that not only does Socrates accept his fatewith resignation, but he is convinced that his ideas will triumph. He is keenly concerned with the judgment that posterity will pass upon him,and he is not afraid to die as long as posterity will render him justice. As mentioned before, the concern with posterity appears to have been very common during the eighteenth century. In Scene b of the same act, this idea appears again.

Socrates speaks to Meletus after his sentence; he forgives him for what he did and he ends by saying:

Vous avez triomph^, je suis votre vietime; Vos regards vont jouir de mes demiers ins tans, Mais la verite reste et l ferreur n*a qu*un terns.

As we shall see, the idea of posterity will occur once more in the last

act. After his apology and his sentence and before the court is adjourned,

Socrates expresses his desire that the immortal torch of philosophy shed

its light to the uttermost ends of the earth and ”fasse le bonheur de cent

peuples divers.”

Act II ends as it was opened with Anytus and Meletus; however,

these scenes are quite different. While there is no change in Anytus,

there is a remarkable one in Meletus. It is evident that remorse has

taken hold of Meletus* soul; and to compensate for his error, he curses

Anytus in the following lines:

. . . moi ton ami, barbare! Que mon bras ne peut-il, ame lache et sans foi, Confondre, aneantir des amis tels que toil Que les Cieux soient veng£s, que la terre en fremisse!z

After this scene, Meletus repents and, feeling guilty for the crime he has

committed, decides to go and confess his guilt to the people. In the

fourth scene of Act III, Crito arrives at prison and tells Socrates of

Meletus* tragic death. Haunted by his conscience, Meletus hadexhorted 201 the people to go and free the Innocent Socrates and at the same time he stabbed himself. Thus, it seems that justice triumphed even before

Socrates died, and Sauvigny compares the calm death of Socrates to that of Meletus. When Crito ends his description of Meletus’ death, Socrates exclaims: Ah, que tes chatimens, Dieu vengeur, sont terriblest Quand la mort nous saisit dans ses bras invisibles, Et du sein de la nuit nous tralne devant toi, Qu’il est doux d'y porter un coeur exempt d’effroil25

For a man who has lived virtuously, there is no fear even when he is

facing death. Socrates said in the second act when speaking to Crito

that every man is b o m to die and what is important in a man's life are

his actions.

Act III opens in prison. Xanthippe goes to visit her husband and

learns from the guard that Meletus, feeling remorse for his crime, has

arranged for Socrates' escape. Ihis fact arises some hope in her heart,

and she goes to bring the good news to her husband. Socrates, however,

refuses to accept his freedom. Escaping from prison for him is a con­

fession of guilt, and it is also breaking the law. Sauvigny said in the

"Preface" that sometimes it is necessary to sacrifice history for thea­

trical effect. In this act, this factor is quite evident. In Plato's

Dialogues, Xanthippe has a very small part, and the protagonists seem to

be Socrates' disciples. In Sauvigny's play, the parts are reversed.

Socrates is no longer expressing his philosophical ideas to his followers,

25lbid.. p. 38. 202 but to Xanthippe and the warden; and Xanthippe is no longer the histori­ cal shrew, only a wife who loves her husband. She wants him to live, she implores him to escape. When he refuses, she becomes very angry. She believes in Socrates' innocence; and when he tells her that he cannot

save his life by committing a crime, she replies: "Quoi, sauver l'innocence est un crime a vos y e u x ? " 2 ^ To which Socrates replies: "La loi l'ordonne ainsi, la loi nous vient des Cieux."2? It appears that

there is no separation between social laws and divine laws in Socrates' mind. Xanthippe, however, cannot understand these types of laws, nor can

she understand that if Socrates chooses death when he could choose life

he is doing it for a belief. When she accuses him in Scene 3 of not

loving her, of being a man without pity, etc., she also accuses him as

being:

Cruelt l'humanite degraderoit ton ame La gloire est ton tyran, la vanite t'enflammel2®

It is also probable that she did understand him because she did believe

in his ideals, but with him dead those ideals for her did not have any

value. She wanted a husband and a father for her children more than

Socrates' noble ideals and any judgment given by posterity. When finally

she realizes that all her efforts are in vain, she has the courage to

offer to follow her husband to his death, courage to commit this extreme

26Ibid.. p. 32.

2?Ibid.. p. 33.

28 Ibid.. p. 36. 203 sacrifice. In the fifth scene when Socrates tells her to go, she exclaims:

Non, je ne puis me slparer de toi, Cruel! et pourquoi done veux-tu mourir sans moi? Apr^s toi, cher Ipoux, il m'est affreux de vivre. Tu me trouves sans doute indigne de te suivre.2^

When Socrates takes the cup of poison, after an attempt to stop him,

Xanthippe faints, lhis ends almost five scenes between them in prison.

Ihe last two short scenes of the play are dedicated to Socrates and his disciples. Before taking the hemlock, Socrates dedicates his soul to God with the following prayer:

Tbi qui lis dans mon coeur, exauce ma prifere; Accorde un heureux terme & mon heure demiere; Mon ame pour jouir d*un bonheur £ternel Va bientot s*envoler dans ton sein patemel.30

Ihe re does not appear to be anything of the historical Socrates left in these lines; this is an eighteenth century Christian Socrates as con­ ceived by Voltaire also. After the Christian prayer, he drinks the poison; and when his disciples begin to cry, Socrates reminds them that it is unworthy of a "philosophe” to cry. He tells them to remember the virtues and the power of reason and says:

0 Ciel! Et que devient cette Philosophie, Qui d'un oeil dedaigneux vous faisoit voir la vie?3l

Philosophy, according to Socrates, teaches us how to live and how to die as well. For an innocent man who believes in philosophy, there should not be any fear of death. It seems that philosophy makes us aware of the

29 lbid.. p. 42.

30Ibid.. p. 43. 31Ibid. 204 immortality of the soul; and if we believe in immortality, the only important thing in life is to act well and prepare our soul for eternal life. It appears that Sauvigny combines philosophy and Christian theology in the following lines:

Ne reprochez jamais ma mort aux Citoyens. Vos moeurs feront le fort de la Philosophie Et ce sera par vous qu*ils jugeront ma vie.-*

Here there seems to be the Christian idea of forgiveness and tolerance, expressed through philosophy not theology. He asks his disciples to for­

give his executioners and by so doing they will give strength to philosophy. There is one fact, however, that concerned Socrates more

than anything else. It was the judgment of posterity. It was up to his

disciples to act virtuously because posterity would judge him according

to their actions.

The play ends with this idea of tolerance and forgiveness. Since

Sidias was one of the judges who sentenced Socrates to death, repenting

and remorseful, he visits Socrates in prison. He accuses himself for his

action, but Socrates forgives him; and the last act of the MphilosopheH

before dying was to press Sidias* hand upon his heart— the just and vir­

tuous man finds the power to forgive his executioner. What better ending

is there than this? The author gives a Christian lesson to those who

represent Christianity. Sauvigny opened his play with an attack on the

clergy, and he depicts for them an idealized picture of a true "philosophe."

32Ibid.. p. 44, / 205 j At the end of the play, it is this ideal "philosophe" who gives them a lesson on how to conduct one's life.

Sauvigny*s Socrate seems to have been the only play on this sub­ ject which was performed on the stage. Let us see what was the secret of his success. We mentioned that in 175? in Discours de la poesie dramatiaue Diderot gave an outline of play which dealt with the death of

Socrates. This outline seems to have influenced many authors, but

Sauvigny was the only who took advantage of Diderot's ideas. Grimm in

Correspondance litteraire observed:

La piece de Sauvigny eut un succes de circonstance. ... L'auteur ... a en plusieurs endroits profit! de la belle et sublime esquisse que M. Diderot a tracee de ce sujet-ci, en deux pages, dans son Traite de la Poesie dramatique. ... Mais cette esquisse reste toujours i remplir.^

According to Grimm, Sauvigny was familiar with Diderot's work and profited

from that latter's ideas on the matter. Let us consider both works to

see to what extent they are alike. First, Diderot's outline begins with

Socrates already in prison awaiting his trial. We noted in Sauvigny's

play that when the first scene opens Anytus is preparing Socrates' arrest

by appealing to the emotions of the masses. Furthermore, he brings the

charges against Socrates even before the trial had begun, while in

Diderot's work the charges against Socrates are brought during the trial.

lhere is a similarity in both authors with regard to the trial scenes;

but inasmuch as Diderot intended to conform to the historical Apology.

Sauvigny accuses the clergy of having created the gods for political and

•^Grimm, Vol. V, p. 287 206 personal purposes and asserts that ignorance lies at the root of religion.

Bie last act of Sauvigny's play seems to be closer to Diderot's ideas.

Diderot created in his outline the character of Xanthippe. In Plato's

Dialogues, Xanthippe is hardly mentioned, whereas in Diderot's sketch she begins to acquire more importance. It has been noted that Sauvigny dedi­

cated almost the entire third act to Xanthippe. Despite these differences,

there seems to be a great influence caused by Diderot in Sauvigny's play.

Ihere is the idea of the judgment of posterity. It appears that both

authors were concerned with Socrates* immortality and both based this

immortality on the actions of the disciples. Diderot said addressing

his disciples:

Dans un moment, je ne serai plus ... c'est par vous qu'ils me jugeront. ... Ne reprochez ma mort^aux Athenians que par la saintete de votre vie.*^

Sauvigny's Socrates says almost the same:

Ne reprochez jamais ma mort aux Citoyens. Vos moeurs feront le fort de la Philosophic. Et ce eera par vous qu'ils jugeront ma vie.35

It appears from the above quotations that Sauvigny copied Diderot almost

word for word, especially in the line on the judgment of posterity.

Another concept where Diderot's influence on Sauvigny appears evident is

the belief in philosophy. Diderot was convinced that it was through

philosophy that man could live virtuously. Ihis belief was the founda­

tion of his entire morals, since he did not believe in God. This belief

in philosophy is also shared by Sauvigny. When Socrates takes the poison

^ A . T., Vol. VII, p. 384.

•^Sauvigny, p. 44. 20? in Diderot*s work and his disciples begin to weep, Socrates tells them:

(A est la fermete, la philosophie, la vertue? 36

In the same circumstances, Sauvigny*s hero exclaims:

Ahl rappellez & vous la vertu, la raison.

0 ciel! Et que devient cette philosophie Qui d*un oeil dedaigneux vous faisoit vor la vie?3»

Considering these passages, it seems that Sauvigny was influenced

by Diderot*s work; however, this is not as important as the fact that

Sauvigny who was not connected with the Encyclopedists in any way, dis­

gusted by the corruption of the clergy and the anti-philosophic group,

came to the aid of the "philo sophes1* at a crucial time. Perhaps his play

did not contribute too much to the cause, but there seems to be one cer­

tain aspect. After 1763 the anti-philosophic group was losing ground.

Sauvigny added another "stone" to the image of Socrates* death which

became the symbol of justice versus injustice during the eighteenth cen­

tury. He believed in the idea of the final triumph of justice, as it is

evident from his entire play.

The best conclusion to this chapter would be one of Sauvigny*s

lines which expresses the idea that truth is eternal while error is only

momentary. This also seems to have been the belief among all the eigh­

teenth century "philosophes" who were fighting against ignorance, super­

stitions, and the triumph of justice. **Mais la verite reste et l ’erreur

n fa qufun terns.”

36Ibid.. p. 383.

37lbid.. p. 43. 3s Ibid.. p. 25. CHAPTER ELEVEN

LINGUET*S SOCRATE

Sauvigny*s Mort de Socrate was followed one year later, 1?64, by

Linguet*s Socrate which, like Voltaire’s play, was never performed.

Linguet was accused of representing in the death of Socrates the fall of the Jesuit party. A certain Jesuit priest, P. La Valette, a missionary in the Antilles, began a business; but his inexperience in the business caused his bankruptcy and a debt of 1.500.000 livres. The Jesuits refused to pay the debt, and Omer Joly de Fleury, the Attorney General, began an inquisition. By a decree of parliament, the Jesuit order was suspended on August 6, 1762.^ When Liguet*s play appeared in 1764, the critics considered it a portrait of the downfall of the Jesuits; but Linguet denied this accusation Iiy stating the following:

A tant de soundssion, de grandeur d ’ame, et d*humanite, je demande, si ceux qui ont condamne les soi-disants pourraient se reconnaitre? Socrate n'est done pas J^suite. ... Si l*on avait pu se flatter de trouver dans ma piece quelque allegorie, ce serait certainement celle de l ’illustre Jean-Jacques Rousseau.2

It seems that by the author*s own admission one more play based on the death of Socrates arose in defense of the "philosophes" and as such in

defense of the party. The allusions made to Rousseau, however, are very

vague.

^Le Gras, p. 148. 2 Journal encyclop^dique. 1764, Vol. VII, p. 118.

208 209

Linguet*s play differs considerably from Sauvigny's, not only in the emphasis placed upon the characters, but also in the plot. It was noted that Sauvigny attempted to emphasize in the character of

Socrates the traits which proved conclusively that the charges brought against him were false, while the various motives behind the charges, such as the jealousy of Anytus or the hatred of Meletus, are very vaguely treated. Furthermore, as far as the plot is concerned, he was relatively faithful to the historical traits of Socrates. On the contrary in

Linguet's play, the motives underlying the persecution of Socrates are closely examined. More important than the character of Socrates is that of Anytus— the main source of ail of Socrates' misfortune and persecution.

The cause of the persecution, as we shall see during the development of the play, is as follows: During all the ages there have been philosophers who were prattling fools. Now there arose one who, proclaiming truth as his goal and reason as his guide, was threatening the foundations of an institution built upon superstition and falsehood— an institution which, at the expense of a toiling multitude, had enriched the few and which must be supported and avenged. Therefore, Linguet supports the idea that

in the name of religion the high priest Anytus destroyed Socrates for

refusing to acknowledge a power built on corruption.

Let us consider the play to see how Linguet, although pursuing the

same aims as his predecessors, differs from them in the presentation of

his subject. In his dedication to the Comtesse d'Humbecque, after having explained the reasons for which the play was not performed, he made a long criticism of the history of the theater in Europe and, especially, in France. He accused Corneille, Racine, and other playwrights of having inherited from the Spaniards a taste for complicated plots. He did this so that later he could defend himself against the charges that the plot of his play is very simple. He stated that his manuscript had fallen into the hands of someone who was an expert in the art of the theater, and this person found several defects in his play, of which three are very essential:

Le premier defaut, c'est le peu d'incidents dont la piece est chargee. J'ai r£pondu d'avance k cette critique. Le second, c'est le temps qui s'lcoule avant que Socrate paraisse.3

He defended himself on this charge by taking Moliere's Thrtuffe as an example; and, furthermore, he stated that the traits he wished to give to Socrates' character were too beautiful, and he was not certain whether or nor he would be capable of maintaining these traits throughout the entire play. Socrates is the virtuous man; and in the last two acts where it deals with virtue, he dominates the scene. Even though he does not appear in the first three acts, the plot turns around Socrates' character.

The third fault is he says:

C'est d'avoir rendu le denouement trop facile k deviner. J'avoue que je ne suis pas persuade que la beaute d'un denouement consists, corome quelques ecrivains le pensent k etre une especed'enigme, dont un hazard iraprevu vient tout d'un coup donner le mot.

•^S.N.H. Linguet, Socrate. Tragedie in cinq actes (Amsterdam: Chez Marc-Michel Rey, 176*0, pp. xviii-xix. k ___ Although he did not believe In complicated plots, he maintained that in the first four acts the plot is not so simple because the fate of

Socrates is very doubtful. He stated that he omitted the trial scene and

Socrates' apology because he did not believe that the court of justice or the corruption of the judges should be portrayed on the stage. Further, his two predecessors who used it failed because:

Dans l'une elle donne lieu ol des plaisanteries, dans 1 'autre a des declamations.5

In the case of Voltaire, perhaps he is right; however in Sauvigny's case,

I should tend to disagree with Linguet. The apology of Socrates in

Sauvigny*s play, even though it is not Plato's Apology, seems to add a

great dramatic effect to the play. With respect to the changes made in

the historical characters, such as Crito whom he represents as a young man and the son of Anytus, and Xanthippe who is replaced by a daughter,

Linguet related that he did it so that in the latter case the role would

be more natural because the historical Xanthippe is out of place. As far

as Crito is concerned and his love for Aglae, Socrates' daughter, he did

it for dramatic reasons. As he wrote:

Si j'ai rendu cette fille sensible & 1 'amour du fils de son ennemi, c'est que cet amour n'est point fade; c'est qu'il fait le vrai noeud de la piece.®

It appears from the "dedicace" that Linguet tried to defend his

play on the basis of its dramatic values. In spite of his attempted

defense, the play was never performed; and it seems that it was doomed 212 to fall even If It had been staged because as a dramatic work of art it is very poor. What is important, however, are the ideas that it depicts, and we shall consider the play from this aspect.

From the very beginning, Anytus* character appears decadent. In his discussion with Meletus, another priest and senator who is just as corruptas he, the latter says:

On a vu de tout temps s'elever dans nos murs De sophistes sans nom, des raisonneurs obscurs, Qui faisoient grand bruit retentir leurs Icoles De vaines questions et d'arguments frivoles. Leur babil ridicule, aveuglant les mortels Attaquait la raison, et non pas les autels. On les m^prisait trop pour cralndre leur audace.'

It seems that here Linguet attacks the Sophists or the flock of so-called philosophers who arose during the eighteenth century. As Anytus repre­

senting the church and the government states, these pseudo-philosophers

did not represent any serious threat to the church or the government.

They were so frivolous and depraved themselves that, rather than represent

a danger for the established institutions, they were arousing contempt.

With Socrates, however, things began to change because:

. . . sans les imiter, Socrate prit leur place. • ••••••eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee . II osa proposer & son coeur intrepide, La verite pour but, et la raison pour guide. II ne recomandait aux hommes corrompus Que 1*amour des devoirs et celui des vertus. II faisait plus encore: par de sages exemples Attaquant les abus qui soutiennent nos Temples Et coupant les canaux qui portent aux autels Les voeux et les presens des credules mortels® 213

3y preaching truth, virtue, and Christian charity, Socrates was committing a crime in the eyes of those who lived like leeches. Socrates' desire for justice was a menace to those who were taking advantage of the people's ignorance and superstitions. They were not interested in the welfare of the people; they were not interested in educating the masses because this would mean the end of their power. In this scene when Anytus tells Meletus of all the schemes he used to destrqy Socrates, it seems that there is also a reference or an attack against the anti-philosophic group who tried to

ridicule the Encyclopedists on the stage:

Ce n'ltait pas le temps encor de la detruire D'un poete connu par l'ardeur de mldire, D'Aristophane alors j'empruntai le talent; A ce vil ecrivain je prodiguai 1 'argent: II me vendit sa plume, il servit ma vengeance. N'osant pas de Socrate attaquer l'innocence, Et ne pouvant encor le rendre criminal Pour perdre surement cet odieux mortel, II sgut par mes avis le rendre ridicule ...^

It has been mentioned that Palissot in his plays tried to ridicule

the philosophers, especially Rousseau who was the protagonist in Le Cercle.

In the preface to the Philosophes. Palissot considered himself a modern

Aristophanes. Although he was thinking of his own interests, it seems

that "ce vil ecrivain ... vendit sa plume" refers to Anytus, thus, to the

anti-philosophic party. We saw that when Linguet was accused of portraying

the fall of the Jesuits in the death of Socrates he said that if he had any

one in mind at all it was Rousseau. It is very probable then that this new

Aristophanes whose pen Anytus hired was Palissot. From this point of view, 214 even though Linguet's play is not a literary masterpiece, one ought to give him credit for having attacked the decadent clergy and writers of his time. This is even more true when one considers that he was a lawyer and had no connections whatsoever with the Encyclopedists. If he attacked falsehoods, superstitions, and injustice, it seems that he did it only in the name of justice. He was inspired by the same reason which inspired many writers of his time, that of seeing decent people ridiculed on the

stage because of their beliefs.

Even if most of the characters in Linguet's play are weak, there are three who appear to be very strong. From one side, there is Anytus

representing everything which is evil and corrupt and who inspires con­

tempt among the audience. At the other extreme, there is the character

of Socrates— a little too idealistic, as were all the Socrates during that

time. In the middle, there is Aglae, the virtuous daughter who tries

everything to save her father and see that innocence and virtue triumph.

Immersed as Anytus was in his world of corruption, he could not

even conceive that there are honest people in the world. It seems that he

judged every human being according to his standards. Hiis is very well

portrayed when he described his son to Meletus. He does not believe that

his son would be decent enough to react against injustice; therefore, he

tells Meletus:

Criton d'un noble orgueil suivra les mouvements Quant il verra par moi sa fortune affermie, Exiger 1'abandon d'une inutile vie.10

10Ibid.. p. 8 215

His son is aware of Socrates* innocence, and he is also aware of the injustice his father plans for the "philosophe.** Although the remaining part of Act I is based mainly on the schemes of Anytus, it does not seem to be very important. The only character worth mentioning is Aglae who opposses her virtues to the vices of Anytus. During their discussion,

Anytus tries to justify his actions as the will of the gods; but Aglae knows him better and when she remains alone exclaims:

Le ciel pour 1'innocence armerait la nature. Je n'apperjois que trop ta coupable imposture, Tu deguises ta joie, et veux cacher la main Qui dirige les coups de ton Zele inhumain.H

In Act II Anytus attempts to convince his son of the necessity of seeing justice done against people who preach virtue and real faith. If these virtuous men are not punished, the priests will lose their power.

He fails to convince his son of Socrates* guilt, but it is not difficult for him to convince the people who were going to testify on behalf of

Socrates on Crito*s demand. Tbking advantage of his position and their ignorance, Anytus tells the people that Socrates' prosecution is wished by the gods, to which the ignorant people reply:

Eh bient s*il est ainsi que le ciel en decide. C'est vous, Pontife saint, que nous prenons pour guide

Another exclaims: "Suivons ce que le Ciel au grand Pontife inspire ..."^

Far from being unmasked by the people for what he is, Anytus emerges vic­ torious. Not only are the people not going to fight for justice, but

they rely on Anytus to do justice. It is noticeable that Anytus is not 216 the scoundrel, but the high priest~the saint who is inspired by the heavens. It is curious yet it seems that the people are portrayed as guilty as the priests and the representatives of the government by most of the writers of the philosophic group. It is their ignorance and their belief in superstitions that cause most of the injustice done by the for­ mer. In the above lines, one finds a good example of this.

After the people leave convinced of Anytus* noble sentiments, he uses all his wit to convince his son of Socrates* guilt. First, he attributes his attitude to the gods when he says:

Sortez de votre erreur, et connaissez Socrate; Malgre cette vertu, dont l'appareil vous flate, Les Dieux, les justes Dieux s'elfevent contre lui. Ce sont eux qu’il s*agit de venger aujourd'hui.3-3

To which Crito replies:

Ce roortel vertueux, qu'avec tant d*injustice Vous osez condamner au plus honteux supplies. Est plus grand mille fois et plus noble & mes yeux, Qu*un Pontife ... Ahl j*irais plus loin que je ne veux.^

It appears that Anytus, who is capable of deceiving the masses as well as

the judges, is not able to convince those who are close to him and know

his soul. One of those is Crito, his own son. If Crito fights to prove

Socrates' innocence and saves him, it is not only for personalreasons

andgains. On the surface it may appear that it is his love for Aglae

that spurs him to defend Socrates; however, taking a closer look at his

speech to his father, it seems that he is concerned with the judgment

3-3Ibid.. p. 23. •^Ibid.. p. 25. 217 posterity will render. In fact, he tells his father the following:

Que faut-il esperer de la posterite, Elle qui n'a d'egard que pour la vlrite7 Voulez-vous qu'on accable un jour votre meraoire De reproches honteux, cruels i votre gloire? Pensez-vous sans horreur qu'un triste souvenir, Rappellant votre nom au siecles & venir, Leur apprendrait comment aux cris de 1*imposture, Vous auriez immole la vertu la plus pure, Et reduit l'innocence a perlr dans les fers. *

It has been mentioned several times during the course of this study that one of the main characteristics of the death of Socrates was the triumph of innocence, truth, and justice. Posterity has recognized

Socrates' innocence and has honored him as a martyr who died for justice.

We know that the eighteenth century French society had many common traits with that of Athens. The "philosophes" were persecuted by the Catholic church as well as by the government. Therefore, this idea of posterity passing judgment and avenging the "philosophes'1 became a weapon for them;

and it seems that it occurs among all the writers who either belonged to

the Encyclopedic group or sympathized with it. From the above lines, it

appears that Linguet also used this weapon. As for its effect, one may

see that from Anytus' attitude. When he becomes aware of the fact that 218 his son cannot be convinced with lies, he exposes his real character in the following lines:

Eht que me fait k moi ce vain nom de vertu? Quand de Socrate ici je demande la vie, Crois-tu que c'est aux Dieux que je le sacrifie? Non, ce n'est qu'k moi seul, k mon pouvoir bless!.

Les pompes, les honneurs, tant de riches offrandes, Dont le peuple accompagne et soutient ses demandes, Ces hommes tous les jours qui viennent effrayes Voir les Dieux dans ma bouche, et trembler k mes pieds, Ce sont Ik les vrais biens que mon orgueil desire.

Si ton Socrate vit, si mon coeur lui pardonne. U faudra bien pourtant que je les abandone.

Finally, Anytus' true character is revealed to the reader. It is through his son that the high priest is judged. He admits to his own son who believes in virtue that his only religion in life is power and personal gain, and he does not care how he is going to achieve them. It seems that

Anytus uses the Machiavelian theory— the end justifies the means. It may seem strange that the servants of God were so corrupted and concerned with earthly wealth; but, as it has been mentioned before, the incident of P. La Valette is a good example of this. If Linguet was accused of portraying the fall of the Jesuits, who were the greatest enemies of the

Encyclopedists, perhaps people saw in this confession of Anytus, a refer­ ence to the Jesuits. This is, however, only a speculation, since the author denied the charges. We do not know how sincere he was when he refuted this accusation considering that the church was still very power­ ful, as one can see if he refers to the "Affaire Calas" and the "Affaire de la Barre." The latter was accused for having mutilated a crucifix 219 which was placed on a bridge in Abbeville. Because of his age and

Linguet*s defense, the young man was almost acquitted; but parliament, frightened by the progress of free thinkers, sentenced him to death in

1765 and in 1766 he was executed, lhis trial did more for Linguet*s remembrance by posterity than his literary works. If these facts are mentioned, it is to support our theory thatperhaps it wasfear that impelled Linguet to deny the charges that he wasportraying the Jesuits in his play.

The tears of a son cannot be without effect. It touches even the heart of the most decadent man at times. In Crito*s case, he succeeded in convincing his father to reconsider the case of Socrates. At the end of Act II, he tells Crito:

. . . tes pleurs m*ont touche. Viens et je vais resoudre s*il faut le condamner, Ou si je puis l*absoudre. ?

Touched by his sons tears, Anytus suddenly has a change of heart. These

noble sentiments are only „superficial; and perhaps the author used this

devise to produce theatrical suspense. If these lines are examined

closely and traced to Act IV when Anytus visits Socrates inprison, it

appears that instead of a change for the better it is a road which leads

Anytus to perform some actions which depict even better his corrupted

soul. In Act IV the climax is reached when Anytus reveals his baseness

by offering Socrates a comfortable position in the priesthood if he will

cease his attacks on him and the church. 220

Until now we have seen that in all the other plays dealing with

Socrates' last days, Anytus was interested mainly in Socrates' death.

Linguet introduced a new element— moral defeat which is much worse than

death. For a man such as Socrates and considering his age, death was

more a relief than a punishment. Also, if he were to die, he would

become a martyr in the eyes of the people rather than a villain. Perhaps

from this point of view, Anytus saw the circumstance when he decided to

visit Socrates with his offer. We saw that Crito reminded him of pos­

terity's judgment, and this too might have had an affect on him. There­

fore, he decides to tempt Socrates. Should he succeed, he would destroy

his soul rather than his body in the eyes of the people. The great

Socrates, the wise philosopher who accuses himself publicly that he was

wrong, would not have to be dead for he could serve his enemies' purpose

better if he were alive. These are only speculations, but the text seems

to support them in part.

In Act IV when Anytus explains to Socrates the reason for his

visit— offers him life rather than death— he asks: "Parle, aimes-tu la 18 vie?" Socrates replies "Sans doute, si je puis vivre sans infamie."

Socrates was not against life, yet he could not conceive of a life of

lies. His answer is laconical and to the point. Anytus cannot under­

stand what "une vie sans infamie" means. It seems as if he did not even

hear what Socrates said considering his reply. He attempts to touch

Socrates* heart by mentioning Aglae and her love for Crito. He tries to

awake in Socrates his paternal instincts. Anytus offers Socrates his friendship and everything else, and in exchange he asks very little!

"penser comme moi." Ihis is equivalent to asking Socrates to deny his own existence. It is thinking that makes a man an individual. If

Socrates had thought the same way as Anytus, he would have lost his individuality. Yet for Aqytus, it seems that this was very little to ask in exchange for all the services that he would render him. He offers him life, but this life would belong to Anytus. As for his ideas concerning the gods and the masses, they are noted in the following lines

Je n 'examine point par un defit frivole, Si ces Dieux de tout temps par le peuple adores, Sont, comme tu le crois, de mensonges sacres, Qui, nes de 1'imposture et de notre faiblesse, Ont acquis du pouvoir & force de vieillesse, Et rendent respectable aux stupides humains, Le fruit de leurs erreurs, l'ouvrage de leurs mains, Tb vois, que si ces Dieux sont faibles, meprisables, Leur Pretres ont du moins des armes redoutables.19

He confesses that the gods are man’s creation. It is the superstition of

the masses which justifies the existence of gods; however, if the people

are ignorant and the gods are powerless, why should not the wicked ones

take advantage of the circumstances! Who would know better concerning

this matter than the corrupted priests who make a weapon of these super-

sitions. The priest states:

II monte sur l'autel, il fait parler les Dieux, Et voit a ses genoux une foule tremblante Puiser dans ses regards l'espoir ou l'epouvante. C'est ainsi qu'on se fait des destins eclatans, Qu'on gouverne le monde ... ^0

^•9ibid.. pp. 45-46.

20Ibid.. pp. 46-47. To which Socrates replies:

L* ambition du sage enfante les oracles, Sur les autels des Dieux prodigue les miracles, Montre au peuple le crime adore dans les Cieux, Fait naitre l ’appareil qui frappe ici ses yeux, Et tous ces dogmes vains qu’il ne sjaurait comprendre.

What a difference there is between Anytus, the servant of evil and cor­ ruption who will not stop at anything to reach his goal, and Socrates who believes in justice and truth, and what is more important, in educa­ ting the people and their right to reason. It is by teaching them to think that man can build a better society and a better world. It is through knowledge and reason that the masses can be freed from supersti­ tions and can have a stronger belief in God. It is lqy understanding a dogma that man’s faith becomes more solidified. Anytus, however, does not seem to comprehend this reasoning because he exclaims:

H les mepriserait, s'il pouvait les entendre. Vas, crois-moi, pour penser le peuple n ’est pas ne. II faut, pour son bonheur, qu'humblement prosteme, Aux autels de ses Dieux, sous la main de leur Pretres, II adore en tremblant le pouvoir de ses maitres.22

Ihe masses, then, do not have a right to education. They were born to

follow blindly the adventurers and the corrupted. Their destiny is to

remain in their obscurity and be what they are and what they have been.

Nature, however, at times makes some exceptions to the rule, permitting

an uncommon man to be born such as Socrates and Anytus, both "destines dans le monde a lui donner la loi." Anytus continues as follows:

Crois qu'il est entre nous bien peu de difference. Le Philosophe altier qui d£truit les erreurs, Le pretre dont la voix les seme dans les coeurs, Ont les memes desseins et de pareilles vues. Ibus deux voulant rlgner sur les ames £mues, Bomer egalement leurs desires et leurs voeux A se faire un grand nom qui substiste apres e u x . 3

It seems that both men are concerned with the people, but Socrates tries to lift the darkness from man's life and give him light. According to

Anytus, Socrates is a new Prometheus who attempts to steal the fire of knowledge from the false priests and give it to the masses. The priest, however, guards this sacred fire with jealousy. Ejy losing it, he would lose the key to his purposeless existence. Anytus is aware of this fact, and he tells Socrates that his position, although based on falsehood, is more powerful. His weapons are more powerful because they give man

false hope. As proof of this, he reminds Socrates of his present situa­

tion. Without the support of the ignorant mass, he would not have been

able to imprison him; therefore, Socrates' fate is in his hands and he

should decide:

Ou mourir dans une heure, ou venir avec moi Prendre au pied des autels, et puis donner la l o i . 2*+

To the above Socrates replies very carefully that he knew one day he

would die. He was aware of this from an early age when he decided to

try to awaken the people— when he decided to make man virtuous. He knew

that Anytus or another would arm the people against him because he was

destroying the foundations of their parasitic existence. He tells Anytus 221+ that he is happy to be the victim of virtue and innocence and that his only regret is that it makes a murderer of Anytus. As for the people’s feelings, he tells him not to fool himself because:

,. . . ces partisans dociles De ta haine aujourd'hui les instrumens serviles Ne seront pas toujours guides par ta fureur. Le temps viendra lever le bandeau de l ’erreur. Ils nous verront alors tous deux tels que nous sommes Et leur remords tardifs perjant aux yeux des hommes, Trahissant le secret de ton inimitil, Leur apprendront a qui je suis sacrifie.25

Again, it appears that Socrates uses the idea of posterity and its judg­ ment as a weapon. It is almost prophetic when one considers that in less than thirty years the Revolution would render justice to so many people who suffered unjustly in the hands of the government. There were many

Anytuses of the eighteenth century in France who caused the Revolution.

There were the philosophers also who were fighting to educate the people; and although their task was slow and painful, they finally triumphed.

In the character of Socrates in Linguet's play, we see Socrates

calm andimpassive before death. He seems to be Diderot's Socrates. In

his outline, Diderot portrayed the Greek philosopher with almost the same

traits when he wrote:

Tout Athenes est dans la rumeur, mais l'homme juste dort. ... Qu'il est doux d'avoirhien vecu, lorsqu'on est sur le point de mourir. °

Although Linguet's Socrates is not asleep, it appears that there is the

same calmness in him when he speaks to Anytus, knowing very well that

this will cause his death. He tells him that he is not afraid of him nor

25Ibid.. p.25. 26A. T., Vol. VII, p. 315. is he afraid to die. When Anytus threatens him that "Th mourras dans les fers avec ignominie," Socrates replies:

Est-ce un si grand malheur que de quitter la vie? L'arret que tu prononce aujourd'hui contre moi, La nature demain le rendra contre toi.2?

"But there is a difference in our death," says Socrates. "I die inno­ cently and the future will prove my innocence, while you will be remembered as my executioner. In this world everyone must die, but it is the way one lives and dies that is important." Anytus tries once more to remind

Socrates of his daughter and her happiness, but without success. When he leaves the prison, Socrates' fate has been decided. It seems that this scene is one of the most powerful and dramatic of the entire play because the main characters are portrayed admirably. Anytus is shown in all his baseness, while Socrates appears under the light of his virtues— he believes and dies for his ideals.

Although the disciples have been reduced to only one character,

Crito, and Xanthippe was replaced by Aglae, in the remaining part of the play the plot seems to follow the historical one— Crito's proposal for

Socrates' escape and his refusal, which is based on the principle of obedience and respect for the law.

There is a passage in Act V worth mentioning because it occurs in almost every play that we have considered. When Crito laments and cries

2?Linguet, p. 53* because of the eminent death of Socrates, the philosopher exclaims:

Cesse de te livrer a ces emportemens Qui d£chirent ton coeur sans assurer ma vie^g Et qui font peu d*honneur Si la philosophie.

For a philosopher who is convinced of his ideas, crying and fear of death is unworthy. This was noticed in Diderot’s and Sauvigny's works as well.

The end of the play appears to have something of Corneille's

Le Cid. Since the two young people are not married, Socrates asks them

to forgive Anytus and get married, Linguet also ends his play in a tone

of forgiveness and tolerance, which was the mark of all philosophers.

Before concluding, it would be helpful to considerfor a moment

Linguet's attitude toward the judges. In the third act when Anytus

decides to offer Socrates his freedom if he will admit publicly that he

was wrong, he asked the judges not to pass judgment until his return.

One can see the real feelings of the judges. Cremes says:

Quel bonheur inoui, que je n'attendais pas, Vient ici me tirer d ’un cruel embarrast Je ne sgait & quoi j'aurais pu me resourdre, Aimant, plaignant Socrate, et n'osant pas l'absoudre. 9

Another judge exclaims:

Nous n'en pouvons douter, Socrate est innocent.

A third judge says:

II avait par malheur un ennerai puissant.

And a fourth says:

Pour moi, puisqu' Anitus fait taire sa vengeance, Je verrai volontiers triompher 1'innocence.30 227

It would seem that each of the judges was convinced of Socrates' inno­ cence, but they did not dare express their feelings because they were afraid of Anytus or perhaps the church. Thes'e very judges who admit

Socrates' innocence, when Anytus orders them, do not hesitate to sentence an innocent man to death. Here the author portrays with cynicism and sarcasm the corruption that dominated the courts of justice. Linguet, being a lawyer himself, was perhaps in a better position to see the decadence that reigned in the courts. As a matter of fact, one year

later in 1765* he witnessed this kind of justice when he was directly

connected with the "Affaire de La Barre" as the defense attorney.

In conclusion, it seems that Linguet's play not only defends the

"philosophes" it attacked those who had become their worse enemies and the

greatest obstacle to their success. The quarrel is no longer a Palissot

quarrel, but a struggle between progressives and reactionaries. In that

light Linguet's Socrate represents in the drama of the "philosophes" his

aggressors.

We have considered three plays based on the death of Socrates

between the years 1760-1764. What do they have in common? They were

directed against the anti-philosophic group. The authors attempted to

begin a counter-offensive on the stage against the many comedies which

were ridiculing the "philosophes." However, the three plays could be

divided into three stages: Voltaire's play might be considered as a

statement of the case, Sauvigny's as the defense, and Linguet's as the

counter-offensive. After Linguet's play in 1764, the "philosophes" quit

the stage and proffered no further answers to hostile plays. CHAPTER TWELVE

BERNARDIN DE SAINT-PIERRE

Although Linguet,s play was the last reply of the "philosophes" to their opponents, the "death of Socrates" continued to occur in many literary works, especially in Diderot’s; and it seems that this topic was carried over to the nineteenth century. In 1808 Bernardin de Saint-

Pierre wrote a "dialogue philosophique" entitled La Mort de Socrate.

This study is primarily concerned with Socrates’ death among the philoso­ phers during the second half of the eighteenth century. Even though

Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s work was written in the nineteenth century,

he lived most of his life during the eighteenth century and frequented

the philosophic group. It would be helpful to analyze his work to note

how it compares with those of his predecessors.

Bernardin de Saint-Pierre was born in Havre in 1737. He had an

adventurous life, traveling most of the time. In 1771 when he returned

to Paris, he began to visit with the "philosophes"; but soon he broke with

them to follow Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose disciple he remained until his

death in 1814. According to Aime-Martin who edited Bernardin de Saint-

Pierre's complete works in 1826, in "Preface de l'editeur," the friendship

between Rousseau and Bernardin de Saint-Pierre began during the middle of

January, 1771. Bernardin de Saint-Pierre was in "cap de Bonne-Esperance,"

228 and he wrote a letter to Rulhiere in which he mentioned his pleasure of enjoying two summers in the same year. This letter was transmitted to

Rousseau who wished to meet the author. When Rousseau saw him for the first time, he told him that he would always respect a man who, return­ ing from a rich country* thinks only of the joy of spending two summers in the same year. This was the beginning of a friendship which lasted a lifetime. From the moment that Bernardin de Saint-Pierre met Rousseau, he loved him passionately. They used to sit together near the fire during the long winter nights and take long walks in the country in the spring and summer. Aime-Martin continues:

C'est ainsi qu*il passerent des jours dignes de l'antiquite; car leur amitie n'etait pas sterile et, dans leurs conversations familieres, ils traitaient les plus hautes questions de la morale et de la philosophic. La nature, la religion et l'immortalite etaient les objets habituels de leurs meditations. ... En lisant les notes ou Bernardin de Saint-Pierre consignait ces souvenirs, et qui ont servi de materiaux aux fragments que nous publions, on croit lire quelques passage d'un dialogue de Socrate et de Platon. ♦ It appears that both master and disciple believed in the same things, such as the goodness of nature, as it can be seen from their works.

Similar to Rousseau’s Nouvelle Heloise. a novel about a civilized man,

Bernardin de Saint-Pierre wrote Paul et Virginie. a book regarding the man of nature. In the "avant-propos" of the novel, he defined his intentions

as: J*ai desir£ reunir a la beaute de la nature entre les tropiques la beaute morale d ’une petite societe. Je me suis propose aussi d’y mettre en Evidence plusieurs grandes verites, entre autres celle-ci que notre bonheur consiste & vivre suivant la nature et la vertu.

^•Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, Oeuvres completes, ed. L. Aime-Martin (Paris: Chez P. Dupont, Libraire, 1826), Vol. XII, p. 230

Perhaps these were the reasons for the success of the novel during the eighteenth century. It brought a breath of freshness and purity to a

society corrupted by the abuse of pleasure and squeezed dry by the excess

of intellectual life. Maybe it was this desire for a virtuous life that

inspired him to write a philosophical dialogue. Furthermore, it seems

that in La Mort de Socrate. the author was portraying Rousseau. In the

same preface, Aime-Martin says:

Et qu'on ne crois pas que ce soit donner une trop grande importance a ces epanchements de l'amitie! Platon avait assiste aux lejons des Philosophes de l'Inde, de lv£gypte et de l’ltalie. La science fut le fruit de ses voyages; mais il ne dut la sagesse qu'aux entretiens de Socrate. De simples conversations foment tous ses ouvrages. ... Pourquoi n*attacherions-nous pas aux paroles de nos sages autant de prix que les anciens en attachaient aux discours de leurs philosophes?^

It is only a possibility, but it seems that Aime-Martin compared Rousseau

to Socrates and Bernardin de Saint-Pierre to Plato. The latter studied

under other philosophers and traveled, but his philosophical formation

was accomplished under Socrates. Bernardin de Saint-Pierre also studied

the philosophies of others and traveled; but judging from his writings,

it was Rousseau who influenced him more than any one else in the develop­

ment of his philosophical ideas. The above passage is not the only one

where Aime-Martin attempts to compare the two French writers to the Greek 231 philosophers. In another passage he wrote the following:

La plupart des hommes sont destines & l'obscurite; il leur faut des vertus domestiques, et non des vertus dramatiques. Ces dernieres sont eependant les seuls qu'on enseigne aujourd'hui: aussi n'aurons-nous bientot plus qu'un peuple d'acteurs, qui mourra de ses vices en debitant les maximes de la vertu. Sont- ce done les modeles qui nous manquent? Et la vie de Rousseau, par example, comme celle de Socrate, n'est-elle pas II la portee commune, quoiqu'il ait et! sublime a lui d'y descendre et de s'y maintenir?^

Aim!-Martin admits that Rousseau, being human, had some faults, but this does not diminish his greatness:

Socrate s'avouait enclin 2i tous les vices, c'etait son caractere naturel, son caractfere social etait la vertu. Au contraire Rousseau, sensible par nature, devient dur et m!fiant, parce que la societe le trornpe et le repousse. Tbujours en d!fiance contre les hommes, il cherche un appui dans ses illusions; la terre disparait a ses yeux. Createur d'un monde ideal, il le peuple d'etres c!lestes, et s'abandonne ensuite avec delices au bonheur de les aimer.^

Reading Plato's Dialogues which deal with the last days of Socrates' life, it seems that the Greek philosopher also tried to create an ideal world, a heavenly world where his immortal soul would enjoy a pure existence for eternity. Therefore, in his parallel, Socrate-Rousseau, Aime-Martin attempted to point out these similarities. Having considered these facts, let us now approach Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's work and note if there are any allusions to Socrate-Rousseau.

In his essay about Rousseau describing his physical appearance,

Bernardin de Saint-Pierre wrote the following:

Tout son exterieur etaitmodeste, mais fort propre, comme on le dit de celui de Socrate.”

Ibid.. p. 7. Ibid.. p. 7. Ibid.. p. 40. Although in the above lines the parallel is only based on the exterior appearance of the two philosophers, it is important for us because the author chose Socrates, among so many philosophers and great men of anti­ quity, with whom to compare Rousseau.

la La Mort de Socrate. Bernardin de Saint-Pierre uses an entirely different approach than that of his predecessors. He exposes the argu­ ment; then a dialogue in prison between Socrates and his three greatest

enemies, Heletus, Anytus, and Iycon; and finally the historical scene,

Socrates' philosophical discussions with his disciples before his death.

He begins his "argument" as follows:

Socrate, le plus sage des Atheniens, s'etant fait beaucoup d'ennemis parmis les superstitieux et les athees, en soutenant 1'existence d'un seul Dieu fut condamn! A mort sur 1 'accusation de Melitus magistrat appuyee par Anytus pretre de Ceres et par lycon sophiste.?

Let us analyze these lines to learn if they correspond to the original

charges brought against Socrates. It is true that Anytus relied on the

superstition of the people in order to get a verdict of guilty against

Socrates. The idea of superstition made by Bernardin de Saint-Pierre,

therefore, is relatively true; but the second statement "les athees,"

historically speaking, is false. It is known that Socrates was accused

of unorthodoxy because he did not accept the gods of the state. It is

also true that he was sentenced to death on the basis of his unorthodoxy.

In view of these facts, Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's statement that the

atheists sentenced Socrates to death cannot apply to Socrates. It seems 233 that it applies more to his master, Rousseau, than to the Creek philoso­ pher. After Rousseau's break with his former friends, such as Voltaire,

Diderot, and D'Alembert, he turned against them believing himself to be persecuted toy them. In Chapter Six we mentioned that Rousseau during the late 1760's and early 1770's was attacked from all directions— the church, the philosophers, as well as the government. It is also a known fact that most of the "philosophes" were declared atheists. Seen in

this light it appears that with all probability Bernardin's Socrates was Rousseau. Meletus could represent the state, Anytus the church, and

lycon his former friends, the "philosophes." Bernardin de Saint-Pierre

continues:

Socrate fut condamne par des juges tir£s de toutes les sections de toutes les tribus, ainsi que tous les peuples <^ui composaient les habitants d'Athenes, quoiqu'il leur eut prouve la faussete de cette accusation.®

It is true that among Socrates' judges there were represented all

the social classes of Athens; and, if we consider Bernardin de Saint-

Pierre's work, Parallele de Voltaire et de J. J. Rousseau, we shall see

that he wrote the same about Rousseau. While Voltaire was loved and

admired by all social classes, Rousseau was not and many times he was

ridiculed by the great, such as Catherine II of Russia, as well as by the

people, such as Palissot. It seems, therefore, that in the above lines

there is more of Rousseau than of Socrates. 23^

What follows is Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s creation, and it does not have much in common with Plato's Dialogue. He imagined that the three enemies of Socrates visit him in prison to offer him his life, provided that he admits publicly his guilt. It was mentioned that

Linguet also had Anytus visit Socrates in prison offering him his life and a partnership in the gifts from the altars if he would admit his guilt. It appears that Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, as well as Linguet,

introduced this new element into the original. A philosopher who admits his guilt loses not only his life but the respect of the people and his

chance for immortality. Moreover, we mentioned that Linguet stated that

if his Socrates could be compared to any contemporary figure it would be

Rousseau. Bernardin de Saint-Pierre also compared Rousseau to Socrates.

Rousseau said in his first Discours;

Parmi nous, il est vrai, Socrate n'eut point bu la cigue; mais il eut bu dans une coupe encore plus amere, la raillerie insul­ tan te et le mepris pire cent fois que la m o r t e . 9

It appears that the three writers agree that there is something which is

worse than physical death. It is the death of the spirit. Socrates'

(Rousseau's) enemies were more concerned in sentencing Socrates to this

kind of death rather than a physical one. Ibis appears to be true in the

following passage. Anytus expresses his fear to his accomplices that

when Socrates is dead perhaps many of the people will realize their

^Havens, p. 125. 235 mistake and turn against them. 7b which Meletus replies the following:

Vous avez raison, sage Anytus, offrons-lui la vie, et tout ce qui peut la lui rendre agreable, pourvu qu'il se reconnaisse criminel. Par cet aveu, il perdra son credit, et nous serons tranquilles; nous n'avons & craindre que son innocence, ®

Iycon does not believe Socrates to be innocent. To Meletus* arguments he replies:

Son innocence 1 Je vous le garantis coupable. J*ai prlpare contre lui de nouveau arguments auxquels je le defie de rlpondre.

If we can speculate that Socrates is Rousseau and the three villains are his enemies, it seems then that Bernardin de Saint-Pierre *s image of the philosopher is portrayed more cruel and evil than that of

the priest or the judge. At least the latter two believe in the inno­

cence of Socrates, while the former does not. It seems that Bernardin

de Saint-Pierre was trying to express the idea that not only the

"philosophes** were attacking Rousseau (Socrates) as a mad man, but they

wanted him dead so he would not shadow their glory. When they approached

Socrates, they explained to him the reasons for their visit, and this

begins a long discussion among the four. From a stylistic point of view

and the simplicity of the language, this dialogue is worthy of Plato*

The ideas, however, are no longer the Socratic ideas. Even the idea of

religion appears to be that of Rousseau— a pantheistic religion.

^®Saint-Pierre, Vol. XII, p. 168.

U Ibid. When Meletus tells Socrates, "Songes ce que c'est que d'etre con- damne A la mort. A la mortt", Socrates very calmly replies:

La nature m'y avait condamne avant vous. Mais apres tout cette mort dont vous voulez me faire peur, va me delivrer, sans aucune recommandation, des fers des persecutions, des calomnies, de tous les soucls de la vie et des infirmit£s de la yieillesse it laquelle je touche. La mort es un bien pour moi.

The image of the "philosophe" is portrayed in these lines in all its nobility. Not only is he not afraid of death, but he considers it a relief. If man lives a virtuous life, he has nothing to lose by dying yet everything to gain. Man was born to die, and no one can change this law of nature. When Anytus reminds him of heaven and hell, Socrates

asks him that for a man who lived according to the laws of Ciod is there

another hell than the wicked people and their hearts? When Anytus

attempts to prove the existence of hell by documenting it with some

mythological passages which began, N0u temps de Deucalion, fils de Minos,

il y avait dans l'Attique ...13, Socrates rejects the validity of the

documents by stating:

Les £critures ne sont point pour moi des temoignages divins: tout livre est l'art d'un homme. Les lois de Dieu ne sont point ecrites sur des parchemins intelligibles aux seuls savants; mais elles sont tracees dans la nature et dans le coeur de tous les hommes. Je n'ai jamais lu dans le mien qu'il y eut des enfers, mais j'y ai 6prouv£ le sentiment d'une Providence tres-bonne, dont les bienfaits remplissent l'univers.l^

If Bernardin de Saint-Pierre was referring to the Bible when he mentioned

the "ecritures," then it appears that he rejected the Bible. Since every

12Ibid.. p . 172. 237 book is the work of a man* it is fallible* There is only one thing which can prove to us the existence of God, and this is nature. It is

by appreciating the beauty of nature that we comprehend God. Since

nature is the work of God, he is present in every form of it. In these

lines and in almost everything that Socrates says in this dialogue with

regard to God, he seems to be speaking Rousseau's language and expressing

his ideas. When Anytus accuses him of creating a personal religion and

asks him, "Ou sont vos autorit^s?", Socrates' reply is short and definite:

Dans la nature. Ma religion se manifeste & tous les hommes: ils n'ont qu'li ouvrir les yeux et consulter leur c o e u r . ^ - 5

lb Meletus* statement that the religion Of Athens began before the first

king, Socrates answers:

La mienne commence avec le monde, et ne finira qu'avec lui; c'est d'elle que sortent toutes les autres religions. Elies ne s'en seraient jamai " * ques ne les avaient alter£es pour

In the above quotations, there seems to be a definite idea of the

cult of nature. First of all, man does not need the scriptures in order

to believe in God. Faith cannot be rationalistic. It is by looking at

nature with the heart that man can understand and love God. Moreover,

if there is one God, why are there so many religions? Here, with all

probability, Bernardin de Saint-Pierre attacks the different sub-divisions

of Christianity. It was because of politics and personal pride of the

theologians that the church was divided, even though basically each one

believes in the same God. Nature is indivisible, however, and if man

1^Ibid.. p. 17^. l6 Ibid.. p. 175 238 will comprehend God through nature, then faith would be stronger and there would be less politics and corruption in the church. It seems that according to Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, only through a religion of nature can men reach the stage of brotherhood. Perhaps this is what he meant when Socrates says: NH faut obeir avant tout aux lois de la nature. "^-7

It appears that everything turns around the idea of God-- existence and nature being the best proof of His existence. A "philosophe" faces death without fear because he is convinced of God's existence and kindness toward those who live according to His laws; but when lycon tells him that what if there is no God, the Greek philosopher replies with a

Pascalian maxim:

S'il n'y a pas de Dieu, je n'ai rien & craindre; S'il y en a un, comme me le dit toute la nature, j'ai tout i. esplrer.^

Reading these lines, one cannot help but think of Pascal's ideas in

"Le Pari." How strange to find a Greek philosopher using Pascal's words!

This must be another fact worthy of speculation regarding the identity

of Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's Socrates. Although he used the Socratic

methods, his traits and his ideas are Christian, lhis fact seems to be

even more probable when one considers the character of Iycon and finds

some of the characteristics of Voltaire.

In his work Parallels de Voltaire et de J. J. Rousseau. Bernardin

de Saint-Pierre stated several times that Voltaire was interested in

17Ibld.. p. 177. 18Ibid.. p. 178. money and glory; and he would flatter the kings and nobility to gain these items while Rousseau was not interested in material things, and his nature was against the idea of flattering the great because he did not believe in human kindness. In La Mort de Socrate. Iycon speaks almost like Voltaire when he tells Socrates:

Faites comme les autres; flattez les grands, intrigues parmi les petits. Nous vous servirons de toute notre credit, pourvu que vous soyez des notres, vous deviendrez riche et heureux; mais au paravant, il faut avouer que vous vous etes trompe.*9

Socrates did not need to flatter the rich for among his disciples there

were many who were rich and, at one time or another, powerful. Rousseau,

on the other hand, due to his misanthropism had very few friends and many

enemies, especially among the royalty. While most of the "philosophes"

were priviledged by being patronized by European kings, Rousseau was

ridiculed by them. Considering the above lines, it is very probable that

lycon is Voltaire and Socrates is Rousseau. This idea seems to be even

more probable when we consider the following lines:

Vous dites done, Socrate, que la terre est couverte des bienfaits de la Divinite; mais d'ou viennet, je vous prie, les orages, les greles, les tonnerres, les dlbordements de riviere, les tremble- ments de terre, ... je crois bien que ce sont de veritables maux que ceux-l&. Repondez, si vous le pouvez.20

Voltaire in his poem concerning the Loi naturelle. while rejecting the

Christian dogmas, believed in God and the cult of God. This did not

stop him, however, from revolting against this God from time to time.

Every time that a misfortune or a catastrophe would occur, he took advan­

tage of the situation to create an argument against Providence. In 1755 2*40

Voltaire had a good opportunity to attack Providence— .this was the earthquake of Lisbon. He wrote a poem about "le Desastre de Lisbonne" where he does not attack CSod directly, but philosophers like Leibnitz who, in order to answer the objections against Providence, supported the idea that the order of the world could not be any better and that all is good. The poem brought an answer from Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The latter could not admit any mockery against God. Rousseau came to the defense of

Providence in a long and eloquent letter dated August 18, 1756. Let us

consider a passage or two and compare it with Socrates* answer to Iycon:

Homme, prends patience, me disent Pope et Leibnitz, les maux sont un effet necessaire de la nature et de la constitution de cet univers. L'etre eternel et bienfaisant qui le gouveme eut voulu t*en garantir.

Socrates* answer to Iycon reads:

Ces pr£tendus maux, Iycon, entretiennent l*harmonie generale de cette terre; ils y sont necessaires; la plupart y sont r a r e s . ^ 2

It seems that Iycon and Voltaire revolt against Providence which permits

the existence of evil and catastrophies in the world. On the other hand,

both Socrates and Rousseau believe that these evils are necessary in

order to create harmony on "earth," as Socrates said, or the "universe,"

as Rousseau stated. The above passages, however, are not the only ones

which express, more or less, the same ideas. It seems that Rousseau's

entire letter is conceived on the same concept as the dialogue between

Socrates and Iycon in Bernardin de Saint-Pierre's work— the idea of the

immortality of the soul and a benevolent Providence.

21Voltaire, Vol. IX, p. *4?3. 22 Saint-Pierre, Vol. XII, p. 185. Another factor which is common in both works is the idea of the atheists. Rousseau, in his letter with reference to the atheists, wrote:

Quant a moi, je vous avouerai nalvement que ni le pour ni le contre ne me paraissent deraontres sur ce point par les seules lumiferes de la raison et que, si le theiste ne fonde son sentiment que sur des probabilites, 1'athee, moins precis encore, ne me paralt fonder le sien que sur les possibilites contraires. ’

In spite of the above, he affirms that he believes in the existence of

God with the same firmness that he believes in another truth. For, as he said, he suffered too much in his life in order not to hope for a better one. Nothing would ever make him doubt the immortality of the soul and the existence of a benevolent Providence. In Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s work, Socrates tells Iycon with respect to the atheists:

0 IyconI un athee est dans la nature comme un aide manoeuvre dans un superbe palais, ou il ne voit tout au plus que l'equerre et le niveau qui en ont ete les murs.^

He continues by saying that they fail to see harmony and the concordance of the building which manifests the existence of an architect. It is the same with nature, The atheists, involved as they are in their material­ ism which "abrutit 1*esprit et endurcit le coeur," fail to appreciate the beauty of nature, such as trees loaded with fruit, a beautiful maiden, and the magnificence of a dawn. If they could appreciate these things, then they would be able to think and comprehend its Creator. Socrates concludes:

Grand Oieu! L*atheisms est la plus terrible punition de l ’athee.^ 242

The remainder of this interview between Socrates and Iycon is conceived on the same idea. After the trio fails to convince him to accept their offer, the author introduces Xanthippe and Socrates' chil­ dren which seems to serve two purposes: First, it is the last weapon

in the hands of his enemies to persuade him by appealing to his paternal

instincts. Secondly, after they realize that this weapon failed just like

the others, they place Socrates' family under arrest until he is dead

because they were afraid that Xanthippe might awaken the people and con­

vince them of the guilt of Meletus, Anitus, and Iycon. This arrest adds

more dramatism to the plot, especially when we consider that Socrates*

enemies were not agreeing on the matter. Meletus, the judge, says: " H

faut un d£cret pour priver un citoyen de sa liberte." To which Lycon

replies: "Une femme et des enfants ne sont pas des citoyens." 26 It seems

that Bernardin de Saint-Pierre was more bitter against the "philosophes"

than the clergy and the government. Perhaps it is because he was a

"philosophe" once himself, his master, Rousseau, was one also, and later

on he suffered more from their attacks than from the attacks of the church

and the government. We saw that Voltaire, as well as Diderot, attacked

him without mercy, and now the disciple was trying to avenge the master.

The last part of the dialogue is based on the works of Plato.

The guard frees Socrates from the chains, his friends and disciples enter

the cell, and the famous theory on pain and pleasure follows. His dis­

ciples offer him his freedom and tell him that they paid the guard and

2 6Ibid.. p. 205. 243 arranged a safe place for him away from Athens. This is the second time

that Socrates is tempted. He is about to die and during the last moments

of his life, twice he was offered the gift of life and both times he

refused it. This strengthens his character even more. He believes so \ much in a virtuous life that nothing can tempt him. His enemies were

offering him a life without honor, and in many ways his friends were doing

the same. In the first case, by admitting his guilt publicly where there

was no guilt, he would have lost his self-respect and the respect of

mankind. In the second case, by escaping he would prove that he was afraid

of death, and this was undignified for a philosopher. Thus, he accepts an

honorable death instead of a disgraceful life.

The work ends with a Platonic note, although in many instances

there are Rousseauistic traits in the character of Socrates. For example,

when Socrates compares the two lights— the sun and the fire— he says:

Le feu du soleil vivifie; le feu des hommes devore et detruit. La?„ science de Dieu governe les passions; celle des hommes les excite. '

If we consider for a moment the two lights representing divine knowledge

and human knowledge, then the ideas of Rousseau are present. The sun

representing nature and God's wisdom works toward a harmony in the world,

a harmony among people. While the fire representing man's ideas and

philosophy is the cause of much unhappiness and misery. Rousseau supported

the idea of evil in civilization in most of his works. He believed in a

kind nature and Providence, and the sun is part of this Providence.

Finally, the "philosophe" dies with the same calmness and tranquility

that he had in life. 244

We have seen that most of the works written on this subject were written for a definite purpose. Either as a defense of the philosophic party during the turbulent years of the second half of the eighteenth century or as an attack against the corruption and decadence of the church and the government. With Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, things changed.

First, he wrote his philosophical dialogue in the nineteenth century after the Revolution and during a time when the "philosophes" had won their battle. There was no cause to defend, unless he was trying to do justice and defend the memory of a friend. In a manuscript in the Library of

Le Havre (MS. 180, Fol. 2), he expresses his intentions for writing this work:

C'est par des semblables dialogues, tires des personnages les plus interessants de l'antiquite, qu'on peut familiariser les enfants avec tous les evenements de la vie. ... Je n'ai gu&re eu d'autre mlrite que de mettre en ordre les paroles de Socrate, telles qu'on les trouve presque en entier dans Platon, Xenophon et Plutarque.

According to Bernardin de Saint-Pierre, he wrote this work only with a pedagogical purpose. Considering the simplicity of the language and the

style, it is possible that he wrote it for the reason that he stated.

However, he did not fail to take the opportunity to express some of

Rousseau's ideas, as well as his own. Although he claims that he only

used the works of Plato, Xenophon, and Plutarch, during the course of this

chapter we saw how similar some of the ideas are to those expressed in

Rousseau's letter to Voltaire. In view of the time when the work was

written, it seems that one of the main purposes for writing it was to

2®Seznec, p. 122. Zk5 defend the ideas and personality of Rousseau against the eighteenth century "philosophes.*♦ As Seznec says:

En fait, Socrate preche aussi le catechisme de Bernardin. Dans un fragment de l ’Amazone (Bibliothique du Havre, MS 86, Fol. ^3) le heros, arrivant dans la "R^publique des Amis," choisit un nouveau nom en tirant un billet dans une urne remplie de noms d’hommes utiles au genre humain et c£lebres par leurs malheurs. 31 tire le nom de S o c r a t e .

This may be true, but to Seznec's remark it could also be added that

Socrates preached Rousseau’s catechism, as well; for it seems thatmost

of Bernardin de Saint-Pierre’s works which deal with Rousseau havemany

common traits with the Greek philosopher. It may be possible, therefore^/

that his Socrates could at times represent Rousseau and at other times

himself.

29 Ibid. CHAPTER THIRTEEN

GALIANI AND ALFIERI

Until now we have seen the popularity that Socrates, especially his last days and his death, enjoyed in France. Most of the philoso­ phers referred to him at one time or another; however, this subject was not the sole patrimony of the French. It was mentioned during the course of this study that Frederick of Prussia as early as 1736 sent Voltaire a bust of Socrates. Seznec, in his Essais sur Diderot et l tantiquite. under the title of "Socrate lmaginaire" wrote:

La figure et la destinee de Socrate ont etc frequemment evoquees dans 1'Europe des "lumieres." Sa vogue litteraire est attestee par une slrie de publications.^

Since we are mainly interested in French literature, it is not our task to follow the destiny of Socrates through all the countries of Europe.

Nevertheless, there are two foreign writers who are worth mentioning in this study for they spent a great deal of time in Paris and frequented the philosophic group. These writers are Ferdinando Galiani and

Vittorio Alfieri, both Italians. As we shall observe, their works and their personalities are quite different.

Ferdinando Galiani was b o m in 1728 in Chieti and finished his studies in Naples under the guidance of an uncle, Monsignor Celestino.

Seznec, p. 3»

2**6 He began his literary career at an early age with the translation of

John Locke’s Considerations of the Consequences of the Lowering of

Interest and Raising of the Value of Money. It was his treatise,

Della Moneta. 1751* which brought his name to light. In 1759 he was named secretary of the Neapolitan Embassy in Paris where he remained until 1769* In the french capital, he soon became acquainted with the main exponents of the intellectual circles of the time. It was in these groups that he acquired fame and notoriety. His wit and his education— affected by a good Horatian skepticism— helped him to face the experience of a Paris society which gathered in the salons to discuss doctrines based on reason. Diderot, Morellet, D'Alembert, Marmontel, Grimm, and

Mile de L'Espinasse are sane of the people whom he visited. Although he was accepted and respected everywhere, he made fun of all of them.

Speaking of him, the french philosophers were saying: "En France nous avons de 1'esprit en petite monnaie; en Italie ils l'ont en lingot," or "C'est un Platon avec la verve et les gestes d'Arlequin." Marmontel wrote:

L*Abb£ Galiani etait de sa personne le plus joli, petit Arlequin qu'eut produit 1*Italie; mais sur les epaules de cet Arlequin etait la tSte de Machiavel.^

Galiani reacted against absolute ideas, principles which were almost

becoming absolute, such as the state of nature, the social contract;

and under an abundance of paradoxes, parodies, and allusive digressions,

he attempted to express the original characteristics of his thought. He

^Ferdinando Galiani, Socrate Immaginario (Torino: Einaudi, 19^3)* p. viii. ZkQ did not feel the necessity of studying with depth the phenomena of life.

Even in the field of economical sciences he often returned during his wonderings from one science to another. He did not remain faithful to his earlier ideas so that the success which he attained with the

Dialogues sur le commerce des bles*would not last. The necessity of depth in ideas is based on a love of truth which stimulates and forces the mind and sentiment to suffer continuously, while Galiani found everything too vain for him to go beyond curious research. Education can be reduced to two points: To learn how to endure injustice and how to suffer boredom. Therefore, there is no need for any one to deny the pleasures of the imagination in order to try to solve the mysteries of nature, as the French "philosophes" were doing. He defined incredulty as the greatest effort accomplished by the human mind against proper

instinct and taste. Man is made to enjoy the effect of things without

guessing the causes.

In 1769 because of a diplomatic intrigue, Galiani had to leave

Paris and return to Naples. However, he was always thinking of Paris

which he described as "le cafe de 1'Europe," thinking of his friends,

and many conversations. After the death of Mme d'Epinay in 1?83, he wrote

to Mme du Bocage:

II n'y a plus de soulagement pour moi. J'ai vecu, j'ai donne de sages conseils, j'ai servi l'Etat et mon raaitre, j'ai tenu lieu de pfcre I. une famille nombreuse, j'ai ecrit pour le bonheur de mes semblables, et dans cet age ou 1 'amitie devient plus necessaire, j'ai perdu tpus mes amist J'ai tout perdu; on ne survit point & ses amis.

•^A. D'Ancona e 0. Bacci, Litteratura itaiiana (6 vols.; Firenze: G. Barbera, 1917)> Vol. IV, p. 492. k Ibid.. p. 494. 2 *4-9 Most of Galiani*s friends were dead, and finally in 1787 he also followed them.

It is strange for a man who lived intimately with the french

"philosophes** for almost ten years to write a satire such as his

Socrate Tmmaeinario. Most of his friends venerated the image of

Socrates, while Galiani wrote an "opera buffa" where he satirizes very strongly the so-called "philosophes" of his time. Although they say r that he wanted to ridicule the oriental scholar, Sjaverio Mattel,5 it appears that there are allusions to all the "philosophes" of that time.

As a matter of fact, he states in the preface that the great Cervantes succeeded in giving to his immortal Don Qui.iote a model of the most delicate and ingenious sprightliness. All those who attempted to equal him succeeded only in imitating him. This failure of so many imitators gave him the courage to present to the public his small work.^ He con­ tinues by stating his intentions:

Ho cercato in esso trarre la materia del ridicolo da un soggetto quasi somigliante cioe dal supporre un uomo semplice, che dalla cognizione confusa e volgare delle vite de* Filosofi antichi (come quegli dalle vite de* Cavalieri erranti) abbia stravolto 7 il cervello, sino a credere di poter ristore l’antica filosofia.

Galiani stated that he took his material from Diogenes Laertius* life

of Socrates— the impetuous character of his wife contrasted to his

sufferings, the ideas of the two wives, the dream of a swan in which he

recognized Plato, and the oracle which declared him the wisest man on

earth. It appears that Galiani*s intentions were to create a new

5Ibid.. p. *405.

^Galiani, p. 3 "Don Quijote," but instead of the knight errant, he wanted a hero to be a philosopher. This, of course, is natural considering the times and the literary tendencies. In the sixteenth century, the novels of chivalry were very popular, and Cervantes tries to satirize them; in the eighteenth century, philosophy was very popular and every mediocre writer seemed to consider himself a "philosophe"; therefore, Galiani satirized them on the stage.

Let us now consider the play and see its merits. In Socrate

Immaginario the fundamental motives for Galiani*s many-sided literary activities reappear, as well as his habitual quick-witted jest of con­ temporary Europe. Created to satisfy the pleasure of amusing himself around a form of irrational ardor, this work is a caricature of a literary society which is governed by dogmaticlaws learned in ancient books. If it was intended to ridicule Saverio Mattei or other philoso­ phers and scholars of that time, it is of no importance.

Socrates creates a literary vogue which in certain aspects

perpetuates itself. The author admitted that Taramaro-Socrates was to

appear as a "Don Quijote" of culture, liammaro is in love with Greece

and its culture. As a matter of fact when Ippolito tells him that he

was b o m in Athens, he says:

Greco di Atenet Oh mio signor magnificot Che fortuna? ... baciamoci ... Io per Atene mi farei scanare.8

He says that he is ready to die for Athens and is even ready to drink the poison for Greece. As the development of the play progresses, we realize that he is tied to such a mania by common misfortune and a real insanity. His readings of Diogenes Laertius might have the reader believe that he finds himself in the presence of a very erudite person.

Later one learns that in spite of his Socratic modesty which he mani­ fested from time to time he is in reality the burro that he claims to be and who in fourteen years of school did not pass the deponents. From this point of view, it seems to be a difficult task to explain the original sin of the philosophical readings. Nevertheless, Tammaro rejected his common personality in order to get a new one. The efforts of his wife Rosa and others to make him return from Socrates to Tammaro again remained fruitless. Die imaginary Socrates succeeds in getting his way and even imposes his mania on many others. The hero inspired others

to imitate him to such an extent that at the end of the play when this

fictitious world is destroyed they seem to be a little disillusioned.

Tammaro himself becomes aware of this situation when, after having

regained his senses, he finds himself in the presence of Antonio-Plato,

the barber who is still playing the farce. The former imaginary

Socrates cannot help exclaiming:

Ah ... la bella vista I Sembri di un Ospedal servizialista.9

Tammaro's character is detached from the others by his desire to imitate

his model. He is worthy of the Aristophanes heroes, not only by his

9Ibid.. p. 95. actions but also by the expressive terms that he uses. His play on words is evident from the following lines:

Eh, mi burlate? H raio bibliotecario deve biblioteeare in biblioteca.IO

When they tell him that Calandrino is not his librarian but his squire,

Antonio, who tries to imitate Ihmmaro vezy faithfully, uses the same absurd language— a play on words without meaning:

Ncoccia, Zuca, dalle, *nfetta ... Non ha il regno zucatorio Zuca trice cchiu de tet^-

It can be noted that Galiani insisted on the same root of a word which adds a comical effect to the play as well as indicates the ignorance and limitations in regard to the language of the two imaginary philosophers.

In fact, the comical effect produced by the use of the language seems to be a means to underline situations which are contrasting the admissible logic of facts. The nature of the language, in order to give evidence of the grotesque character of these men who profess wisdom through an abundance of sophisticated words and empty of meaning, is more suggestive

in the meanings and the repetition of the same word or of a root common

to several words. Another virtue is evident in some expressions which

occur in some of the speeches which are suspended in the air, such as

Mallunga le orecchie al mio parlar, sento bollirmi in gola i figli,

assai in oggi si veggono forniti— di sapienza socratica i mariti, questa

corda non l'accorda, il savio e l'asino sono specchi fra loro," and many

others. Within the frame of such linguistic expressions, Tammaro speaks out because of his grave concern for the behavior of a philosopher—

the relations between husband and wife, the duties of citizens toward

their country to which it is necessary to give children, even if one must destroy social morals and commit the sin of bigany, gymnastics,

and music. Hie parody of the narration fluctuates sometimes between

the serious and the absurd. It seems that he is in continuous movement,

built up of fancies with skillful changes of uncommon adventures of

thought while the daily happenings of realistic life can be seen through

the passages which deal with the minute experiences and necessities of

everyday life. The words, exhortations, and advice of the persons who

represent this way of thought bind themselves together in order to create

an atmospher of an "opera buffa." It is in these passages that Galiani's

smile becomes a little strange.

The frame of his play is composed of various elements, for

example some expressions of the Platonized barber, the jealous love of

Tammaro's wife Rosa, the apparent ingenuity of Cilia, the simple affec­

tion of Emilia and her love for Ippolito, the intrigues of Calandrino,

the sinful and rude behavior of Lauretta, and the entire third act is

predominated by matrimonial adventures and has a tone of easy moralisms.

However, these elements also acquire a comical twist. Among them, there

is the scene where Tammaro dressed as a philosopher and surrounded by 25b Antonio-Plato and four disciples speaks to them about philosophy and concludes that:

Due sono i fondamenti Della filosofia: Musica e Ballo. Fuggite i libri questi Son la vergogna dell1 umano genere, Son gli assassin! de la vita umana Credete a me: la vera Filosofia e quella d'ingrassare.^-2

He stated that the philosophers are jackasses, and as such, he professes only the philosophy of the animals— "Eat and become fat." As for books, they are the assasins of the human race. When at the end of the lesson everyone sings and jumps in order to educate themselves in the art of gymnastics, the comic effect of this senseless and unjustified explosion of the philosophers becomes more acute when contrasted with Cilia's realistic comment: "Ah. ah: 'sta vista va no ducato."^

Before we end this discussion regarding Galiani's play, we should mention the scene with the inspiring demon where reality comes face to

face with a double fiction. The illuded and maniac Thmmaro finds more

human accent in this scene and confesses some of his own exaggerations.

He acts as a person intimidated by the presence of two concrete shadows

which upset his conscience, reminding him of his duties as a father and

husband and proving false, to a certain extent, even the oracle of Apollo.

The poor "Don Quijote" of wisdom suddenly finds himself humiliated in his

pride of infallible, stupid actions. Only at one point when Ippolito

disguised as the inspring Demon accuses him of having transformed into 255

Plato his own barber, he justifies himself and reacts angrily:

Senta, signor Demonio, lei non creda Ch'io faccia le mie cose Con gli occhi nelle scarpe. Io mi sognai Un gallinaccio tronfio e pettoruto Che la purpurea testa Univa quasi alia rotante coda. Mi sveglio, e mi rammento. Del Cigno di Platone ...

He continues with the narration of his dress which, with the exception of some variations, follows faithfully the dream of the historical

Socrates in similar circumstances. This new "Don Quijote," however, in his madness was willing to follow the destiny of his master to the end. When they told him that to be worthy of Socrates he had to take the poison, he hesitates for a moment. In fact, he says that Socrates was seventy years old when he took the poison, whereas he says that he is only thirty-seven. When they insist, he accepts the cup with resigna­ tion. Similar to his predecessor he exclaims:

Prendo la tazza. Atene, Si serva il tuo desio ... Femine ... amici ... addio ... Asino nacque Socrate, Asino morira.15

For Athens and the love of philosophy, the imaginary Socrates was ready to take the poison and reach the immortality of the other.

Hie play ends with Tammaro returning to his senses. Just as

Cervantes* hero, he repents and accepts Rosa*s philosophy— that of taking care of the family and fulfilling the duties of a good husband and honor­ able man. If he will be able to accomplish all these duties, "Filosofo

l4Ibid.. p. 71. 15Ibid., p. 83. 256 eccellente allor sarai."^ This is the real philosophy of life, accord­ ing to Galiani— to be a good man and accept the responsibilities that life presents.

We notice that Galiani*s play does not follow the same trend as that employed by his French contemporaries, and we might add that it is at the other extreme. If we compare it with any French play, it could only be with Palissot's and others written by the anti-philosophic group.

No matter what impelled Galiani to write this play, it does not seem to

affect his friends, the Encyclopedists. He was too much attached to

them, judging from his correspondence with Mme d*Epinay and the letter

to Mme du Bocage. If he wrote this "opera buffa," it would appear that

his skeptical and buffonish temper inspired him to write it.

The other Italian writer who wrote a play on the "death of

Socrates" was Vittorio Alfieri whose temperament is very different from

that of Galiani. He was b o m in Asti in 1749 into a Piedmontese aristo­

cratic family. His father died when he was very young, and after his

mother married again, he went to live with an uncle. He studied at the

Academy of TUrin and after graduation became an officer with the provin­

cial regiment of Asti. This life did not satisfy him, and after obtaining

permission from the king, he left for England. He traveled for six years

throughout Europe without any aim, stimulated only by his discontent and

melancholy temper. Traveling in the European countries, the life and

subversive ideas of the Encyclopedists began to penetrate his soul. He read Rousseau, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Helvetius more out of boredom than interest. One day he found a copy of Plutarch. Reading the lives of great men changed his temper entirely. He wished to be like those heroes.

He returned to Turin in 1772 excited from the readings, and he wrote his first tragedy, Cleopatra. The success that this tragedy obtained was

the determining factor in choosing to become a playwright, and he soon

began to study and form his education. In 1792 he was in Paris; but after expressing his ideas on freedom, his hatred for the tyranny of

kings, he realized that this freedom was ending at the beginning of the

French Revolution, and he became disgusted by the atrocities that the revolutionaries committed in the name of liberty, so he left Paris. A

hatred of France took hold of him~hate that he expressed in his work,

IL Misogallo (the French hater). This is a combination of prose, sonnets,

and epigrams where he attacks the french demagoguery, the enemy of

freedom.

Alfieri can only be defined as a great antithesis. Everything

in him is in contrast with some exterior force. Sometimes he seems to

be the antithesis of himself when he condemns himself to do what his

nature rejects even if his will rises as an enemy of his own will. Anti­

thesis is his life. Noble and born into an aristocratic family which

would have preferred to have him faithful to the throne, he revolts and

embraces the ideas of the bourgeoisie. He creates a republican ideal,

but he disposes of the Republics of Genoa and Venice because of their

lack of freedom, and he accepts with resignation the monarchy as the lesser 258 evil. He judges the temporary power of the Popes as being moribund) and as such, it does not present any danger for freedom. As for priests and monks, he wants very few of them, but good and pious priests.

Tyranny became an obsession for Alfieri. In his work,

La Tirannlde. composed of satires, he expresses very clearly his concepts.

First there is the tyranny of the kings, but later Alfieri does not make any distinction. It is tyranny not only in the form of government where

the laws are administered by those who made them, but also the govern­ ment where the laws are administered without taking into consideration

those who wrote them.

Alfieri's tragedies seem to be a work of propaganda with a

politico-moral goal. Since every work which expresses moral principles

is, more or less, subjective; and when this subjectivity dominates the

form and ideas of the work of art, the aesthetic value of such a work

is affected. It is for this reason that Alfieri's tragedies lose so

much of the aesthetic content while gaining moral content. This is not

a judgment but a sentiment; and, therefore, his tragedies are works of

art. The characters are not abstractions; they are living persons;

they are the soul, passion, and furor of the poets who express them­

selves in an artificial way and have no connection with historical

realities but who, nevertheless, express vigorous psychological and

artistic realities. In his tragedies, there is the interior struggle

of the poet's soul. There is his reflected willpower of which he made 259 a cult for himself and which falls upon the instinctive willpower and annihilates it. Ihus, it seems that in his characters there is no dramatic struggle between inner forces, but a struggle of two exterior and independent willpowers. His plays are not tragedies of facts; they are tragedies of sentiments. Almost all of these components seem to dramatize the same contrast which is between tyranny and liberty.

As far as the form is concerned, he imposed a dryness of dia­ logue which sometimes suppressed intentionally any lyrical element. He

seized scenic action when it reached its climax and wanted only a few main characters. He also believed that the plot should be uniform, dry,

rapid, without distraction from the main subject and with no episodes.

He said that the playwright should be preoccupied to present an imminent

catastrophe which ought to fill the action from the very beginning. He

expresses the rules of his tragedies in these terms:

II prirao atto brevissimo; il protagonista per lo piu non messo in palco se non al secondo; nessun incidents mai; molto dialogo; pochi quart'atti; dei vuoti qua e lit nell* azione, i quali l'autore crede d*aver riempiti e nascosti con certa passione di dialogo; quint'atti strabrevi rapidissimi e per lo piu tutti azione e spettacolo; i morenti brevissimi parlatori.^-7

We saw Alfieri's ideas as well as his concepts with respect to the

dramatic miles. Let us consider now the tragedy that interests our

topic.

In 1788 there appeared in London a tragedy entitled Socrate

which was attributed to Alfieri. At the beginning of the play, there is

a letter addressed to the French writer Ducis, but the author of the

^7g. Piazzi, La novela fronda (3 vols.; Milano: L. Ttevisini, n.d.), Vol. Ill, p. 85. 260 letter remained anonimous. In this letter, Alfieri is considered as one of the greatest Italian playwrights of his time and is compared to

Sophocles and Voltaire. The letter ends with an appraisal of Socrates which is quoted below:

Sensible %l cette critique il a eu pour but dans celle-ci de faire voir ce qu'il savait faire de son chef, en choisissant un sujet tout neuf, le plus beau de l'antiquite. Ce qu’il-y-a de plus admirable, c'est d*avoir su conserver d'un bout & 1'autre ses caracteres meme dans les situations les plus difficiles. Malgre tant de monologues, qui sont une suite necessaire de la loi, qu’il s'est prescrite de ne point admettre des confidents, il ne donne jamais dans la monotonie. Le role emporte de Xanthippe fait le plus beau contraste avec celui de Socrate, qui est un veritable portrait de la douceur, et de la philoso­ phic personnifiee. En un mot, je ne saurais imaginer rien de plus parfait dans ce genre.

It seems that the author of the letter stated almost the same things

that Alfieri did when he was talking about the rules of his tragedies.

Very few characters, quick action, and many monologues are a few of the

rules. The anonimous author of the letter exclaims:

Socrate, que n'est tu pas encore de ton vivantt T\i as du jadis essuyer le chagrin de te voir dechire sur la scene par un insolent Comedien, tu verrais maintenant ton apotheose par le Phenix des auteurs tragiques.^9

Although the play is well written, as we shall see, I do not think that

it is the apotheosis of Socrates. The author, it is true, does not

believe in complicated plots, but the image of Socrates is far from

being that of philosophy personified.

l®Vittorio Alfieri, Socrate (London: G. Hawkins, 1788), p. vii-ix. Ibid.t p. ix. 261

There are three characters: Socrates* Xanthippe, and Plato.

The play which basically follows historical facts introduces a ficti­ tious character, Plato, who is never mentioned as being present at

Socrates' trial and death. The role of Xanthippe also is very important in this play as compared to the role she played in Plato's Dialogues.

The letter stated that the author gave her a larger role in order to make a better contrast to the image of Socrates. The play opens with

Plato lamenting and cursing Athens for wanting to persecute Socrates.

He says:

Patrial non patria tut tal nome in vano Pretendi tu; di Socrate tu madre indegna.

It seems that here Plato is not speaking but the author himself. It is the champion of justice and freedom who rebels against the injustice of

tyranny. This appears even more so when we consider the following lines:

...... a te Melito Noto pur e; di lunga e nera in lui Invidia non ignori i sensi e gli atti.^

We notice that most of the French "philosophes" who treated the "death

of Socrates" attacked both the church and the state. In fact, it seemed

that Anytus, the representative of a corrupted church, was portrayed as

the worst enemy of Socrates and, thus, of the philosophers. Alfieri,

however, never mentions Anytus; the only enemy mentioned in his play is

Meletus, the representative of the state. Above we stated that Alfieri

believed in the church but was against the tyranny of the government.

Only the government was responsible for the lack of freedom and injustice 262 according to Alfieri. Therefore, Meletus, the representative of the state in Plato's Dialogues, is a tyrant in the eyes of Alfieri and the only person responsible for Socrates' death. In Scene 2 of Act I, the author portrays the characters of

Xanthippe and Plato. This scene appears to be very weak since the dia­ logue between the two revolves around the idea of philosophy and duty.

While both wish to save Socrates, the reasons are different but not less selfish. Plato supports the theory that Socrates must not die because his disciples need him, and Xanthippe believes that philosophy was the reason for all of Socrates' misfortunes and wants him to be a husband and a father.

Alfieri stated that the main character should not be introduced until the second act. He follows this rule; and since the author does not believe in confidants, Act II opens with a long monologue by

Socrates. This Socrates seems to have very little in common with the

Greek philosopher, especially when he says:

...... a me di Moglie sprezzar mostrasti intollerante ingegno Indocil alma tu: di Patria or mostra Odio a sprezzar: d'invidiosa, vile _ Plebe all'acuto dente or me ritogli . . .

In these lines we do not have the noble Socrates who accepts the deci­

sion of the state. Alfieri's Socrates rebels against the injustice

rendered to him by his country. He asks his Demon to inspire his hatred

for his country as well as for the ignorant and vile people who con­

demned him. How different is this Socrates from the Greek philosopher! 263

Here we have the Italian poet rebelling against injustice. The same poet who five years later when he saw the atrocities committed by the

people of Paris in the name of freedom will revolt and satirize them

in his Misogallo. His heart was too full of hatred for the tyrants to

allow any place for tolerance and forgiveness. Furthermore, Alfieri

was a tragedian in his soul, and there was not room for comedy. In

fact, he did not forget to mention Aristophane's Clouds. The philosopher

says:

Chi d'un Comico ardito arditi frizzi Senz'alcun sdegno tollero, sofferse, Teraer morte non dee, morte, che fine Puo porre a* mali ...

After debating between life and death, the philosopher ends his mono­

logue with a note of resignation. He did not fear the proud ambition

of his wife, nor did he fear the comedian who ridiculed him. Why should

he then fear death which is the liberation of all evils? He looks with

indifference at misery and death.

The remainder of the scenes of Act II are very powerful, if not

for their content, at least for the dramatic effect produced by the

dialogue, lhe speeches are very brief and to the point. Ihis is true

of the scene between Socrates and Plato, as well as the one between

Socrates and Xanthippe. When Plato urges Socrates to defend himself,

he answers:

Discolpa al suo fallir si debe il reo, Non L'innocente ...

^ Ibid.. p. xxv. ^Ibld.. p. xxxii 26k

For someone who is innocent to attempt to defend himself means to accuse himself. Finally, on the insistence of Plato and Xanthippe, who hired the orator Lisias to defend him, Socrates decides to present his own defense in a monologue which occupies the entire third act:

Quanto diverso e l'uom dall'uomt Non euro lo morte, e morte pur sfuggire io debbo A contentar di moglie, dei seguaci, Degli amici desiro . . . Ma Xanthippe, tu in van ... Plato, tu in vano Pretendi tu che me Lisia difenda. Lisia, non tu di Socrate, di Sofo Orator tu. Di vani fregi e vezzi Non ha d'uopo innocenza dove parla Veritate, virtu, taccia eloquenza 2 5

In order to please his wife and his disciples, Socrates consents to defend himself; however, he does not believe in the power of oratory. An orator, according to him, speaks with a false tongue, while innocence, truth, and virtuehave no need for lies.

In Act IV there seems to be some hope inhis wife’s heart, as well as Plato’s; but the play ends with Socrates* sentence to death.

As Alfieri stated, dying people should speak very little; thus, we see

Socrates pronouncing only a few words after taking the poison:

Venite a queste braccia, a nell’estremo Di mia vita momento, da me saggi Se a vivere imparaste, ora a morire , Da forte ognun di voi, da giusto impari.

Alfieri*s motives for writing this play do not seem to be the

same as those of the French "philosophes.'*The latter were attacked and

persecuted from all sides— church, government, etc. They were ridiculed

25Ibid.. p. xl. 26Ibld.. p. lxi. 265 on the stage, and they attempted to defend themselves by using the same device* Their plays were filled with characters and intrigues because it was necessary for their cause. On the other hand, Alfieri was not persecuted by any one. This so-called persecution, which perhaps was imaginary, was caused by his rebellious temper and love for justice and freedom— mainly political freedom. The Italian writers did not suffer the same persecutions as did the French writers; therefore, there was no need for them to attack the church and state. It would then appear

that Alfieri wrote his tragedy not as a defense for any particular party,

but as a revolt against tyranny and the love of freedom.

Socrates was sentenced to die unjustly by a tyrant state and

this is what Alfieri portrays. As for the church, he did not see any

harm in it. In fact, he attacked the irreligiosity of the Encyclopedists

in his work entitled Del Principe;

. . . Ma principalmente ascrivere si debbe questo indugio di verity e di luce a un deplorabile errore di alcuni modemi scrittori che licenziosi e non liberi anzi degni fabri di servitu il loro ardire piutosto rivolgeano ad offendere con laidezze i costumi comme se abbastanza corrotti non fossero owero tutte le loro deboli forze rivolgeano a schernire, ad abbattere una religione per la sua fievolezza e vecchiaja gilt vinta; una religione i di cui abusi non possono nuocere senza il principe che li acconsenta e fomenti; e i di cui abusi nuo- cono serapre assai meno di lui.^7

These words against the Ehcyclopedists, and above all, against Voltaire

were very ardent during an epoch when their doctrines were triumphing

in France and had also many followers outside of France. As for the

Catholic religion which he considered old and defeated, he did not

27Piazzi, Vol. Ill, p. 89. 266 attack it because he did not believe in it and because its representatives were placing it under the despotism of the state. Perhaps it was for

this reason that he omitted Anytus and the church from his play.

We have considered two plays about Socrates written by two

Italian writers who spent a part of their lives in France. It seems

from these plays that there is not much similarity with the plays written

by the French writers. Galiani took the character of Socrates and wrote

a satire against the scholars and philosophers of his time. A rebel by

nature, Alfieri expressed Socrates* own beliefs. While his play is

based on historical facts, in the two long monologues it is not histori­

cal Socrates speaking but Alfieri, the Italian poet. CHAPTER FOURTEEN

CONCLUSION

In summing up the information gathered from our study of the

"death of Socrates," we find that these materials are important docu­ ments in the philosophic movement in that they trace the successive steps in its advance. In the chronological grouping of the works studied, we have already seen the organization, growth, and period of crisis in the philosophic party. In addition to this general confirma­ tory evidence of the struggle of the "philosophes" with their opponents and of the diffusion of their ideas, the documents analyzed seem to show the following points: firstly, the connotation of the term

"philosophe," secondly, the dispute as to who was the real Socrates among the eighteenth century "philosophes," and thirdly, the "death of Socrates" as a symbol of immortality and justice.

During the first half of the century, there were several plays which contained characters to whom the terra "philosophe" was applied.

One of these plays was Damocles. An examination of the character of

Damocles has shown that the term was then marked by a certain vagueness.

He was characterized as an impractical idealist, a man of letters, a misanthrope, and a political theorist. In many respects Damocles suggests

Diogenes and the Cynics. Yet, it is not this relationship with recognized

267 268 philosophers which make them "philosophes." Apparently, they are called

"philosophes" because of a characteristic attitude which they take

toward knowledge, and it is only the systematized body of their ideas

which constitutes their philosophy. Although they sometimes possess

traits in common with recognized philosophers and a definite attitude

toward knowledge, the defect for which they are condemned as "philosophes"

varies. Some are characterized by their pretense, as was the case of

Damocles and others by their advocacy of individualism, as was the case

of Rousseau during the second half of the century. The plays, then,

bring out several points regarding the connotation of the term

"philosophe." There was still a noticeable relationship between a

philosopher and a "philosophe," but the latter was more intimately

connected with the accumulation and propagation of ideas which the

"philosophe" considered to be his philosophy. The nature of the ideas,

his attitude toward them, and his capacity for dealing with them seem

to have been the factors which determined the differences between the

"philosophes" and the philosophers. Generally speaking, the playwrights,

the Dictionnaire de l*Academie francaise (17^0), and the Dictionnaire de

trevoux had distinguished three types of "philosophes." The first type

is the demi-savant who pretends to know things of which he is in reality

ignorant; the second type is an individualist who advocates an anti­

social doctrine of self-interest; and the third type is the individual

who has made a hobby of a series of ideas which he vainly endeavors to

comprehend. 269

At the beginning of the second half of the eighteenth century, an attempt was made by such playwrights as Palissot to apply the term

"philosophe" to specific contemporary individuals perhaps with the pur­ pose of clarifying its meaning and, at the same time, of ridiculing the leaders of the philosophic party. However, it seems that the confusion which the playwrights had attempted to eliminate became more evident than ever. A "philosophe" now might be any person allied to or in sym­ pathy with the Encyclopedle. a savant interested in apy branch of science, or merely a man of letters.

It has been mentioned that some of the "philosophes" reacted against the ridiculing of individuals. D’Alembert was the one who reacted more vehemently against the opponents of the "philosophes."

Influenced by the attitude of D ’Alembert and others, the public did not

react favorably to this direct and personal satire; and rather than gain

in their struggle to disgrace the "philosophes," the "anti-philosophes"

began to lose ground. Such was the situation when men like Diderot,

Voltaire, Rousseau, and others proclaimed themselves "philosophes."

They saw in philosophy a means of educating the masses and freeing them

from ignorance, intolerance, and superstition. They were attempting to

create a society of free men. At the beginning of the second half of the

eighteenth century, however, their struggle seemed to be hopeless for

they were attacked not only by the playwrights, but by the government

and the church as well. 270

The new ideas of enlightenment were a menace to the power of the church. It was ignorance and superstition that kept the masses under the control of the priests. It was pointed out during this study that the church in France was divided among Jesuits and Jansenists who were try­ ing to exterminate each other. During this epoch they had a common energy who was shaking the very foundations of their institutions— the

"philosophes.* In view of these facts, many times they forgot their differences and joined forces against the "philosophes." It has been shown in several instances in the plays by Linguet, Sauvigny, and

Voltaire that Anytus and Meletus expressed their hatred and mistrust for each other; but they decided to wait in destroying each other until

Socrates had been removed. The church was not only dominating the masses, but it also had a great influence with the government. Thus, the only ones who could silence the "philosophes" were the priests. The

Encyclopedists were aware of this, and they attacked the French Catholic church. In tes Observations, Diderot said:

Les peuples qui n'ont ete que trop souvent opprimes se sont accoutumls \ regarder les pretres, intercesseurs aupres de Dieu vengeur unique de 1'oppression des Rois, comme leurs protecteurs. Le Irone est tot ou tard occupe par un super- stitieux, c'est-li-dire que le regne des pretres arrive tot ou tard, et c'est alors que les peuples sont souverainement malheureux. Le pretre dont le sisteme est un tissu d’absurdites tend secretement \ entretenir 1'ignorance: la raison est l'ennemie de la foi, et la foi est la base de l'etat, de la fortune, de la consideration du Pretre. Le Pretre est un personnage sacre aux yeux du peuple; l'int£ret et la surete du Monarque demandent qu*on lui ote ce caractere.^

^■Diderot, La Revue d*histoire economique et sociale. pp. 283-8**. 271

It seems that Diderot believed that the church was responsible for the corruption of the state; he was not the only one. It has been shown that Voltaire also attacked the corruption and intolerance of the church.

Barbier^ several times mentioned the necessity of having the priests pay taxes.

Against these opponents, the Encyclopedists were almost powerless at the beginning of the second half of the century. It was shown that many of them became discouraged and abandoned the Encyclopedie. Ihe few faithful ones, such as Diderot, were carrying the struggle with very little hope of success. It was during these difficult times that the

"philosophes” remembered the death of Socrates, and they assimilated

their fate with that of the great philosopher. It was exposed that the

image of Socrates underwent several changes according to the situation.

At first Voltaire referred to him as "le bavard athenien au nez epate."

Diderot referred to him as the Father of philosophy, trying to give

respectability to the term "philosophe." Rousseau considered him as the

wisest man who ever lived. When the struggle against their opponents

became very acute, all the "philosophes" referred to the last moments of

Socrates and his unjust death. Socrates' life was not important; his

death was more important because it represented injustice, the corruption

and intolerance of the state and the church. Socrates* death, therefore,

became a symbol against these vices.

2 Roustan, p. 259* 272

After the "affaire de P. La Valette" the Jesuit order was abolished by parliament in 1?62. This incident was advantageous for

the "philosophes" because they got rid of their most powerful enemy.

Now there was hope. In 1766 the Encyclopedic was completed. Diderot

and the "philosophes" had won their battle. Die "death of Socrates"

as a symbol of justice was no longer necessary. It was during this

time that the "philosophes" began to think of the survival of their

ideas and their works. They were concerned with the judgment that pos­

terity would pass on them. Here again they needed some example of the

past who was immortalized through his ideas. It seems that they turned

once more to the "death of Socrates." This time Socrates' death became

a symbol of the immortality of ideas.

A controversial matter during the second half of the century and

the centuries that followed was the problem of who was the eighteenth

century Socrates. Although Voltaire during his correspondence with

Frederick of Prussia was called several times the "new Socrates," he

never claimed to be Socrates. Moreover, he identified Diderot as

"Diderot-Socrate." It has been shown that at the beginning of his

literary career Rousseau considered Socrates as the "plus sage" of all

the philosophers. In Emile, however, he considers him as just another

man when compared to Christ. If Rousseau had considered himself the

eighteentii century Socrates, he would not have denigrated the Greek

philosopher. Our documents show that Diderot never changed his opinion

concerning Socrates. Although he exclaimed several times, "Socrate 273 je te resserable peu," he did not stop trying to be worthy of his prede­ cessor. It seems that the new Socrates of the eighteenth century, the

"philosophe," was Diderot.

It appears that the "death of Socrates" during the eighteenth century was used by the "philosophes" as a weapon against their opponents.

We saw the beginning of this symbol and then the triumph of the ideas of

the "philosophes." However, the Socratic myth was not the sole patrimony

of the eighteenth century philosophers. In the nineteenth century,

Socrates was used by Lamartaine and many other writers and philosophers.

It appears that as long as there is injustice and intolerance in the

world, the unjust death of a just man, Socrates, will serve as a symbol

for justice and tolerance. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alfieri, Vittorio. Socrate. London: G. Hawkins, 1788.

Bachaumont, L. M&noires secrets. 36 vols. London: 1762-87*

Belin, J. P. Le Mouvement philosophique de 1746 1789. Paris: Belin, 1913.

Besterroan, Theodore. Voltaire*s Correspondence. 42 vols. Geneve: Les D&ices, Institute et Mus6e Voltaire, 1954 - .

La Bigarrure. October 30, 1749*

Bonnefon, P. "Diderot prisonnier k Vincennes," Revue d*histoire litt^raire de France. 1899.

Brunei, L. Extraits de Jean-Jacoues Rousseau. Paris: Hachette, n.d.

Cailleau, A. C. Les Philosophes manoues. comedie nouvelle en un acte et en prosel Paris: 1760. Clement, P. Les Cino annees litteraires. 2 vols. Berlin: 1748-52.

Le Controleur du Parnasse. Amsterdam: 1748.

D»Alembert, J. Oeuvres. Vol. V. Paris: 1805* D ’Ancona, A. and Bacci, 0. Litteratura italiana. 6 vols. Firenze: G. Barbera, 1917.

DeLeris, A. Dictionnaire portatif des theatres. Paris: C. A. Jombert, 1754. Desnoiresterres, Gustave. La Comedie satiriaue en France au XVIIIe siecle. Paris: Didier, 1885. . Voltaire et la soci£t£ au XVIIIe siecle. 8 vols. Paris: Didier, 18^9-76.

Dictionnaire de l*Academle francalse. ed. 1740.

Dictionnaire de trlvoux. ed. 1771.

274 275 Diderot, Denis, et al. L 'Encycloa^die. ou Dictionnaire raiaonne des sciences, des arts et des metiers, par une society de gens de lettres. 17 vols. Paris: Briasson. 1751-05.

Diderot, Denis. Apoloeie de Socrate. traduit de memoire pendant son sejour A Vincennes par M. Denis Diderot. 1749. (Ms. photo No. 4903 pos.)

______. MLes Observations sur 1*instruction de sa Majeste Imperial® aux deputes sur la confection des lois,M La Revue d ’histoire economioue et sociale. 1920.

. Lettres It Sophie Volland. Edited by Babelon. 3 vols. Paris: Gallimard, 1930.

. Oeuvres completes. Edited by Assezat-Toumeux. 20 vols. Paris: Garnier, 1876.

Dieckmann, Herbert. Diderot et Falconet correspondence. Frankfurt am Main: V. Klostermann, 1959*

______. Inventaire du fond Vandeuil et inedits de Diderot. Geneve: Droz, 1951.

. Le Philosophe.. St. Louis: University Press, 1948.

Ducros, L. Les Encyclopediatea. Paris: 1900.

Favart, C. Correspondence de Favart avec le Comte de Durazzo. 3 vols. Paris: 1809. Felton, C. C. The Clouds of Aristophanes. Boston: John Allyn Publisher, 1873. Galiani, F. Socrate immaginario. Torino: Einaudi, 1943.

Grimm, M. Correspondence litteraire. Edited by Tourneux. 16 vols. Paris: Garnier freres, 1877-82.

Havens, G. Jean-Jacoues Rousseau. Discours sur les sciences et les arts. New fork: The Modem Language Association, 1946.

Journal encyclopedlque. 1764.

La Harpe, J. Correspondence de La Harpe avec le Grand Due de Russia. 6 vols. Paris: Mignoret imprimeur, 1806-1807.

La Mettrie, J. Oeuvres philosophiaues. Berlin: 1796.

Le Gras, J. Diderot et 1»Encyclopedia. Paris: Socilte d*Editions Litt6raires et Techniques, 1942. 276

Linguet, S. N. H. Socrate. tragedie en cinq actes. Amsterdam: Che* Marc-Michel Rey, 1764.

Livingstone, R. N. Portrait of Socrates. Oxfords Clarendon Press, 1953*

Mainvilliers, 7. Les Huit philosophes aventuriers de ce slfecle. La Haye: 1752. Mestica, G. Prose e poesie scelte dl V. Alfieri. Milano: Ulrico Hoepli, 1898. Naigeon, Jacques-Andr^. M&noires hlstorlcues et philosophiaues sur la vie et les ouvrages de M. Denis Diderot. Paris: J. L. J. Briere, 1821. Palissot, Charles. Les Philosophes. Vol. VI of Suite du Repertoire du Theatre Francais. Edited by M. Lepeintre. Paris; Chea Mme Veuve Dubo, 1823* Piaaai, G. La novella fronda. 3 vols. Milano: L. TVevisini, n.d.

Pommier, J. Diderot avant Vincennes. Paris: Ancienne Librairie Fume, Boivin & Cie., 1939*

Querard, J. La France litt£raire. 12 vols. Paris: Firmin Didot, 1827-&TI

Rosenkranz, Karl* Diderot's Leben und Werke. 2 vols., Leipaig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1866.

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Les Confessions. Edited by Van Bever. 3 vols. Paris: Garnier, 1926.

. Oeuvres completes. Edited by Hachette. 13 vols. Paris: Hachette, 1885-1905*

Roustan, M. Les philosophes au XVIIIe sifecle. Paris: Hachette, 1911.

Saint-Pierre, Bemardin de. Oeuvres completes. Edited by Aime-Martin. 14 vols. Paris: Dupont, 1826.

Sauvigny, B. La Mort de Socrate. tragedie en trols actes et en vers. Paris: Prault Eils, Libraire, 1763.

Seanec, J. Essais sur Diderot et l'antiquite. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957. Soleinne, M. Table g£n£ral de la blbliotheaue dramatiaue. 6 vols. Paris: Administration de 1 'Alliance des Arts, 1843-45. 277 Villey P. Essals de Montaigne. Nouvelle ed. Paris: Felix Alcan, 1922.

Voltaire, Letters to His Highness the Prince . . . Glasgow: 1769*

. Oeuvres completes. Edited by Molahd. 52 vols. Paris: 1877-82.

't AUTOBIOGRAPHY

I, Vasile Calesi, was b o m in Avdella, Macedonia, May 1, 1926.

I received my secondary-school education in the Liceo-Roman of Grebena,

Macedonia, and the baccalaureate from the Liceo Classico, Ludovico

Ariosto of Reggio Emilia, Italy. After two years at the University of

Rome, Italy, Medical School, I had an opportunity to come to the United

States. I received my undergraduate training at Boston University,

which granted me the Bachelor of Arts degree in 195^» Prom the same

institution, I received the Master of Arts degree in 1955* During the

academic year 1955-56, I taught at Lawrence Academy in Groton,

Massachusetts. In October of 1956, I enrolled at the Graduate School

of The Ohio State University in the Department of Romance Languages,

and in 1957 was awarded a graduate assistantship. I held this posi­

tion for two years while completing the requirements for the Doctor of

Philosophy degree.

Since 1959 I have been on the faculty of Thiel College as a

professor of French and Spanish, and at the present time I have the

title of Assistant Professor and Language Laboratory Director.

278