The highjacking of Voltaire by the French Revolution

Post Reply New Topic

So, I'm furiously writing my honors thesis, and I figured I'd bounce ideas off of people...

Part I is my analysis of Voltaire's writings, particularly detailing the value sets he lay out in his prose, theatre, and philosophical dictionary. I'm separating Part I into 3 sections, based on genres, since Voltaire's style varies so drastically depending on in which genre he is writing. His value set (Reason above all, loyalty, patriotism, compassion) is outlined most directly in his plays...since "historical" figures are the speakers, the words can be more inflammatory. Voltaire is direct in is philosophical dictionary, but the most controversial articles (mostly regarding religion) are attributed to other authors. His prose (Candide and Zadig) is the most difficult to decipher, being full of double meanings and subtext.

Part II examines the ways in which Voltaire and his writings were appropriated (and misappropriated) during the French Revolution (1789-1794). I look at the monuments dedicated to Voltaire, the quotations attributed to him, the use of his writings by key political figures (Robespierre, Mirabeau, Louis XVI).

Huzzah. Thoughts, anyone? Even just casually chatting about stuff helps me sort things out, put everything in order in my brain.

Voltaire : "To hold a pen is to be at war". I like that.

What do you mean by "most controversial"? He disliked sects, and most of organised religion, had buddhist leanings, and was a firm believer in god, but not by faith alone, as he seemed to think that it was the height of reason to believe in god.

Can see why anti-catholic (/anti-christian) french revolution would have co-opted him. It's funny; I thought until 2 seconds ago that the french revolution tried to do away with religion completely. That just shows how monolithic christianity was in europe that it left that impression.

by "most controversial" I mean his direct attacks on the Church. To say he disliked most sects and organized religion is a bit of an understatement...he found organized religion to be corrupt and hypocritical...tho useful so long as there were people of limited intelligence who needed to be directed. As per his own spiritual beliefs, he was a deist ( like so many leaders of the American revolution.) Atheism was completely taboo...which is one why the French Revolution didn't completely abolish religion. The focus was to instead abolish the established Church, and do away with superstition. Thus the Cult of Reason, inspired hugely by Voltaire. The Cult of Reason was superceded by the Cult of the Supreme Being, led by Robespierre, who drew much of his philosophical direction from Rouseau.

Woohoo this is fun!

Why do you say that the french rev misappropriated/hijacked his writings?

Shouldn't they have taken Voltaire so literally?

They seem to have followed his ideas most assiduously as far as they concerned the dismantling of the church. Where is there misappropriation?

If it is in their decision to attack/eliminate the individuals aswell as the institutions, it would only be misappropriation if they pretended that his ideas supported that, surely?

yeah, that's actually where I'm struggling the most with my thesis...as far as an argument goes, to negate something is far easier to affirm...but I'm having trouble finding really concrete examples of misappropriation. More...misinterpretation.

For example...in demanding the trial of Louis XVI, Desmoulins said, ‘And have we anything else to do right now than what Brutus did when the people gave him his two sons to judge…? He had them come before his tribunal, as you ought to make Louis come before yours. He produced proof of their conspiracy, as you ought to produce for Louis XVI this multitude of overwhelming proofs of his plots…and it only remains for you to prove, as Brutus did to the Roman people, that you are worthy of founding the Republic and its constitution…by pronouncing the same judgement: I, lector; deliga ad palum.’ Voltaire's Brutus never had to prove his son's conspiracy, nor did he even have to publically judge them..Tiberius was clearly guilty, and Brutus doesn't iven talk to Him. When Titus talks to brutus, it is more a confessional than a trial. Brutus doesn't sentence Titus, he forgives him before his execution.

Desmoulins' analogy isn't completely misguided...Brutus once again proves his ability to rule justly when he sentences his two treacherous sons to death. However, he has already proved himself worthy of "founding the Republic and its constitution"...this we learn on the very first page of the play. So this allusion to Brutus isn't so much instructive as it is a validation of choices the leaders of the French Revolution were already making. After all, anything can be justified so long as you have a famous person saying something sort of related to what you're talking about^.^

As far as religion goes...the founding of a cult would be the opposite of what Voltaire wanted. He advocated scientific method, logic, and reason. The name "Cult of reason" is fairly oxymoronical, after all, how reasonable are cults? The deification of Reason totally negates the scientific aspect of it...if something is holy, we stop questioning, we are forced to worship, and the worship becomes organized. Voltaire criticized not faith, but organized faith, as it promotes corruption. While the Cult of Reason was dedicated to the philosophy of Voltaire, it's mere existance was an affront to that philosophy.

wow, that was actually really helpful I haven't written the chapter on the cults yet, so this is helping me shape my ideas. thanks.

Wondering which "subject"/faculty you're doing this thesis for? History, politics, literature, or philosophy, or a combi ..?

Because I realised that the biggest objection I have to the suggestion that Voltaire's writing/thought "was hijacked/misappropriated" is that it assumes that there is a fixed and certain version of Voltaire, that if his work was an influence in the thought of certain revolutionaries it should have been followed to the letter, and that can establish the "letter" in question.

In fact the thesis seems to me to be hugely controversial, because it makes assumptions about text and meaning which are right at the heart of the whole fundamentalism debate. Marx also has been argued about in same way. George Bernard Shaw said about Christianity that it would probably be wonderful, if anybody ever tried it, etc. This accusation has existed as long as texts have.

When you say that the french revolutionaries were guilty of "misinterpretation" that implicitly suggests that there is one definitive meaning to his writing. They used his text like fundamentalists use the bible. To support their position. I think maybe that is the real hijacking. It's not whether they were right or wrong in their interpretation, because that is impossible to measure, but their using his writing as if it had a fixed meaning was in itself a misappropriation/misunderstanding.

Maybe that is what your thesis is setting out to show?

Hehe, I like it. Hm.

I am putting forth my own interpretation of Voltaire's works...which may as you say be the most controversial part of the thesis. I find that his style changes drastically between genres...his prose is didactic but hard to follow, full of contradictions and double meaning. When he says..."Men gave their blessings to Zadig, while Zadig gave his to heaven," does he mean that men loved Zadig, but Zadig loved God...or does he mean that men loved Zadig ONLY WHILE Zadig loved God? The text would support the second...Zadig, virtuous and reasonable as he is, is persecuted until he meets the angel Jesrad, who throws children off of bridges and burns down the houses of the men who host him. His plays are black and white, often set in antiquity. Brutus is particularly interesting, since the Paris saw itself as the new Rome during the Revolution. The Philosophical dictionary is often very straightforward, when Voltaire's not playing word jumble with the names of specific sects, but many of his most critical articles are attributed to someone else, or simply signed "anonymou."

'm not trying to interpret Voltaire as on would the Bible, word for word...more am I putting together a cohesive value set implied Voltaire across multiple genres. it's quite possible that i'll get slammed for it. My advisor, however, is more worried about Part II, in which I'm trying to show how Voltaire is appropriated (I'm not just saying that he was misinterpreted...I'm looking at the was in which his work and he [as a symbol] were used to further the ends of the revolution.) He thinks I'm focusing too much on the fact that Voltaire was used, and not enough of how.

As for subject, it started our as political theory, but now it's more a hybrid of history and religious studies.

French revolutionary ideals were skewed and then skewed again and then hammered down upon until no more skewedness could be squeezed out of them... what stared as a quest for equality etc. turned into something that in my opinion is just as bad as the holocaust in Nazi Germany.

Voltaire's views and beliefs were conveniently misappropriated by the revolution in the same way that Hitler used mysticism and Aryan mythology to validate his own propaganda.

I like a few of his quotes, but he was a pretty vicious anti-Semite (although to be fair, he held all religion in contempt).

Isn't every Christian anti-Semitic just by being a Christian, though?

[I by no means mean that every Christian should or would go about persecuting Jews, but y'know... Christianity's based on the idea that Jesus was the saviour, and Judaism denounces that main belief.]

In explaining Voltaire's antisemitism, I'm worried I might sound a bit bigoted myself...i'm jewish myself, so my explication isn't a defense, merely a study.

Voltaire's brand of antisemitism was unique...he viewed Judaism as kind of the beginning of all religios evil...since Christianity sprung from it. Unlike most anti-semites, he didn't view Jews as subhuman. Rather, he blamed their corrupt religion for having fathered other corrupt religions.

Being Jewish yourself, you'll likely (sadly) get away with whatever you say about Jews... but you can't expect to be accused of anything if you're simply explaining someone else's views.