Essay: Instances where Voltaire voiced criticism

Francois Marie Arouet, otherwise known by as Voltaire was a great philosopher, apostle, and an author who is known as a person who was free of thought. He became one of the most influential persons especially during the enlightenment period in France. his freedom of thought in which he expressed abundantly through his writing, he was not afraid to criticize, and this landed him to problems a number of times. In the year 1717, Voltaire was detained by the French Government for constantly publishing content that satirically ridiculed the government. He was later own sent to prison in Bastille, one of the most renown French Prison in history. It is during this time when he was in prison that he decided to use the name, Voltaire. The reason for using this name was to act as a disguise; the use of this pen name would be a way to cushion himself from the government since in the case of an instance when he engages in subversive content in his literature, the government won’t have to arrest him since when they cannot identify the writer of the work, then they won’t have a basis for arrest. He used this time in prison to advance his writing. A few days out of prison, Voltaire got into a heated argument with one of the French Nobleman and he was again detained and provided for two options; either to be exiled or imprisoned. Voltaire chose the former and started his new life in England between the years 1726 and 1729. It is during this time in England that he got interested in the philosophy and precisely due to John Locke’s Work as well as Isaac Newton ideas.
His free-thinking can be seen in most of his works where he criticized and expressed his thoughts the works of others. Voltaire often times questioned criticized or stated his own personal opinions on past historians. Voltaire used several of his opinions to make assumptions, which is what I want to delve into so I can elaborate my own opinion on these statements. There are many examples of these situations playing out in the historiography of Louis XIV. In this historiography, he questions Plutarch’s work as not historically accurate. He says “Plutarch’s Lives of Great Men is a collection of anecdotes more entertaining than accurate; how could he have had definite knowledge of the private lives of Theseus and Lycurgus? The majority of the maxims which he puts into the mouths of his characters are noteworthy for their moral content rather than their historical truth.” (Voltaire, 255). In this phrase, I do concur with Voltaire on his observation. History has to be told as it is, and it is even considered best when the person writing or the historian had experienced the events personally and the record should be exactly how it happened without the addition of personal opinions. It is evident that Plutarch history of the Lives of Great Men lacks historical truth, just as Voltaire argued; the historian could not have had definitive knowledge of Lycurgus and Theseus. This raises questions about the validity of the whole text, maybe it was meant to entertain the readers rather than tell them exactly what happened during this time and the lives of these great men. There are things that can be identified about the life of a person, but then again there is a limit. Everyone has a private space that is not known and cannot be accessed by anybody who is not part of it. For instance there are public figures, such as the president of the United States, we know a lot of things about him; for instance his political ambitions, how he runs the government, his policies and many other things that can be accessed. This is one part of his life; however, there is his private life. This is only between him and his family or his own secrets which are not known to other parties, it is more of a secret. Therefore, the documentation of the private lives of Theseus and Lycurgus places Plutarch’s text Lives of Great Men more of a fictional work than historical truth.
Voltaire goes ahead to criticize Procopius work which he claims to be more of revenge. He says “Procopius’s Secret History of Justinian is a satire prompted by motives of revenge; and although revenge may sometimes speak the truth, this satire, which contradicts his own official history of the reign, seems to be false in several instances. One is not allowed nowadays to imitate Plutarch, still less Procopius” (Voltaire, 255). According to these sentiments, it is inappropriate for Procopius to integrate elements of revenge in this work of history. A good historian has to tell the historical events exactly the way they were happening. Therefore, the integration of emotions in the text makes it the text about a personal vendetta instead of what happened in history.  I do agree with Voltaire that there might be truth in revenge, however, there is no tearing apart and determining what is true and what is not; therefore, such texts are complicated to decipher, which makes it lesser a historical document. The historians have to be very direct in what they are telling; that is reporting the exact experience, for instance, they should accurately state the dates and time of the events, what happened in the event and let the readers judge whether it was right or not, whether it was socially acceptable or not. Therefore, it is not the duty of the Historian to analyze the experiences through the incorporation of emotions or even taking sides. This misinterpretation may lead to an inaccurate view of history for a very long time to come.
In yet another criticism where Voltaire had to voice his mind about the issues affecting the society about the anecdotes during the 17th century. He says that “The most useful and valuable anecdotes are those left in the secret writings of great princes, their natural candour thus revealing itself in permanent records; such are those which I am about to relate of Louis XIV” (Voltaire 255). In this part of the historiography, he tries to bring up a moment in the past whereby they believed that the most reliable sources and truthful sources were the anecdotes of the king’s or other royalties. This is because these people are already in power; therefore, their accounts are always truthful. In the current world, this statement would be somehow outrageous and may result in a number of reactions from the people or even an outburst when it reaches a vast majority of the population. In the current world, unlike Voltaire’s time, it is becoming something very difficult to trust the information being given by our elders, and especially politicians. In politics, people lie their way up to the top seat, and from the recent discoveries, especially in the United States, the truth is always concealed. Unlike Voltaire’s time when there were the nobles, people who were trusted to portray their best in leadership and bringing sense to the society as well as acting as a class of nobilities; meaning that they had to present themselves truthfully and honorably. Voltaire’s statement on this isn’t always true. It may have been reliable at the time, but there’s no way anyone would fall for this today. It’s hard to trust today’s world’s leaders such as Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Kim Jong-un because of how many times they’ve been caught lying and doing illegal activities. We would rely on modern-day historians who are there to witness the events. The 21st-century leaders cannot be trusted, politicians are known for their dubious methods of acquiring power; they are led by their selfish choices and they can step on anyone on their way up, lying is their way of life.
Voltaire is recognized for speaking his mind, and he, at many instances that historians at his age and time have devoured the content of history. He has devoted his time, especially after the French Revolution when he claims that historical content was marred with satire to fix what went wrong by enlightening the current historians. According to Karen O’Brien, she seems to agree with Voltaire that the history during the French Revolution had totally lost their reputation; the ones great source of information. she says “Voltaire’s histories have not recovered today from the low reputation to which they sank after the French Revolution” (Force 459).  He uses their actions as a case study to teach those who are to write history in future. For instance, he says that “The secret memoirs of contemporaries must always be suspected of partiality: those who write one or two generations later must use the greatest care to omit the merely frivolous, to reduce exaggeration, and combat what has been dictated by motives of satire” (Voltaire 255). Due to the long time since Voltaire started criticizing his contemporaries, it is difficult to actually say that his contemporaries must be suspected of partiality; however, the second part of this statement is actually the best thing that can be done by historians. It is important that the content delivered is free from exaggeration and corrects what has been in the past build on satire.  The readers of history have to get exactly the correct information; however, this poses a challenge to the readers, just as Suzanne Gearhart argues, she says, “if Voltaire poses a difficulty to the modern reader, it is often not because his ideas seem antiquated and bizarre, but because they seem so self-evident as to be banal” (Force 461). Gearhart seems to be really sure of Voltaire’s work and portrays them as “self-evident.” This is true because most of Voltaire’s works are based on facts as well as logic. This makes them believable; he does not incorporate any form of satire nor exaggerations but presents the exact happenings. In the current society, even the mainstream media might not good sources of historical work due to the current prevalence of “fake news.” The news is presented just for the gain of one person over the other. Politicians mostly take advantage of such platforms to express themselves falsely either to gain popularity, bar others, or any other personal benefits; therefore, the fake news might not be the right sources for use in future since its work is already distorted.  Voltaire, however, urges the modern historians to “combat what has been dictated by motives of satire” (Voltaire 255).
In the History of Charles XII, Voltaire reiterates the importance of historians to commit themselves in what is considered as “plain matter,” in this account, he says, “I must say that M. de Villelongue, and many Swedes, have assured me that the letter he gave was the cause of these changes, but M. de Fierville denies this, and I have in other cases met with contradictory accounts. Now, a historian s duty is to tell plain matter of fact, without entering into motives, and he must relate just what he knows, without guessing at what he does not know” (History of Charles XII 278).  Voltaire in this statement gives advice on the event of contradiction. I do agree that contradiction builds doubt. When there is the question or debate of whether one thing is true and the other is not, then makes the credibility of the content doubtable and thus cannot be categorized as a historical document. Voltaire continues to say that the duty of a good historian is to relate exactly what he or she knows about the historical event and at no time would they involve motives or guessing since this would be including sources which are not experienced or witnessed by the historian.  This statement argues of the accuracy of the historical documents should be very clear; as stated in the journal “Voltaire and the Modern History,” that “history before the invention of printing was less than exact because it was seldom contradicted” (Force 464). The contradiction of the document was rare thus making it a reliable document for historical content. According to this journal, documents for publication went through rigorous activities of the vetting process. This was a place where the document was placed in a public sphere where evidence was questioned and assessed, was the only firm guarantor of the truthfulness of historical narratives (Force 464).
According to Voltaire, before modern history, the art of writing was specifically meant to a small group of people of people who had monopolized the industry. During this time, as a result of the few people who were in this art “it was easy to make us believe the most preposterous things” he continues to say that; as a consequence, it is only by the end of the fifteenth century that history “begins to be truly interesting to us”(Force 464).  According to this statement, therefore, it doesn’t make a lot of sense how a small group of people could mislead the people into believing in the most preposterous issues in the society. It is logical to manage a smaller group than a bigger group. The preference of the modern history by Voltaire therefore and the claim that the past historians violated the course of their history with motives and satire is unfounded. In my perspective, the modern history is even more violated that before. When a bigger group of writers get into the industry, therefore, it would lead the writers to engage in things such as exaggeration, motives, and satire.
Voltaire claims that “the purpose of history was to trace the progress of the human mind” (Force 465). The purpose of history, therefore, is to study the human past and comparing them with the developments from the time to the current life of the human lives. From this statement, it is evident that this purpose of history can be identified with. From the time of Voltaire, that is the French Revolution in the 15th century, there has been a lot of progress in the human habitat such as the improvement and effective technological advancement, infrastructure, production and many other aspects of human life. This is a clear indication of the progress of human mind through the several decades. During the time of Voltaire, communication was based on letters, however, currently; there are mobile phones which you can speak to a person directly. It can be used to make business deals and transact several important businesses, therefore, it is true to say that since then, the human brain /mind has drastically evolved and improved even further.
In “Lettres Philosophiques,” Voltaire takes his time to express his thoughts on religion. He points out what he believes is right or wrong about them. In the fifth letter, Voltaire dedicates it to the Anglican Church as well as the Catholic Church. He openly shows his distaste in the Catholic Church saying that the Anglican Church is better than the Catholic Church (Garget). He goes ahead and criticizes the Anglican Church on the premise that they adopted the Catholic Church Ceremonies and specifically concerning tithes. He claims that the clergy receives the tithes with other scrupulous intentions; he also argues that their ambitions are aimed at taking over or being the masters (Garget). In this argument, Voltaire has shown his biases which is contradictory to what he already was arguing in other texts. He openly criticizes the Catholic Church and shows that he despises it as compared to the Anglican. The Catholic Church has its own doctrines which it follows to the latter; he does not provide the basis in which the tithes are collected making his work to be based on malice and not facts, and in this, I do not agree with Voltaire’s perspective; he seems to have included emotion and his observations were not objective nor factual.
From the discussion above, therefore, it is evident that Voltaire is a person who does not fear to open up. He is an open-minded person as well as vocal. He criticizes whatever he feels not right according to him. This is attributed mainly to the good education he got which enables him to deconstruct the work of other historical writers and points out some of the mistakes or flaws in their work. Despite being a brilliant philosopher, some of his arguments also contain some flaws.
Works Cited
Voltaire, “History of Charles XII, King of Sweden,” translated by Winifred Todhunter (1731)
Voltaire,  â€œThe age of Louis XIV,” translated by Martyn P. Pollack (1731)
Force, Pierre. “Voltaire and the necessity of modern history.” Modern Intellectual History 6.3 (2009): 457-484.
Graham Gargett, author. “Oliver Goldsmith and Voltaire’s “Lettres Philosophiques.” The Modern
Language Review, no. 4, 2001, p. 952. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2307/3735862.