Tired of reading? Add this page to your Bookmarks or Favorites and finish it later.
|
|
And first, a few words on these same philosophes. One may be
thoroughly aware of their deficiencies, of their sins, moral as well
as intellectual; and yet one may demand that everyone should judge
them fairly--which can only be done by putting himself in their
place; and any fair judgment of them will, I think, lead to the
conclusion that they were not mere destroyers, inflamed with hate of
everything which mankind had as yet held sacred. Whatever sacred
things they despised, one sacred thing they reverenced, which men
had forgotten more and more since the seventeenth century--common
justice and common humanity. It was this, I believe, which gave
them their moral force. It was this which drew towards them the
hearts, not merely of educated bourgeois and nobles (on the menu
peuple they had no influence, and did not care to have any), but of
every continental sovereign who felt in himself higher aspirations
than those of a mere selfish tyrant--Frederick the Great, Christina
of Sweden, Joseph of Austria, and even that fallen Juno, Catharine
of Russia, with all her sins. To take the most extreme instance--
Voltaire. We may question his being a philosopher at all. We may
deny that he had even a tincture of formal philosophy. We may doubt
much whether he had any of that human and humorous common sense,
which is often a good substitute for the philosophy of the schools.
We may feel against him a just and honest indignation when we
remember that he dared to travestie into a foul satire the tale of
his country's purest and noblest heroine; but we must recollect, at
the same time, that he did a public service to the morality of his
own country, and of all Europe, by his indignation--quite as just
and honest as any which we may feel--at the legal murder of Calas.
We must recollect that, if he exposes baseness and foulness with too
cynical a license of speech (in which, indeed, he sinned no more
than had the average of French writers since the days of Montaigne),
he at least never advocates them, as did Le Sage. We must recollect
that, scattered throughout his writings, are words in favour of that
which is just, merciful, magnanimous, and even, at times, in favour
of that which is pure; which proves that in Voltaire, as in most
men, there was a double self--the one sickened to cynicism by the
iniquity and folly which he saw around him--the other, hungering
after a nobler life, and possibly exciting that hunger in one and
another, here and there, who admired him for other reasons than the
educated mob, which cried after him "Vive la Pucelle."
Rousseau, too. Easy it is to feel disgust, contempt, for the
"Confessions" and the "Nouvelle Heloise"--for much, too much, in the
man's own life and character. One would think the worse of the
young Englishman who did not so feel, and express his feelings
roundly and roughly. But all young Englishmen should recollect,
that to Rousseau's "Emile" they owe their deliverance from the
useless pedantries, the degrading brutalities, of the medieval
system of school education; that "Emile" awakened throughout
civilised Europe a conception of education just, humane, rational,
truly scientific, because founded upon facts; that if it had not
been written by one writhing under the bitter consequences of mis-education,
and feeling their sting and their brand day by day on his
own spirit, Miss Edgeworth might never have reformed our nurseries,
or Dr. Arnold our public schools.
|