Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Gorlamo (talk | contribs)
→‎Theme and interpretation: Added more verses regarding his views on God. The claim that Voltaire rejected providence as impossible to defend is an exaggeration that lacks nuance, the poem took several contradictory positions.
 
(34 intermediate revisions by 27 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Poem in French composed by Voltaire}}
[[File:Voltaire.jpg|thumb|François-Marie Arouet (1694–1778), known as [[Voltaire]], French Enlightenment writer and philosopher]]
[[File:Atelier de Nicolas de Largillière, portrait de Voltaire, détail (musée Carnavalet) -002.jpg|thumb|François-Marie Arouet (1694–1778), known as [[Voltaire]], French Enlightenment writer and philosopher]]
The '''Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne''' (''Poem on the Lisbon Disaster'') is a [[poem]] in [[French language|French]] composed by [[Voltaire]] as a response to the [[1755 Lisbon earthquake]]. It is widely regarded as an introduction to Voltaire's later acclaimed work ''[[Candide]]'' and his view on the [[problem of evil]]. The 180-line poem was composed in December 1755 and published in 1756 It is considered one of the most savage literary attacks on [[Philosophical optimism|Optimism]].<ref name="A">[http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Candide.id-50,pageNum-35.html Candide: Book Summary and Study Guide]</ref>
The "'''Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne'''" (English title: ''Poem on the Lisbon Disaster'') is a [[poem]] in French composed by [[Voltaire]] as a response to the [[1755 Lisbon earthquake]]. It is widely regarded as an introduction to Voltaire's 1759 acclaimed novel ''[[Candide]]'' and his view on the [[problem of evil]]. The 180-line poem was composed in December 1755 and published in 1756. It is considered one of the most savage literary attacks on [[Philosophical optimism|optimism]].<ref name="A">{{Cite web |url=http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Candide.id-50,pageNum-35.html |title=Candide: Book Summary and Study Guide |access-date=2007-12-29 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516051009/http://www.cliffsnotes.com/WileyCDA/LitNote/Candide.id-50%2CpageNum-35.html |archive-date=2011-05-16 |url-status=dead }}</ref>


==Background==
==Background==
[[File:1755 Lisbon earthquake.jpg|thumb|left|1755 copper engraving showing [[Lisbon]] in flames and a [[tsunami]] overwhelming the ships in the harbour]]
[[File:1755 Lisbon earthquake.jpg|thumb|left|1755 copper engraving showing [[Lisbon]] in flames and a [[tsunami]] overwhelming the ships in the harbour]]
The earthquake on 1 November 1755 had completely devastated [[Lisbon]], the capital of [[Portugal]]. The city was reduced to ruins, and between 10,000 to 60,000 people were killed.<ref name="A"/><ref name="VR">Scott, p. 208.</ref> Being one of the most destructive earthquakes in history, the event had a major effect on the cultural consciousness of much of Europe. Voltaire was one of many philosophers, theologians and intellectuals to be deeply affected by the disaster.<ref name="VR"/> Catholics attempted to explain the disaster as God's wrath, invited by the sinfulness of the people of Portugal and the presence of Protestants and Jesuits; Protestants blamed the Portuguese for being Catholic, and were thus punished by God.
The earthquake of 1 November 1755 completely devastated the Portuguese capital [[Lisbon]]. The city was reduced to ruins, and between 30,000 and 50,000 people were killed.<ref name="A"/><ref name="VR">Scott, p. 208.</ref> One of the most destructive earthquakes in history, the event had a major effect on the cultural consciousness of much of Europe. Voltaire was one of many philosophers, theologians and intellectuals to be deeply affected by the disaster.<ref name="VR"/>


[[Polymath]] [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]] and poet [[Alexander Pope]] were both famous for developing a system of thought known as [[philosophical optimism]] in an attempt to reconcile a loving Christian [[God]] with the logical [[problem of evil]] (made evident in disasters such as [[Lisbon]]). The phrase ''"what is, is right"'' coined by [[Alexander Pope]] in his [[An Essay on Man]], and [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Leibniz']] affirmation that ''"we live in the best of all possible worlds"'', provoked a hostile response from [[Voltaire]]. He railed against what he perceived as overly complex philosophizing which served only to demean humanity and ultimately lead to [[fatalism]].
The polymath [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]] and the poet [[Alexander Pope]] were famous for developing a system of thought known as [[philosophical optimism]] in an attempt to [[problem of evil|reconcile]] a loving Christian [[God]] with the seeming indifference of nature in disasters such as [[Lisbon]]. The phrase ''what is, is right'' coined by [[Alexander Pope]] in his [[An Essay on Man|Essay on Man]], and [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Leibniz']] affirmation ''we live in the [[best of all possible worlds]]'', provoked [[Voltaire]]'s scorn. He railed against what he perceived as intricate but empty philosophizing which served only to demean humanity and ultimately lead to [[fatalism]].{{Citation needed|date=September 2022}}


Voltaire's philosophical pessimism and [[deism]], further bolstered by the earthquake, argued that [[philosophical optimism]] and the notion that ''"what is, is right"'' was empty philosophy based speculation. Due to the prevalence of perceived evil, Voltaire was convinced that there could not possibly exist a benign, all-loving, or intervening deity who aggrandized the virtuous and punished the sinful. He asserted instead that the disaster revealed the weak, helpless, and ignorant nature of humankind. For Voltaire, people might well hope for a happier state, but that was the logical limit of their optimism.<ref name="A"/>
The earthquake further bolstered Voltaire's [[philosophical pessimism]] and [[deism]]. The prevalence of evil, he argued, prevented the possible existence of a benevolent loving deity who intervened in human affairs to reward the virtuous and punish the guilty. He asserted instead that the disaster revealed the abject and ignorant nature of humankind. For Voltaire, people might well hope for a happier state, but to expect more was contrary to reason.<ref name="A"/>


==Structure==
==Structure==
The poem, like many of Voltaire's poetry, consists entirely of rhyming couplet and is written as a continual progression of lines; there are no stanzas. In total, there are 180 lines to the work.
Like many of Voltaire's other poems, ''Lisbonne'' consists entirely of rhyming couplets in continual progression. There are no stanzas dividing its 180 lines. Voltaire also included footnotes elucidating such terms as ''the universal chain'' and ''man's nature''.

Many modern translations of the poem also come with Voltaire's original footnotes explaining the references he makes. Some examples include ''the universal chain'', ''and mans nature''.


==Theme and interpretation==
==Theme and interpretation==
[[File:Alexander Pope by Jonathan Richardson.jpg|thumb|right|[[Alexander Pope]] was a target of the poem as a result of his declaration "What is, is right"]]
[[File:Alexander Pope by Jonathan Richardson.jpg|thumb|right|[[Alexander Pope]] was a target of the poem as a result of his declaration "What is, is right"]]


Unlike ''[[Candide]]'' the poem does not contain elements of lightheartedness or humor but rather lends itself to a pitying, dark and solemn tone.
Unlike the lighthearted satire of ''[[Candide]]'', the ''Lisbonne'' poem strikes a pitying, dark, and solemn tone.


In his preface to the poem Voltaire makes several objections.
In his preface, Voltaire makes several objections to [[philosophical optimism]]:


:'If it be true,' they said, 'that whatever is, is right, it follows that human nature is not fallen.
:'If it be true,' they said, 'that whatever is, is right, it follows that human nature is not fallen.
: If the order of things requires that everything should be as it is, then human nature has not been
: If the order of things requires that everything should be as it is, then human nature has not been
: corrupted, and consequently as no need for a Redeemer.
: corrupted, and consequently has no need for a Redeemer.
: ...
: ...
: if the miseries of individuals are merely the by-product of this general and necessary order,
: if the miseries of individuals are merely the by-product of this general and necessary order,
Line 30: Line 29:
: more precious in the eyes of God than the animals by which we are devoured.'
: more precious in the eyes of God than the animals by which we are devoured.'


By process of [[reductio ad absurdum]] Voltaire elucidates upon the inherent contradiction in the statement ''"what is, is right"''. For if this was true then human nature [[Original Sin|is not fallen]] and consequently renders salvation ineffectual.
Arguing by [[reductio ad absurdum]], Voltaire elaborates on the inherent contradiction in the dictum ''what is, is right''. For if this were true, then human nature would not be [[Original Sin|fallen]] and salvation would be unnecessary.


:He ([[Pierre Bayle|Bayle]]) says that [[Revelation]] alone can untie the great knot which
:He ([[Pierre Bayle|Bayle]]) says that [[Revelation]] alone can untie the great knot which
Line 39: Line 38:
:which his weak and frail nature is exposed.
:which his weak and frail nature is exposed.


Voltaire was an admirer of both Bayle, who was a skeptic, and [[John Locke|Locke]] who was an empiricist. The message Voltaire is trying to get across is very much inline with an empirical and skeptical position. In his footnotes, [[Voltaire]] argues the self-evidence of humankind's epistemological shortcomings since the human mind derives all knowledge from experience and that no experience can give us insight into what preceded our existence, nor into what follows it, nor into what supports it at present.
Voltaire shows his admiration of both Bayle, who was a skeptic, and [[John Locke|Locke]], who was an empiricist. In his footnotes, [[Voltaire]] argues the self-evidence of humankind's epistemological shortcomings, since the human mind derives all knowledge from experience, which cannot give us insight into what preceded it, nor what follows it, nor what presently supports it.


In the poem itself, deeply moved by the [[humanitarian crisis]] created by the earthquake and questioning whether a just and compassionate God would (or could) seek to punish sins through such terrible means, Voltaire argued that the all-powerful God Leibniz and Pope hypothesized could have prevented the innocent suffering of the sinners, reduced the scale of destruction or made his purpose in elevating the status of mankind more clear.<ref name="A"/>
In the poem itself, grieving for the [[humanitarian crisis|misery]] created by the earthquake and questioning whether a just and compassionate God would seek to punish sins through such cruelty, Voltaire argued that the all-powerful God Leibniz and Pope hypothesized could have prevented the innocent suffering of the sinners, reduced the scale of destruction, or announced his purpose of purifying mankind.<ref name="A"/>


:And can you then impute a sinful deed
:And can you then impute a sinful deed
Line 55: Line 54:
:I justly may complain of such a doom.
:I justly may complain of such a doom.


In the poem, Voltaire rejected belief in "[[Divine Providence|Providence]]" as impossible to defend — he believed that all living things seemed doomed to live in a cruel world. Voltaire concludes that human beings are weak, ignorant and condemned to suffer grief throughout life. There is no divine system or message as guidance, and God does not concern or communicate himself with human beings.<ref name="A" />
In the poem, Voltaire rejected belief in "[[Divine Providence|Providence]]" as impossible to defend — he believed that all living things seemed doomed to live in a cruel world. Voltaire concludes that human beings are weak, ignorant and condemned to suffer throughout life. There is no divine system or message as guidance, and God does not concern himself with human beings, or communicate with them.<ref name="A" />


:We rise in thought to the heavenly throne,
:We rise in thought to the heavenly throne,
Line 66: Line 65:
:Rules not by partial, but by general laws.
:Rules not by partial, but by general laws.


The above three lines refer specifically to the common rebuttal made by the optimists of the time as to the problem of evil. Although the presence of evil in the world is verifiable, human beings lack the capacity to understand the motions of God. Despite the earthquake, the subsequent suffering played a part in the greater good somewhere else.
These lines refer specifically to the common rebuttal made by the optimists of the time as to the problem of evil. Although the presence of evil in the world is evident, human beings cannot understand the motions of God. The suffering in the earthquake played a part in the greater good somewhere else.


:Yet in this direful chaos you'd compose
:Yet in this direful chaos you'd compose
Line 73: Line 72:
:With faltering voice you cry, 'What is, is right'?
:With faltering voice you cry, 'What is, is right'?


Voltaire draws attention to the assertion made by Alexander Pope in his [[An Essay on Man]] that 'What is, is right'. These lines serve as Voltaire's incredulous attitude towards Pope's (and later Leibniz') Optimism.
Voltaire draws attention to the assertion made by Alexander Pope in his [[An Essay on Man]] that 'What is, is right'. These lines contradict Pope's (and later Leibniz') Optimism.


:But how conceive a God, the source of love
:But how conceive a God, the source of love
Line 80: Line 79:
:Can mortals penetrate His views profound?
:Can mortals penetrate His views profound?
:Ill could not from a perfect being spring
:Ill could not from a perfect being spring
:Nor from another, since God's sovereign king;
:Nor from another, as God is sovereign king;
:And yet, sad truth! in this our world 'tis found
:And yet, sad truth! in this our world 'tis found
:What contradictions here my soul confound!
:What contradictions here my soul confound!
Line 90: Line 89:


==Criticism==
==Criticism==
Through his work, Voltaire criticized religious figures and philosophers such as the optimists [[Alexander Pope]] and [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]], but endorsed the views of the skeptic [[Pierre Bayle]] and empiricist [[John Locke]]. Voltaire was, in turn, criticized by the philosopher [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]]; Rousseau had been mailed a copy of the poem by Voltaire, who received a letter carrying Rousseau's criticism on 18 August 1756. Rousseau criticized Voltaire for seeking to apply science to spiritual questions, and he argued that evil is necessary to the existence of the universe and that particular evils form the general good. Rousseau implied that Voltaire must either renounce the concept of Providence or conclude that it is, in the last analysis, beneficial. Rousseau was convinced that Voltaire had written ''Candide'' as a rebuttal to the argument he had made.<ref name="A" />
Through his work, Voltaire criticized religious figures and philosophers such as the optimists Pope and Leibniz but endorsed the views of the skeptic [[Pierre Bayle]] and the empiricist [[John Locke]]. Voltaire was, in turn, criticized by the philosopher [[Jean-Jacques Rousseau]], who had been mailed a copy of the poem by Voltaire, who received a letter carrying Rousseau's criticism on 18 August 1756. Rousseau criticised Voltaire for seeking to apply science to spiritual questions and argued that evil is necessary to the existence of the universe and that particular evils form the general good. Rousseau implied that Voltaire had to renounce the concept of Providence or to conclude that it is, in the last analysis, beneficial. Rousseau was convinced that Voltaire had written ''Candide'' as a rebuttal to the argument that the former had made.<ref name="A" />


==Notes==
==Notes==
Line 101: Line 100:
| authorlink =
| authorlink =
| title = The Riches of Rhyme: Studies in French Verse
| title = The Riches of Rhyme: Studies in French Verse
| url = http://books.google.com/?id=d1grngiyK-YC&pg=PA208&lpg=PA208&dq=po%C3%A8me+sur+le+d%C3%A9sastre+de+lisbonne
| url = https://books.google.com/books?id=d1grngiyK-YC&pg=PA208
| year = 1988
| year = 1988
| publisher = Oxford University Press
| publisher = Oxford University Press
| location =
| location =
| isbn = 0-19-815853-X}}
| isbn = 0-19-815853-X}}
* [[Voltaire]]. "''The Lisbon Earthquake''" in ''Candide, or Optimism''. Translator Tobias Smollett. London: Penguin Books, 2005. ISBN 978-0-140-45510-6
* [[Voltaire]]. "''The Lisbon Earthquake''" in ''Candide, or Optimism''. Translator Tobias Smollett. London: Penguin Books, 2005. {{ISBN|978-0-140-45510-6}}


==External links==
==External links==
Line 116: Line 115:


{{DEFAULTSORT:Poeme sur le desastre de Lisbonne}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Poeme sur le desastre de Lisbonne}}
[[Category:Works by Voltaire]]
[[Category:French poems]]
[[Category:1756 poems]]
[[Category:1755 poems]]
[[Category:1755 poems]]
[[Category:1756 poems]]
[[Category:French poems]]
[[Category:Lisbon in fiction]]
[[Category:Works about philosophical pessimism]]
[[Category:Works by Voltaire]]

Latest revision as of 17:26, 25 September 2023

François-Marie Arouet (1694–1778), known as Voltaire, French Enlightenment writer and philosopher

The "Poème sur le désastre de Lisbonne" (English title: Poem on the Lisbon Disaster) is a poem in French composed by Voltaire as a response to the 1755 Lisbon earthquake. It is widely regarded as an introduction to Voltaire's 1759 acclaimed novel Candide and his view on the problem of evil. The 180-line poem was composed in December 1755 and published in 1756. It is considered one of the most savage literary attacks on optimism.[1]

Background[edit]

1755 copper engraving showing Lisbon in flames and a tsunami overwhelming the ships in the harbour

The earthquake of 1 November 1755 completely devastated the Portuguese capital Lisbon. The city was reduced to ruins, and between 30,000 and 50,000 people were killed.[1][2] One of the most destructive earthquakes in history, the event had a major effect on the cultural consciousness of much of Europe. Voltaire was one of many philosophers, theologians and intellectuals to be deeply affected by the disaster.[2]

The polymath Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and the poet Alexander Pope were famous for developing a system of thought known as philosophical optimism in an attempt to reconcile a loving Christian God with the seeming indifference of nature in disasters such as Lisbon. The phrase what is, is right coined by Alexander Pope in his Essay on Man, and Leibniz' affirmation we live in the best of all possible worlds, provoked Voltaire's scorn. He railed against what he perceived as intricate but empty philosophizing which served only to demean humanity and ultimately lead to fatalism.[citation needed]

The earthquake further bolstered Voltaire's philosophical pessimism and deism. The prevalence of evil, he argued, prevented the possible existence of a benevolent loving deity who intervened in human affairs to reward the virtuous and punish the guilty. He asserted instead that the disaster revealed the abject and ignorant nature of humankind. For Voltaire, people might well hope for a happier state, but to expect more was contrary to reason.[1]

Structure[edit]

Like many of Voltaire's other poems, Lisbonne consists entirely of rhyming couplets in continual progression. There are no stanzas dividing its 180 lines. Voltaire also included footnotes elucidating such terms as the universal chain and man's nature.

Theme and interpretation[edit]

Alexander Pope was a target of the poem as a result of his declaration "What is, is right"

Unlike the lighthearted satire of Candide, the Lisbonne poem strikes a pitying, dark, and solemn tone.

In his preface, Voltaire makes several objections to philosophical optimism:

'If it be true,' they said, 'that whatever is, is right, it follows that human nature is not fallen.
If the order of things requires that everything should be as it is, then human nature has not been
corrupted, and consequently has no need for a Redeemer.
...
if the miseries of individuals are merely the by-product of this general and necessary order,
then we are nothing more than cogs which serve to keep the great machine in motion; we are no
more precious in the eyes of God than the animals by which we are devoured.'

Arguing by reductio ad absurdum, Voltaire elaborates on the inherent contradiction in the dictum what is, is right. For if this were true, then human nature would not be fallen and salvation would be unnecessary.

He (Bayle) says that Revelation alone can untie the great knot which
philosophers have only managed to tangle further, that nothing but the hope of our
continued existence in a future state can console us under the present misfortunes;
that the goodness of Providence is the only sanctuary in which man can take
shelter during this general eclipse of his reason, and amidst the calamities to
which his weak and frail nature is exposed.

Voltaire shows his admiration of both Bayle, who was a skeptic, and Locke, who was an empiricist. In his footnotes, Voltaire argues the self-evidence of humankind's epistemological shortcomings, since the human mind derives all knowledge from experience, which cannot give us insight into what preceded it, nor what follows it, nor what presently supports it.

In the poem itself, grieving for the misery created by the earthquake and questioning whether a just and compassionate God would seek to punish sins through such cruelty, Voltaire argued that the all-powerful God Leibniz and Pope hypothesized could have prevented the innocent suffering of the sinners, reduced the scale of destruction, or announced his purpose of purifying mankind.[1]

And can you then impute a sinful deed
To babes who on their mothers' bosoms bleed?
Was then more vice in fallen Lisbon found,
Than Paris, where voluptuous joys abound?
Was less debauchery to London known,
Where opulence luxurious holds the throne?

He rejected the charge that selfishness and pride had made him rebel against suffering:

When the earth gapes my body to entomb,
I justly may complain of such a doom.

In the poem, Voltaire rejected belief in "Providence" as impossible to defend — he believed that all living things seemed doomed to live in a cruel world. Voltaire concludes that human beings are weak, ignorant and condemned to suffer throughout life. There is no divine system or message as guidance, and God does not concern himself with human beings, or communicate with them.[1]

We rise in thought to the heavenly throne,
But our own nature still remains unknown.

No matter the complexity, depth, or sophistication of philosophical and theological systems, Voltaire contended that our human origins remain unknown.

'Heav'n, on our sufferings cast a pitying eye.'
All's right, you answer, the eternal cause
Rules not by partial, but by general laws.

These lines refer specifically to the common rebuttal made by the optimists of the time as to the problem of evil. Although the presence of evil in the world is evident, human beings cannot understand the motions of God. The suffering in the earthquake played a part in the greater good somewhere else.

Yet in this direful chaos you'd compose
A general bliss from individuals' woes?
Oh worthless bliss! in injured reason's sight,
With faltering voice you cry, 'What is, is right'?

Voltaire draws attention to the assertion made by Alexander Pope in his An Essay on Man that 'What is, is right'. These lines contradict Pope's (and later Leibniz') Optimism.

But how conceive a God, the source of love
Who on man lavished blessings from above
Then would the race with various plagues confound
Can mortals penetrate His views profound?
Ill could not from a perfect being spring
Nor from another, as God is sovereign king;
And yet, sad truth! in this our world 'tis found
What contradictions here my soul confound!

Voltaire held a deep belief in the goodness and sovereignty of God as exemplified in the verses above. He takes a pessimistic view to the existence of evil, and stresses man's ultimate ignorance.

Mysteries like these can no man penetrate
Hid from his view remains the book of fate

Criticism[edit]

Through his work, Voltaire criticized religious figures and philosophers such as the optimists Pope and Leibniz but endorsed the views of the skeptic Pierre Bayle and the empiricist John Locke. Voltaire was, in turn, criticized by the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who had been mailed a copy of the poem by Voltaire, who received a letter carrying Rousseau's criticism on 18 August 1756. Rousseau criticised Voltaire for seeking to apply science to spiritual questions and argued that evil is necessary to the existence of the universe and that particular evils form the general good. Rousseau implied that Voltaire had to renounce the concept of Providence or to conclude that it is, in the last analysis, beneficial. Rousseau was convinced that Voltaire had written Candide as a rebuttal to the argument that the former had made.[1]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e f "Candide: Book Summary and Study Guide". Archived from the original on 2011-05-16. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
  2. ^ a b Scott, p. 208.

References[edit]

External links[edit]