Candide by Voltaire

Source of book: I own this. 

This is one of those books that I probably should have read years ago. We read about it in high school, but I don’t think we read any excerpts. (Probably too racy for a Fundie curriculum...those crazy French authors!) I also didn’t own a copy until recently. I picked up a lovely hardback Easton Press edition at a recent library sale, which gave me the chance to read it. 

First published in 1759, Candide caused controversy and scandal from the outset. Although it was widely known that Voltaire wrote it, he used a pseudonym for plausible deniability. His publishers weren’t so lucky, and were hounded and prosecuted and bankrupted for their pains. Ah, the good old days, when government censorship was inescapable. (Actually, Candide was indeed Banned In Boston in 1929.) As is often the case with censorship, this only increased the book’s popularity, and it became one of the most widely read and translated works of its era. 

Candide was influenced by Jonathan Swift’s earlier work, Gulliver’s Travels, as well as other picaresque novels, travelogues, and coming-of-age stories of the time. The title character (whose name is a bit of a pun, like the other characters) grows up in relative luxury, raised by a nobleman, and taught by Dr. Pangloss, who subscribes to Leibniz’ philosophy that we live in the best of all possible worlds. When Candide tries some kissing on the baron’s daughter, he is evicted, and begins a series of tragic and ludicrous adventures, becoming more and more disillusioned. 

The story itself is highly unrealistic, shockingly bloody (although few actually end up dying like we think they have), and deliciously satirical. Voltaire takes on pretty much every institution of his time, but also a lot of beliefs - and the problem of evil. Religion, of course, is thoroughly skewered, which is one reason it was banned. But also, governments, the military, philosophers, and society get solid digs throughout. Hypocrisy isn’t hard to find, of course. 

Regular readers of English Victorian literature like myself tend to find French writers a bit...racy. The thing of it is that they assume a certain degree of female promiscuity as normal, and don’t have the obsession with virginity that English and American writers seem to. This book plays sex for laughs and horror. The main female character, Cunegonde, is raped in the second chapter, is kept as a mistress by both a Jew and a priest at the same time (shocking enough at the time), becomes the mistress of a Governor in South America, then a sex slave to a pirate, and finally ends up as the nagging wife of Candide. But at least she becomes a good cook. (It is hard to explain how funny that line is without the context.) 

The book is both very much of its time, yet with timeless satire. I can’t say all of it has aged well - the bit about the women taking monkeys as lovers feels like a racist jab at indigenous peoples, for example. But much more feels contemporary. After all, Voltaire points out the tendency of powerful men to rape and abuse women, or at least use and discard them. Greed and jealousy haven’t gone away either, nor has ludicrous class chauvinism. Human nature is still human nature. 

Speaking of that, Candide is forced into the Bulgarian military, but chickens out and hides during the brutal battle. Voltaire’s description of the aftereffects of the battle are unfortunately spot on:

He clambered over heaps of dead and dying men and reach a neighboring village, which was in ashes; it was an Abare village, which the Bulgarians had burned in accordance with international law. Here, old men dazed with blows watched the dying agonies of their murdered wives who clutched their children to their bleeding breasts; there, disemboweled girls who had been made to satisfy the natural appetites of heroes gasped their last sighs; others, half-burned, begged to be put to death. Brains were scattered on the ground among dismembered arms and legs.

As he flees this horror, he comes across a village that belongs to the other side, and the same thing was done by them. At this point, he is still clinging to the “this is the best of all possible worlds” philosophy, but it is getting harder. 

Soon afterward, Candide is reunited with Pangloss, who relates the sad fates of the baron and his household. (Although it turns out they aren’t all dead…) Pangloss looks like hell, and confesses that when Candide caught him “giving a lesson in experimental physics” to the maid, he caught syphilis. 

“My dear Candide! You remember Paquette, the maid-servant of our august Baroness; in her arms I enjoyed the delights of Paradise which have produced the tortures of Hell by which you see I am devoured; she was infected and perhaps is dead. Paquette received this present from a most learned monk, who had it from the source; for he received it from an old countess, who had it from a cavalry captain, who owed it to a marchioness, who derived it from a page, who had received it from a Jesuit, who, when a novice, had it in direct line from one of the companions of Christopher Columbus.” 

Voltaire is actually correct about this: it is generally agreed that Columbus’ crew brought syphilis back from the New World with them. But notice how many unspoken truths Voltaire puts in this one statement. Pangloss taking advantage of his position to seduce a maid, who had previously slept with a monk, who also did it with a countess. The randy countess did it with both clergy and military; the soldier was irresistible to multiple rich women, one of whom also had the hots for young boys. (A page would be from ages 7-14, typically.) That boy was infected after being raped by a priest, who got it by a chain back to Columbus. That’s a lot of morally and/or socially unacceptable relationships that were widely known to exist, but were not always talked about in public. 

Despite all this, Pangloss continues to cling to his philosophy. 

“It was all indispensable, and private misfortunes make the public good, so that the more private misfortunes there are, the more everything is well.” 

If you think this sounds a bit like Social Darwinism (which would come into vogue a century later), you are right. 

Candide is, through improbably circumstances, reunited with Cunegonde, only to find that she is dependent on selling her body to the Jewish merchant and the Inquisitor on alternating days. They both show up, and, jealous of finding Cunegonde in the presence of another man, try to kill Candide, who kills them instead in self defense. Cunegonde marvels that Candide, who is both mild mannered and incompetent with a sword, manages this. 

“My dear young lady,” replied Candide, “when a man is in love, jealous, and has been flogged by the Inquisition, he is beside himself.” 

That’s a laugh out loud line, and wouldn’t be entirely out of place in The Princess Bride. 

One of the watercolor illustrations from my Easton Press edition of the book, by Sylvain Sauvage.

There is a decent amount of gratuitous boobage, but what do you expect from a French artist?

The party flees to South America, where they end up in Paraguay. Candide’s servant, Cacambo (the most rational person in this crazy book), spent time there, and explains how things are. 

“Their government is a most admirable thing. The kingdom is already more than three hundred leagues in diameter and is divided into thirty provinces. Los Padres have everything and the people have nothing; ‘tis the masterpiece of reason and justice. For my part, I know nothing so divine as Los Padres who here make war on the Kings of Spain and Portugal and in Europe act as their confessors; who here kill Spaniards and at Madrid send them to Heaven; all this delights me…” 

Eventually, Candide meets another philosopher, Martin, who is the opposite of Pangloss. Martin is cynical and pessimistic about everything, which makes him as mockable as Pangloss. Here are a couple of exchanges:

“But to what end was this world formed?” said Candide.

“To infuriate us,” replied Martin.

I am reminded of the famous line from The Hitchhikers’ Guide to the Galaxy…

There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something even more bizarre and inexplicable. There is another theory mentioned, which states that this has already happened.

Later in the conversation, the naive Candide asks another question:

“Do you think,” said Candide, “that men have always massacred each other, as they do today? Have they always been liars, cheats, traitors, brigands, weak, flighty, cowardly, envious, gluttonous, drunken, grasping, and vicious, bloody, backbiting, debauched, fanatical, hypocritical and silly?”

“Do you think,” said Martin, “that sparrow-hawks have always eaten the pigeons they came across?”

“Yes, of course,” said Candide.

“Well,” said Martin, “if sparrow-hawks have always possessed the same nature, why should you expect men to change theirs?”

Near the end, Candide and Martin are the guests of Pococurante, a rich epicurean who is a critic of everything. Martin is just cynical, but Pococurante finds his “excellent taste” prevents him from enjoying nearly everything. After dismissing the classics of the time as mostly rubbish, Pococurante gives away his game:

“Fools admire everything in a celebrated author. I only read to please myself, and I only like what suits me.” 

I know a few people like that. Nothing against reading for fun - hey, I do it all the time! But to go through life unchallenged, only dabbling in what you already know and like, seems a tragedy. 

After all these crazy adventures, Pangloss, Candide, Martin, Cunegonde, and a few others they have picked up on the way, settle down on a bit of land in a sort of commune, and find some bit of contentment, if not exactly happiness. Martin urges everyone to work without arguing as that is the only way life will be endurable. Pangloss, despite admitting that he didn’t actually believe his own optimism, keeps on preaching it, claiming that all the horrors of the past were necessary for their current situation. Candide, finally older and wiser, ends the book by saying:

“‘Tis well said,” replied Candide, “but we must cultivate our gardens.” 

Candide is unlike any other book I have read, I must say. While clearly in the 18th Century style, it’s short episodes and rapid-fire plot contrast with the more wordy and rambling style of Swift and others. The book is short, but covers a bewildering amount of ground. All the wit and satire happens in such a rapid-fire manner that you can’t just whip through it - you have to stop and savor it. In a way, I was reminded of Mark Twain, who also used unexpected twists, improbable events, and razor-sharp satire throughout his work. 

***

Update: I got busy and completely forgot that I needed to add music to this! 

Back in the day, when I was a rookie violinist with the BSO, we had these summer pops concerts outdoors in the heat. We got a full rehearsal and a quick run-through before the concert, and that was it. We played 1812 Overture at the end with fireworks and stuff. 

Anyway, because literally everyone besides my brother and me had played the stuff a gazillion times, we got handed our music before the first rehearsal (we had a shot at 1812 because our teacher gave us parts to work on), and had to sight read Bernstein's Candide Overture. 

Total flop sweat time. 

We managed to make it through without playing in the rests, at least. Now, it doesn't seem as terrifying as it did back then, but I still remember that feeling of panic. Welcome to the big league, kid...

Some Troubling Comments on Covid-19 by Some Conservative Acquaintances

First, full disclosure. My wife is an ICU nurse, and she is thus on the front lines of this pandemic. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t worried for her safety, and for the wellbeing of my family. I don’t think those outside of the medical profession understand what a major pandemic means for people like us. For the most part, the people I will be quoting in this post are white, privileged, and not at risk. So I find it particularly disturbing when they spread both misinformation and - as I will note - veiled threats. 

***

While most of my friend list these days are rational people who accept science, seek the common good, and so on, there has been an increasingly troubling trend among my right-leaning acquaintances to take, um, interesting positions on things, particularly those in which the actions of a certain president (or party) might be seen in a bad light. This week, I saw a few posts which I left alone because I had no interest in getting into a fight, but that have really made me think and consider exactly what is going on here. I decided to write a bit about them, and why I think they are seriously problematic. Let’s start with one which is a 100% partisan issue. 

“We need to be honest and call it the Chinese/Wuhan Virus.”

This one comes directly from The Toupee Who Shall Not Be Named and his white nationalist advisers, but the GOP in general seems to be pushing this. There are several problems with this, so let me work through them one at a time. 

#1: It openly encourages racism and xenophobia

Il Toupee, pretty obviously, has a worldview which says that bad things come from “those people,” meaning non-Americans in general, but particularly people with darker skin. This has been obvious throughout his life, but on full display from the beginning of his campaign. In the most recent speech, he pushed (AGAIN!) for his wall, and blamed other countries. So, at minimum, this is part of a calculated play to rile up Trump’s xenophobic base - and stir up xenophobia and support for xenophobic policies. 

But it’s more than that in practice. Chinese (and other Asian) restaurants have seen business dry up. Incidents of hate and hate crimes against Asian Americans has increased. (I have a few friends who have experienced this first hand.) So this isn’t just of academic interest. It is an obstacle to seeing a pandemic virus as something we all have to come together and solve. If we are focusing on blaming the “other,” we miss an opportunity to collaborate. 

This has been obvious in the US response to the pandemic: refusing WHO tests, excluding foreign nationals while failing to screen citizens, and insisting until recently that the whole thing was a Chinese and Democrat hoax. 

#2: It misses that the virus could have originated anywhere

Throughout recorded history, viruses have jumped from animal species to humans. This is well documented. But even more than that, our very DNA shows strong evidence of cross-species transfer dating back to the rise of mammals. This is something that we humans have dealt with and will continue to deal with because it is fundamental to how life on earth works. Anywhere there is human/animal contact, viruses will jump. 

Not only that, but our modern situation makes this even more likely. As habitat destruction occurs, animals are forced into contact with humans. Likewise, as humans push into former wilderness, contact occurs. Climate change will also stir things up by changing ranges for various species, bringing them into contact with each other - and us. 

#3: It obfuscates the frightening parallels between China’s mistakes and ours

Trump fans - and Republicans in general - seem unwilling to see or admit the similarities between China and the United States. The whole “China is Communist, we are Capitalist, so we never make the same mistakes” is a strong ideology. Although beyond the scope of this post, China is far more capitalist than the American Right realizes. It is just unusual in that it is both totalitarian AND capitalist, which is a combination we are not used to. But it also makes the grave error to think that it is China’s Communist traits which were at fault. Rather, it was more broadly human failings - and the failings of a certain kind of politician specifically - that were at fault. 

Let’s look at the factors here that led to this:

Lack of regulations for food safety and animal contact

We need to be honest about this. Not too long ago, the US was every bit as vulnerable. (Read things like Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle for more on this.) 

But how much better are we? As a nation, our methods of raising meat are pretty lax compared to, say, Japan, or most of Europe. We have tens of thousands of animals crammed into tiny cages and kept in unsanitary conditions. We are an accident waiting to happen ourselves. 

Historically speaking, the most common nexus between humans and animals for disease has been poultry and pigs. And guess what? Which animals are raised in the factory farm way here in the US? That’s right: poultry and pigs. So it was really just chance (and the fact that China is a huge place with a lot of people) that led to this coming from China. It could easily have started here. 

And let’s also be honest about this: The GOP and Trump have been working to roll back regulations - including food safety regulations. So they are actually making it more likely that the next pandemic will originate here.

Political suppression of information

It is absolutely true that China suppressed information about the outbreak. It is also true that this was done for political purposes - to keep the Dear Leader from bad news. It is also true that China punished a whistleblower. 

It is also absolutely true that Trump did the same thing. That’s the problem with autocratic narcissists in power. Regardless of the economic or political system, they act in a predictable manner. When pandemics are involved, this causes problems. 

Republicans need to stop with this “blame China” thing and take a hard introspective look at how their policies, and their own Dear Leader are problematic and counterproductive in dealing with a pandemic.

#3: It misses a lesson of history

Have you heard of the “Spanish Flu”? Yeah, probably. That was our last deadly global pandemic, about 100 years ago. But did you know that the Spanish Flu did NOT originate in Spain?

That’s right:

The Spanish Flu did not originate in Spain.

The reason it is associated with Spain is that during World War One, Spain was a neutral country. Because of that, it had no incentive to suppress information about the flu, but openly reported infections and deaths. Unlike countries like the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and so on. They suppressed information because if they reported deaths, it might encourage the enemy. 

There are several hypotheses as to where the Spanish Flu originated. Some have proposed a British military base in France during the war. Others think Chinese laborers may have brought it. But there is also the possibility that it came from...wait for it...Kansas. A military base in Kansas. There is no definitive evidence, in part because we didn’t have tests, and much evidence wasn’t public at the time. 

In any event, the important thing here isn’t exactly where it originated as the fact that it could plausibly have originated anywhere - but the country that first went public got the blame. 

So, in summary, insistence on blaming China for the pandemic is counterproductive. It encourages racism and xenophobia, it ignores the common risk factors that the US shares, discourages collaboration, and misses the lessons of history. 

“The CDC is lying: the death rate is actually really low.”

There are some variants on this one, but the common thread seems to be the idea that the REAL problem is that this is being blown out of proportion, is not really a big deal, and that we should just go on with business as usual. Related to this is conspiratorial thinking that some combination of China/Democrats/the Media want to hurt Trump, and thus manufactured a crisis to tank the economy. 

Frankly, this is troubling. 

Let me tackle a few of the claims to show what is going on here. 

Because we haven’t tested that many people, the death rate is artificially high

It is true that we have tested very few people here in the US. This is actually really troubling to medical professionals and scientists, because it means that we likely have a ticking time bomb of infected people out there. 

Here is why the experts believe the death rate is actually a lot higher than the flu: there are countries who HAVE tested extensively, and have a pretty good idea about the rates. 

It is one thing to say China is still lying. (It’s plausible, although not certain.) It is another to say that ALL of the following countries are lying:

South Korea: has tested far more people by percentage of population than any other. It has also been successful at containing the outbreak by testing, tracing contact, and quarantines. Because of this, it has a huge body of evidence of the rates of serious complications and fatalities. South Korea is also a free country, and has no incentive to fabricate a pandemic. Also, because the US is a big trade partner, why would it try to destroy the US economy?

Taiwan: also has mostly contained things through testing, quarantine, and tracing. Also no friend of China, and depends on the US. 

Iran: has credibility problems, but it seems unlikely that it would fabricate a deadly pandemic in its own country. Also, we have satellite photos of mass graves. It seems like a stretch. 

Italy: In order to believe this is a hoax, you MUST believe that Italy is lying. That it doesn’t in fact have a healthcare infrastructure stretched past the breaking point, with some patients going without care, an overwhelmed funeral industry, and a high death rate. Why would Italy do that? It has no particular hate for the US, it is a free country, and no big friend of China. 

Spain: is in much the same place as Italy, with a disturbingly high death rate, and a higher testing rate than the US. Why would Spain be lying?

Great Britain: is arguably our closest ally, has a similarly incompetent and racist goofus as a leader, and is certainly not Communist. And yet, Britain too is showing a troubling infection and death rate, and is prepared for worse. Why would Britain be lying about that? 

So, to believe that this is somehow just an overblown media panic, you have to believe that ALL of these countries are in on the conspiracy. Really? 

And now, the most troubling of all:

“If this turns out to be overblown, people need to be held accountable.”

This one was shocking to me to hear, particularly from a legal colleague who should know better. 

I mean, WHO is he saying should be “held accountable” and how? 

Are we talking about suing the scientists who warned us? That’s the sort of thing that happens in totalitarian countries, not free democracies with free speech rights. Scientists should be free to give warning where they believe it is appropriate. And, in fact, this has been an ongoing issue with the Right, which is determined to discount any science that gets in the way of profit. From environmental regulation to climate change. I am concerned that the Right would prefer us to be more like China, where everything - including science - is expected to serve the regime and corporate interests. 

Also, let’s say that our drastic action actually works, and we shut down this pandemic. Do we punish the scientists because their advice worked? I mean, it’s hard to tell the difference between successful action and unnecessary action. (Although, you could look at the difference between South Korea and Italy in the actions and their results…) 

Okay, so maybe we don’t sue or prosecute scientists for this. Do we sue the media?

Again, this is what totalitarian regimes do. Not free democracies. But, again, note that Trump thinks (like totalitarians throughout history) that the press is “the enemy of the people.” That isn’t surprising. But to hear so-called conservatives argue for “holding the press accountable” is chilling. 

Again, let’s be honest about what this means in practice. We would be punishing the press for truthfully reporting what other countries are saying. (See above.) We would be punishing the press for reporting what scientists are saying. We would be punishing the press for failing to suppress information that is economically inconvenient. Think about that for a moment. 

Okay, so maybe we don’t punish the press. Maybe we just punish the elected officials who shut down schools and restaurants. 

This is at least not as politically chilling. We can vote out anyone we don’t like, and that is fine in the political sense. 

But think of this too: if a governor (or county government) makes a decision based on the scientific and medical information he or she has, why does that warrant punishment? Would we really prefer that all decisions be made based on the economy and the stock market? This is a lose-lose for elected officials and other decision makers. A pandemic doesn’t have a good result possible - either you leave everything open and let the disease spread or you shut things down and cause hardship. If given the choice, I would prefer that our leaders defer to science in areas in which science has the necessary information. I would certainly trust medical and epidemiological experts to have better advice than investment bankers when it comes to pandemics. And certainly more than a willfully ignorant narcissist who has a “gut feeling.” 

So, summary: it is unlikely that a dozen other countries are just making stuff up. This shit is real, and should be treated accordingly. And let’s stop already with talk of punishing the whistleblowers. That’s crazy, totalitarian talk, and is inappropriate in a democracy. 

We have a rough road ahead of us (particularly my wife and others on the front lines.) Let’s not make it worse with denialism, xenophobia, and calls to punish those trying to limit the damage.