Montesquieu’s Myth of Depopulation

Montesquieu

In Montesquieu’s work Persian Letters, there is a discussion of the depopulation of the Modern world as compared to the Ancient world. This was at the time a common historical myth, but it is of interest in terms of what it tells us about how historical myths arise and become fashionable, even when their basis is paper thin or in fact non-existent.

Montesquieu was one of the first great writers and thinkers of that movement and period of European history called the Enlightenment. Montesquieu was born in France in a small town near the city of Bordeaux in 1689. He was a member of the nobility and published on writings on many subjects. He was also a traveller, who visited other countries including England. Montesquieu is best known for his great work The Spirit of Laws, (published 1748 C.E.) which set forth his vision of secular, law abiding and balanced government. To say that this book had an enormous impact is to understate its impact. It is virtually impossible to understand Enlightenment political and moral thought without reference to this book to say nothing of its impact on both American and French Revolutionaries. Montesquieu died after a short illness in 1755.

A book that serves has a sort of prelude to The Spirit of Laws, is the above mentioned Persian Letters that were originally published in 1721 C.E. This work is written in the form of an expository novel, (i.e., a novel written in the form of letters by various characters to each other), by two fictional Persian noblemen, Usbek and Rica, touring Europe to each other and various other characters. Despite its form it is not really a novel but an examination of European life, letters, society, mores and politics from the point of view of two fictional outsiders. The work is also a reflection of European attitudes towards the orient in the letters that describe the customs and practices of the “orient” as the fictional letter writers reflect on their own culture through reflecting on European culture.

Unfortunately while the insight on European culture etc is incisive and clever and brilliant at times, the insight into the “orient” is most of the time a collection of stereotypes and clichés of oriental despotism and harem sensuality and depravity that reflected both little real knowledge and virtually no capacity to see the point of view of the “other”.

The bottom line is that our two Persian Noblemen, Usbek and Rica are nothing more than thinly disguised Enlightenment philosophers and thinkers and not Persian, Muslim, Shia noblemen. Montesquieu is simply using “aliens” as a way of expressing his own ideas and giving himself a shield by which to deny that the ideas are really his own. After all Montesquieu could simply say if the ideas bother anyone, “What do you expect from two Saracen heathens?”

An indication of just how superficial was Montesquieu’s actual real knowledge of Persian culture and his efforts to get into the actual point of view of outsiders to European culture was superficial is the calendar that his Persians use. It is not the actual lunar calendar used by Muslims but simply the Gregorian calendar with Muslim names.1

Thus we can take it for granted that the opinions given by the two Persians are European opinions, put in the mouths of Persian characters and have little to do with the then opinions of actual Persians.

Thus we can take it for granted that letters 112-122,2 that lament the alleged depopulation of the world as compared to ancient times reflects a European intellectual fashion and historical myth at the time and does not reflect the interests of Persian or other Muslim thinkers of the time. This being the case both the idea and the arguments that follow in the letters are both purely European and purely reflections of Montesquieu’s own interests.

One of the characters, Rhedi, writes to Usbek and states that he is thinking about the following problem:

Why is it that the world is so thinly populated in comparison to former times? How is that nature has managed to lose the prodigious fertility that she had originally? Could she be already in old age, and failing from lack of strength?3

Of this is a straw question argument it was not demonstrated that the population of former times was in fact massively greater; it is here simply assumed. After raising this straw question to a mystery that probably never existed we get into some details.

Rhedi states that he as been in Italy for over a year and that the towns were empty and unpopulated and that ancient Rome had the population of a large kingdom. He claims that ancient Roman citizens had 10,000-20,000 slaves excluding their country estates and that the population of Rome was huge. Further Sicily once had a large population. He states that Greece had not one hundredth of the population it used to have and Spain is largely desolate and empty. Also France is depopulated in comparison to Gaul when Caesar conquered it. Further Turkey in Europe and Poland are under populated and America contains not 1/50th of the population it used to have. Asia Minor as only one or two great cities left when formally there were many and Persia it’s self as only a fraction of the population it had under Xerxes and Darius.4 As our writer says:

In a word, as I scan the earth, all I find is ruins; I seem to see it recovering from the ravages of plague and famine.5

About Africa our author says little because at the time little was known.6 But our author concludes:

After making as exact a calculation as is possible with this sort of subject, I have come to the conclusion that there is scarcely a tenth of the number of men on earth that there were in former times.7

The above description is a tissue of absurd assumptions and fantasies on Montesquieu’s part. That he was engaged pulling “facts" out of thin air is revealed when in various drafts of his Persian letters he replaced 1/50th with 1/10th and 1/100th with /50th and so forth.8

Not all of it is entirely fantasy by Montesquieu but the residue of fact underlying it all is just that a residue. For example the statement that Italian towns were empty is false in that we know that in 1700 C.E., there were more people in Italy than in 1600 C.E. Also on both dates the population of Italy was greater than under the Roman Empire. The residue of fact is that it is undoubtedly true that in 1700 C.E., the population of Rome was less than it was under the Roman Empire, although the absurd figures given at the time like 14 million for the city of Rome is nonsense and so is the figure of 1 million.9

After this we come to the reason why Montesquieu accepts these absurd figures. His reference to Roman citizens having huge numbers of slaves. Montesquieu accepts the absurd and frequently quite ridiculous figures given by ancient authorities, from Herodotus down who give figures, some times in the millions, for armies and other frequently absurd figures they simply pull out of thin air. Montesquieu accepts those figures and so of course concludes that ancient populations must have been much larger than modern ones.10

The statement for Sicily being depopulated. It does seem that Sicily at this time was economically stagnant but its population had not spectacularly declined.

Greece probably at this time had a population less than at its height in the 5th / 4th century B.C.E., however the idea it was just 2% that that figure is stuff and nonsense. Spain had experienced a significant decline in population during the 17th century but it was still much greater than in Roman times and further the decline was on the order of 10-20% not anything like 90-98%. Spain was also at the time Montesquieu wrote this in the process of recovery in terms of economy and population.11

As for France; the population was more than double what it was under Rome and further France had in the 17th and continuing throughout the 18th century significant indeed massive population growth.12

Poland was not experiencing a population decline or depopulation at the time and neither was Turkey in Europe.13

The Americas is the one area were significant, indeed spectacular population decline had in fact happened recently. Modern estimates are on the order of 80-95%, which is indeed truly spectacular. However it seems to have been mainly the result of disease, although, conquest, cultural shock and exploitation helped it along.14

As regards Persia, there can be little doubt that Persia c. 1700 C.E. had significantly more people than it did in 480 B.C.E.15

Since it appears that Europe in 1700 C.E., had significantly more people than when Rome was at its height;16 Montesquieu when in latter letters proposes answers to the question of why there is depopulation at least in Europe / Asia he answering a question that as not been posed by the facts.

Still the answers Montesquieu suggests are of interest.

In letter 113,17 Usbek, who in this letter is Montesquieu’s mouthpiece speculates that the human race was nearly whipped out by the Black death a few centuries earlier. This of course reflects the then common idea that the Black Death killed well over half the population of Europe, then it appears that the actual figure is more like 1/3rd. Montesquieu then speculates that the ravaging effects of syphilis may have had an effect in reducing the population. Interestingly Montesquieu speculates that the earth is more than 6000 years old here.

In letter 114,18 Montesquieu speculates that the Romans had a greater population than either modern day Christian and Muslim lands (this is false), because Christian lands limit or forbid divorce and Muslim lands practice polygamy. Montesquieu writes:

It seems to me that a Muslim is like an athlete doomed to compete without respite, who is weakened and overcome by is initial efforts, and languishes on the very field of victory, lying buried, so to speak, beneath his own triumphs.19

To Montesquieu the Muslim male with many wives, exhausted trying to satisfy them sexually, produces few and weak children. This says more about the sexual fantasies of Montesquieu and his milieu than anything else and can be dismissed as fantasy. Of course Montesquieu seemed to be unaware that the great majority Muslim men only had one wife and that the harems were women “always grow old there in a miserable state of virginity”20 were small in number and had only a few women over all in them.

In letter 115,21 Montesquieu suggests that the Romans by allowing their slaves to “marry” and in other ways encouraging the enterprise of their slaves encouraged them to breed. This of course presents far too rosy a picture of the actual situation of slaves in ancient Rome and again it is fallacious.22

In letter 116,23 Montesquieu states that among Christians the lack of divorce is stated to cause a lack of children due to people being unable to leave childless marriages so that the population suffered a decline. Montesquieu critiques the notion that marriage is something other than a contract. This is of course an obvious attack on the idea that marriage is a Sacrament. This is of course fallacious given that in Montesquieu’s day Europe was experiencing significant population growth.

In letter 117,24 Montesquieu claims that Christian countries because of the great number of Priests, Nuns and Monks, have taken people out of the marriage market and this diminished the population.

This career of chastity has annihilated more men than plagues or the most savage wars.25

Montesquieu is of course giving voice to the opinion, common among Enlightenment thinkers, that the various Church orders etc., were social and economic detriments and ought to be suppressed. Of course their actual effect on population was minimal.

Montesquieu then goes on to say that given that Protestant countries do not have this large number of chaste individuals that they are inevitably more populous and prosperous than Catholic countries. This is of course pure polemics with little to support it in reality.

Letter 118,26 talks about the slave trade and its disastrous effects on Africa. Montesquieu’s argument is that the effects of the slave trade have depopulated Africa. Montesquieu seems to think that Africans were transported to the New world mainly to work in the mines. This is not true. In Montesquieu’s time as later they were sent to the Americas to work on plantations. Further it is a debatable proposition that the slave trade had much effect on the population of Africa however much it was a human atrocity / tragedy.27

In letter 119,28 Montesquieu considers that ideas of ancestor worship, as in China, and hope for the future, as in Judaism, may be helpful in increasing reproduction. However the attitude that we are just travellers here, that life is unimportant, decreases effort and leads to population decrease.

We consider that we are travellers who should always be thinking of our other homeland; to us there seems to be something unjustifiable about doing useful, durable work, or making efforts to ensure security for our children, or planning for when our short and ephemeral life is over. We are calm about the present, unworried by the future, and do not take the trouble to keep our public buildings in good repair, or to clear waste ground, or to work tat land which is capable of being cultivated: we live in a state of general apathy. Leaving everything to be done by Providence.29

Although this comment is supposed to apply to the Muslim world only, and it also carries the old stereotype of the unchanging, fatalistic east, it is clear that it is meant to apply also to such attitudes in Christian Europe. Again it is not clear that this has much if any impact on population growth.

Montesquieu then critiques the common European practice of primogeniture, i.e., the practice of reserving the bulk I, if not the entire amount of a family’s inheritance to the eldest male child, and failing that eldest female child. Montesquieu contends that this discourages people from having children. Montesquieu seems to have it backwards. It seems to be the case that equal inheritance discourages people from having large families because in a situation of growing population this leads to property especially land becoming divided into smaller and smaller portions so families limit family size to prevent this. France in the 19th century was a classic example of this.30

In letter 120,31 Montesquieu contends that primitive hunter-gatherers have an aversion to work, and through the practice of abortions have low populations. Although Montesquieu admits that hunting etc., will support far fewer people he contends such people are frequently ravaged by famine. That is simply not true. As for Montesquieu’s statements about women having abortions to retain their looks that is a conceit of his own society like “savages” alleged aversion to work. Abortion before very recent times was highly dangerous and was generally a population control measure not to preserve looks.32

Letter 121,33 claims that colonization almost always never works and in many cases helps to depopulate a country. In the main Montesquieu as the example of the Spanish empire where because of plague and the effects of conquest the population was drastically reduced and even by 1700 had not recovered.

The Spaniards, giving up any hope of ensuring the loyalty of the conquered nations, chose to exterminate them, and to send out a loyal population from Spain; never has a wicked plan been more punctiliously carried out. A people as numerous as the whole population of Europe was seen to disappear from the earth at the arrival of these barbarians, whose4 only thought, in conquering the Indies, seems to have been to reveal to mankind the ultimate limits of cruelty.34

What Montesquieu is describing is the so-called Black Legend of the Spanish conquest of the New World. Rooted in the denunciations of the Conquest by Spanish writers like de Las Casas it was a propaganda tool used to attack Spanish imperial power in the 16th, 17th and 18th century. What is generally ignored in the legend was that the main cause of the depopulation was not Spanish cruelty or oppression but the unintended effects of epidemic diseases on the population. None of this means that Spanish conquest / rule was not accompanied by massive amounts of cruelty and oppression it just means that contrary to Montesquieu’s statement there was no deliberate intention to wipe out the natives an replace them with Spaniards. Montesquieu is simply engaging in agit-prop here.35

Over all Montesquieu’s point seems to be that colonies drain off population and are of no advantage to increasing the population. In fairness to Montesquieu, colonies especially when they were starting did tend to have high death rates, but subsequent history especially of the English colonies would reveal that Montesquieu was after all way wrong here. So Montesquieu’s advice that people stay home so the population can increase seems wrong, and it appears that in fact colonies have an over all impact of increasing commerce and development and increasing the populations of both the colony and mother country. The effects on the natives is often very negative however.36

Letter 122,37 describes that gentle methods of government combined with some degree of affluence encourage people to have children and that poverty creates a class of weak children who cannot survive. Basically Montesquieu argues that poor people do not have children because they cannot take care of them, whereas people with some affluence do have children.

Men are like plants, which never grow well unless they are properly cultivated; in nations stricken by poverty the species suffers, and sometimes even degenerates.38

Although Montesquieu makes some good points the fact of the matter is that why people have children is for a variety of reasons. In Europe until recently and still in much of the world people had little security in their old age except from relatives and especially their children. A poor old person with no children was in a very precarious position in 18th century Europe. Children were old age security. So not surprisingly even the poor would have children for economic reasons. People practiced family limitation at the time by a variety of methods because of economic constraints and tended to limit the number of children to those they needed for economic viability and their potential needs in old age. In the modern world having large families tends to be limited by economic security and by women being able to have input into decisions regarding their fertility. Montesquieu’s assumption that if people have affluence they will have more children seems to be at best a half truth.39

Montesquieu’s letters in regard to this problem provide a fascinating insight into the thoughts and ideas of the European Enlightenment, however it is still insight regarding a problem that never existed.

1. Montesquieu, Persian Letters, Penguin Books, London, 1973, pp. 301-302.

2. IBID, pp. 202-220.

3. IBID, Letter 112, p. 202.

4. IBID, pp. 202-203.

5. IBID, p. 203.

6. IBID.

7. IBID, pp. 203-204.

8. IBID, p. 326.

9. Finley, M. I., Ancient Slavery and Modern Ideology, Penguin Books, London, 1980, pp. 29-31, Ferdinand, Lot, The End of the Ancient World and the Beginnings of the Middle Ages, Harper Torch Books, New York, 1961, pp. 69-70.

10. IBID, Finley, and pp. 34, 45, 64-65, 79-80, Lot, and pp.63-75.

11. Elliott, J. H., Imperial Spain 1469-1716, Penguin Books, London, 1963, pp. 292-293, 364-370, McEvedy, Colin, and Jones, Richard, Atlas of World Population History, Penguin Books, London, 1978, pp. 99-101, 110-114. McEvedy and Jones give Greece a population of 2.5 million in 200 B.C.E., 2 million in 200 C.E., and 1.5 million in 1700 C.E.

12. IBID, McEvedy, pp. 55-60. McEvedy give France a population of 6.5 million in 200 C.E., and 22 million in 1700 C.E., with a total population of 29 million in 1800 C.E.

13. IBID, pp. 92-97, 110-114. The total population of Turkey in Europe was c. 10 million in 1700 C.E., as against a total of c. 6 million in 200 C.E.

14. See for example Stannard, David E., American Holocaust, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992, pp. 57-95, Cook, Noble David, and Lovell, W. George, Unravelling the Web of Disease, in Ed. Cook, Noble David, and Lovell, W. George, “Secret Judgements of God”, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1992, pp. 213-214, Denevan, William M., Native American Populations in 1492: Recent Research and a Revised Hemispheric Estimate, in Editor, Denevan, William, The Native Population of the Americas, Second Edition, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, 1992, pp. xvii-xxix.

15. McEvedy, pp. 152-155. The figures give Iran (Persia) a population of c. 4 million in 200 C.E., and a population of 5 million in 1700 C.E.

16. IBID, pp. 18-39. The figures give Europe a population of 36 million in 200 C.E., and 120 million in 1700 C.E.

17. Montesquieu, pp. 204-206.

18. IBID, pp. 206-208.

19. IBID, p. 207.

20. IBID, p. 207.

21, IBID, pp. 208-209.

22. Finley, pp. 93-122. See also Patterson, Orlando, Slavery and Social Death, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MASS, 1982.

23. Montesquieu, pp. 209-211.

24, IBID, pp. 211-213.

25, IBID, pp. 211-212.

26. IBID, pp. 213-214

27. McEvedy, pp. 213-217. See also Thomas, Hugh, The Slave Trade, Papermac, London, 1997.

28. Montesquieu, pp. 214-215.

29. IBID, p. 215.

30. McEvedy, p. 56.

31. Montesquieu, pp. 215-216.

32. Harris, Marvin, Cannibals and Kings, Vintage Books, New York, 1997, pp. 11-25.

33. Montesquieu, pp. 216-219.

34. IBID, p. 218.

35. See de Las Casas, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, Penguin Books, London, 1992, and the items listed in Footnote 14. I should point out that Spanish rule, sometimes, as in the island of Hispaniola was so brutal and destroyed the natives so effectively and completely that calling it deliberate or at least criminal negligence amounting to homicide is not far off. See Stannard, pp. 67-75, 200-206.

36. See Braudel, Fernand, The Perspective of the World, Harper and Row Pub., New York, 1984, pp. 392-401.

37, Montesquieu, pp. 219-220.

38. IBID, p. 220.

39. McEvedy, pp. 343-351.

Pierre Cloutier

Pragmatic Love

China c. 400 B.C.E.

In the Period of the Warring states in China, 772-221 B.C.E., there flourished in China a veritable explosion of Chinese Philosophy and letters. Including such Philosophies / Religions as Confucianism and Taoism, both of which have had an enormous impact on the west.1

Those however were just the two most successful schools of philosophy that arose during this time period. Another school that flourished during this time period was founded by a man called Mozi, (also Mo Tzu). He was born c. 470 B.C.E. and died c. 390 B.C.E. Mozi was born an artisan although he apparently served for a time as a Minister in the Court of the state of Song. He apparently was an extremely capable carpenter and loved to build mechanical devices, such as purely amusing gadgets and siege devices. He set up a school were he taught disciples things which he thought would aid them in becoming government officials. Mozi was also apparently much sought for his advice regarding fortifications and siege craft.2

We know that Mozi was greatly admired during his life time for his concern for people’s well being and for his earnest attempts to make peace between the warring Chinese states of his time. His belief in peace and his attempts to procure for others its blessings, as led many to call him a pacifist. This is an error as indicated by his teaching the arts of fortification and defence. Mozi had no trouble with the idea of defending oneself even with violence, and thought that refusing to defend oneself from unjust attack was simply foolish. Mozi’s philosophy was in many ways highly pragmatic. Despite that some of the ideas he had seemed very idealistic he always tried to ground them firmly in reality and utilitarian usefulness.

For example Mozi’s definition of the superior man is:

The way of the superior man makes the individual incorruptible in poverty and righteous when wealthy; it makes him love the living and mourn the dead. These four qualities of conduct cannot be hypocritically embodied in one's personality. There is nothing in his mind that goes beyond love; there is nothing in his behaviour that goes beyond respectfulness, and there is nothing from his mouth that goes beyond gentility. When one pursues such a way until it pervades his four limbs and permeates his flesh and skin, and until he becomes white-haired and bald-headed without ceasing, one is truly a sage.3

The above shows a combination of belief in both right action and right attitude. That both go together.

Mozi is best known for his belief in Universal Love. For Example:

Suppose everybody in the world loves universally, loving others as one's self. Will there yet be any unfilial individual? When every one regards his father, elder brother, and emperor as himself, whereto can he direct any unfilial feeling? Will there still be any unaffectionate individual? When every one regards his younger brother, son, and minister as himself, whereto can he direct any disaffection? Therefore there will not be any unfilial feeling or disaffection. Will there then be any thieves and robbers? When every one regards other families as his own family, who will steal? When every one regards other persons as his own person, who will rob? Therefore there will not be any thieves or robbers. Will there be mutual disturbance among the houses of the ministers and invasion among the states of the feudal lords? When every one regards the houses of others as one's own, who will be disturbing? When every one regards the states of others as one's own, who will invade? Therefore there will be neither disturbances among the houses of the ministers nor invasion among the states of the feudal lords.4

Thus Mozi argues for Universal Love on the grounds that such love puts an end to violence and enmity. In other words Universal Love is practical and utilitarian. The argument of the Confucians that Filial Love is especially praiseworthy is rejected on the grounds that such graduations of Love encourage enmity and lead to strife while Universal Love would lead to harmony. So Mozi says:

So, when there is universal love in the world it will be orderly, and when there is mutual hate in the world it will be disorderly.5

Further Mozi argues:

Now that there is disapproval, how can we have the condition altered? Mozi said it is to be altered by the way of universal love and mutual aid. But what is the way of universal love and mutual aid? Mozi said: It is to regard the state of others as one's own, the houses of others as one's own, the persons of others as one's self. When feudal lords love one another there will be no more war; when heads of houses love one another there will be no more mutual usurpation; when individuals love one another there will be no more mutual injury.6

Further Universal Love is very pragmatic for reasons of self preservation:

Whoever loves others is loved by others; whoever benefits others is benefited by others; whoever hates others is hated by others; whoever injures others is injured by others.7

Other benefits result from Universal Love:

Thus the old and those who have neither wife nor children will have the support and supply to spend their old age with, and the young and weak and orphans will have the care and admonition to grow up in. When universal love is adopted as the standard, then such are the consequent benefits. It is incomprehensible, then, why people should object to universal love when they hear it.8

Regarding Universal Love’s utilitarian aspects Mozi says:

Yet the objection is not all exhausted. It is asked, "It may be a good thing, but can it be of any use?" Mozi replied: If it were not useful then even I would disapprove of it.9

Mozi says in conclusion that:

…universal love is really the way of the sage-kings. It is what gives peace to the rulers and sustenance to the people. The gentleman would do well to understand and practise universal love; then he would be gracious as a ruler, loyal as a minister, affectionate as a father, filial as a son, courteous as an elder brother, and respectful as a younger brother. So, if the gentleman desires to be a gracious ruler, a loyal minister, an affectionate father, a filial son, a courteous elder brother, and a respectful younger brother, universal love must be practised. It is the way of the sage-kings and the great blessing of the people.10

Mozi was quite categorical in his condemnation of offensive war he compares it to stealing from another man and assault but says that although we condemn such acts:

…when it comes to the great attack of states, they do not know that they should condemn it. On the contrary, they applaud it, calling it righteous. Can this be said to be knowing the difference between righteousness and unrighteousness?11

Later Mozi states that is it not strange that the murder of one man is condemned as wicked but the murder of thousands is applauded. To Mozi that indicates the confused and absurd state of morals in the society of his days.12

Further offensive war is not pragmatic:

But men of Heaven are murdered, spirits are deprived of their sacrifices, the earlier kings are neglected, the multitude are tortured and the people are scattered; it is then not a blessing to the spirits in the middle. Is it intended to bless the people? But the blessing of the people by killing them off must be very meagre. And when we calculate the expense, which is the root of the calamities to living, we find the property of innumerable people is exhausted. It is, then, not a blessing to the people below either.13

In keeping with Mozi’s pragmatism he advocated a rational attitude towards expenditure and needs and condemned all excess.

Mozi said: Just so that on the side it can keep off the wind and the cold, on top it can keep off the snow, frost, rain, and dew, within it is clean enough for sacrificial purposes, and that the partition in the palace is high enough to separate the men from the women. What causes extra expenditure but does not add any benefit to the people, the sage-kings will not undertake.14

Needs must be tailored to actual moderate needs and not excessive extravagance, and so must the expenditures of the state. Taxes must be low and consumption moderate to satisfy actual not extravagant needs. Production must be only up to satisfy those needs and nor go into over production.

Again Mozi’s philosophy is pragmatic, commonsensical and geared to minimizing conflict and disharmony by what amounts to pragmatic self interest.

Mozi attacks the idea that elaborate funerals and extended mourning are good and virtuous He says:

…if in adopting the doctrine and practising the principle, elaborate funeral and extended mourning really cannot enrich the poor, increase the few, remove danger and regulate disorder, they are not magnanimous, righteous, and the duty of the filial son. Those who are to give counsel cannot but discourage it. Now, (we have seen) that to seek to enrich a country thereby brings about poverty; to seek to increase the people thereby results in a decrease; and to seek to regulate government thereby begets disorder. To seek to prevent the large states from attacking the small ones by this way is impossible on the one hand, and, on the other, to seek to procure blessing from God and the spirits through it only brings calamity. When we look up and examine the ways of Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, and Wu, we find it is diametrically opposed to (these). But when we look down and examine the regimes of Jie, Zhou, You, and Li, we find it agrees with these like two parts of a tally. So, judging from these, elaborate funeral and extended mourning are not the way of the sage-kings.15

It must be emphasized that in attacking elaborate funerals and extended periods of mourning Mozi was attacking deeply ingrained cultural rules concerning proper filial respect for one’s ancestors and relatives. As per usual Mozi’s reasons for urging simplicity and moderation of expenditures in funerals were pragmatic. Mozi was concerned that such things as extended periods of mourning and high funeral expenditure brought little or no benefit to the living.

Mozi believed that Heaven consecrates and determines the boundaries of a proper human life. And that:

…this does not exhaust my reasons whereby I know Heaven loves man dearly. It is said the murder of an innocent individual will call down a calamity. Who is the innocent? Man is. From whom is the visitation? From Heaven. If Heaven does not love the people dearly, why should Heaven send down a visitation upon the man who murders the innocent? Thus I know Heaven loves man dearly.16

Thus to Mozi even Heaven ordains his ideal of pragmatic love. And from this love Heaven punishes those guilty of murdering the innocent. For:

Be sure to do what Heaven desires and avoid what Heaven abominates. Now, what does Heaven desire and what does Heaven abominate? Heaven desires righteousness and abominates unrighteousness. How do we know this? Because righteousness is the standard. How do we know righteousness is the standard? Because with righteousness the world will be orderly; without it the world will be disorderly. So, I know righteousness is the standard.17

Thus Mozi declaims like a Hebrew Prophet. However notice the pragmatic calculus in the equation, the price of wicked behaviour is disorder the benefit of good behaviour is order. Thus righteous behaviour is inherently self serving and useful to oneself.

Further in his pragmatism Mozi goes very far indeed:

The policy of the magnanimous will pursue what procures benefits of the world and destroy its calamities. If anything, when established as a law, is beneficial to the people it will be done; if not, it will not be done. Moreover, the magnanimous in their care for the world do not think of doing those things which delight the eyes, please the ears, gratify the taste, and ease the body. When these deprive the people of their means of clothing and food, the magnanimous would not undertake them. So the reason why Mozi condemns music is not because that the sounds of the big bell, the sounding drum, the qin and the se and the yu and the sheng are not pleasant, that the carvings and ornaments are not delightful, that the fried and the broiled meats of the grass-fed and the grain-fed animals are not gratifying, or that the high towers, grand harbours, and quiet villas are not comfortable. Although the body knows they are comfortable, the mouth knows they are gratifying, the eyes know they are delightful, and the ears know they are pleasing, yet they are found not to be in accordance with the deeds of the sage-kings of antiquity and not to contribute to the benefits of the people at present. And so Mozi proclaims: To have music is wrong.18

Thus so long as injustice exists in the world music etc., is excessive and must be condemned, because those excesses are impediments to satisfying the drive for justice. This may be highly idealistic but it is also more than touched with a little inhumanity for doe not these pleasures aid in making life more endurable?

Mozi also accepted the idea that the spirits of the dead influenced the lives of the living, but he firmly rejected any doctrine of Fatalism because of its consequences:

If the doctrine of the fatalist were put to practice, the superiors would not attend to government and the subordinates would not attend to work. If the superior does not attend to government, jurisdiction and administration will be in chaos. If the subordinates do not attend to work, wealth will not be sufficient. Then, there will not be wherewith to provide for the cakes and wine to worship and do sacrifice to God, ghosts and spirits above, and there will not be wherewith to tranquillize the virtuous of the world below; there will not be wherewith to entertain the noble guests from without, and there will not be wherewith to feed the hungry, clothe the cold, and care for the aged and weak within. Therefore fatalism is not helpful to Heaven above, nor to the spirits in the middle sphere, nor to man below. The eccentric belief in this doctrine is responsible for pernicious ideas and is the way of the wicked.19

Again the idea that the way to judge the effect or even truth of some idea is its effects on people. Fatalism has disastrous effects on how people behave and so must be rejected.

Mozi rejected Confucianism mainly on grounds of it upholding contradictory doctrines and practices that are not conducive to proper conduct along with being absurd and tending towards extravagance and waste. For example:

Again, the Confucianist says: "The superior man conforms to the old but does not make innovations." We answer him: In antiquity Yi invented the bow, Yu invented armour, Xi Zhong invented vehicles, and Qiao Cui invented boats. Would he say, the tanners, armourers, and carpenters of to-day are all superior men, whereas Yi, Yu, Xi Zhong, and Qiao Cui were all ordinary men? Moreover, some of those whom he follows must have been inventors. Then his instructions are after all the ways of the ordinary men.20

Mozi said concerning what is the most valuable thing in existence:

Hence we say, of the multitude of things none is more valuable than righteousness.21

Much of the rest of the work of Mozi consisted of practical military advice. Such as defence against attack by tunnels and ladders and the use of pennants as ways of giving orders, how to give orders etc. All illustrating that for all of Mozi’s hatred and dislike of war he was no pacifist and he absolutely believed in the right to self defence.22

Mozi when he was discovered by Western experts on China in the 19th century was thought to be a precursor of Jesus. This was largely because of his passages condemning war and expressing the desirability of Universal Love. Yet in some respects the similarity is just a similarity. For example Mozi, ever the pragmatist, did not condemn all war but only offensive war. Of course he realized if there were few offensive wars there would also be few defensive wars; in fact few wars of any kind. He himself was an expert on fortifications and defence and advised the rulers of his day on those things. Further he believed in the right to self defence. Also his doctrine of Universal Love was pragmatic and prudential. He worked out that since people benefited from it in terms of prosperity and peace then it was good he explicitly said if people did not benefit than it was of no use.

Mozi’s attacks on then traditional morality regarding both filial pity, treatment of the dead and music are in some respects so practical and pragmatic has to have a decidedly inhuman aspect. Sometimes moderation is in itself immoderate and extreme.

In the end the Chinese although largely ignoring him for over 2000 years did carefully preserve his writings and although perhaps if we heed his message that Universal Love is not simply an airy abstraction but a concrete prudential, pragmatic and in effect selfish practical attitude we might get a little closer to getting along with each other.

In closing I give an example of Mozi the practical man of action

Gong Shuzi confessed to Mozi: "Before I saw you, I wished to take Song. Since I have seen you, even if Song were offered me I would not take it if it is unrighteous." Mozi said: Before you saw me you wished to take Song. Since you have seen me even if Song were offered to you, you would not take it if it unrighteous. This means I have given you Song. If you engage yourself in doing righteousness, I shall yet give you the whole world.23

Not many men can claim to have saved who knows how many of his fellow human beings from pain, suffering and death. That is probably Mozi’s greatest monument.

Portrait of Mozi

1. McNeill, William H., Rise of the West, University of Chicago Press, London, 1963, pp. 228-232, 309-313. For a comparison and contrast between Chinese and Greek Schools of Philosophical inquiry see Lloyd, G. E. R., Ancient Worlds, Modern Reflections, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.

2. Mozi, Wikipedia Here

3. Mozi, Mozi, Book I, Self Cultivation s. 3, Chinese Text Project at Here.

4. Mozi, Book 4, Universal Love I s. 4.

5. IBID, s.5.

6. IBID, Book 4, Universal Love II, s.3.

7. IBID. s. 4.

8. IBID, Book 4, Universal Love III, s. 3.

9. IBID, s. 4.

10. IBID, s.12.

11. IBID, Book 5, Condemnation of Offensive War I, s. 1.

12. IBID, s.2.

13. IBID, Condemnation of Offensive War III, s. 2.

14. IBID, Book 6, Economy of Expenditures II, s. 6.

15. IBID, Simplicity in Funerals III, s. 11.

16. IBID, Book 7, Will of Heaven II, s. 7.

17. IBID, Will of Heaven III, s. 2.

18. IBID, Book 8, Condemnation of Music I, s. 1.

19. IBID, Book 9, Anti-Fatalism I, s. 6.

20. IBID, Anti-Confucian II, s. 5.

21, IBID, Book 12, Esteem for Righteousness, s. 1.

22. IBID, Books 14 & 15.

23. IBID, Book 13, Lu’s Question, s. 22.

Pierre Cloutier

Voltaire’s Letters on England

Voltaire

Francois-Marie Arouet better known as Voltaire (1694-1778), was during his life time a well known poet, dramatist, essayist, short story, writer, historian and Philosopher and a tireless champion of many causes.1

In 1726 Voltaire in trouble with the French authorities fled to England where he lived for almost three years.

During that time he learned English and got to know many of the luminaries of the English literary scene, he also got to know the English political system rather well. After he return from England he wrote a short book about England and various philosophical issues called Lettres Philosophiques translated into English as Letters on England.2 Because Voltaire used England as a foil to criticize French social and political practice this work got him into trouble again and he had to go again into exile.3

In this work Voltaire uses the technique of writing in the form of expository letters to the reader on various issues and subjects and he starts with four letters on the Quakers, which he regards as a harmless if slightly cracked religious sect.

For example Voltaire states in Letter 1 that a particular Quaker does the following:

That is how our saintly man rather speciously manipulated three or four passages of Holy Writ which seemed to favour his sect, but with the best faith in the world he forgot a hundred that destroyed it.4

Thus giving a strong indication of Voltaire’s already strong dislike of religious fanaticism of all kinds. Voltaire then proceeds to talk about in subsequent letters about the origins of the Quakers and discusses in fair detail the life of William Penn the founder of Pennsylvania.5

Voltaire then discusses religious toleration in England, making an implied contrast with the significantly less tolerant attitude in France.

This is the land of sects. An Englishman, as a free man, goes to Heaven by whatever route he likes.6

Voltaire then very bluntly criticises French clergymen in contrast to the Anglican clergy of England.

When they hear that in France young men notorious for their debauches and appointed to bishoprics through the intrigues of women, make love in public, find fun in composing tender love-songs, give long and exquisite suppers every night, and then go straight to pray for the light of the holy Ghost and brazenly call themselves the successors of the Apostles, they thank God they are Protestants. But, of course, they are wicked heretics fit to be burned with all the devils, as Master Francois Rabelais says, and that is why I don’t get mixed up in their affairs.7

As Voltaire says regarding religion in England.

If there were only one religion in England there would be danger of despotism, if there were two they would cut each other’s throats, but there are thirty, and they live in peace and happiness.8

Voltaire also discusses the English Parliament and what he regards as English liberty:

No doubt liberty has only been established in England at a heavy cost, and the idol of despotic power has been drowned in seas of blood, but the English do not feel they have paid too high a price for good laws. The other nations have had no fewer troubles and have shed no less blood, but the blood they have poured out in the cause of their liberty has only cemented their servitude.9

In a subsequent section Voltaire compares the civil tumults in England with those in France and concludes that English ones at least had a point whereas the French ones were either farces or sordid struggles fro power. For example:

In the detestable times of Charles IX and Henri III the only question was whether one should be a slave of the Guises.10

Voltaire then discusses how the English Parliament works and indicates that he strongly approves of it.11

Voltaire contrasts the attitude of the English nobility with the French nobility’s attitude:

Yet I wonder which is the more useful to a nation, a well-powdered nobleman who knows exactly at what minute the King gets up and goes to bed, and who gives himself grand airs while playing the part of a slave in some Minister’s antechamber, or a business man who enriches his country, issues orders from his office to Surat or Cairo, and contributes to the well-being of the world.12

The rest of the letters talk about various aspects of life and literature in England, with Voltaire basically presenting to a French audience aspects English culture that most of his readers would know little or nothing about. After a brief letter about inoculation with smallpox,13 which Voltaire thinks is a good idea the rest of the letters are concerned, with one exception, with English, literary and Scientific figures, which Voltaire is introducing to his French audience.

Thus we have letters on Comedy and Tragedy.14 Other Letters on Francis Bacon, John Locke, Several letters on Isaac Newton.15 Some letters on the poets like the Earl of Rochester, Waller, and Pope.16 and a letter on English educational institutions.17

Even in the latter sections of this work Voltaire critiques French society as in this passage:

The English have even been reproached for going too far in the honours they award to mere merit. They have been criticized for burying in Westminster Abby the famous actress Mrs Oldfield with nearly the same honours that were paid to Newton. It has been suggested by some that they had effected to honour the memory of an actress to this extent in order to make us appreciate still more the barbarous injustice they reproach us with, namely of having thrown the body of Mlle Lecouvreur on to the garbage heap.18

At the time, in France, actresses with regarded as little better than street walkers, no matter how accomplished, and frequently even denied burial in cemeteries. Voltaire regarded such treatment and attitudes as simply scandalous.

The book ends with a letter, standing out like a sore thumb, on the French, Mystic, Theologian and Philosopher Pascal.19 It seems as if it was put in to pad up the book. It is also basically a polemic. Perhaps I will discus it another time.

In this rather engaging book Voltaire critiques his own society by describing another society. That being his purpose he largely ignores the failings of English society and government.

1, A complete listing of his output would be tiresome here are some samples, his plays Oepius, Irene, History of Charles XII, his stories Zadig, Candide, his Philosophical Dictionary, his poems The Maid (La Pucelle), Henriade. For good translations of his stories and novellas see Voltaire, Voltaire: Candide, Zadig and Selected Stories, New American Library, New York, 1961. For a short introduction to Voltaire’s philosophy see Durant, Will, The Story of Philosophy, Washington Square Press Inc., New York, 1952, Chapter 5, Voltaire and the French Enlightenment, pp. 199-252.

2, Voltaire, Letters on England, Penguin books, London, 1980, pp. 7-19, Voltaire, 1961, pp. vii-xiv.

3, IBID.

4, Voltaire, 1980, p. 29.

5, IBID. Letter 4, pp. 32-36.

6, IBID. p. 37.

7, IBID. 39.

8, IBID. p. 41.

9, IBID. p. 45.

10, IBID. p. 46.

11, IBID. pp. 47-50.

12, IBID. p. 52.

13, IBID. Letter 11, pp. 53-56.

14, IBID. Letters 18-19, pp. 92-100.

15, IBID. Francis Bacon Letter 12, pp. 57-61, John Locke Letter 13, pp. 62-67, Isaac Newton Letters 14-17, pp. 68-91.

16. IBID. Letters 21-22, pp. 103-114.

17, IBID. Letter 24, pp. 115-119.

18. IBID. p. 112.

19. IBID. Letter 25, pp. 120-145.

Pierre Cloutier