Baron d\'Holbach

M >> Max Pearson Cushing >> Baron d\'Holbach

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Frederick, however, hesitated to make his refutation public, and
wrote to Voltaire: "Lorsque j'eus acheve mon ouvrage contre
l'atheisme, je crus ma refutation tres orthodoxe, je la relus,
et je la trouvai bien eloignee de l'etre. Il y a des endroits
qui ne saurait paraitre sans effaroucher les timides et scandaliser
les devots. Un petit mot qui m'est echappe sur l'eternite du monde
me ferait lapider dans votre patrie, si j'y etais ne particulier,
et que je l'eusse fait imprimer. Je sens que je n'ai point du
tout ni l'ame ni le style theologique." [57:10] Voltaire, in his
"petite drolerie en faveur de la Divinite" (as he called his work)
and in his letters, could not find terms harsh enough in which to
condemn the _Systeme de la Nature_. He called it "un chaos, un
grand mal moral, un ouvrage de tenebres, un peche contre la nature,
un systeme de la folie et de l'ignorance," and wrote to Delisle de
Sales: "Je ne vois pas que rien ait plus avili notre siecle que
cette enorme sottise." [58:11] Voltaire seemed to grow more bitter
about Holbach's book as time went on. His letters and various works
abound in references to it, and it is difficult to determine his
motives. He was accused, as has been suggested, by Holbach's circle
"de caresser les gens en place, et d'abandonner ceux qui n'y sont
plus." [58:12] M. Avenel believed that he suspected Holbach himself
of making these accusations. Voltaire's letter to the Duc de Richelieu,
Nov. 1, 1770, [58:13] seems to give them foundation.

A very different reaction was that of Goethe and his university
circle at Strasburg to whom the _Systeme de la Nature_ appeared
a harmless and uninteresting book, "grau," "cimmerisch," "totenhaft,"
"die echte Quintessenz der Greisenheit." To these fervent young men
in the youthful flush of romanticism, its sad, atheistic twilight
seemed to cast a veil over the beauty of the earth and rob the heaven
of stars; and they lightheardedly discredited both Holbach and Voltaire
in favor of Shakespeare and the English romantic school. One would
look far for a better instance of the romantic reaction which set in
so soon and so obscured the clarity of the issues at stake in the
eighteenth century thought. [58:14]

The leading refutations directed explicitly against the
_Systeme de la Nature_ are:

1. 1770, Rive, Abbe J. J., Lettres philosophiques contre le
_ Systeme de la Nature_. (Portefeuille hebdomadaire de Bruxelles.)

2. Frederick II, _Examen critique du livre intitule,
_Systeme de la Nature_. (Political Miscellanies, p. 175.)

3. Voltaire, Dieu, Reponse de M. de Voltaire au _Systeme de la Nature_.
Au chateau de Ferney, 1770, 8 vo, pp. 34.

4. 1771, Bergier, Abbe N. F., Examen du materialisme, ou
Refutation du _Systeme de la Nature_. Paris, Humbolt, 1771,
2 vols., 12mo.

5. Camuset, Abbe J. N., Principes contre l'incredulite, a
l'occasion du _Systeme de la Nature_. Paris, Pillot, 1771,
12mo, pp. viii + 335.

6. Castillon, J. de (Salvernini di Castiglione), Observations sur
le livre intitule, _Systeme de la Nature_. Berlin, Decker, 1771,
8vo. (40 sols broche.)

7. Rochford, Dubois de, Pensees diverses contre le systeme des
materialistes, a l'occasion d'un ecrit intitule; _Systeme de la
Nature_. Paris, Lambert, 1771, 12mo.

8. 1773, L'Impie demasque, ou remontrance aux ecrivains incredules.
Londres, Heydinger, 1773

9. Holland, J. H., Reflexions philosophiques sur le _Systeme de
la Nature_. Paris, 1773, 2 vols., 8vo.

10. 1776, Buzonniere, Nouel de, Observations sur un ouvrage intitule
le _Systeme de la Nature_. Paris, Debure, pere, 1776, 8vo, pp. 126.
(Prix 1 livre, 16 sols broche.)

11. 1780, Fangouse, Abbe, La religion prouvee aux incredules, avec
une lettre a l'auteur du _Systeme de la Nature_ par un homme du monde.
Paris, Debure l'aine, 12mo, p. 150. Same under title Reflexions
importantes sur la religion, etc., 1785.

12. 1788, Paulian, A. J., Le veritable systeme de la nature, etc.,
Avignon, Niel, 2 vols., 12mo.

13. 1803, Mangold, F. X. von, Unumstossliche Widerlegung des
Materialismus gegen den Verfasser des _Systems der Natur_.
Augsburg, 1803.

Of these and other refutations of materialism such as Saint-Martin's
_Des erreurs et de la verite_, Dupont de Nemours' _Philosophie de
l'univers_, Delisles de Sales' _Philosophie de la nature_, etc.,
which are not directed explicitly against the _Systeme de la Nature_,
the works of Voltaire and Frederick the Great are the most interesting
but by no means the most serious or convincing. Morley finds Voltaire
very weak and much beside the point, especially in his discussion of
order and disorder in nature which Holbach had denied. Voltaire's
argument is that there must be an intelligent motor or cause behind
nature (p. 7). This is God (p. 8). He admits at the outset that all
systems are mere dreams but he continues to insist with a dogmatism
equal to Holbach's on the validity of his dream. He repeatedly asserts
without foundation that Holbach's system is based on the false experiment
of Needham (pp. 5, 6), and even goes so far as to ridicule the
evolutionary hypothesis altogether (p. 6). He speaks of the necessity
of a belief in God, by a kind of natural logic. God and matter exist
in the nature of things, "Tout nous announce un Etre supreme, rien ne
nous dit ce qu'il est." God himself seems to be a kind of fatalistic
necessity. "C'est ce que vous appellerez Nature et c'est ce que j'appelle
Dieu." At the end he shifts the argument from the base of necessity to
that of utility. Which is the more consoling doctrine? If the idea of
God has prevented ten crimes I hold that the entire world should embrace
it (p. 27). As Morley has said, such arguments could scarcely have
convinced Voltaire himself.

Frederick was surprised that Voltaire and D'Alembert had found anything
good in the book. His refutation was more methodical than that of
Voltaire, who called it a "homage to the Divinity" but wrote to D'Alembert
that it was written in the style of a notary. Two other refutations
emanating from the Academy of Berlin were those of Castillon and Holland.
The first of these is a very heavy and learned work, formidable and
forbidding in its logic. Castillon reduces Holbach's propositions to
three. The self-existence of matter, the essential relation of movement
to it, and the possibility of deriving everything from it or some mode of
it. Castillon concludes after five hundred pages of reasoning that matter
is contingent, movement not inherent in it, and that purely spiritual beings
exist in independence of it. Hence the _Systeme de la Nature_ is a "long
and wicked error." Holland's is a still more serious work, which the
Sorbonne recommended strongly as an antidote against Holbach's _Systeme_
which it qualified as "une malheureuse production que notre siecle doit
rougir d'avoir enfantee." But when it was discovered that Holland was a
Protestant his work was condemned forthwith, Jan. 17, 1773.

Bergier's refutation is interesting as an attack from a churchman of
extraordinary keenness and insight into the progress of the new
philosophy. In the _Systeme de la Nature_ he recognized the hand
of the author of _La Contagion sacree_ and the _Essai sur les prejuges_
and dealt with it as he did the _Christianisme devoile_. Buzonniere,
Rochfort and Fangouse are milder and more naive in their demonstrations
and their works are of no weight or interest. _L'Impie demasque_ is a
brutal work which qualifies Holbach as a "vile apostle of vice and crime,"
and the _Systeme de la Nature_ as the most impudent treatise on atheism
that has yet dishonored the globe--one which covers the century with
shame and will be the scandal of future generations.

The work of Paulian is of a different sort. Coming comparatively late,
it attempted to review the hostile opinions of many years and then mass
them in an overwhelming final attack on the _Systeme de la Nature_. To
this end Paulian rewrites the entire book chapter by chapter, giving the
"true version." He then reviews Holland's outline and Bergier's comments,
together with seven articles directed explicitly against the _Systeme de
la Nature_ in such works as the _Lettres Helviennes_, of Abbe Barruel,
_Dict. des Philosophes_, _Dict. anti-philosophe_, his own _Dict.
theologique_, etc., besides many other writings against the new philosophy
in general. He then reviews articles by members of the philosophic
school against materialism and then goes back to Holbach's sources,
Diderot, Bayle, Spinoza, Lucretius, Epicurus, etc. The work is not
scholarly but comprehensive and evidently discouraged further formal
refutations.

The _Systeme de la Nature_ had many critics in the stormy days that
followed 1789. Delisle de Sales found it a monstrosity--a _fratras_;
La Harpe called it an infamous book, "un amas de betises qu'on ose
appeler philosophie, inconcevables inepties, un immense echafaudage
de mensonge et d'invective"; M. Villemain is much more calm and fair;
Lord Brougham, like Damiron, Buzonniere, and many others, found it
seductive but full of false reasoning; Lerminier was so severe that
St.-Beuve was moved to defend Holbach against him. Samuel Wilkinson,
the English translator of 1820, is one of the few whose criticism is
at all favorable. Holbach has always appealed to a certain type of
radical mind and his translators and editors have generally been men
who were often over-enthusiastic. For example, Mr. Wilkinson says of
the _Systeme de la Nature_, [64:15] "No work, ancient or modern, has
surpassed it in the eloquence and sublimity of its language or in the
facility with which it treats the most abstruse and difficult subjects.
It is without exception the boldest effort the human mind has yet
produced in the investigation of Morals and Theology. The republic
of letters has never produced another author whose pen was so well
calculated to emancipate mankind from all those trammels with which
the nurse, the school master, and the priest have successively locked
up their noblest faculties, before they were capable of reasoning and
judging for themselves."

It seems unnecessary to analyze the _Systeme de la Nature_. This
has been done by Damiron, Soury, Fabre, Lange, Morley, the historians
of philosophy, and encyclopaedists; and the book itself is easily
available in the larger libraries. The substance of Holbach's philosophy
is susceptible of clearer treatment apart from it or any one of his
books, although it permeates all of them.

M. Jules Soury has said, in describing a certain type of mind: "Il
est d'heureux esprits, des ames fortes et saines, que n'effraie point
le silence eternel des espaces infinis ou s'aneantissait la raison de
Pascal. Naives et robustes natures, males et vigoureux penseurs, qui
gardent toute la vie quelque chose des dons charmants de la jeunesse et
de l'enfance meme, une foi vive dans le temoinage immediat de nos sens
et de notre conscience, une humeur alerte, toute de joyeuse ardeur, et
comme une intrepidite d'esprit que rien n'arrete. Pour eux tout est
clair et uni; ou a peu pres, et la ou ils soupconnent quelque bas-bond
insondable, ils se detournent et poursuivent fierement leur chemin. Comme
cet Epicurien dont parle Ciceron au commencement du _De natura deorum_,
ils ont toujours l'air de sortir de l'assemblee des dieux et de descendre
des intermondes d'Epicure."

Such was Holbach. His philosophy is based on the child-like assumption
that things are as they seem, provided they are observed with sufficient
care by a sufficient number of people. This brings us at once to the
very heart of Holbach's method which was experimental and inductive to
the last degree. Holbach was nourished on what might be called
scientific rather than philosophical traditions. As M. Tourneux has
pointed out, he had been a serious student of the natural sciences,
especially those connected with the constitution of the earth. These
studies led him to see the disparity between certain accepted and
traditional cosmologies and a scientific interpretation of the
terrestrial globe and the forms of life which flourish upon it.
Finding the supposed sacred and infallible records untrustworthy in
one regard, he began to question their veracity at other points.
Being of a critical frame of mind, he took the records rather more
literally than a sympathetic, allegorical apologist would have done,
although it cannot be said that he used much historical insight.
After having studied the sacred texts for purposes of writing or having
translated other men's studies on Moses, David, the Prophets, Jesus,
Paul, the Christian theologians and saints, miracles, etc., he concluded
that these accounts were untrustworthy and mendacious. He knew ancient
and modern philosophy and found in the greater part of it an unwarranted
romantic or theological trend which his scientific training had caused
him to suspect. It must be admitted that however false or illogical
Holbach's conclusions may be considered, he was by no means ignorant of
the subjects he chose to treat, as some of his detractors would have one
believe. His theory of knowledge was that of Locke and Condillac, and
on this foundation he built up his system of scientific naturalism
and dogmatic atheism.

His initial assumption is, as has been suggested, that experience
(application reiteree des sens) and reason are trustworthy guides
to knowledge. By them we become conscious of an external objective
world, of which sentient beings themselves are a part, from which
they receive impressions through their sense organs. These myriad
impressions when compared and reflected upon form reasoned knowledge
or truth, provided they are substantiated by repeated experiences
carefully made. That is, an idea is said to be true when it conforms
perfectly with the actual external object. This is possible unless
one's senses are defective, or one's judgment vitiated by emotion
and passion.

Holbach's contention is that if one applies experience and reason
to the external universe, or nature, "ce vaste assemblage de tout
ce qui existe"; it reveals a _single objective reality_, i. e.,
_matter_, which is in itself essentially active or in a state of motion.

From matter in motion are derived all the phenomena that strike our
senses. All is matter or a function of it. Matter, then, is not
an effect, but a cause. It is not caused; it is from eternity and
of necessity. The cardinal point in Holbach's philosophy is an
inexorable materialistic necessity. Nothing, then, is exempt from
the laws of physics and chemistry. Inorganic substance and organic
life fall into the same category. Man himself with all his differentiated
faculties is but a function of matter and motion in extraordinary
complex and involved relations. Man's imputation to himself of free
will and unending consciousness apart from his machine is an idle tale
built on his desires, not on his experiences nor his knowledge of nature.
This imputation of a will or soul to nature, independent of it or in
any sense above it, is a still more idle one derived from his renunciation
of the witness of his senses and his following after the phantoms of
his imagination. It is ignorance or disregard of nature then that has
given rise to supernatural ideas that have "no correspondence with true
sight," or, as Holbach expressed it, have no counterpart in the external
object. In other words, theology, or poetry about God, as Petrarch
said, is ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system.

Man is a purely natural or physical being, like a tree or a stone.
His so-called spiritual nature (l'homme moral) is merely a phase
of his physical nature considered under a special aspect. He is
all matter in motion, and when that ceases to function in a particular
way, called life, he ceases to be as a conscious entity. He is so
organized, however that his chief desires are to survive and render
his existence happy. By happiness Holbach means the presence of
pleasure and the absence of pain. In all his activity, then, man
will seek pleasure and avoid pain. The chief cause of man's misery
or lack of well being is his ignorance of the powers and possibilities
of his own nature and the Universal Nature. All he needs is to
ascertain his place in nature and adjust himself to it. From the
beginning of his career he has been the dupe of false ideas, especially
those connected with supernatural powers, on whom he supposed he was
dependent. But, if ignorance of nature gave birth to the Gods,
knowledge of nature is calculated to destroy them and the evils
resulting from them, the introduction of theistic ideas into politics
and morals. In a word, the truth, that is, _correct ideas of nature_
is the one thing needful to the happiness and well-being of man.

The application of these principles to the given situation in France
in 1770 would obviously have produced unwelcome results. Holbach's
theory was that religion was worse than useless in that it had
inculcated false and pernicious ideas in politics and morals. He
would do away completely with it in the interest of putting these
sciences on a natural basis. This basis is self-interest, or man's
inevitable inclination toward survival and the highest degree of
well-being, "L'objet de la morale est de faire connaitre aux hommes
que leur plus grand interet exige qu'ils pratiquent la vertu; le but
du gouvernement doit etre de la leur faire pratiquer."

Government then assumes the functions of moral restraint
formally delegated to religion; and punishments render virtue
attractive and vice repugnant. Holbach's theory of social
organization is practically that of Aristotle. Men combine in order
to increase the store of individual well-being, to live the good
life. If those to whom society has delegated sovereignty abuse
their power, society has the right to take it from them. Sovereignty
is merely an agent for the diffusion of truth and the maintenance
of virtue, which are the prerequisites of social and individual
well-being. The technique of progress is enlightenment and good laws.

Nothing could be clearer or simpler than Holbach's system. As
Diderot so truly said, he will not be quoted on both sides of any
question. His uncompromising atheism is the very heart and core
of his system and clarifies the whole situation. All supernatural
ideas are to be abandoned. Experience and reason are once for all
made supreme, and henceforth refuse to share their throne or abdicate
in favor of faith. Holbach's aim was as he said to bring man back to
nature and render reason dear to him. "Il est tempts que cette raison
injustement degradee quitte un ton pusillamine qui la rendront complice
du mensonge et du delire."

If reason is to rule, the usurper, religion, must be ejected; hence
atheism was fundamental to his entire system. He did not suppose
by any means that it would become a popular faith, because it
presupposed too much learning and reflection, but it seemed to him
the necessary weapon of a reforming party at that time. He defines
an atheist as follows: "C'est un homme, qui detruit des chimeres
nuisibles au genre humain, pour ramener les hommes a la nature, a
l'experience, a la raison. C'est un penseur qui, ayant medite la
matiere, ses proprietes et ses facons d'agir, n'a pas besoin, pour
expliquer les phenomenes de l'univers et les operations de la nature,
d'imaginer des puissances ideales, des intelligences imaginaires, des
etres de raison; qui loin de faire mieux connaitre cette nature, ne
font que la rendre capricieuse, inexplicable, et meconnaissable,
inutile au bonheur des hommes."

APPENDIX

HOLBACH'S CORRESPONDENCE

The following letters of Holbach are extant:

Holbach to Hume, Aug. 23, 1763.
Holbach to Hume, Mar. 16, 1766.
Holbach to Hume, July 7, 1766.
Holbach to Hume, Aug. 18, 1766.
Holbach to Hume, Sept. 7, 1766.

These were printed in Hume's _Private Correspondence_, London, 1820,
pp. 252-263, and deal largely with Hume's quarrel with Rousseau.

Holbach to Garrick, June 16, 1765.
Holbach to Garrick, Feb. 9, 1766.

These two letters are in manuscript in Lansdowne House,
Coll. Forster, and were published by F. A. Hedgcock,
_David Garrick et ses amis francais_. Paris, 1911, pp. 251-253.

Holbach to Wilkes, Aug., 1746, 9 (Brit. Mus. Mss., Vol. 30867, p. 14).
Holbach to Wilkes, Dec. 10, 1746 (Brit. Mus. Mss., Vol. 30867, p. 18).
Holbach to Wilkes, May 22, 1766 (Brit. Mus. Mss., Vol. 30869, p. 39)
Holbach to Wilkes, Nov. 9, 1766 (Brit. Mus. Mss., Vol. 30869, p. 81).
Holbach to Wilkes, Dec. 10, 1767 (Brit. Mus. Mss., Vol. 30869, p. 173).
Holbach to Wilkes, July 17, 1768 (Brit. Mus. Mss., Vol. 30870, p. 59).
Holbach to Wilkes, Mar. 19, 1770 (Brit. Mus. Mss., Vol. 30871, p. 16).
Holbach to Wilkes, April 27, 1775, 9 (Wilkes, _Correspondence_,
London, 1804, Vol. IV, p. 176).

The first seven of these letters are published for the first time
in the present volume, pp. 6-11 and pp. 75-80.

Holbach to Galiani, Aug. 11, 1769 (_Critica_, Vol. I, pp. 488 sq.).

Galiani to Holbach, April 7, 1770 (Galiani, _Correspondence_, Paris,
1890, Vol. I, p. 92).

Galiani to Holbach, July 21, 1770 (Galiani, _Correspondence_, Paris,
1890, Vol. I, p. 199).

Holbach to Galiani, Aug. 25, 1770 (_Critica_, Vol. I, p. 489).

There are references to other letters in _Critica_ which I have not
been able to find.

Holbach to Beccaria, Mar. 15, 1767, published by M. Landry
_Beccaria, Scritte e lettre inediti_, 1910, p. 146.

Holbach to Malesherbes, April 6, 1761 (hitherto unpublished). See
present volume, p. 30.

HOLBACH TO HUME
(Hume, Private Correspondence, London, 1820, pp. 252-263)
PARIS, the 23rd. of August, 1763

_Sir,_--
I have received with the deepest sense of gratitude your very kind
and obliging letter of the 8th. inst: favors of great men ought to
give pride to those that have at least the merit of setting the value
that is due upon them. This is my case with you, sir; the reading
of your valuable works has not only inspired me with the strongest
admiration for your genius and amiable parts, but gave me the highest
idea of your person and the strongest desire of getting acquainted
with one of the greatest philosophers of my age, and of the best friend
to mankind. These sentiments have emboldened me to send formally,
though unknown to you, the work you are mentioning to me. I thought
you were the best to judge of such a performance, and I took only
the liberty of giving a hint of my desires, in case it should meet
with your approbation, nor was I surprized, or presumed to be
displeased, at seeing my wishes disappointed. The reasons appeared
very obvious to me; not withstanding the British liberty, I conceived
there were limits even to it. However, my late friend's book has
appeared since and there is even an edition of it lately done in
England: I believe it will be relished by the friends of truth,
who like to see vulgar errors struck at the root. This has been
your continued task, sir; and you deserve for it the praises of all
sincere wellwishers of humanity: give me leave to rank myself among
them, and express to you, by this opportunity you have been so kind
as to give me, the fervent desire we have to see you in this country.
Messrs. Stuart, Dempster, Fordyce, who are so good as to favor me
with their company, have given me some hopes of seeing you in this
metropolis, where you have so many admirers as readers, and as many
sincere friends as there are disciples of philosophy. I don't doubt
but my good friend M. Helvetius will join in our wishes, and prevail
upon you to come over. I assure you, sir, you won't perceive much
the change of the country, for all countries are alike for people that
have the same minds.

I am, with the greatest veneration and esteem, sir, your most
obedient and most humble servant.
D'HOLBACH.
Rue Royale, butte St. Roch, a Paris.

HOLBACH To GARRICK
(Coll. Forster, Vol. XXI; pub., Hedgcock, p. 253)
PARIS, Feb ye 9th, 1766.

I received, my very Dear Sir, with a great deal of pleasure, your
agreeable letter of ye 24th of January, but was very sorry to hear
that you are inlisted in the numerous troup of _gouty_ people. Tho'
I have myself the honour of being of that tribe I dont desire my
friends should enter into the same corporation. I am particularly
griev'd to see you among the invalids for you have, more than any
other, occasion for the free use of your limbs. However, don't be
cross and peevish for that would be only increasing you distemper;
and I charge you especially of not scolding that admirable lady
Mrs Garrick, whose sweetness of temper and care must be a great
comfort in your circumstances. I beg leave to present her with my
respects and ye compliments of my wife, that has enjoyed but an
indifferent state of health, owing to the severity of the winter.
Mr and Made Helvetius desire you both their best wishes and so do
all your friends, for whom I can answer that every one of them
keeps a kind remembrance of your valuable persons. Dr. Gem thinks
you'll do very well to go to Bath, but his opinion is that a thin
diet would be more serviceable to you than anything else; believe
he is in the right. Abbe Morellet pays many thanks for the answers
to his queries, but complains of their shortness and laconism;
however it is not your fault. He is glad to hear you have receiv'd
his translation of Beccaria's book, _Des delits et des peines_ and
the compliments of our friend Dr Gatti to whom I gave your direction
before he went to London. Our friend Suard has entered his neck into
the matrimonial halter; we are all of us very sorry for it for we know
that nothing combin'd with love, will at last make nothing at all.

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8