Religion and War, Society's Evils: Candide, Chapters I - III

It was not difficult to notice the satirical elements in Voltaire’s Candide, which ridicules society and the principles of the universe, religion, and war that existed during the XVIth century. Like Gulliver’s Travels, Candide uses a lot of strange names which are very difficult to pronounce, such as the Baron of Thunder-ten-tronckh and metaphysico-theologo-cosmoloniglogy. I believe Voltaire decided to employ these complicated words in order to mock social pretensions and show that these were completely unnecessary and ridiculous for the development of mankind. Voltaire uses satire in order to appeal to society, especially the higher classes which were the only ones able to understand his humor, by taunting and undermining the ideas of war and religion that existed during that time.

Master Pangloss was instantly portrayed as a brute who taught metaphysico-theologo-cosmoloniglogy, a field of study too absurd to even make sense. During that time, many people used to believe that misfortunes and successes were attributed to God. Since no one could defy the word of God, every event that had taken place or was taking place was always perfect and the best outcome. Since an almighty God had created everything, nothing was useless and everything had a predefined purpose. “… there is no effect without a cause… ‘things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles.’” (Chapter 1). Individuals at that time could not accept the fact that something could be wrong, as God was the Creator and he never made mistakes. Human inventions were not made to cure a problem, but rather to exalt God’s beauty and perfection.

This innocent view towards life presented by Pangloss was adapted by Voltaire in order to deride the fact that war, massacres, and death were simply the effect of a cause, and that certainly this effect was always the best outcome.
“After passing over heaps of dying men, the first place he came to was a neighboring village, in the Abarian territories, which had been burned to the ground by the Bulgarians, agreeably to the laws of war. Here lay a number of old men covered with wounds, who beheld their wives dying with their throats cut, and hugging their children to their breasts, all stained with blood. There several young virgins, whose bodies had been ripped open, after they had satisfied the natural necessities of the Bulgarian heroes, breathed their last; while others, half-burned in the flames, begged to be dispatched out of the world. The ground about them was covered with brains, arms, and legs of dead men.” (Chapter 3).
An endless panorama of human suffering and cruelty is described to the reader in a very casual and careless manner. After all, every disaster is the best possible outcome for everybody. Voltaire uses pain, death, and destruction not only to reveal the horrors of war, but also to ridicule mankind’s view of life. He is trying to appeal to the society of his time by emphasizing the difference between a right and a wrong indirectly through the use of irony. Humanity is imperfect, death and suffering still occur, and it is up to us, not God or destiny, to determine what the best outcome actually is. We must rely on human disposition, not submission to religion, in order to judge and act according to what is right or wrong. “Never was anything so gallant, so well accoutred, so brilliant, and so finely disposed as the two armies. The trumpets, fifes, hautboys, drums, and cannon made such harmony as never was heard in Hell itself. The entertainment began by a discharge of a cannon, which, in the twinkling of an eye, laid flat about 6,000 men on each side.” (Chapter 3).

The universe does not revolve around theology. In fact, human goodness is not based on religion, either. Contrary to what was believed during the eve of the Enlightenment, one does not have to believe in the deity of the Pope or repeat the words of the Bible in order to be considered a good, pious person. As Voltaire depicted in his work, individuals were perceiving an erroneous image of God, where people and words were more important than actions, which actually demand a lot more of self-sacrifice and benefit a greater amount of people.
“‘Hark ye, friend,’ said the orator, ‘do you hold the Pope to be Antichrist?’
‘Truly, I never heard anything about it,’ said Candide, ‘but whether he is not, I am in want of something to eat.’
‘Thou deservest not to eat or drink,’ replied the orator, ‘wretch, monster, that thou art! Hence! Avoid my sight, nor ever come near me again while thou livest.’…
A man who had never been christened, an honest Anabaptist named James, was witness to the cruel and ignominious treatment showed to one of his brethren, to a rational, two-footed, unfledged being. Moved with pity he carried him to his own house, caused him to be cleaned… ‘I am infinitely more affected with your extraordinary generosity that with the inhumanity of that gentleman in the black cloak and his wife.’” (Chapter 3).
This passage not only makes a parody of the Bible by making the Catholic man speak like the apostles in the Gospels, but also proposes a secular life. As Candid said, eating, drinking, and staying alive are matters which need to be accomplished independent of whether or not someone is religious. Voltaire proposes a separation of the Church with everyday life, which, according to Candide, is not to be influenced by God-fearing people or ecclesiastical matters. The man with the black cloak that denied to aid Candide is actually a priest (I mean, who else would wear a black cloak?) who, ironically, denies to perform the function that has been assigned to him by God. On the other hand, Voltaire shows that a secular person can, in fact, be good and help other people, arriving to the conclusion that one does not have to be a devout Catholic in order to obey the will of God. Voltaire even goes to the other extreme, up to the point where his satire is used to condemn the clergy and, therefore, advocate a shift of values of the society of his time.