A Knock on the Door of Freedom and Individuality: Candide, Chapters XX - XXV

If everything that occurs in the world is always the best outcome, how can individuals know when something has a bad result? Can anything even be bad? If the term bad does not exist, does this mean that good is inexistent too? Is everything neutral, then?

“‘We are going to a different world,’ said Candide, ‘and I expect it is the one where all goes well; for I must admit that regrettable things happen in this world of ours, moral and physical acts that one cannot approve of.’” (p. 48).
Candide has been taught to perpetually hold an optimistic view about life and, therefore, learn to accept every outcome as the best possible result. His opinions about human existence form a one-way street that acts as the only alternative one can pursue in order to search for an explanation about the intricate ways of life. When holding an idyllic view of the occurrences that take place throughout one’s lifetime, an individual’s ardent desire to alter the course of events vanishes while simultaneously succumbing to the denial of a better reality. Value judgments disappear because, as Pangloss said, “‘… it is impossible for things not to be where they are, because everything is for the best.’” (p. 35). If this philosophy, although criticized by Voltaire, acts as the apparent truth the characters of Candide follow, how can Candide and his lady companions hold the prospect of finding a better reality? If Europe is the “best possible outcome” for its millions of inhabitants, how can a utopia such as the New World come into existence? How can two simultaneous realities defy each other if both of them offer the supreme alternative for our lives?

More important that these rhetorical questions is Voltaire’s purpose in writing such an absurd contradiction. Did the satirist mean to criticize man’s empiric mind during the Enlightenment and prove to the world that the millions of inferences one managed to make throughout the course of life formed an inconsistent view of events and reality? Did Voltaire want to illustrate man’s contending views on apparently reasonable theories and our contrary reactions when confronted with a real situation? Did the passage mean to criticize life in the XVIIIth century, or simply provide the reader with a rhetorical question in order to expand the meaning and ambiguity of the work?

As seen from the beginning of the work, Voltaire commits various, repetitive assails against the Catholic Church. For example, as T.S. Eliot, Voltaire included footnotes explaining certain fragments of the text: “Notice how exceedingly discreet our author is. There has so far been no Pope called Urban X. He hesitates to ascribe a bastard to an actual Pope. What discretion! What tender conscience he shows! (Voltaire’s note).” (p. 49). Despite the many attacks and criticisms of Catholicism, Voltaire does not forget to mention his “kindness” in producing soft, subtle attacks on the Catholic faith, attacks which may seem harsh and defying but that in reality are fairly soft when comparing them to the horrors and corruption of the Church. “The reverend fathers own the whole lot, and the people own nothing: that’s what I call a masterpiece of reason and justice. I don’t think I have ever seen such godlike creatures as the reverend fathers.” (p. 62).

The XXIst century has been characterized for the increased amount of sexual allure individuals project when attempting to commercialize a product or having the desire to have “fun”. Promiscuity has risen exponentially with the increase of human freedoms and the shift towards more liberal customs. These elements were certainly not present in the society of the XVIIIth century; however, Voltaire mentions continuous sexual assaults as a very popular way of having fun and spending leisure time. “That flower of maidenhood, which had been reserved for the handsome Prince of Massa-Carrara, was torn from me by the pirate captain, an odious negro, who even fancied he was doing me an honour… But that’s enough: such experiences are so common that they are not worth the trouble of describing.” (p. 51). Just as shocking as the widespread practice of rape is Cunégonde’s carefree reaction towards the loss of her virginity. The psychological horror of the entire experience left no scars on her personality; consequently, Cunégonde felt no regret and was able to continue on with her life. I don’t know whether Voltaire meant to illustrate the lack of honor and pride the individuals of his time reflected in their everyday lives, or whether the author of this satire was simply trying to arouse mankind to react against their meaningless, numb existence. Cunégonde’s lack of emotion and will to protest against a human injustice may be Voltaire’s way of calling our attention and making us realize that everybody is free to think and act as they want. Human will is a reality that must be continually enforced in order to preserve our individuality. In doing so, one’s wishes, desires, emotions, and points of view will be projected towards the world, acknowledging one’s capacity to think and act freely.