Welcome to your first module!
This one will take you slightly longer, because of the extra tasks (reading the syllabus, filling in the Intro Survey), and because we are reading a full text. This module should take you about 1.5-2 hours for the readings and 30 minutes for the lecture and exit ticket, so, a total of 2-2.5 hours, but you have two weeks to do so.
Here’s what you need to do this week:
- Read the Syllabus and Schedule (main menu). If you have any questions, please let me know!
- Please fill out the Intro Survey.
- Read from the Anthology
(Volumes 4, 5, and 6 are all in the same pdf, please see page numbers given):
– In Vol. 4: “Unit 1 – The Age of Reason ” (pp. 12-15) and “Voltaire” (pp. 405).
– Candide, by Voltaire, 1759 (full text – pp. 406-472) also available here. This is the first of the only two full texts we will read (read what you can, or get a summary and focus read one chapter carefully). - Watch the lecture below.
- Come up with one question about the readings and write it in the comments below: Has anything confused you? Struck you? Awed you? Revolted you? Interested you, in any way? We will use your questions for discussion in class.
NB: you can’t write the same question as anyone else that has already commented before you. - Fill out the exit ticket for this lecture so I can count your participation (this is due each week by 11:59pm the day before class).
Below is the downloadable transcript of this lecture:
Below are the downloadable lecture slides:
Wanna do more?
Here are some recommended extra sources:
- A cheesy (but helpful) crash course on Candide (visuals are good for memory): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJc9iprkVzg&ab_channel=CrashCourse
- More on the European Enlightenment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnoFj2cMRLY&ab_channel=CrashCourse
- A great podcast on Candide: https://www.writlarge.fm/episodes/candide
- The School of Life on Voltaire (a more psychoanalytical take): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAzKGkTIKpg&ab_channel=TheSchoolofLife
- The School of Life on why Candide says why we should cultivate our gardens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S22xeq8xxFQ&ab_channel=TheSchoolofLife
Feel free to write a second comment or reply to any of your classmates’ comments if you feel like saying anything else about the module content 🙂
I enjoyed reading Candide because of the tough journey that Candide has in life. I found it very interesting reading about his behavior and his perspective as Candide had everything at the start and then it was all taken away from him. I am also very interested in history and geography, so I enjoyed reading about Candide’s travels around the globe. This leads me to ask the question of, where in the world do you think Candide learned the most and was impacted the most?
Candide was very optimistic and had a very positive view on life and saw all events as “for the best.” As unfortunate situations occurred his mindset changed and he started to not see as all events or actions happen for the best. If these negative events never occurred or not as many negative events. would Candide be like the old optimistic self.
Thank you for your insightful comments, everyone! It’s wonderful to see you all engage with the text in such depth. I look forward to reading more over the next modules!
I was struck particularly by Voltaire’s ability to create an illusion, and then immediately strike it down with a mirthful irony. For example, “The Baron was one of the most powerful lords in Westphalia, for his castle
had not only a gate, but windows.” Wonderful writing.
As we know, Candide is a story driven by the idea of Deism, which generally hold that God made the universe, but then left it to run on its own. This serves to contrast to optimistic determinism, which holds that no matter what happens in life, it is all part of God’s plan and will end up good. Through its overt emphasis on death, gore, misfortune, and punishment, Candide struck me more as a text which showcases a hateful, spiteful God as opposed to one who does not care either way. Most certainly, the story would not make the same biting criticism Voltaire has for theories that oppose his own if he was to write it in a different manner, but is it fair to label Candide a truly Deist text when the essence of that belief is not one of active punishment from the Lord but rather passive disinterest? In my view, the story of Candide is carefully crafted to make a particular point and it does it well. However, in employing that opinion perhaps Voltaire lost sight of the true nature of his belief in an effort to either mock more intensely or create a more engaging narrative.
Hi Vaughan, thank you for your comment! I’m glad you enjoyed the wonderful irony of this text. You asked a very pertinent question, and I wonder if elements of answer could be found in the definition of Deism (at least, as Voltaire sees it): that God created the universe and then let it unfold without interfering, almost as a watchmaker would observe the mechanism ticking once it had been created. Whether God’s attitude to the world after its creation is passive disinterest or a will to trust humans with their own lives and see what happens, is unclear. I don’t know that the definition of Deism suggests one or the other. And of course, to even contemplate these possibilities, one would have to believe in God. Candide, the novel, reminds one of the Book of Job, where Job is tested through countless ordeals (similar to Candide’s) yet remains faithful and a believer in God. But having Candide end up like Job rather than changed through his ordeals would illustrate Leibniz’s optimistic determinism, that all destiny is written in advance and that there is no free will — precisely what Voltaire is mocking through Candide. Candide can be seen as a parody of the Book of Job.
Throughout Candide, terrible things kept happening to the characters: they were beaten, tortured, raped, mutilated, and killed (or nearly killed) by various methods. They also experienced war and natural disasters. Do you believe the sheer quantity of such things helped Voltaire’s argument against optimist determinism?
Throughout the novel, Pangloss was optimistic of everything that happen and view it as “the best of all possible worlds.” Candide believed in that at the beginning of the novel, but as he experiences a series of misfortunes, he refuses to believe that everything in the world is for the best. If Candide no longer believes in optimism, what is his philosophy at the end of the novel?
Candide went through several traumatic events and soon started to question Pangloss’s philosophy of the world. Candide can be viewed as a very gullible person and prone to being exploited multiple time. The actions that Candide committed, like killing, made me question his moral judgement. My question is, did Candide do it without thinking or by choice?
It was fascinating to see how Candide tackled his obstacles. From this novel, we can learn how much change and growth was emphasized on his characteristic and personality. The imagery was sharp, from Candide living in the castle of baron, to facing an earthquake. This was all as a result of being abandoned after being seen by him and Cunégonde romantically. They were separated but Candide was determined to find his way back to her. In the beginning of the novel, Cunégonde was mentioned of how beautiful she was but when Candide reunited with her, she was described as atrocious. I wonder if this has anything to do with the lesson and theme that Candide had learned, because he ended up marrying her in the end.
Candide is full of action! The moment something enchanting happened there was always something dark around the corner. In the first chapter, Candide and Cunegonde’s kiss is quickly followed by Candide’s banishment. In the fourth and fifth chapters Candide, Pangloss and James go from attending to mercantile affairs to immediately facing multiple natural disasters. In the eighth and ninth chapters, after Cunegonde and Candide finish catching up, Candide is forced to murder Don Issachar and the Grand Inquisitor. Why does Voltaire move so quickly from success or victory to tragedy? Does this swiftness have purpose beyond enhancing the satirical nature of the work?
That’s a really interesting question, Nicholas! The pace of a narrative often illustrates something about its meaning. In this case, it could be to enhance the dramatic and comic effect of having Candide jump from adventure to adventure and remaining unchanged at first (he diligently applies Pangloss’s optimistic determinism and thinks he is just being tested by God), until he finally realises that he has free will and can take his own actions. Exaggeration (of the quantity of misadventures that happen to him, of the places travelled to, of his reactions to those events, of the likelihood of Pangloss’s and Cunegondes’ reappearances, etc.) can definitely enhance the satire.
Throughout the novel, I noticed that Candide’s perspective and outlook on life shifted greatly; in the beginning, he thought that good and evil revolved around God’s plan, but by the end, he decided that maybe not everything is the “best of all possible worlds.” After acknowledging the change in Candide’s philosophy, my question is: if the events that Candide encountered never occurred, would he remain his optimistic self?
I learned a lot from this reading, such as how people lived and thought at that time. The description of war in the book made me refresh my understanding of war. I knew that war was cruel, but I didn’t know how soldiers treated ordinary people in war until I read this book. As for the main character in the book, Candide, my initial impression of him was that he was naive and foolish, easily trusting a person. He believed everything Pangloss said. As I continued to read, I felt that he was greedy, selfish and cruel because he killed three people and took a lot of wealth from El Dorado. It was only at the end that I felt Candide had grown as he began to act for a better life. One of the things that puzzled me in the reading was that Cunegonde’s brother had been opposed to Candide marrying Cunegonde. After everything Cunegonde’s brother had been through, why did he still adhere to the rules of the aristocracy?
What I noticed while reading the novel was that Voltaire did not affirm between optimism and pessimism. Through Candide, Voltaire felt that empty optimism was wrong rather than optimistic attitude itself. The novel asks again whether we have locked ourselves in the social line of being optimistic no matter how hard life is or just escaped with too easy pessimism just because it was hard.
Voltaire emphasizes that even if we cannot live in the best world, we should pay attention to our willingness and efforts to pursue it. Away from absurd optimism or too easy pessimism, Candide faces the reality itself in front of him. Fate lies, and nothing has been decided yet. All that is given is ‘now’, not fate. What does ‘our garden’ at the end of the novel symbolize? I interpreted it as our ‘fate’ to be nurtured by our life as a subject, a life of self-determination and dependence by reason.
Right until Chapter VIII I was under the believe that Candide was not capable of causing any harm whats so ever since he believed everything was ‘well in the best of all possible worlds’ and it was gods plan no matter what happened. But I was surprised to see how things took a shocking turn after knowing of Cunegondes’ journey and what she had been through. Makes me question if candide had a lack of personality and self-will before this, and in prior circumstances he reacted according to Pangloss ways, Whats this first own free will?
On their journey to Cadiz, Candide -based on the philosophical teachings he received from Pangloss-had the belief that “all goods are common and all men had an equal right to them” and thought the Grey Friar “ought to have left them enough for their journey”. Upon reading this, I realized why his name is Candide, he is quite naïve to believe that all men will do good and abide by their moral duty. My question then is, did the Grey Friar have a moral responsibility to leave them with enough goods for their journey? Why?
While reading the story I noticed that there was an emphasis on the amount of detail that is given. This was prevalent in the first few paragraphs where the narrator would give extensive detail so that the readers could visualize the story and place ourselves in that time. Overall the writing style was one that caught my attention very well and kept me wanting to read more. A question that I have after completing this text is what was the author’s goal with the writing style that was used? I find it extremely wonderful that the author was able to make the reading seem like a movie in my head. The close attention to detail was extremely interesting and made the story into a small reality that took place in my mind.
I realized that each character of importance to Candide came back from death. However, I could not understand what this might suggest or the lesson that can be learned from their reappearance. So my question is, how is the reappearance of Cunegonde and Pangloss important to the lessons that can be learned from Candide?
Comment by Anna Bieglarian (I am posting it myself due to tech issues):
“I thought it was fascinating how Voltaire almost managed to escape the “illusion” that surrounded him in regard to religion, our purpose in life, and who is in control of it by writing a novel that essentially mocks the general public for their preconceived notions. I also really like how he emphasizes, especially in Candide, that not everything in our lives is up to God and that we do have duties and influence over our future. I also found it interesting that despite how religion was used to push selfish, evil doings, he still kept his belief strong and was able to separate the actual religion from the way it was used against the people. Voltaire does explain how cruel people act, especially if they have their “God-willing authority,” such as hanging people, exiling them, burning them, and so on, for disagreeing with society or going against the majority, so my question would be if he, Voltaire, feels that human beings are inherently good or evil. Or rather which way would he be leaning more towards based on his philosophy?”