DIDEROT DENIS: (1713-1784)

DIDEROT DENIS: (1713-1784) French philosopher, art critic and writer, a significant figure during the Age of Enlightenment. An extremely rare and important autograph manuscript, unsigned, seven pages, 8vo, n.p., n.d (c.1771), in French. The manuscript, written in Diderot’s small, neat hand, is entitled Satyre contre le luxe a la mainiere de Perse (‘Satire against luxury in the Persian style’) and takes the form of a dialogue between two characters, the first a sceptic of the times, not far removed from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, radical in his rejection of luxury and what it represents, and the second character one who judges that all is not so bad in the world as it is. ‘Vous jetez sur les diverses societes de l'espece humaine un regard si chargin, que je ne connais plus guere qu'un moyen de vous contenter: c'est de ramener l'age d'or’ (Translation: ‘You look at the various societies of the human race with such a distrustful eye that I can think of only one way of satisfying you: that is to bring back the golden age’) begins the second, and with spartan austerity, the former rejects all sweetness of life, ‘Vous vous trompez. Une vie consumee a soupirer aux pieds d'une bergere n'est point de tout mon fait. Je veux que l'homme travaille. Je veux qu'il souffre. Sous en etat de nature qui irait au-devant de tous ses voeux, ou la branche se courberait pour approcher le fruit de sa main, il serait faineant; et n'en deplaise aux poetes, qui dit faineant dit mechant’ (Translation: ‘You're wrong. A life spent sighing at the feet of a shepherdess is not entirely my doing. I want man to work. I want him to suffer. Under a state of nature which would fulfil all his wishes, or the branch would bend to bring the fruit nearer to his hand, he would be a faineant; and, with all due respect to the poets, who says faineant says villain’), and Rousseau’s name is naturally introduced, ‘Depouillez-vous donc; suivez le conseil de Jean-Jacques, et faites-vous sauvage’ (Translation: ‘Take off your clothes; follow Jean-Jacques' advice, and make yourself wild’) before the interlocutor sweeps aside the Voltairean irony and gives the subject a political twist, ‘Ce serait bien le mieux. La, du moins, il n'ya a d'inegalite que celle qu'il a plu a la nature de mettre entre ses enfants; et les forets ne retentissent pas de cette variete de plaintes, que des maux sans nombre arrachent a l'homme dans ce bienheureux etat de la societe’ (Translation: ‘That would be the best. Here, at least, there is no inequality except that which it has pleased nature to place between her children; and the forests do not resound with that variety of complaints, which countless evils wring from man in this blessed state of society’), the other attempts moderation and advocates a form of resignation to the order of things as it is, ‘Mon ami, aimons notre paitre; aimons nos contemporains; soumettons-nous a un ordre de choses qui pourrait par hasard etre meilleur ou plus mauvais; jouissons des avantages de notre condition. Si nous y voyons des defauts, et il y en a sans doute, attendons-en le remede de l'experience et de la sagesse de nos maitres; et restons ici’ (Translation: ‘My friend, let us love our pasture; let us love our contemporaries; let us submit to an order of things which might by chance be better or worse; let us enjoy the advantages of our condition. If we see any faults in it, and there undoubtedly are, let us await the remedy of the experience and wisdom of our masters; and let us remain here’), and then the other launces into a violent diatribe against corrupting money, ‘Rester ici, moi! moi! y reste celui qui peut voir avec patience un peuple qui se pretend civilise, et le plus civilise de la terre, mettre a l'encan l'exercise des fonctions civiles; mon coeur se gonfle, et un jour de ma vie, non, un jour de ma vie, je ne le passe pas sans charger d'imprecations celui qui rendit les charges venales. Car c'est de la, oui. c'est de la et de la situation des grands exacteurs que sont decoules tous nos maux. Au moment ou l'on put arriver a tout avec de l'or, on voulut avoir de l'or; et le merite, qui ne conduisait a rien, ne fut rien. Il n'y eut plus aucune emulation honnete. L'educatin resta sans aucune base solide’ (Translation: ‘To remain here, me! me! to remain here is to be the one who can patiently watch a people who claim to be civilised, and the most civilised on earth, auction off the exercise of civil functions; my heart swells, and one day of my life, no, one day of my life, I will not spend it without charging with imprecations the one who made the offices venal. For it is from this, yes. it is from this and from the situation of the great tax collectors that all our ills have arisen. At the moment when one could achieve everything with gold, one wanted to have gold; and merit, which led to nothing, became nothing. There was no longer any honest emulation. Education remained without any solid foundation’), further describing the deleterious effects of the race for wealth, the desire to possess more and more that leads humanity to its ruin, ‘L'elephant se gonfla pour accroitre sa taille, la boeuf imita l'elephant; la grenouille eut la meme manie, qui remonta d'elle a l'elephant; et, dans ce mouvement reciproque, les trois animaux perirent: triste, mais image reelle d'une nation abandonnee a un luxe, symbole de la richesse des uns, et masque de la misere generale du reste’ (Translation: ‘The elephant inflated itself to increase its size, the ox imitated the elephant; the frog had the same mania, which went up from it to the elephant; and, in this reciprocal movement, the three animals lost: sad, but a real image of a nation abandoned to a luxury, symbol of the wealth of some, and mask of the general misery of the rest’), as well as the corruption of the morals, the contempt for study, the disappearance of all decency being the consequences, ‘On rampa, on s'avilit, on se prostitua dans toutes les conditions. Il n'y eut plus de distinction entre les moyens d'acquerir. Honnetes, malhonnetes, tous furent bons’ (Translation: ‘We crawled, we debased ourselves, we prostituted ourselves in all conditions. There was no longer any distinction between the means of acquisition. Honest, dishonest, all were good’), the other then advances the argument that this luxury engenders the development of art and industry, ‘Mais ne vous rejouissez-vous pas de voir la debauche, la dissipation, le faste, ecrouler ces masses enormes d'or? C'est par ce ,oyen qu'on nous restitue goutte a goutte ce sang dont nous sommes epuises. Il nous revient par une foule de mains occupees. Ce luxe, contre lequel vous vous recriez, n'est-ce pas lui qui soutient le ciseau dans la main du statuaire, la palette au puce du peintre, la navette?’ (Translation: ‘But don't you rejoice to see debauchery, dissipation and splendour crush these huge masses of gold? It is by this means that we are given back drop by drop the blood from which we are exhausted. It comes back to us through a host of busy hands. This luxury, against which you recoil, is it not that which sustains the chisel in the hand of the statuary, the palette on the chip of the painter, the shuttle?’), but art is nothing if not compared by virtue, and again Rousseau’s austerity is expressed in its purest form, ‘Oui, beaucoup d'ouvrages, et beaucoup d'ouvrages mediocres. Si les moeurs sont corrompues, croyez-vous que le gout puisse reste pur? Non, non, cela ne se peut; et si vous le croyez, c'est que vous ignorez l'effet de la vertu sur les beaux-arts. Et que m'importent vos Praxitele et vos Phidas? Que m'importent vos Apelle? Que m'importent vos poemes divins? Que m'importent vos riches etoffes? Si vous etes mechants, si vous etes indigents, si vous etes corrompus’ (Translation: ‘Yes, many works, and many mediocre works. If morals are corrupt, do you think that taste can remain pure? No, no, that cannot be; and if you believe so, it is because you are unaware of the effect of virtue on the fine arts. And what do your Praxiteles and your Phidas matter to me? What do I care about your Apelles? What do I care about your divine poems? What do I care about your rich fabrics? If you are wicked, if you are destitute, if you are corrupt’) and this race for wealth goes so far as to call into question the survival of mankind, ‘O luxe funeste, enfant de la richesse! Tu detruis tout, et le gout et les moeurs; tu arretes la pente la plus douce de la nature. Le riche craint de multiplier ses enfants. Le pauvre craint de multiplier les malheureux. Les villes se depeuplent. On laisse languir sa fille dans le celibat. Il faudrait sacrifier a sa dot un equipage, une table somptueuse’ (Translation: ‘O fatal luxury, child of wealth! You destroy everything, both taste and morals; you stop nature's gentlest slope. The rich man fears to multiply his children. The poor fears to multiply the unfortunate. The cities are de-populated. His daughter is left to languish in celibacy. Her dowry would have to be sacrificed in the form of equipment and a sumptuous table’). Shaken by such a tirade, the former again attempts conciliation, ‘Voila, sans doute, un luxe pernicieux, et contre lequel je vous permets a vous et a nos philosophes de se recrier. Mais n'en est-il pas un autre qui se concilierait avec les moeurs, la richesse, l'aisance, la splendeur et la force d'une nation?’ (Translation: ‘This is undoubtedly a pernicious luxury, and one against which I allow you and our philosophers to protest. But is there not another that would be compatible with the morals, wealth, ease, splendour and strength of a nation?’) and the other pays lip service to it, and launches into an eulogy of agriculture, the basis of everything, via his goddess Ceres, and consequently into a social demand for the fate of peasants, ‘Ceres, les peintres, les poetes, les statuaires, les tapisseries, les porcelaines, et ces magots meme, gout ridicule, peuvent s'elever d'entre tes epis. Maitres des nations, tendez la main a Ceres; relevez ses autels. Ceres est la mere commune de tout. Maitres des nations, faites que vos campagnes soient fertiles; soulagez l'agriculteur du poids qui l'ecrase. Que celui qui vous nourrit puisse vivre; que celui qui donne du lait a vos enfants ait du pain; que celui qui vous vetit ne soit pas nu’ (Translation: ‘Ceres, painters, poets, statues, tapestries, porcelain, and even these magots, ridiculous taste, can rise from your ears. Masters of nations, extend your hand to Ceres; raise up her altars. Ceres is the common mother of all. Masters of nations, make your countryside fertile; relieve the farmer of the burden that crushes him. Let him who feeds you live; let him who gives milk to your children have bread; let him who calves you not be naked’). At the conclusion of the text he sketches out a possible synthesis in which luxury and virtue could be reconciled, ‘Ce luxe sera le signe d'une opulence generale, et non le masque d'une misere commune. Maitres des nations, otez a l'or son caractere representatif de tout merite. Abolissez la venalite des charges. Que celui qui a de l'or puisse avoir des palais, des jardins, des tableaux, des statutes, des vins delicieux, de belles femmes; mais qu'il ne puisse pretendre sans merite a aucune fonction honorable dans l'Etat; et vous aurez des citoyens eclaires, des sujets vertueux’ (Translation: ‘This luxury will be the sign of a general opulence, and not the mask of a common misery. Masters of nations, strip gold of its representative character of all merit. Abolish the venality of charges. Let him who has gold be able to have palaces, gardens, paintings, statutes, delicious wines, beautiful women; but let him not be able to pretend without merit to any honourable office in the State; and you will have enlightened citizens, virtuous subjects’). Diderot concludes on a pessimistic note, ‘Ou irai-je donc? Ou trouverai-je un etat de bonheir constant? Ici, un luxe qui masque la misere; la, un luxe qui, ne de l'abondance, ne produit qu'une felicite passagere. Ou faut-il que je naisse ou que je vive? Ou est la demeure qui me promette et a ma posterite un bonheur durable?’ (Translation: ‘Where will I go? Where will I find a constant state of happiness? Here, a luxury that masks misery; there, a luxury which, lacking abundance, produces only temporary happiness. Or must I be born or live? Where is the home that promises me and my posterity lasting happiness?’), and the first dismisses posterity, with resigned fatalism, as a preoccupation, ‘Vous etes un insense. Vous voyez trop loin. Qu'etiez-vous il ya quatre siecles pour vos aieux? Rien. Regardez avec le meme oeil des etres a venir qui sont a la meme distance de vous. Soyez heureux. Vos arriere-neveux deviendront ce qu'il plaira au destin, qui dispose de tout. Dans l'empire, le ciel suscite un maitre qui amende ou qui detruit; dans le cycle des races, un descendant qui releve ou qui renverse. Voila l'arret immuable de la nature. Soumettez-vous-y’ (Translation: ‘You're insane. You see too far. What were you four centuries ago to your ancestors? I was nothing. Look with the same eye at future beings who are at the same distance from you. Be happy. Your great-nephews will become what it pleases fate, which disposes of everything. In the empire, heaven raises up a master who amends or destroys; in the cycle of races, a descendant who raises up or overthrows. This is the immutable decree of nature. Submit to it’). Manuscripts of such important 18th century texts are of exceptional rarity and seldom appear on the market. Some light age wear and a couple of small, holes caused by dark singing to some pages, only very slightly affecting a few words of text. About VG Diderot’s rich manuscript raises a number of important moral, political and philosophical issues around the question of luxury. A pre-revolutionary critique of 18th century society takes shape, with the austere, spartan, accusatory figure of the man who condemns luxury, exposing the social injustice it covers up, and also condemning the corruption of morals and gallantry. The second character is more Voltairean. While admitting its excesses, he does not reject civilisation and its benefits outright. He can’t bring himself to accept art as nothing, even if it is, in the final analysis, the fruit of corruption. Part of the text’s strength lies in its ambiguity. It’s not easy to decide which side Diderot is on. Neither character is a direct spokesman for him, and Diderot himself seems to sway between the two positions.