**Assignment note** Pick one of the following three options to respond to. I'd like a relatively even split, but I won't force it this time. As always, make sure your name's evident, 200-400 words, due by 10pm Monday, January 31st.
I was going to simply quote William F. Bottiglia, but I like the summary of Bottiglia's contention made by Roy S. Wolper (both awesome names, by the way) in a 1969 article, "Candide, Gull in the Garden?" in Eighteenth Century Studies.
P. 265:
"Too much of the recent criticism of Candide has a magisterial certainty about it. William F. Bottiglia, whose long analysis is now considered 'fundamental and convincing,' believes that Voltaire 'ends by affirming that social productivity of any kind at any level constitutes the good life, that there are limits within which man must be satisfied to lead the good life, but that within these he has a very real chance of achieving both private contentment and public progress.' Bottiglia insists there is 'something wrong' with those whose conclusions differ from his own."
What say you? Agree, or is there "something wrong" with you? (Note: That's a joke... I really don't want a bunch of responses that simply say, "Bottiglia's right!" or accuse those of differing opinion to have some mental shortcoming. Disagree away... but convincingly!)
Bottiglia may in fact be right in his assessment of Voltaire’s ending. The cast of characters Candide meets in the story (excluding his companions and those characters meet in Eldorado) can be summed up as manipulative, self-centered, hypocritical; the list can go on for pages. Basically any evil or despicable word in the human language could apply to most of the people in this story. The one thing that every character shared was misery, whether it was dished out or received. The story sort of kills the notion in the reader that there are any truly happy people in the world of this book. No one appears to be even the slightest bit satisfied with anything. Of course the one exception is the people of Eldorado which is essentially disconnected from the rest of the world. I believe that Eldorado was presented merely as a utopian foil to the rest of the dystopian world presented. The Utopia of Eldorado seems too “perfect” for anyone to obtain, at least for a long period, shown symbolically when Candide returns to the dystopian world after his short stay. The question then arises that if a perfect world is unattainable (at least for long periods of time), then how does one avoid the constant misery that is presented in the “real” world. This is where the farmer at the end of the story comes in. Other than the people of Eldorado, the farmer and his family appear to be the only people in the dystopia that don’t carry the burdens of a miserable existence. Although the farmer does not have a perfectly happy life like those of the people of Eldorado, he and his family do seem to be content. His family is “socially productive”, they all help each other farm the land, and they send their harvest to the city. They also appear to have a private life, although they seem very open to strangers. They were the only people, other than those from Eldorado, whose kindness towards Candide and his companions did not turn to a backstab or greed. After meeting with the farmer, Candide and his companions pretty much begin to mirror the farmer and his family’s lifestyle. This seems to cause the perpetual misery that was their lives before to halt. Granted they don’t live a perfect life by any means but they seem to have found a happy medium.
ReplyDeleteCraig Naccari
ReplyDeleteVoltaire composes an entire work dedicated to satirizing all aspects of the world around him, from competing institutions to self-serving individuals. Bottiglia posits that he finishes this work which mocks absolutism, and, straight-faced, preaches some absolute theory for happiness. I don’t buy it.
Throughout the story, a myriad of thinkers present their views of the world as unwavering and resolute. Pangloss always arrives at the same, optimistic conclusion. Martin always arrives at his pessimistic antithesis, et ceteris. Although the final lines of the story seem to indicate some kind of boon has been bestowed on the group and wise philosophy has been offered as a guide to happiness, I see it as nothing more than another jest by Voltaire at the feeble attempts to characterize something so complex.
The story, like some of its contents, follows a very familiar pattern of heroic journey, and ends in typical fashion, with some knowledge gained which improves life. This too, seems like a satire on the image of a hero, and thus invalidates the lessons the hero learns.
Voltaire offering some guide to life would equate himself with the ridiculous characters in his story who also believed that they knew the secret to happiness. I do not believe he was so vain, but instead suggest that Voltaire used this ending as a remark on the toil of humanity and the despair into which it forces one: despair enough to settle for mundane, tedious life for the sake of escaping misfortune. The characters could only arrive at this conclusion via the unrealistic amount of suffering they endured. I don’t believe he suggested it as the ideal life. It was their path, not an absolute one.
Kelli Cortez
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bottiglia to a certain extent. I do not think that his analysis should be the last word on the interpretation of Candide, nevertheless I feel as if his conclusion does hold a basic grain of truth. I feel that with the way Voltaire decided to end Candide, he is definitely trying to say that hard work can, on some level, be the answer to “the good life.” However, the entirety of Candide was written as a satire, and I think that this final point could be yet another element of it. With the way that the story was presented, all of Candide’s misfortunes leading up to this last, succinct notion to finalize his entire adventure, it comes off quite hokey. To me, it seemed like this sort of catch-all that Voltaire used to, with one last punch, make even the hard working people look like fools. Voltaire presents the ideology of hard work and productivity as the answer to all of humanity’s misfortunes, and the delivery of this grand solution comes a little too last minute for me to really validate it as the overall moral or lesson to be learned.
Ryan Trull
ReplyDeleteI would argue that social productivity alone is a key component to creating 'the good life,' however we also require being surrounded by people that care about us and that we care about. Humans are a social species and as such have evolved certain mechanisms that cause us to be happier when we're around other people, and at the same time, we are generally happier when we manage to help someone out. Everyone will have some share of misery, it is inevitable because without misery, we would not know happiness. In truth, there is no way for any human to know no misery. Suffering is relative to what we already know. There is the extreme example like on “My Super Sweet 16” where we find out that the world is ending because a girl got the wrong type of cake for her sweet 16. This is because her life has been a breeze in every way so this is the only misery she knows.
I think the point Voltaire is really trying to get across is that doing hard work is a good way to get your mind off the negative, which in turn leads to a good life. In “Candide” and in real life we can see that people are 'content' when they're occupied. This can be seen best in the 'Utopia,' Eldorado, where everyone is constantly distracted. It's also seen by the idea that Voltaire uses the stories of other people to give us a break from the tragedy of our main character, Candide.
Leah Bourgeois
ReplyDeleteI believe that Bottiglia is right to a certain extent. I believe he is right by thinking that productivity of any kind at any level constitutes the good life, but I don’t believe in so much as it has to be social productivity. There are plenty people in the world that could be, and most are, perfectly content with their quiet lives, with their personal belief of what the good life is. For example, you don’t see Amish people moping around because no one sees the quilts they make every day nor do you see the mayor or leader of that Amish community sulk because no one knows what a great leader he is. In the world we live in, different people have different meanings for the good life.
I also agree with Bottiglia when he says “that there are limits within which man must be satisfied to lead the good life.” How I interpret this is basically don’t set your goals too high. I know that’s a bit pessimistic, but I believe he was trying to imply that if you set your standards or your dreams in life to a realistic level, you shouldn’t disappoint yourself. I know that there is that quote, “shoot for the moon because even if you miss you will land among the stars.” This day and age people have the opportunity to actually do that, but when Voltaire was around, unless you were royalty, there was no chance for you to become anything better than what your mother or father was. So yes I agree with this interpretation of Voltaire’s Candide.
Finally, Bottiglia states that “within these he has a very real chance of achieving both private contentment and public progress.” I believe he came to this conclusion because of Candide’s reaction to the farmer in the end. Candide notices that the farmer is content and happy with mundane, hard labor, and chooses to do the same and in fact, Candide finds enough contentment to stop worrying about the outside world and just work. The private contentment of the farmer gave him public progress from the recognition of Candide and his “family”.
The assertion Bottiglia is making is incorrect. He seems to be taking the most literal interpretation of the final chapter as the point Voltare is making with Candide. Why would Voltare bother to tell us a story of an optimist who is met with nothing other than misfortune simply to say that being preoccupied with labor constitutes fulfillment. Perhaps this is yet another way to mock a simplistic philosophy. Certainly a level of satisfaction can be achieved through toiling in the fields but is the completion of such a task more rewarding than the discourse our characters have treated themselves to throughout the text. It seems to me that this is the final evolution of Candide’s character. We have seen him maintain Pangloss’s philosophy during the most adverse situations until he finally accepts that Pangloss may be wrong. The final line “All that is very well,” answered Candide, “but let us cultivate our garden,” suggests to me more of a reluctant acceptance on Candide’s part that perhaps the psychology of man and truths of the world are too complex for any single philosophy to be correct. Certainly the words of Pangloss may echo Bottiglia’s interpretation, “which shows that may was not born to idle,” but to infer that the entire meaning of Voltaire’s work was embodied in a single line delivered by a character who at best can be regarded a fool seems absurd. Pangloss in particular shows absolutely no development during the story and never waivers from his original philosophy making it even more unlikely that his character would deliver Voltaire’s meaning in such concise form. I feel that Voltaire sought to expose the problems he had with the philosophies and organizations of his day while expressing a view that perhaps we should not lose sight of our place in reality while we ponder the greater purpose of our existence and the nature of the universe. I feel the words of the Dervish echo this sentiment, “When his highness sends a ship to Egypt, does he trouble his head whether the mice on board are at their ease or not?” Furthermore I assert that Voltaire encourages the contemplation of philosophy but condemns the steadfast adoption of a given philosophy. Were this not the case would he have bothered to present two opposing philosophies while contradicting both? No, what he is expressing is that neither view is correct. Obviously the optimism of Pangloss receives the brunt of the criticism but an argument can be made against Martin’s philosophy as well. Voltaire prefers Martin’s philosophy by populating Candide’s world with fools but if he truly wanted the reader to adopt such a pessimistic philosophy Candide would not have been readily received with open arms repeatedly through the story. Thus Bottiglia is correctly identifying that neither philosophy is being supported but incorrectly identifying the third choice as the option Voltaire meant for readers to adopt.
ReplyDeleteKathryn Martin
ReplyDeleteBottiglia’s conclusion is valid, but flawed. In the conclusion of Candide, the characters are settled at the farm, and are surrounded by people whom the like, admire, or, at least, do not dislike. Despite this, none of them are happy. According to Bottiglia, their discontent results from their lack of productivity. Candide and his companions spend their time gossiping, arguing and reminiscing. When each finds a purpose they are content. However, Cacambo worked in the garden and sold the vegetables he cultivated, and he still “cursed his fate” (121). If social productivity results in the good life, why was Cacambo unhappy?
Voltaire does seem to imply that hard work will make people content, but Candide is a satire. To accept the author’s words without analyzing their meaning leaves the reading unfinished. Another possible reason for this ending is to, once again, criticize optimism. Throughout all his trials Candide believes everything will be better when he is reunited with Cunegonde. What often aids people through their hardships is the hope that everything will be better later; there will be a “happy ending.” Voltaire denies his characters of a happy ending. Candide gains very little from his optimism. Voltaire ends by reaffirming the absurdity of optimism.
Danielle Rainwater
ReplyDeleteBottiglia makes an agreeable point in that living the “good life” correlates to Candide working in the garden. Throughout the whole book Candide is injected with optimism from his fellow philosopher Pangloss. Pushing this optimism aside whenever harsh realities would come his way, Candide always budged through to his next obstacle. Almost every bad situation that Candide was in, involved him being associated with someone who has a standing in society, high power, or great wealth. Candide’s first real incident is when he is kicked out of Thunder-ten-tronkch by the Baron and his prestigious family. He is soon enlisted into the army without much of his consent due to military recruiters. He escapes the military. Shortly thereafter he meets the Anabaptist who claims he can heal his friend Pangloss sick of syphilis, although “only” losing him an eye and an ear. In this short span of time it is apparent how much of Candide’s life is almost chosen or affected by other people. In the end, when Candide meets the farmer it is as though Candide and his fellow friends can decide their own future or “reap what they sew” by having their own farm. They ultimately opt for living the good and simple life by not getting involved in external affairs and risky high powered people.
Seth Pottle
ReplyDeleteI can’t say I disagree with Bottiglia, though I feel like his interpretation of the ending does not take into account the people that somewhat deviate from his definition of contentment, like Candide does in the end. Though Candide finally has all that he has wished for, he still seems to find unhappiness lurking in the shadows. After his travels, he sees now the folly of Pangloss’ optimistic philosophies, and cannot quite regain his once firm belief in his teachings. Yes, everything ends up alright in the end. But is it everything that Candide wants in the end? Not if he wants the beautiful Lady Cunegonde by his side in a palace full of riches in his own kingdom somewhere.
However, Candide never finds satisfaction where he went, not even in Eldorado, where nothing could be more perfect. Diamonds, gold, and rubies are mere playthings to the children of Eldorado. But, instead of deciding to settle down, Candide feels even more restless, wishing still to be with his beautiful Lady Cunegonde, and, therefore, his “limits,” as Bottiglia puts it, are clearly not met. So he continues his search for eternal happiness.
By the end of the story, Candide is more or less forced to create happiness and satisfaction from what he has. In this, he finds private contentment, though it is not 100% full.
Jason Richert
ReplyDeleteBottiglia’s feelings regarding the ending of Candide contain some valid points, though I found most of the assertions to be an overly optimistic view of Voltaire’s motives. Bottiglia’s idea of social productivity constituting the good life may be easily applied at the end of the story, depending on one’s idea of the “good life”. If one’s idea of the good life is living as a busy farmer, then it must be the case that social productivity constitutes the good life. But because no universal definition of the good life exists, social productivity alone cannot suffice for all to live the good life. This brings to light the fact that the group may not have been living the good life, but one of mere social acceptance or hiding.
The next key statement in Wolper’s summary is when he quotes Bottiglia, “that there are limits within which man must be satisfied to lead the good life”. This statement stands out to me as Bottiglia’s best, yet almost unintentional, description of Voltaire’s motives. I believe that Voltaire was trying to suggest that when man ventures beyond his limits, he finds himself in adverse situations more often than not. After enduring many struggles throughout the story, the group’s only option is to accept their limits and work the farm. The group settled on the farm only because it proved to be the least threatening place any of them had been, a potential good life. While Voltaire satirized the idea of universal order, he ended the story with the idea of accepted mediocrity experienced by many people.
I'm siding with Russell and Craig here, and Kathryn raised a good point by citing Cacambo's previous farming experience. Interesting.
ReplyDeleteAnd Leah, I see your quote, “shoot for the moon because even if you miss you will land among the stars” and raise you, "Listen, kids. You tried your best and failed miserably. Lesson is: never try." -Homer Simpson
ReplyDelete(Note that I don't ascribe to this philosophy.)