F — Fraude
Original French
S’il faut user de fraudes pieuses avec le peuple?
Le Fakir Bambabef rencontra un jour un des disciples de Confutsée, que nous nommons Confucius, & ce disciple s’appellait Ouang; & Bambabef soutenait que le peuple a besoin d’être trompé, & Ouang prétendait qu’il ne faut jamais tromper personne; & voici le précis de leur dispute.
BAMBABEF.
Il faut imiter l’Etre suprême, qui ne nous montre pas les choses telles qu’elles sont; il nous fait voir le soleil sous un diamètre de deux ou trois piés, quoique cet astre soit un million de fois plus gros que la terre; il nous fait voir la lune & les étoiles attachées sur un même fond bleu, tandis qu’elles sont à des distances différentes. Il veut qu’une tour quarrée nous paraisse ronde de loin; il veut que le feu nous paraisse chaud, quoiqu’il ne soit ni chaud ni froid; enfin il nous environne d’erreurs convenables à notre nature.
OUANG.
Ce que vous nommez erreur n’en est point une. Le soleil tel qu’il est placé à des millions de millions de lis1 au delà de nôtre globe, n’est pas celui que nous voyons. Nous n’appercevons réellement, & nous ne pouvons apercevoir que le soleil qui se peint dans nôtre rétine, sous un angle déterminé. Nos yeux ne nous ont point été donnés pour connaître les grosseurs & les distances; il faut d’autres secours & d’autres opérations pour les connaître.
Bambabef parut fort étonné de ce propos. Ouang qui était très-patient lui expliqua la théorie de l’optique; & Bambabef qui avait de la conception, se rendit aux démonstrations du disciple de Confutsée; puis il reprit la dispute en ces termes.
BAMBABEF.
Si Dieu ne nous trompe pas par le ministère de nos sens, comme je le croyais, avoüez au moins que les médecins trompent toûjours les enfans pour leur bien; ils leur disent qu’ils leur donnent du sucre, & en effet ils leur donnent de la rhubarbe. Je peux donc moi Fakir, tromper le peuple qui est aussi ignorant que les enfans.
OUANG.
J’ai deux fils, je ne les ai jamais trompés; je leur ai dit quand ils ont été malades, Voilà une médecine très-amère, il faut avoir le courage de la prendre; elle vous nuirait si elle était douce; je n’ai jamais souffert que leurs gouvernantes & leurs précepteurs leur fissent peur des esprits, des revenants, des lutins, des sorciers; par là j’en ai fait de jeunes citoyens courageux & sages.
BAMBABEF.
Le peuple n’est pas né si heureusement que vôtre famille.
OUANG.
Tous les hommes se ressemblent; ils sont nés avec les mêmes dispositions. Ce sont les Fakirs qui corrompent la nature des hommes.
BAMBABEF.
Nous leur enseignons des erreurs, je l’avoue, mais c’est pour leur bien. Nous leur faisons accroire que s’ils n’achètent pas de nos clous bénis, s’ils n’expient pas leurs péchés en nous donnant de l’argent, ils deviendront dans une autre vie, chevaux de poste, chiens, ou lézards. Cela les intimide, & ils deviennent gens de bien.
OUANG.
Ne voyez-vous pas que vous pervertissez ces pauvres gens? Il y en a parmi eux bien plus qu’on ne pense, qui raisonnent, qui se moquent de vos clous, de vos miracles, de vos superstitions; qui voyent fort bien qu’ils ne seront changés ni en lézards ni en chevaux de poste. Qu’arrive-t-il? Ils ont assez de bon sens pour voir que vous leur prêchez une religion impertinente, & ils n’en ont pas assez pour s’élever vers une religion pure, & dégagée de superstition, telle que la notre. Leurs passions leur font croire qu’il n’y a point de religion, parce que la seule qu’on leur enseigne est ridicule; vous devenez coupables de tous les vices dans lesquels ils se plongent.
BAMBABEF.
Point du tout, car nous ne leur enseignons qu’une bonne morale.
OUANG.
Vous vous feriez lapider par le peuple, si vous lui enseigniez une morale impure. Les hommes sont faits de façon, qu'ils veulent bien commettre le mal, mais ils ne veulent pas qu’on le leur prêche. Il faudrait seulement ne point mêler une morale sage avec des fables absurdes, parce que vous affaiblissez par vos impostures, dont vous pouriez vous passer, cette morale que vous êtes forcés d’enseigner.
BAMBABEF.
Quoi! vous croyez qu’on peut enseigner la vérité au peuple sans la soutenir par des fables.
OUANG.
Je le crois fermement. Nos lettrés sont de la même pâte que nos tailleurs, nos tisserands, & nos laboureurs. Ils adorent un Dieu créateur, rémunérateur, & vengeur. Ils ne souillent leur culte, ni par des systêmes absurdes, ni par des cérémonies extravagantes; & il y a bien moins de crimes parmi les lettrés que parmi le peuple. Pourquoi ne pas daigner instruire nos ouvriers comme nous instruisons nos lettrés?
BAMBABEF.
Vous feriez une grande sottise; c’est comme si vous vouliez qu’ils eussent la même politesse, qu’ils fussent jurisconsultes; cela n’est ni possible ni convenable. Il faut du pain blanc pour les maîtres, & du pain bis pour les domestiques.
OUANG:
J'avoue que tous les hommes ne doivent pas avoir la même science; mais il y a des choses nécessaires à tous. Il est nécessaire que chacun soit juste; & la plus sûre manière d’inspirer la justice à tous les hommes, c’est de leur inspirer la religion sans superstition.
BAMBABEF.
C’est un beau projet; mais il est impraticable. Pensez-vous qu’il suffise aux hommes de croire un Dieu qui punit & qui récompense? Vous m’avez dit qu’il arrive souvent que les plus déliés d’entre le peuple se révoltent contre mes fables; ils se révolteront de même contre vôtre vérité; ils diront: Qui m’assurera que Dieu punit & récompense? où en est la preuve? Quelle mission avez-vous? Quel miracle avez-vous fait pour que je vous croye? Ils se moqueront de vous bien plus que de moi.
OUANG.
Voilà où est vôtre erreur. Vous vous imaginez qu’on secouera le joug d’une idée honnête, vraisemblable, utile à tout le monde, d’une idée dont la raison humaine est d’accord, parce qu’on rejette des choses malhonnêtes, absurdes, inutiles, dangereuses, qui font frémir le bon sens?
Le peuple est très disposé à croire ses magistrats: quand ses magistrats ne leur proposent qu’une créance raisonnable, ils l’embrassent volontiers. On n’a point besoin de prodiges pour croire un Dieu juste, qui lit dans le cœur de l’homme; cette idée est trop naturelle pour être combatue. Il n’est pas nécessaire de dire précisément comment Dieu punira & récompensera; il sufit qu’on croye à sa justice. Je vous assure que j’ai vû des villes entiéres qui n’avaient presque point d’autres dogmes, & que ce sont celles où j’ai vû le plus de vertu.
BAMBABEF.
Prenez garde; vous trouverez dans ces villes des philosophes qui vous nieront & les peines & les récompenses.
OUANG.
Vous m’avoüerez que ces Philosophes nieront bien plus fortement vos inventions; ainsi vous ne gagnez rien par là. Quand il y aurait des philosophes qui ne conviendraient pas de mes principes, ils n’en seraient pas moins gens de bien; ils n’en cultiveraient pas moins la vertu, qui doit être embrassée par amour, & non par crainte. Mais de plus je vous soutiens qu’aucun philosophe ne serait jamais assuré que la providence ne réserve pas des peines aux méchants & des récompenses aux bons; car s’ils me demandent qui m’a dit que Dieu punit? je leur demanderai qui leur a dit que Dieu ne punit pas? Enfin je vous soutiens que les philosophes m’aideront, loin de me contredire. Voulez-vous être Philosophe?
BAMBABEF.
Volontiers; mais ne le dites pas aux Fakirs.
1 Un lis est de 124 pas.
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation of the 73 articles in the 1764 first edition, made directly from the French and reviewed against the scan-collated French text. The author’s notes, quotations and verse are retained. Historical ethnic labels, including offensive terms, are retained from the 1764 text.
Should pious frauds be practiced on the people?
The fakir Bambabef once met one of the disciples of Confutsée, whom we call Confucius; this disciple was named Ouang. Bambabef maintained that the people need to be deceived, while Ouang held that no one should ever be deceived. Here is the substance of their dispute.
Bambabef.
We must imitate the Supreme Being, who does not show us things as they are. He makes the sun appear two or three feet across, although that star is a million times larger than the earth; he makes the moon and stars appear fixed against the same blue background, although they lie at different distances. He wills that a square tower should look round to us from afar; he wills that fire should seem hot, although it is neither hot nor cold. In short, he surrounds us with errors suited to our nature.
Ouang.
What you call an error is not one. The sun, situated as it is millions of millions of lis1 beyond our globe, is not the one we see. What we actually perceive, and all we can perceive, is the sun pictured on our retina at a determined angle. Our eyes were not given to us to ascertain sizes and distances; other aids and other operations are needed to ascertain them.
Bambabef seemed greatly astonished by this statement. Ouang, who was very patient, explained the theory of optics to him; and Bambabef, who was quick to understand, yielded to the demonstrations of Confucius’s disciple. Then he resumed the dispute in these terms.
Bambabef.
If God does not deceive us through our senses, as I believed, admit at least that physicians always deceive children for their own good: they tell them they are giving them sugar, when in fact they give them rhubarb. So I, a fakir, may deceive the people, who are as ignorant as children.
Ouang.
I have two sons; I have never deceived them. When they were ill I told them, “Here is a very bitter medicine; you must have the courage to take it. It would harm you if it were sweet.” I have never allowed their governesses and tutors to frighten them with spirits, ghosts, goblins, or sorcerers. In this way I have made them courageous, sensible young citizens.
Bambabef.
The people were not born as fortunate as your family.
Ouang.
All men resemble one another; they are born with the same dispositions. It is the fakirs who corrupt human nature.
Bambabef.
We teach them errors, I admit, but it is for their own good. We make them believe that if they do not buy our blessed nails, if they do not atone for their sins by giving us money, they will become post horses, dogs, or lizards in another life. This frightens them, and they become honest people.
Ouang.
Do you not see that you are corrupting these poor people? Among them there are many more than you imagine who reason, who laugh at your nails, your miracles, your superstitions, and who see perfectly well that they will not be changed into lizards or post horses. What happens? They have enough sense to see that you preach an absurd religion, but not enough to rise to a pure religion free of superstition, such as ours. Their passions lead them to believe there is no religion, because the only one they are taught is ridiculous. You become guilty of all the vices into which they plunge.
Bambabef.
Not at all, for we teach them nothing but sound morality.
Ouang.
The people would stone you if you taught them a corrupt morality. Men are made in such a way that they are willing to do evil, but unwilling to have it preached to them. You need only refrain from mixing wise morality with absurd fables, because your impostures, which you could do without, weaken the very morality you are obliged to teach.
Bambabef.
What! You believe truth can be taught to the people without supporting it with fables?
Ouang.
I firmly believe it. Our scholars are made of the same clay as our tailors, our weavers, and our plowmen. They worship a God who creates, rewards, and avenges. They do not sully their worship with absurd systems or extravagant ceremonies; and there is far less crime among the scholars than among the people. Why not condescend to instruct our workers as we instruct our scholars?
Bambabef.
You would be doing something very foolish. It is as though you wanted them to have the same polish, to be legal scholars. That is neither possible nor appropriate. There must be white bread for masters and brown bread for servants.
Ouang.
I agree that all men need not possess the same learning; but some things are necessary to everyone. Everyone must be just; and the surest way to inspire justice in all men is to inspire them with religion without superstition.
Bambabef.
A fine plan, but impracticable. Do you think it enough for men to believe in a God who punishes and rewards? You have told me that the shrewdest among the people often rebel against my fables; they will rebel in the same way against your truth. They will say, “Who can assure me that God punishes and rewards? Where is the proof? What authority have you been given? What miracle have you performed to make me believe you?” They will laugh at you far more than at me.
Ouang.
That is where your error lies. You imagine that because people reject dishonest, absurd, useless, dangerous things that make common sense shudder, they will throw off the restraint of an honest, plausible idea useful to everyone, an idea with which human reason agrees?
The people are very disposed to believe their magistrates. When their magistrates offer them only a reasonable belief, they embrace it willingly. No prodigies are needed to believe in a just God who reads the human heart; this idea is too natural to be opposed. There is no need to say precisely how God will punish and reward; belief in his justice is enough. I assure you that I have seen whole cities that had scarcely any other dogmas, and those are the cities where I have seen the most virtue.
Bambabef.
Take care: in those cities you will find philosophers who deny both punishments and rewards.
Ouang.
You will admit that these philosophers will deny your inventions much more vehemently; so you gain nothing there. Even if there were philosophers who did not agree with my principles, they would be no less honest men; they would cultivate virtue no less, for virtue should be embraced out of love, not fear. But I maintain, moreover, that no philosopher could ever be certain that providence does not reserve punishments for the wicked and rewards for the good. For if they ask me who told me that God punishes, I shall ask them who told them that God does not punish. Finally, I maintain that philosophers will help me, far from contradicting me. Would you like to be a philosopher?
Bambabef.
Gladly—but do not tell the fakirs.
1 A lis is 124 paces.
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Plain English translation of the same 73 articles, made directly from the French and reviewed against the scan-collated French text. The author’s notes, quotations and verse are retained. Historical ethnic labels, including offensive terms, are retained from the 1764 text.
Should we deceive ordinary people for religion’s sake?
One day Bambabef, a fakir, met Ouang, a follower of Confutsée—the man we call Confucius. Bambabef argued that ordinary people need to be fooled. Ouang said nobody should ever fool anyone. Here’s a short account of their argument.
Bambabef.
Let’s follow the Supreme Being’s example. He doesn’t let us see things as they really are. The sun looks two or three feet across to us. Yet that star is a million times bigger than the earth. We see the moon and stars fixed to a single blue background, though their distances differ. He wants a square tower to look round when it’s far away. Fire feels hot because he wants it to, though it isn’t hot or cold. In short, he surrounds us with mistaken impressions that suit our nature.
Ouang.
You’re calling something a mistake when it isn’t. The sun itself lies millions of millions of li1 beyond our globe. That isn’t the sun we see. All we actually see, all we can see, is its image on our retina at a given angle. Our eyes weren’t given to us to work out size and distance. That takes other aids and other ways of working things out.
This surprised Bambabef greatly. With great patience, Ouang explained how optics works. Bambabef was quick to grasp things. He accepted the proofs offered by Confutsée’s follower, then returned to the argument.
Bambabef.
I thought God fooled us through our senses. If he doesn’t, at least you’ll admit doctors always fool children for their own good. They say they’re giving them sugar, but actually give them rhubarb. Ordinary people know as little as children. So I can fool them too, as a fakir.
Ouang.
I’ve never deceived either of my two sons. Whenever they were sick, I told them, “This medicine is very bitter. Be brave and take it. If it were sweet, it would hurt you.” I never let their governesses or tutors scare them with spirits, ghosts, goblins, or sorcerers. That’s how I’ve brought them up as brave, sensible young citizens.
Bambabef.
Ordinary people weren’t as lucky in their birth as your family.
Ouang.
We’re all alike, born with the same tendencies. Fakirs are the ones who spoil human nature.
Bambabef.
Yes, we teach them false beliefs, but we do it for their good. We tell them to buy our blessed nails. Otherwise they’ll come back in another life as post horses, dogs, or lizards. We tell them the same if they don’t pay us money to make up for their sins. It scares them into being good.
Ouang.
Can’t you see the harm you’re doing these poor people? More of them think things through than you realize. They laugh at your nails and miracles and superstitions. They know perfectly well they won’t turn into lizards or post horses. What follows? They have enough sense to spot the foolishness of the religion you preach. But they haven’t enough to reach a pure religion without superstition, like ours. The only religion they’re taught is ridiculous. So their passions lead them to believe there’s no religion at all. You’re responsible for every vice they fall into.
Bambabef.
Certainly not. We only teach good moral behavior.
Ouang.
Teach bad moral behavior, and the people would stone you. That’s how people are: they’ll gladly do wrong, but they won’t have anyone preach it to them. Just stop mixing sensible moral teaching with absurd stories. You’re forced to teach those morals, but your frauds weaken them. And you could easily do without the frauds.
Bambabef.
What? You think we can teach ordinary people the truth without stories to back it up?
Ouang.
I’m sure we can. Our scholars are no different in their makeup from our tailors, weavers, and plowmen. They worship God, who creates, rewards, and punishes. They don’t pollute that worship with absurd systems or outlandish ceremonies. Crime is much rarer among scholars than among ordinary people. Why not take the trouble to teach our workers the way we teach our scholars?
Bambabef.
You’d be making a huge mistake. You might as well want them to be equally refined, or to become legal experts. That wouldn’t be possible or proper. Masters need white bread; servants need brown bread.
Ouang:
I agree that not everybody should know the same things. Still, some things are necessary for us all. Everyone needs to act justly. The surest way to teach everyone justice is to teach them religion free of superstition.
Bambabef.
A fine plan, but it won’t work. Is belief in a God who punishes and rewards really enough for people? You’ve said the cleverest ordinary people often rebel against my stories. They’ll rebel against your truth too. They’ll ask, “Who can guarantee that God rewards and punishes? What’s your proof? Who sent you to teach us? What miracle have you worked to make me believe you?” They’ll make much more fun of you than of me.
Ouang.
That’s your mistake. People reject dishonest, absurd, useless, dangerous things that shock common sense. Does that mean they’ll throw off an idea that’s decent, believable, useful to everyone, and accepted by human reason?
People are quite ready to trust their magistrates. Give them a reasonable belief, and they’ll gladly take it up. Believing in a just God who can read our hearts doesn’t require miracles. The idea is too natural for people to fight it. We needn’t spell out exactly how God will punish or reward. Belief in his justice is enough. I can tell you I’ve seen whole towns with almost no other beliefs. Those towns had more virtue than anywhere else I saw.
Bambabef.
Watch out. You’ll find philosophers in those towns who deny both the punishments and the rewards.
Ouang.
You’ll agree they’d deny your inventions much more strongly. That gets you nowhere. Suppose some philosophers don’t accept my principles. They’d still be just as good, and they’d still practice virtue just as much. We should choose virtue because we love it, not because we’re afraid. What’s more, no philosopher could ever be sure about this: that providence has no punishment ready for the wicked, or reward for the good. They may ask, “Who told you God punishes?” I’ll ask, “Who told you he doesn’t?” Finally, I insist that philosophers won’t contradict me. They’ll help me. Would you like to become a philosopher?
Bambabef.
I’d be glad to. Just don’t tell the fakirs.
1 A li measures 124 paces.
About this section
F — Fraude is part of Pocket Philosophical Dictionary by Voltaire. This page sets the French original beside 2 direct-source translations, so any line can be checked against the source. It is article 43 of 73 in the work, which is kept in the European tradition.
Open the work page for the full contents, every edition, and the download links, or go back to Explore to browse other complete works in the European tradition. The reader keeps your place when you are signed in and lets you compare the original with each translation, one edition at a time.