Diderot, Denis[]
Born Oct. 5, 1713, in Langres; died July 31, 1784, in Paris. French writer and Enlightenmentphilosopher.
The son of an artisan, Diderot received a master of arts degree in 1732. His early philosophicalworks were written in the spirit of deism (Philosophic Thoughts, 1746, which was burned by order ofthe French parliament, and Walks, or Strolls of a Skeptic, 1747; published in 1830). Thephilosophical work Letter on the Blind (1749), for which he was arrested, was materialistic andatheistic. After leaving prison, Diderot became editor and organizer of the Encyclopedia (1751-80).He and other Enlightenment figures succeeded in making it not only a system of the scholarlyknowledge of the period but also a powerful weapon in the struggle against feudal ranks andreligious ideology. Despite persecution by reactionaries, Diderot completed the editing andpublication of the Encyclopedia. Between 1773 and 1774 he traveled to Russia at the invitation ofCatherine II. He attempted to influence Catherine II’s policy in the direction of liberating thepeasants and carrying out liberal reforms.
Diderot’s most important philosophical works are Thoughts on the Interpretation of Nature (1754),Conversation Between D’Alembert and Diderot and D’Alembert’s Dream (both 1769, published,1830), Philosophical Principles of Matter and Motion (1770, published, 1798), and Elements ofPhysiology (1774-80, published 1875). In them he defended materialist ideas, regarding everythingreal as varied formations of a single, uncreated matter. According to Diderot, matter is qualitativelymultiform and possesses the principle of self-movement and development. Long before Darwin,Diderot expressed the hypothesis of biological evolution. Although he based his theory of cognitionon the sensationalism of J. Locke, Diderot polemicized against the mechanistic materialism of hisown century, which reduced the complex processes of spiritual life to a simple combination ofsensations (Refutation of Helvetius’ Work “On Man,” 1773–74; published, 1875). Denying the divineorigin of royal power, Diderot advocated the theory of the social contract. However, like Voltaire, hefeared the independent movement of the lower classes, and he tied his hopes to an enlightenedmonarch. During the last period of his life Diderot leaned toward the idea of a republic butconsidered it ill-suited to the conditions of a large centralized state.
Diderot’s materialism is also evident in his aesthetics, which is characterized primarily by thestruggle for realistic, democratic art. In his Salons —critical surveys of regular art exhibitions—Diderot opposed the representatives of classicism and the rococo (J. Vien and F. Boucher) anddefended the genre painting of J. B. S. Chardin and J. B. Greuze, whose truthful depiction of natureand the daily life of the bourgeoisie captivated him. The struggle against classicism also penetratedthose of Diderot’s works that were devoted to questions of dramaturgy, the theater, and music.Diderot and the other Encyclopedists took part in the so-called Guerre des Bouffons, defending therealism of Italian opera. In drama he introduced the idea of a middle genre between tragedy andcomedy, which would truthfully and seriously depict the sorrows and joys of the daily lives of peopleof the third estate. Diderot demanded an unprejudiced description of life in all its unrepeatableuniqueness, and he strove to introduce an everyday tone into drama and to bring the stage as closeto daily life as possible (Conversation on the Natural Son, 1757, and On Dramatic Poetry, 1758).Nevertheless, he understood that a fictional figure is not a “copy” but a “translation” hence, art mustinclude “part of a lie,” which is the condition for attaining a wider poetic truth.
Diderot sought the beautiful in the relations that interconnect the numerous facts of the real world.However, the attempt to combine a description of individual phenomena that was precise to thepoint of illusion with the poetic truth of the whole remained unrealized in Diderot’s aesthetics. Thisfailure revealed the contradiction between Diderot’s general democratic ideal, which encompassedall mankind, and bourgeois society, which could not serve as the real foundation for the ideal.Therefore, Diderot was compelled to seek grounds for his ideal not in history but in theextrahistorical, abstract concept of human nature. Associated with this was Diderot’s turning to aprototype, an ideal model, an inalienable and absolute standard of the beautiful, which had receivedits fullest expression in classical Greek art (Introduction to the Salon, 1767). These motifs inDiderot’s thought anticipated the wave of classicism that engulfed French art in the prerevolutionaryand revolutionary years. The same tendencies permeated The Paradox of the Actor (1773-78;published in 1830). During this time Diderot regarded the theater as “another” conventional world ofart. On the stage nothing is done as it is in real life, and therefore the actor is required to have not“sensibility” but calculating reason, a cold mastery, the quality of observation, and a knowledge ofthe conventional rules of art and an ability to subordinate himself to them. Diderot’s aesthetic idealwas inseparable from his social and moral ideals.
Diderot’s creative work included various genres. His early plays The Natural Son (1755, published in1757) and The Father of the Family (1756, published in 1758) are interesting as illustrations of thedramatic theory of the “middle genre” from an artistic point of view they are not very successful. Ofgreater interest is his late, one-act play Is He Good? Is He Naughty? (1781, published in 1834),which presents a complex dialectic of good and evil. Diderot’s prose was an outstandingphenomenon of 18th-century realism. The novel The Nun (1760, published, 1796) is a clear, vividanticlerical work in which the convent becomes a magnificent symbol of a corrupt civilization.
The figure of the servant Jacques (the novel Jacques the Fatalist, written in 1773 and published inGerman in 1792 and in French in 1796) is the embodiment of the common people of France withtheir joie de vivre, humor, and worldly wisdom. Jacques and his master argue questions ofphilosophy and morality. The master, an advocate of free will, believes that he has dominion overthe world and is capable of deter-mining the course of events. This, however, is an illusion. Frombitter experience Jacques the Fatalist has come to know that man is subject to circumstances andruled by fate. But Jacques’ fatalism never dooms him to passivity; he is more an expression oftrust in nature and in the free, natural flow of life than of submission to fate. This aspect ofJacques’ philosophy is close to Diderot’s thought and determines the novel’s structure. Theprotagonist’s narration of his amorous adventures, which forms the book’s plot line, is constantlybeing interrupted. Diderot preferred the natural, elemental movement of life in all itsinconclusiveness and mutability to literary canons and clichés.
Diderot’s most important work, Rameau’s Nephew (1762-79, published in 1823), was written in theform of a dialogue between a philosopher and the nephew of the famous French composer Rameau.The dialogue has no strictly defined topic but possesses an inner unity; behind each utterancestands the personality of the speaker, his character, concept of being, and world view. Rameau is apoor musician, a representative of Parisian Bohemian life, an amoral, cynical, unprincipled man, afriend of reactionary, venal journalists, and a parasite in the homes of rich aristocrats—a product ofthe disintegration of the ancien regime. However, his amoral conduct is explained by thecircumstances of contemporary society. Rameau rejects the moral standards of society,understanding them as a force that is alien and hostile to him and therefore evil. The only value thathe sees in life is the satisfaction of one’s passions and strivings. By his amoral behavior andcynical utterances Rameau exposés the world surrounding him. He tears off society’s hypocriticalmask and lays bare its essence. But Rameau also exposés the lifeless, abstract quality of thephilosopher’s ideals. He clearly understands that wealth is becoming the principal power; however,poverty prevails for the time being, any freedom is illusory, everybody is striking poses and playingroles, and nobody is true to himself. In asserting at the end of the dialogue that the only freepersonality was Diogenes in his tub, the philosopher himself affirms the lifeless quality of his ownideals.
Diderot’s novels and novellas addressed to the future were not published during his lifetime. In theircomplex dialectic of thoughts and characters they exceed the bounds of 18th-century art andanticipate the later development of the European realistic novel. Diderot’s heritage continues toserve progressive mankind.
Like other 18th-century French materialist philosophers, Diderot placed enormous emphasis on theimportance of education. He wrote: “Education gives man worth, and even a slave begins torecognize that he was not born for slavery” (Sobr. soch., vol. 10, Moscow, 1947, p. 271). Diderothighly valued the role of upbringing in forming human beings. Nevertheless, he considered thatanatomical and physiological traits were essential to the growth and development of children.Although it achieves a great deal, upbringing alone cannot accomplish everything. The problems liein revealing children’s natural capabilities and allowing them to develop to the fullest degreepossible.
Diderot’s thoughts on public education were presented in his Plan of a University for theGovernment of Russia, which was devised in 1775 at the request of Catherine II, and in a numberof notes that he wrote during his stay in St. Petersburg (“On a School for Girls,” “On SpecialUpbringing,” and “On Public Schools”). Diderot examined a broad range of pedagogical problems,including the system of public education and instructional methods. He drew up the plans for astate system of public education and defended the principles of universal, free, elementaryschooling and education regardless of social class. Attempting to ensure the actual accessibility ofschools to all classes, Diderot considered it necessary to organize the state’s material aid to thechildren of the poor (free textbooks and meals in elementary schools and stipends in secondaryschools and higher educational institutions). He was opposed to the system of education thatprevailed in Europe at that time, with its classicism and verbalism. He put physics, mathematics,and the natural sciences in the foreground, arguing for a realistic direction in education and theconnection of education with the needs of life. Diderot attempted to construct a secondary schoolcurriculum in accordance with the system of scientific knowledge, taking into consideration theinterrelationship of the sciences and providing for the teaching of a principal subject in each year(for example, in the first year, mathematics; in the second, mechanics; and in the third, astronomy).Although he included religion in the curriculum, Diderot remarked that he did this out ofconsideration for Catherine II’s views, and as a hidden “antidote” he indicated the teaching ofmorality according to the materialist books of Hobbes and Holbach. Stressing the importance ofgood textbooks, Diderot proposed that major scholars be encouraged to write them. In order to raisethe level of knowledge, he suggested that public examinations be conducted four times a year insecondary schools and that untruthful or incapable students be sifted out. To achieve a betterselection of teachers, he advised that competitions be held.
Diderot’s “plan” was published only in the 19th century. (A censored edition of the section onsecondary education came out in 1813–14 in the journal Annales d’education, and the section waspublished in its entirety in 1875 in Diderot’s collected works.)
WORKS[]
Oeuvres completes, vols. 1–20. Paris, 1875–77.
Oeuvres. Edited with notes by A. Billy. Paris, 1957.
Oeuvres romanesques. Paris, 1959.
Oeuvres politiques. Paris [1963].
Correspondance, vols. 1–9. Edited with notes by G. Roth. Paris, 1955–63.
In Russian translation:
Sobr. soch., vols. 1–10. Moscow-Leningrad, 1935–47.
Ob iskusstve, vols. 1–2. Leningrad-Moscow, 1936.
Paradoks ob aktere. Leningrad-Moscow, 1938.
Izbrannye ateisticheskie proizvedeniia. Moscow, 1956.
Plemiannik Ramo. Moscow, 1958.
REFERENCES[]
Morley, J. Didro i entsiklopedisty. Moscow, 1882.
Bil’basov, V. A. Didro v Peterburge. St. Petersburg, 1884.
Didro i Ekaterina II: Ikh besedy, napechatannye po sobstvennoruchnym zapiskam Didro.Explanatory essay and notes by M. Tourneux. St. Petersburg, 1902.
Bliumenfel’d, V. “Dramaturgicheskaia teoriia Didro.” In Rannii burzhuaznyi realizm. Leningrad, 1936.
Ivashchenko, A. “Realisticheskie povesti Didro.” InRealizm XVIII v. na Zapade. Moscow, 1936.
Pisarev, D. I. “Didro i ego vremia.” In Zven’ia, no. 6. (A collection.) Moscow-Leningrad, 1936.
Shishkin, A. F. “Teoriia vospitaniia D. Didro.” Sovetskaia pedagogika, 1938, no. 10.
Frumov, S. A. “Pedagogicheskie vzgliady Didro.” In Ocherki po istorii pedagogiki. Edited by N. A.Konstantinov. Moscow, 1952. Pages 79–82.
Volgin, V. P. Razvitie obshchestvennoi mysli vo Frantsii v XVIII veke. Moscow, 1958. Pages 102–32.
Kazarin, A. I. “Didro i nekotorye voprosy russkoi kul’tury.” Vestnik istorii mirovoi kul’tury, 1958, no.1.
Luppol, I. K. D. Didro. Moscow, 1960.
Gachev, D. I. Esteticheskie vzgliady Didro. Moscow, 1961.
Barskaia, T. E. Deni Didro. Leningrad-Moscow, 1962.
Akimova, A. Didro. Moscow, 1963.
Anikst, A. Teoriia dramy ot Aristotelia do Lessinga. Moscow, 1967.
Vertsman, I. E. “Estetika Deni Didro.” In his book Problemy khudozhestvennogo poznaniia.Moscow, 1967.
Bernshtam, L. G. [comp.] Didro, 1713–1784. Leningrad, 1938. (Bibliography.)
Rosenkranz, K. Diderots Leben und Werke, vols. 1–2. Leipzig, 1866.
Hermand, P. Les Idees morales de Diderot. Paris, 1923.
Luc, J. Diderot: L’ artiste et le philosophe. Paris, 1938.
Thomas, J. L’Humanisme de Diderot, 2nd ed. Paris, 1938.
Billy, A. Vie de Diderot. Paris, 1948.
Diderot Studies, vols. 1–10. Edited by Otis E. Fellows and Norman L. Torrey. Syracuse, N.Y.,1949–68.
Lorel, A. Diderots Naturphilosophie. Vienna, 1950.
Belaval, I. L’Esthétique sans paradoxe de Diderot. Paris, 1950.
Guyot, C. Diderot par lui-méme. Paris, 1953.
Mayer, J. Diderot I’homme de science. Rennes, 1959.
Proust, J. Diderot et encyclopedic. Paris, 1962.
Kempf, R. Diderot et le roman ou le demon de la presence. Paris, 1964.
Mornet, D. Diderot. Paris, 1966.
V. IA. BAKHMUTSKII