Helvetius and D'Holbach: "La Moralisation de la Politique"

Author(s): Everett C. Ladd, Jr.

Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1962), pp. 221-238
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708156 .
Accessed: 22/06/2014 10:52

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HELVItTIUS AND D'HOLBACH
"La moralisationde la politique"

BY EVERETT C. LADD, JR.

Helvetius' De l'espritand d'Holbach's Systemede la nature were

in XVIIIth-centuryEurope two of the best known,most widelydis-
cussed and perhaps most influentialworks. Today, Claude-Adrien
Helvetius and Paul Thiry,Baron d'Holbach, are rememberedchiefly
forthem,and forthe most notable elementof each: De l'espritand
its systematicstatementof a utilitarianethics; the Systeme and its
most thorough-going and uncompromising materialism.The political
thoughtof Helvetius and d'Holbach, developed principallyin their
later works,'has received,however,little attention.Writingin 1922,
Henri Lion commentedthat d'Holbach the politicaland social philos-
opher had been left completelyin the shadows by the emphasis on
d'Holbach the debunkerof religion.This observationregrettablyis
still valid, despiteLion's efforts.
His "Essai sur les oeuvrespolitiques
et moralesdu Baron d'Holbach," publishedin six parts between1922
and 1924 in Annales revolutionnaires,and unfortunatelynever re-
printedin book form,remainsthe best and most comprehensiveex-
aminationof the Baron's political thought.Though threecommend-
able, fairlyrecentstudies of d'Holbach have been published,each is
devoted primarilyto an examinationof his materialism,and to his
attempt to propound a clearly definedsecular ethic in the light of
what he consideredto be the inadequacy of religionas a moralforce.2
None of the worksin whichd'Holbach's politicalthoughtis developed
has been translatedinto English; no editions of the Politique na-
turelleor the Ethocratie have appeared since 1776; and we do not
1Mainly Helve'tius'De l'homme(1772); d'Holbach'sLa Politiquenaturelle
(1773),Systeme social(1773),Ethocratie(1776),andLa Moraleuniverselle (1776).
2 Cf. PierreNaville'sPaul Thiryd'Holbachet la philosophie au
scientifique
XVIIIe siecle (Paris, 1943); VirgilTopazio's D'Holbach'sMoral Philosophy:Its
Backgroundand Development(Geneva: Institutet Musee Voltaire,1956); and
W. H. Wickwar'sBaron d'Holbach:A Preludeto the FrenchRevolution(Lon-
don,1935). It mightbe notedparenthetically thatHelvetiusand d'Holbachhave
receivedmoreattention fromscholarsin the SovietUnion.The case forthiscon-
sideration-stated in earlyMarxistwritingssuch as Plekhanov'sIn Defenseof
Materialism-isthat these philosopheswere importantearly materialists, and
precursors of the thorough-going scientificmaterialism of Marx. There are, of
course,majorinadequaciesin theiranalysis:principally, theirfailureto developa
monistviewof history, to recognizethe "greatmotors"of historical change.They
did notsee thattheideasof humanity in its historicaldevelopment are determined
by the development of the socialenvironment. Still,theywereconsistent thinkers
whosaw as faras thestateof scientific knowledge in theirday permitted.
221

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222 EVERETT C. LADD, JR.

have an editionofthe Oeuvrescomple'tes. Helvetiushas faredsome-

whatbetter.iStill,theonlysatisfactory studyofhis politicalthought
is to be foundin AlbertKeim'sexcellent volume,Helvetius:sa vie et
son oeuvre.3The recentand highlyreadablebookby Ian Cumming
is primarily an effortto giveHelvetiuswhatthe authorconsiders to
be a deservedly highplacein thegrowth ofeducationalthought.4
The politicalthoughtof Helvetiusand d'Holbachmeritsa more
carefulandextensive andit is hopedthatthisessaywill
consideration,
makea contribution to thisend.Morespecifically, however, thethesis
that Helvetiusand d'Holbachwerein essentialagreementin the
broadoutlinesof theirpoliticalthoughtwill be developed.Certain
similaritieshaveofcoursebeennotedbyotherwriters. Therehas not
been,however, anyattemptto examinecarefully theextentanddepth
of theiragreement on socialand politicalquestions.Our philosophes
startedfromthe samebasicpremises, wereagreedon the meansfor
reform, gaveessentially thesamecriticism ofexisting institutions
and
practices, and sharedmuchthesamevisionof the goodsociety.The
closeparallelexistsdespitemarkeddifferences in styleand emphasis.
Helvetius,forexample,paid littleattentionto the theologicaldis-
putesof theday withwhichd'Holbachwas so intimately concerned.
Heivetius'writings are orientedaroundthe questionof motivation;
d'Holbach'sapproachis alwaysthatof themoralist.Helvetiusfilled
thepagesofDe l'espritwithanecdotalillustrations whichare amus-
ingifnotveryillustrative. D'Holbachhad no timeforthis;hisworks
are tediousand repetitive, yet bold and systematic. His toneis al-
waysharshandstrident, whileHelvetiusat timesgivestheimpression
thathe is enjoyinga dilettantish romp.Norare theirdifferences con-
finedto mattersof styleand emphasis.Areasin whichthe assump-
tionsof our philosophesdiffered sharplywill be notedthroughout
this essay.Still,following theirown paths,theypursuedthe same
goal; in d'Holbach'swords,"la moralisation de la politique."This
was,paradoxically, thesourceof theirgreatestweaknesses, and their
mostprofound insight.
Helvetiusand d'Holbachstartedfromessentially similaranalyses
of thenatureofman,ofthestandardby whichhis actionsshouldbe
evaluated,and of the "vehiclesforreform," thatis, themeansof at-
tainingthegoodsociety.Theyaccepteda mechanistic psychology,be-
lievedthatmenare motivatedonlyin theirownself-interest, rigor-
ouslyapplieda utilitarian standardto all actions,and wereoptimistic
aboutthepossibilities ofsocialengineering, abouttheefficacy of leg-
islationand education.
3 Paris, 1907.
4 Helve'tius,
His Lifeand Place in theHistoryofEducationalThought(London,
1955).

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HELVETIUS AND D HOLBACH 223

Our philosophes adoptedLocke'ssensationalist theoryof knowl-

edge,and acknowledged theirindebtedness to him.Man's physical
organization, d'Holbacharguedin La Moraleuniverselle, enableshim
to receiveimpressions fromobjectswithwhichhis sensescomeinto
contact.These sensationsgivebirthto ideas.The abilityto consider
ideasevenwhentheobjectswhichproduced themarenolongerpresent
we call memory.'Here moreconsistent thanLocke,our philosophes
refusedto admitany innateideas.Anything not accessibleto man's
physicalsensessimplyis notsubjectto hisunderstanding. D'Holbach
wentbeyondHelvetiusin the extentof, and in the temerity with
whichhe proclaimed hismaterialism. He insistedthata materialistic
metaphysics is logicallyimpliedby a mechanistic psychology. Hel-
ve'tiusnevertookthisstep,and largelyignoredquestionsof meta-
physics,referring occasionallyto a deisticgod.Of muchgreaterim-
portanceforthe development of theirpoliticalthought,Helvetius
and d'Holbachwerein disagreement on whether, giventhe proper
environment, anymancouldbecomea d'Holbach;Helvetiusinsisted
thatall menhave thesamecapabilities. Still,thematerialism ofour
philosophes playedessentially thesamerolein theirsystems. If man
is toa largeextent"all education," meaning byeducation thesum-total
of environmental influences,thentheirdemandsforreform become
particularly compelling. Put menin reasonablesocialsituations, co-
ordinatethe interests of each individualwiththoseof society,and
virtuewillappearof its ownaccord,as surelyas a stoneis drawnto
earthby theforceofgravity.
Ourphilosophes maintained thatself-love is a necessaryresultof
physicalsensibility, and henceis commonto all men. They were
agreedthat"hopeofa goodor fearofan evil"is theonlymotivefor
humanaction.Helvetiusin particulartookdelightin the brashness
ofhis attackon theconventional virtues:
If a hermitor monkimposeson himselfthe law of silence,flogshimself
everynight,lives on pulse and water,sleepson straw,offers
to God his
nastinessand ignorance,
he thinksby virtueof emaciationto makea for-
tunein heaven.6
Theirintention was not,however,to justifyindividualself-seeking,
notevento reconstruct
morality
on thefirm foundation
ofenlightened
self-interest.
We wouldbe unfairto thesephilosophes if we did not
see themprimarilyas reformers,
seekingto bringaboutchangesin a
societywhichtheybelievedwas not rational,humaneor just; and
5 Moraleuniverselle
(Paris,1820),II, Sect.IV, Ch. 1, p. 6.
6 A Treatise on Man,His Intellectual
Facultiesand His Education,translated
by
WilliamHooper(London,1810),I, Sect.IV, Ch. 20,p. 351.The Hoopertranslation
was firstpublishedin 1777.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
224 EVERETT C. LADD, JR.

who found in self-interest psychologyan excellentvehicle for their

program.For if all men at all timesseek to achieve theirown happi-
ness,how imperativethe need to educate men as to the truedemands
of that happiness. And how perniciousa societywhich makes it in
man's self-interestto cheat,deceive,and oppresshis fellows.Through
educationand a properorganizationof society,individualself-seeking
could be guidedto-in fact,transformed into-activity benefitingthe
whole society.
Here, then,is the "is" forour philosophes:Man, his consciousness
determinedby his physicalenvironment, compelledby his verynature
to seek his own happiness constantly.The "ought" was definedin
termsof the utilityprinciple-that actionsshould be consideredgood
or bad dependingon theireffecton happiness.Helvetius was the first
to give this an extendedand explicit application in De 1'esprit.He
maintainedthat
it is . . . on theuniformityofthelegislator's
views,and the dependence of
theselaws on each other,that theirexcellenceconsists.But in orderto
establishthisdependence, it wouldbe necessaryto referthemall to one
sirnple principle,
suchas thatofthepublicutility;orto thatofthegreatest
numberof mensubjectto the same formof government; a principlemore
extensive and morefruitfulthanimagination can conceive;a principle
that
includesall moralityand all legislations, of whichmanymen discourse
withoutunderstanding them,and of whichthe legislatorsthemselves have
yetbuta verysuperficial idea,at leastifwe mayjudgefromtheunhappi-
nessofalmostall thenationsuponearth.7
He was the founderof doctrinalutilitarianism.D'Holbach accepted
Helvetius' statementof utility,and rigorouslyapplied the principle
in all his laterworks.The object of society,our philosophesagreed,is
to allow man to enjoymoresecurelythose advantageswhichhis men-
tal and physical capacities permithim. D'Holbach maintainedthat
each individualcontractsin almostthese termswithsociety:
Help me ... and I willhelpyouwithall mytalents... workformyhappi-
ness,if you wantme to concernmyselfwithyours.. . . Secureforme ad-
vantagesgreatenoughto persuademe to giveup to you a part of those
whichI possess.8
While Helvetius did not referexplicitlyto a contract,he conceived
the relationshipof man to the State as similarlyutilitarian.Our phi-
losophes sought,then,to substituteforLocke's self-evidentrightsa
singlestandardofvalue-the greatesthappinessforthe greatestnum-
ber. In this theywerenot whollysuccessful.Not surprisingly, the de-
7 De l'esprit,
or Essays on theMind and Its SeveralFaculties(London,1759),
Essay II, Ch. 17,p. 88.
8 Politiquenaturelle
(Amsterdam,
1773),I, Dis. I, Sect.6, p. 12.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HELVETIUS AND D IIOLBACH 225

mandsof utilitycloselyresembleat manypointsthe demandsof

Locke'smanifesttruths.Utilityand naturalrightdid not logically
lead to similarpracticalconclusions,but thearguments werekeptto-
getherby a broadbasicagreement on thegoalswhichsocietyshould
attain.And,as Sabinehas observed, utilitarian
ethicswhenactually
workedoutcontained assumptions thatwerein no wayjustified bythe
principleof utility,but whichwereacceptedas self-evident.9 Why,
forexample,shouldthe State promotethehappinessof the greatest
number?Ourphilosophes presumed thatone man'shappinessshould
be giventhe same value as another's-infact,a beliefin natural
equality.
To get fromthe "is" (Man, the pleasure-seeking receptacleand
organizer of environmental stimuli)to the "ought"(Man, achieving
his happinessthroughactionswhichmaximizethe happinessof the
wholesociety),Helvetiusand d'Holbachreliedupon a programof
educationand legislation.Helvetiusarguedthat a major cause of
man'santi-socialactsis the inadequacyof his education.D'Holbach
agreed.What,he asked,preventsthe different classesfromworking
together fortheendoflifein society,thatis,fortheirmutualhappi-
ness?It is in parttheirinabilityto see thattheirinterests are essen-
tiallyharmonious, not conflicting.Our philosophesdid not believe,
however,that enlightenment wouldbe enough.Of what use is it,
Helvetiusasked,thatI teachmysonto be virtuous, ifall aroundhim
he seesvirtuepunished?Men mustbe freedfromtheunnaturaland
pernicious demandswhichsocietyhad placedon theiractions.Their
conception of ther6leof legislationdid not stop withthisnegative,
"freeing from"function. Positivelegislationwas necessaryto force
menthrough theirfeelingofself-love,
toactinthebestinterests ofsoci-
ety.The scienceoflegislation involvedtheuseofrewards andpenalties
to unitetheindividualwiththegeneralinterest;and in fairlyprecise
termsHelvetiusand d'Holbachoutlinedthe kindof programwhich
Benthamwas laterto develop.Helvetiusstatedthe principleof a
legislatedmoralityin De l'esprit:
If citizenscouldnotprocuretheirownprivatehappinesswithoutpromoting
that of the public,therewouldthenbe noneviciousbut fools.All men
wouldbe underthenecessityof beingvirtuous;and the felicity
of nations
wouldbe ofbenefit to morality.
..10
De l'espritis filledwithanecdotesthroughwhichHelvetiushoped
to illustrateand substantiatehis argument fora legislatedmorality.
If we lookat history,he maintained, we shallfindthatwherecertain
virtueswereencouraged by law by meansof givinghopeof physical
pleasure,thosevirtuesweremostcommon.He citedas an example
9 GeorgeSabine,A HistoryofPoliticalTheory(New York,1950),567.
10Essay II, Ch. 22,p. 111.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
226 EVERETT C. IADD, JR.

themeansby whichLycurgus inculcatedintothemindsofhisfellow

citizensthe "fever"of virtue.No people,he said,surpassedtheLac-
edaemonians in couragebecauseno peoplehonoredthisvirtuemore;
no peoplegavevalorgreaterrewards.Thereweregreatsolemnfesti-
vals aftereachmajorbattle,in whichthemostbeautifulyoungLac-
edaemonian womenadvancedhalf-naked, and dancedin theassembly
ofthepeople.There,in thepresenceofthenation,theyrebukedand
ridiculedthosewarriors whohad beencowardly, but celebrated those
who had distinguished themselves,granting them sexual pleasures:
"Can we doubtthat the youngwarriorwas thenintoxicatedwith
virtue?""
It shouldbe notedin fairnessto thisphilosophe thatforthemost
parthe avoidedsuchbizarreillustrations. Withd'Holbach,he argued
consistentlyand wellthatthepursuitof self-interest couldbe made
through a processofeducationand legislation to producethegreatest
happinessofsociety.The scienceofpolitics,Helvetiusand d'Holbach
agreed,"consistsin exciting,
directingand regulating thepassionsof
menso as to lead themto workfortheirmutualhappiness." 12
Therewere,then,thesecloseparallelsin thebasicpremisesfrom
whichour philosophesapproachedthe problemof government and
the goodsociety.We can now examinein some detailtheirunder-
standingof a properly constitutedgovernment, and of the functions
whichsucha government mustperform and thespecific valueswhich
it mustsecurein orderto realizethe goodsociety.

Therehas beenconsiderable disagreement concerning

theformof
government to whichHelvetiusand d'Holbachwerecommitted. They
have been describedmostfrequently as championsof "enlightened"
monarchy. Dissentsfromthisposition, however, havebeennumerous.
KingsleyMartin,forexample,has arguedthatwithinlimitsHelvetius
was a democrat.'3 WickwarplacedHelvetiusamongthemostardent
defenders ofenlightened despotism,butthoughtthatd'Holbachtook
a moreliberalposition, somewhere betweenHelvetiusand Rousseau,
as an advocateof a constitutionally
limitedmonarchy.'4 Navillecon-
curredin this judgment.'5 Keim observedthat at timesHelvetius
seemedto hope forthe establishment of a federated
republic,while
at othertimeshe movedverycloseto Voltaire'spositionon thepossi-
bilityof an intelligent,philosophicmonarch."'That this confusion
has occurred is attributable
in partto thepresenceofpassagesin the
"De l'esprit,
Essay III, Ch. 15,pp. 181-2.
12 Moraleuniverselle,I, Sect.I, Ch. 7, p. 34.
13K. Martin,The Rise of FrenchLiberalThought(New York,1956; 19291),
185.
14Wickwar, op. cit.,165. 15Naville,op. cit.,388. 16Keim,op. cit.,574.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HELVETIUS AND D HOLBACH 227

writings of our philosophessupporting each of thesepositions.In

fact,certainof thesepositionsare clearlywrong,and noneof them
can standaloneas an adequatedescription oftheessentialorientation
of our philosophes. NeitherHelvetiusor d'Holbachweredemocrats,
thoughthereweredemocraticelementsin theirpoliticaldoctrine.
Neitherfavoredenlightened despotism, if one understands by the
terma formof government whichemphasizesreform at the expense
of freedom. And thoughboth placed theirhopes primarily on en-
lightened, limitedmonarchy, thispositionmustbe understood much
less as a commitment to a particular systemof government, thanas
a productof (1) theirreluctanceand inabilityto exploreseriously
thequestionofwhatformofgovernment wouldbe requiredto realize
the objectiveswhichtheyset up; (2) theirfaithin the processof
enlightenment; (3) theirskepticism aboutthepossibility ofanyform
ofgovernment otherthanmonarchy at thetime;and (4) theirinter-
pretation ofthepreceding threecenturies ofFrenchhistory in which
Frenchkingshad struggledto dominatethe feudalnobilityand
clergy,both objectsof theirmost violentopposition.Beforecon-
sidering eachofthese,we mustfirstdescribein moredetailtheposi-
tiontakenby ourphilosophes on theformof government bestsuited
to maximizethehappinessof society.
D'Holbach undertook in a numberof his worksto examinesys-
tematically eachofthethreeclassicalformsofgovernment, to deter-
minethestrengths and weaknesses ofeach.The dangersofmonarchy
wereall too evident:publicwelfarefrequently had beensacrificedto
the ambitionand greedof the kingand his court.And evenif one
succeededin "enlightening" a monarch, therewereno assurances that
his successorwouldnot be a tyrant.Yet if monarchy couldbe bad,
the alternatives couldbe farworse.Aristocratic government elicited
his strongestdisapproval;the nobilitywas self-seeking and self-
centered, willingto sacrificethe commongoodon the altarof self-
interest, inanelyjealous of undeserved privileges.
Societywouldbe
reducedto a morassofplots,intrigue and civilwarbythestruggle for
poweramongthe aristocratic elite.In the end,a fewfamilieswould
becomemastersof the state,sharingthe spoils.Insteadof just one
tyrant, thepeoplewouldhavemany;andwhileonemanmayhavehis
moments ofcharity,groupinterests arealwaysreducedto theirlowest
commondenominator.'7 His condemnation of democracy, however,
wasas categorical:
18

Theauthorityiswithout
power,becauseitis toodivided.
It is notrespected
becauseeachindividual,
thinking
himselfitsagent,actsas though he had
acquiredthe rightto abuse it.... A sovereign
people,flattered
by dema-
gogues,
becomes
theirslavesand theinstrument
of theirwickeddesigns.
1" Politiquenaturelle,
I, Dis. II, Sect. 15,p. 66. 18 Ibid.,Sect. 14, p. 64.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
228 EVERETT C. LADD, JR.

Turbulentcitizensdivideintofactions. . . civilwarstear to piecesa so-

cietywhich,blindin its attachments and its hates,oftenelevatesits most
cruelenemies.... Finally,wornoutby its ownexcesses, thepeopledelivers
itselfto slavery. . . and thinksitselffortunateto have exchangedlicense
forchains.
It "escapesfromfreedom."He rejectedout ofhandall possibility
of
populargovernment. The uneducatedand those withoutproperty
wouldnotbe allowedto exercisepoliticalpower.Even themerchants
andmanufacturers,thoughentitledto thefullprotection
oftheState,
werenottruemembers ofit,and couldnotbe untiltheyhad acquired
landed property:"It is the soil ... whichmakes the citizen.... The
landis thephysicaland politicalbase oftheState."19
D'Holbachdidnotpreclude, however, all possibility
ofrepresenta-
tivegovernment. He referred favorably to a "mixed"government in
whichintermediate politicalbodies-assemblies-wouldfunctionas
instruments of resistanceto despotism.He developedthe idea of a
monarchy limitedbya representativepowerin thePolitiquenaturelle,
in a discussion
oftheadvantageswhicha formoffederalarrangement
mightbringto thelargestate.In suchstates,he observed, thepopu-
lationis widelyscattered;localrestraints tendto breakdown,and a
moreelaborategovernmental machineis needed.Thereis a greater
tendency forthesestatesto fallunderdespoticgovernment. It would
be advantageous, then,to dividesuchstatesintoprovinces withcer-
tainpowersofself-government, unitingtheseundera monarchand a
generalassembly.This representative body wouldbe composedof
deputieschosenby electedprovincialassemblies.20 Suffragewouldbe
limitedto thosewho possessedlanded wealth.It seemsdoubtful,
however, thatd'Holbachsaw theseassembliesas anything morethan
consultative bodies,and he gave no indicationof how theywould
have any effective power.He spokeof theiractivityin veryvague
terms:The peoplewould"speak"to themonarchthrough theseas-
semblies,"makingknown"its needsand grievances. As Navillehas
observed,d'Holbach'sassembly"wouldact as a kindof permanent
sessionoftheEstatesGeneral."21
D'Holbach,then,favoredlimitedmonarchy. At timeshe demon-
stratedfullawarenessthatit was notenoughmerelyto enlighten the
monarch,to open his eyes to the coincidence of his interestswith
thoseofhissubjects.LikeHelvetius,he had developeda quitesophis-
ticatedconception ofinterests;andhe didnotbelievethatmenwould
alwaysdetermine theiractionsby a somewhatquestionable ultimate
harmonyof the individualwiththe generalinterest.It is forthis
19 Systemesocial (London,1773),II, Ch. 4, p. 52.
II, Dis. VII, Sect. 10, p. 121.
20Politique naturelle,
21 Naville,op. cit.,389.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HELVETIUS AND D HOLBACH 229

reason that he emphasizedthe importanceof legislation.And this is

why he referredto a systemof representationnoted above, to the
threatof revolution,and to pluralismof a sort. The representative
body,however,was to be only consultative;his conceptionof plural-
ism was vague to say the least; and the threatof revolutionwas a
theoreticaland hardlyreliable sanction.D'Holbach maintainedthat
fearis the onlyobstaclewhichsocietycan effectively raise againstthe
passions of its leaders; that societymust set boundariesto its con-
fidence,must limitthe powerthat it delegatesto the rulingelite,and
should reserveforitselfenough authorityto preventcorruptionand
abuse by that elite; that the recordof historytestifiesto the factthat
man is continuallytemptedto abuse power. He never developed his
argument,however,beyondthis promisingstatementof principles.
At firstreading,Helvetius appears to give strong,if not compell-
ing supportto the claim that he must be considereda democrat.His
uncompromising environmentalism, his insistencethat all men have
equal mentalfacultiesand differ in abilityonlybecause theirenviron-
ments are not equally good, is clearlyegalitarian.Of greatersignifi-
cance, he anticipatedwith considerableclarityBentham's conclusion
that the greatesthappinessforthe greatestnumbercould be realized
only throughrepresentativedemocracy; that to bring the "moral
aptitudeof the governors"to its maximum,sovereignpowermust be
givento thosewhoseinterestit is that the generalhappinessbe maxi-
mized-the people. All men,he argued,seek only theirown interests.
Thus, in a monarchy,whereall governmentalpower is in the hands
of one man, governmenttendsto securethose thingswhichthe mon-
arch believes to be in his own interest;in an aristocraticstate, it is
the interestof the body of nobles whichis satisfied.In "the govern-
mentof all," however,the self-seeking of the rulersis directedtoward
the greatesthappiness forthe greatestnumber:
. . . everyactionconformable
to the interest
of thegreatestnumberis just
and virtuous:consequently,
the love of power,themovingprincipleof the
inhabitants,must compel themto the love of justice and of talents. . . . It
cannottherefore
be wonderful,
thatthisformofgovernment
is alwayscited
as thebest.22
In anothersection,Helvetius proposedthat France be made a federal
republic,to enable the people "to oppose efficaciously
any ambitious
project of theirneighborsor of their fellow citizens."23 These pas-
sages remain isolated, however.As unequivocal as they seem, they
representoccasionalinsightratherthan a fullyreasonedcommitment.
For the most part, Helvetius was contentto directhis efforts to the
enlightenmentof monarchs.He believed that it was possible for
22 Helvetius,
On Man, I, Sect.IV, Ch. 11,p. 316. 23 Ibid., II, Sect.IX, Ch. 2,
p. 285-6.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
230 EVERETT C. LADD, JR.

monarchsto see, muchmoreclearlythan theyhad, that theirinterests

were in harmonywith those of theirsubjects.His repeated exhorta-
tions testifyto this. In a highlyrevealingpassage, Helvetius asked:
Supposein Portugalmorerespectwerepaid to theproperty, thelives,and
thelibertyofthesubjects,wouldthegovernment be lessmonarchical? Sup-
pose theywereto suppressthe inquisition,and the lettresde cachet,and
limitthe exerciseand authorityof certainplaces, would they thereby
changethe formof government? No: theywouldonlycorrectthe abuses.
. . . Are the monarchsof Europeto be comparedto the stupidsultansof
Asia,to thosevampireswhosuckthebloodoftheirsubjects,and whomall
oppositi6n To suspecta virtuousprinceof adoptingtheprin-
exasperates?
ciplesof orientaldespotismis to do himthemostatrociousinjury.A dis-
cerningsovereign willneveresteeman arbitrarypower....24
The vampiresof Europe were expectedto get the not-so-subtlehint.
They wereexpectedto be ashamedand repentant.Throughthisclever
verbal maneuverHelvetius was to secure reform.The princeswould
be seduced throughthe appeal to their pride; they would be con-
vinced throughthe cogencyof his argument.Helvetius,then,placed
his hopes forreformprimarilyon enlightenedmonarchy.It is none-
theless true,however,that far fromrejectingout of hand the desir-
abilityof popular government, as did d'Holbach, he declaredit to be
theoreticallysuperiorto all otherforms.
Our philosophesremovedall trappingsfromthe monarch.They
broughthim downto earth,a man, no morevirtuousor talentedthan
his fellows.They requiredhim to rule in the best interestsof all mem-
bers of the societyon pain of losing his rightto rule. For the rest,
theylefthimhis throne.Theirwillingnessto relyon the monarchyfor
reform,despite the anti-monarchicalimplicationsof their thought,
must be understoodin termsof the severalfactorsnoted above. First,
Helvetiusand d'Holbach sharedthe limitedbut still substantialconfi-
denceof theirfellowphilosophesin the processof enlightenment. The
assumption,afterall, of the possibilityof a more rational man in a
morerationalsocietywas centralto theirattackon the "irrationality"
of the old order.We must take care, however,that we do not give
undue emphasisto this point; fortheiroptimismwas temperedby a
self-interestpsychologyand a concomitanttheoryof interests,and a
full awarenessthat in the sweep of historymonarchicalabuses had
rarely been deterredby a recognitionof the ultimate harmonyof
interests.Much moreimportantwas theirinabilityto conceiveof an
alternativeto limitedmonarchywhich would be both practical and
desirable.D'Holbach questioned the practicalityand desirabilityof
any otherformof government;Helvetius only the former.Helvetius
did not seriouslyexpect any change fromthe monarchicalstructure
24Ibid.,II, Sect.IX, Ch. 9, pp. 318-9.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 IHfELVETIUS AND D HOLBACH 231

of the governmentsof Europe. Certainreformswere palpably neces-

sary,and he wanted immediateaction. The king was there,and he
consideredit to be immediatelypractical to look to him. Neither
philosopheconstructeda defenseof monarchy,but instead accepted
it on pragmaticconsiderations.
Still anotherfactorin the willingnessof our philosophesto place
their hopes on the monarchyis their conditioningby the French
politicalexperience.By the time oppositionto royalpowerdeveloped
in England in the XVIIth century,Parliament had been securely
establishedas the major contenderin the struggleforpower,and was
able to serve as the effectivealternativearound which opponentsof
the monarchycould rally.Such a situationwas impossiblein France.
There, the lines of battle were drawn between the royal and aristo-
craticparties.Oppositionto royal absolutismfailed in large part be-
cause it was in alliance witha medievalparticularismwhichwas in no
way compatiblewithstrong,centralizednationalgovernment. In their
struggleagainst the clergyand the firmlyentrenchedfeudal nobility,
and the privilegeswhich these interestsdefended,our philosophes
looked to a strongmonarchy.Peter Gay's descriptionof Voltaire's
royalismas "the resultnot of detachmentfrompracticalaffairsand
addictionto geometricalspeculation,but of involvementin French
politicsand an intimateknowledgeof Frenchhistory,"25 could as well
have been applied to Helvetius or d'Holbach.
One finalfactorof particularsignificancein understandingtheir
positions should be noted: Our philosophes had little interestin
seriouslyexploringthe questionof what institutionalstructurewould
be requiredto securethe values whichtheyhad postulated.Helvetius
expressedthis most succinctlywhen he wrote: "There are, therefore,
only two formsof government, the one good, the otherbad. .. ) 26
Any governmentwhich maximizesthe happiness of all membersof
the societyis good government;any which does not is bad. This is,
of course,far too facile. That good governmentmust be definedin
termsof good actions is not in question; it is no less true,however,
that it mustin additionbe definedin termsof institutionalstructure;
and that the formercannot be securelyrealized withoutthe latter.
Helvetius and d'Holbach sought"la morali.sation de la politique" and
were really unwillingand unable to go far in buildingan adequate
constitutionalstructure.Our criticismshould not be too harsh, for
there are mitigatingcircumstances.Still, our philosophesmust an-
swer forthe fact that they ultimatelyofferednothingbeyond pious
wishesto make certainthat the monarchwould workforthe greatest
happinessof all membersof society.
25Peter Gay, Voltaire'sPolities: The Poet as Realist (PrincetonUniversity
Press,1959),89. 26 On Man,II, Sect.IX, Chi.9, p. 318.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
232 EVEREr[ C. LADD, JR.

One of the tasksinitiallyset forthisessayremains:To describe

withsomeprecision thenatureofthegoodsocietyofourphilosophes.
More specifically, what functionsmust government perform, and
whatvaluesmustit realizeto promotethe establishment of sucha
society?
WithHobbes and Locke,the presumption that individualself-
interest is clearand compelling, whilethepublicor community inter-
est is derivative, came of age. To be sure,therewas also the pre-
sumption thatonceliberatedfromexternalimpediments, menwould
be able to createthe goodlife; and thatthe pursuitof enlightened
self-interest does in factpromotethe greatestgoodforsociety.But
theemphasiswas clearlyon theindividual, notthecommunity. Writ-
ingin the latterhalfof the XVIIIth our
century, philosophes were
in thistradition. NeitherHelvetiusnor d'Holbach,however,whole-
heartedly espousedthe maincurrents of the growing individualism.
Theirreservations, it shouldbe noted,werenot at all the same,and
arosefromsignificantly different
expectations. For themostpart,for
examplein thevigorand temerity withwhichhe developedhisphilo-
sophicmaterialism, in his frontalassaulton the Church,in his re-
jection of the these nobiliaire and in his applicationoftheutilitarian
standard,d'Holbachwithoutquestionstoodin the vanguardof the
intellectual community in whichhe moved.Therewas anotherd'Hol-
bach,however, so muchthemanoftheXVIIIth century;therewas
an elementin his thoughtwhichconstituted a defenseof the status
quo againstcertainideasand forceseffecting change.He harkedback
to the feudalidea of harmonyin maintaining that the inequality
whichnaturehad provided, farfromcausingunhappiness, is thetrue
basisofthehappinessand well-being ofsociety.Each has a taskand
eachtaskis essential.27 Andinhisargument thatgovernment mustpro-
motethe happinessof all citizens,thereis blendedwiththe idea of
individualrightspreventing any interference withlibertyand pro-
perty,theoldernotionoflaw enjoiningthecommongoodof society.
Thisaspectofd'Holbach'sthought canbe seenclearlyinhisopposition
to certaineconomictrends, particularly to theexpansionoftradeand
commerce. Helvetius,on theotherhand,tempered individualism with
an analysiswhich,thoughrudimentary in form,was an anticipation
of the need to regulateindividualprofit-seeking in the interestof
social justice.His thoughtwas egalitarian, and he had greatconfi-
dencein thepossibilities ofsocialengineering. His demandforgovern-
mentalintervention in theeconomic lifeofthenationwas predicated
on the quitemodernassumption thatthe stateshouldassureall its
citizensa minimum standardof living.Neitherthisdifference in the
basis of theirreservations, or the reservations themselves shouldbe
27 Politiquenaturelle,
I, Dis. I, Ch. 11,p. 21.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HELVETIUS AND D HOLBACH 233

overemphasized. Helvetiusand d'Holbachwere in essentialagree-

ment,and were spokesmen forthosemenof abilitywho foundthe
specialprivileges, and oppressionof the ancien regime
restrictions,
intolerable. Theirdissentsnonetheless mustbe recognized as we con-
sidertheirconceptions of theroleof government, and the valuesto
be realizedin thegoodsociety.
"The love ofliberty," d'Holbachmaintained, "is the strongestof
man'spassions;it is rootedin the driveforself-preservation, and in
the desireto use his talentswithoutrestraint in orderto achievea
happylife."28 The good societymustbe a freesociety.Like their
fellowphilosophes, d'Holbachand Helvetiushad beenvictimsof the
restrictions on freedomof expression, and it is in defenseof these
basic civillibertiesthat they offered some of theirmostimpassioned
argument. Goodgovernment, theyinsisted, farfromfearing fullfree-
domofexpression, fromit,knowing
profits thatextreme or sillyideas
will be ridiculed, rejected,and soon forgotten. Our philosophesas-
sertedthehighvalueoftruth.To ask one owesmenthetruthis to
if
ask iftheyare to be permitted to be virtuousand to do good.
Full religiousfreedom was also essential.Helvetiusand d'Holbach
werebitterlycriticalof the Churchand its record.And theywere
agreedon theremedy:thelaws oftheState shouldcarefully restrict
the politicalpowerof the Church,and the State mustin the last
resortbe superior.At the same time,the Churchshouldhave an
entirely freehand in questionsof dogma.Each man is strongly at-
tachedto his ownreligiousbeliefs,and thesebeliefsinevitably vary.
It wouldbe bothuselessand pernicious, then,to tryto changethem,
to attemptto imposea uniformity of belief,or of disbelief.There
mustbe completetoleration of all expression of religiousthought. A
multiplicity of sectsis neverdangerous;whatmustbe prevented is
the arrogation by any one sect of the rightto persecuteor oppress
others.D'Holbach and Helvetiusconsidered completeseparationof
Churchand Stateto be necessary. The Statemustassureequal rights
to all sects;and standingabovethem,mustmaintaina just balance,
neverallowinganyto oppresstheothersor to upsetthegeneraltran-
quility.29
Economicrights,as wellas civilliberties,wereprominent in our
philosophes'
definition
ofthegoodsociety.Theydefended the"right"
to privatepropertyon thebasis of utility.Since it is impossiblefor
manto be happyunlesshe can enjoyexclusively thethingswhichhe
procuresthroughhis work,the State mustsecureprivateproperty.
Someinequalityin thedistribution
ofprivateproperty is unavoidable
and evendesirable.To be happy,mendo notrequireequal piecesof
28 Ibid.,II,
Dis. VI, Sect.1, p. 59.
" D'Holbach,Systemesocial,II, Ch. 5, pp. 54-5; and Helvetius,On
Man, II,
Sect.VIII, Ch. 31,pp. 383-9.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
234 EVERE2W C. LADD, JR.

theeconomicpie. But Helvetiusand d'Holbachwereagreedthatthe

existinggrossinequalitywouldnotdo,forthreefourths ofthepopu-
lationhad nothing, whilea fewwerewallowingin superfluity. The
rightof a few,enjoyingspecialprivileges, to exploitthelaborof the
vast majorityhad to be broughtto an end; 30 D'Holbach pointedly
observed thatwhena fewcontrol theeconomic structure,theycontrol
the State. He recognized that the existingcaste systemhad a pro-
foundpsychological impact,as well as the morereadilyobservable
materialeffects; and thestudentofsocialpsychology findsimportant
insightin his statementoftheproblem. He maintained thattheself-
esteemof theindividualsunkin povertyis shattered. Such an indi-
vidualcomesto despisehimself, becausehe seeshimselfas an object
of universalscorn.He hatesauthority whichhe considers to be only
oppressive.3'BothHelvetiusand d'Holbachanticipated the Marxian
argument thatthepoorhave no country, thattheboundaries of the
Stateare onlybarriers to theoppressedpoor:
Thereis no nativeland fortheunfortunatewhohave nothing.32
Have thepoorreallya country? Does themanwithoutproperty owe any-
thingto thecountry wherehe possessesnothing?
33
Our philosophesurgedas remedialactionthat each individual
be givena stakein society-thepossessionof something of his own.
Property, particularlylandedproperty, wouldgivehim a feelingof
self-worth.It was the responsibility
of the State to "enrichits sub-
jectsas equallyas possible.""The well-beingofa nationdoesnotde-
mand,"d'Holbachinsisted,"thata handfulof citizensenrichthem-
selvesandrevelin over-abundance, butratherthatthegreatest num-
berenjoythecomforts and conveniences oflife,or at minimum, have
thenecessities."
34
Helvetiuswas moreexplicit.He suggestedthat the large con-
centrationsof landedproperty shouldbe brokenup by makingthe
taxeson excessiveacreagehigherthanthe revenuewhichtheowner
received.And,"whatcan hindera peoplefromdeclaringthemselves
the heirsof the wholenation; and in that case, on the deceaseof
a veryrichindividual, dividingamongseverala property thatwould
be too considerablefora singleperson?"35 The goal forHelvetius
was to giveeach man property, and the opportunity to providefor
30Politiquenaturelle, II, Dis. VII, Sect.30,pp. 151-2; andOn Man,II, Sect.VI,
Chs. 5-12,pp. 85-111.
31Ethocratie(Amsterdam, 1776),120.
32 Moraleuniverselle, II, Sect.IV, Ch. 9, p. 187.
33 On Man, II, Sect. IX, Ch. 2, p. 283.
34Systemesocial,III, Ch. 7, p. 72.
35On Man, II, Sect.VI, Ch. 11,p. 110.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 HELVETIUS AND D'HOLBACH 235
his and his family'swantsin sevenor eighthourslabor a day. If
not the first,he was certainlyone of the earliestadvocatesof the
eight-hour day.Thishavingbeenachieved,he thought, societywould
have doneall it couldin theeconomicsphereto makemenhappy.30
Helvetiusand d'Holbachwerecommitted by theirself-interest
psychology and theirutilitarianismto supportgovernmental activity
in theeconomicspherein orderto achievea moreequitabledistribu-
tionofwealth.Theywereconcerned notonlywiththeeffects ofsuch
redistributionon individualhappiness,however, but withthe neces-
sityofredistribution if a stable,vigorousand orderedsocietywas to
be achieved."Have thepoorreallya country?" theyasked.Givena
stakein society,the individualwouldbecomea bettercitizen.Such
considerations wereparticularlyimportant to d'Holbach.The alterna-
tives,he thought, wereas clearas theneedto act wiselywas crucial:
eithera moreequitabledistribution ofwealthproducing a morepatri-
oticcitizenanda morevigorouspolity;or a continuation oftheexist-
ing grossinequalitywith"indolence, despondency, sterileenvyand
crime."37 Reference was madeaboveto certainsignificantly different
expectations aboutthenatureof the goodsocietyheldby ourphilo-
sophes-inbrief,thedistinctfeudalovertones in d'Holbach'sthought
in contrastto thelargerelementofmodernity in Helvetius'.Thisis in
evidencehere.Bothmenwereconcerned withsecuring orderin society,
just as theysoughtto maximizeindividualhappiness.D'Holbach,
however, differed
fromHelvetiusin his desireto preservea stratified
society;and he was acutelyconsciousoftheproblemofmaintaining
orderand stability in sucha societyas it becamemoreseverelychal-
lenged.
For the mostpart,our philosophes sharedthe physiocratic view
thatlegalandcustomary restraintson agriculture and tradeshouldbe
removed.The government, d'Holbachwrote,"coulddo nothingfor
themerchant exceptleavehimalone."He referred to commerce as the
"childof liberty,"and insistedthatit couldnot prosperin a tyran-
nousstate."In a country wherechance,intrigue and favordetermine
everything. . . what encouragementis thereforcommercialactivity
scornedby theupperclasses,oppressed, limited,
circumscribedby the
government, exposedto extortionbyitsfinanciers?"38
Theirargument to a pointwas profoundly sympathetic to mer-
cantileand commercial interests.
Still,ourphilosophes couldnot ac-
ceptthetheoryofthenaturalharmony ofeconomic interests
heldby
thePhysiocrats,orthelatter'sassumption thattheunimpeded search
forwealthwas synonymous withhappiness.Universallaissez-faire
s6Ibid., II, Sect.VIII, Ch. 3, p. 206.
37Politiquenaturelle,II, Dis. VII, Ch. 30, p. 152.
88 Ibid.,II,
Dis. V, Sect. 14,p. 22.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
236 EVERETr C. LADD, JR.

was notyetconsidered to be an unmixedblessing.Particularly inter-

estingherearetheirpositions in thedebateon luxury,positionswhich
reflectthe different expectations which,we have noted,lay at the
heartof theirobjectikns to a growing individualism.
Thereexistsin
any societyin transitiona tensionbetweenthe old and the new.
D'Holbach in partreflected thistensionin his thought, and in this
senseshowedhimselfto be so mucha man of theXVIIIth century.
With Montesquieuand d'Argenson, he warnedthat therewas a
dangerthatcommercial prosperity, whichwas beingpromoted by the
abolitionof privilege, monopoly, and otherrestraints on commerce,
wouldswamptruehappinesswhichdependedon otherthaneconomic
considerations.Luxury, he argued,is theproductofa societyin which
love of moneyhas becomethe principlepassion.In such a society,
realneedsare sacrificed; speciousneedscreated.Publicvirtueis dis-
couraged:thecitizenis taughtthatnothing is substantial
butmoney,
nothing desirablebutpleasure.Moneybuysdecisionsin courtsoflaw,
rankin thearmy,and salvationin theChurch.The manoflettersis
no longermotivated by thatdisinterested enthusiasmwhichis at the
essenceof genius,but insteadseeksto enrichhimself. He leaveshis
studyforthesalon.All classesare corrupted, eventhe poor.For al-
thoughtheysuffer economically, luxuryis all about them,creating
imaginary needs,and breedingdissatisfaction withthe good,simple
country life.Finally,luxuryproducestheultimatecorruption ofindi-
vidualandsocietalmorality, expressedin themaxim:"Man mustlive
forhimself....Thus,luxury... makesmenunfeeling, cruel,breaking
even those sacred bonds on whichtheirdomestichappinessde-
pends."39
Helvetiuscouldnot acceptthe main thrustof thisattack,that
commercial prosperity and its concomitant,individualprofitseeking,
playedleadingrolesin thecorruption ofman.He thoughtthatthese
"{vaguepanegyrics" of moralistsdirectedagainstrichesfellshortof
the mark. They had confusedeffectwith cause: "Luxury . . . is in
mostcountries theimmediate and necessaryeffectofdespotism.
It is
thereforedespotismthat the enemiesof luxuryshouldoppose.To
suppressan effect,
we shoulddestroy thecause."4
Publiccorruption results,he insisted,
whena feware allowedby
theState to profitat the expenseof themany; whenthe fewwield
excessivepower,holdexcessivewealthand treattheirfellowcitizens
withcontempt. Besides,he mused,"thevirtueof a peopleis almost
alwaysthe virtueof necessity;and frugality,forthatreason,rarely
produces. . . the miraclesattributedto it."
39Ibid.,II, Dis. IX, Sects.9-17,pp. 242-260.
40On Man, II, Sect.VI, Ch. 9, p. 108.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 IIELVETIUS AND D' HOLBACH 237

The argumentagainst luxury in the XVIIIth century,as it is

foundin d'Holbach, was in facta secularstatementof the olderclaim
of religiousausterity.Helvetius avoided these overtonesand had a
much clearerconceptionof the requirementsforeconomicjustice in
the kind of societywhich was emerging.But it was d'Holbach who,
in summingup the attack on the new economicorderfromthe view-
pointofthe old, offeredthe most eloquent,and in some ways the most
incisivecritique:
Entirenationsare the dupes of the avarice of hungrybusinessmen who
beguilethemwiththehopeof wealth,the fruitof whichtheygatheronly
forthemselves. Statesare depopulated,taxationgreatlyincreased, and na-
tions impoverished in orderto satisfythe avarice of a small groupof
citizens.... Wealthhas becomethesignalforwar betweenPowers.... If
onemightread in the futuretheeffects on thisunbridled passionfortrade
whichnowdividesthenations,onewouldsee,perhaps,thatwhentheyhad
destroyed each otherunderthispretext,thepeopleswouldseverallyendby
confining themselves to farming
theirownland,engaging onlyin thattrade
whichprovedessentialforeach.Governments morehumane, just and sensi-
ble willperceivethatmoneydoes not createthe truehappinessof society
any morethan of individuals.They will get to dislikesendingarmiesof
citizensto perishannuallyin scorching climates,in fightingand on the
seas. At last,perhaps,the day will comewhenIndians,havinglearnedthe
art of war fromEuropeans,will huntthemfromtheirshores,wheretheir
greedhas inevitably made themodious.41

There is, we have argued,a close parallel in the political thought

of Helvetiusand d'Holbach,thisdespitegreatdifferences in emphasis,
and areas of importantsubstantivedisagreement.In psychology,they
went beyond Locke's sensationalism;of particularimportancehere
is theirclear recognitionof the significance
of a sensationalistpsycho-
logy for ethics, legislation and social organization,as well as for
education.Both believed that they had discoveredin the conceptof
utilitya simple,positive principleon which men would be able to
agree in reforming society.Both triedto foundwhat they considered
to be the "art" of ethicsand legislationon an objectivescienceof be-
havior.The individualand societywere seen as clean slates on which
almost anythingcould be written.This assumptionled to theirem-
phasis on positivegovernment, pursuedby Helvetius to the amusing
conclusionthat since it is desirablethat all men be healthy,"every
wise government. . . [should] establishgymnasticexercises."It was
the government'sresponsibilityto "excite the citizens to work, to
employthemaccordingto theirtalents,to stop themfrombeingidle,
or fromprofiting withoutdoing any of the workof society.... ." In-
41 Politiquenaturelle,
II, Dis. VII, Sects.32-33,pp. 154-5.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
238 EVERETT C. LADD, JR.

comeshouldbe redistributed. The State,in short,shouldundertake

anyactivitynecessary to securethehappinessof theindividual, and
to lead himby his self-love to conductbenefiting the wholesociety.
It was notenoughforeitherd'Holbachor Helvetiusthatthecorrup-
tionand restraintsof theold orderbe removed.The goodsocietyof
ourphilosophes wastobe createdonlythrough positiveaction,andthe
taskcutoutfortheStatewasa mostambitious one.Butitwasprecisely
at thispointthatourphilosophes becamesilent.In failingto seriously
examinethequestionofimplementation, theyfailedto takethatstep
whichcould have transformed exhortationsinto a meaningful and
consistenttheory.They wereenlightened men.Theirsocial concern
was real,and theircriticismofthewrongsoftheexisting societyhad
a power,and at timesa vehemencewhichhas rarelybeen equaled.
Yet howeverpenetrating theiranalysis,howeverfar-reaching theim-
plicationsof theirargument, theycouldofferin effect onlya pious
wishthat the monarchy, withits longhistoryof bad government,
wouldsuddenly through enlightenment becometheinstrument ofthe
willofthepeople,theguarantor ofitshappiness.
CornellUniversity.

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.138 on Sun, 22 Jun 2014 10:52:00 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions