Rhetoric versus Truth: Diderot's Writings as an Illustration of Stability and Innovation in Eighteenth-Century Literature

R h eto ric versu s T ru th : D id ero t’s W ritin g s a s a n Illu stra tio n mlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFED o f S ta b ility a n d In n o va tio n in E ig h teen th -C en tu ry L itera tu re H U G U E T T E C O H E N Is philosophy to b e equated with truth, as the Enlightenment wants it, and poetry with rhetoric (or deception, if we accept the derogatory attributes given to both rhetoric and poetry by the philosophes)? A study of Diderot’s writings over a period of forty years shows that the problem is of far greater complexity for this particular philosophe. In a strange transference, truth, with Diderot, has a way of reaching out for poetry, while rhetoric comes closer to philosophy. He professes re* peatedly to be a seeker of truth; but perhaps more than finding truth, it is the search for truth that he prizes most. And he discovers very early in his literary career that classical rhetoric may indeed be an obstacle to this search— not that he is willing to forego completely structure and order in the literary form that he adopts. The basic dualism of order and disorder found by Lester Crocker1 in Diderot’s inquiries into metaphysics, morals, aesthetics, and politics can also be applied to his theory of literature. 433 434 / WVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA H U G U E T T E C O H E N At the onse tof his lite rarycareer, Diderot is aware of a basic type of opposition between the philosopher and the poet. Human knowledge in the E ncyclopedic is divided into H istoire related to memory, P hilosophic stemming from reason, and P oesie bom from imagination. In his own writings, Diderot often lumps in the same category poesie and elo q u en ce.2 This parallel is interesting because in the eighteenth century, the terms eloquence and rhetorique are virtually interchange­ able; we can thus infer that in Diderot’s mind, poesie and eloquence are united by the same artificiality stemming from rhetoric. This does not prevent him from expressing his regret about the disappearance of poetry, following the progress of the Enlightenment: “.. . plus de grands poemes, plus de ces morceaux d’une eloquence sublime; plus de ces productions marquees au coin de l’ivresse et du genie; tout est raisonne, compasse, academique et plat.”3 As a humanist, Diderot is hesitant to sacrifice individual expression to the philosopher’s dream of a world ruled and described by reason alone. There is an aspect of Diderot’s attitude towards poetry that is more puzzling, given his position as the official spokesman of the En­ lightenment. He often associates the poet and the genius as originators of truth; both terms become interchangeable in his vocabulary. Rameau’s nephew, the abortive genius who “secoue, agite... fait sortir la verite,”4 is one of these bizarre individuals, endowed with uncommon sensitivity and disorganized creative gifts, whom he chooses as spokesmen for his most personal and daring theories in his dialogues and his novels. It can be assumed that, in his own mind, the place of honor of the philosophe fighting for the progress of Truth, is often taken by the genius-poet speaking his own truth. This has, of course, profound implications for literary expression, as it foreshadows the abandonment of traditional linguistic patterns and rules for a more personal style, a “rhetoric of nature.” Seventeenth-century classical linguistic theories were still prevalent in Diderot’s time. The gram m airiens^philosophes contend in their E n cyclopedie articles that the role of language is to reflect thought clearly and logically. No room is left for the expression of feeling, emotions, or the irrational. They remain faithful to the rational criteria applied to language in the seventeenth century by Descartes and the Port-Royal R hetoricmlkjihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA vs. T ruth: D iderot’s W ritings I 435 logicians in the ir G ra m m a ire generate et ra iso n n ee,5 Dumarsais and Beauzee, the two most important contributors...