On the "Sufficiency" of Diderot's (?) De la suffisance de la religion naturelle

Notes and Discussions ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF DIDEROT'S (.9) "DE LA SUFFISANCE DE LA RELIGION NATURELLE" In one of his more genial essays, Herbert Dieckmann observes that Diderot's literary inspiration sometimes proceeds negatively, that is to say, working backwards, via contraries . 1Dieckmann makes this remark/~ propos of the rather odd situation one finds Diderot in at the time of his daughter's marriage when, with one quill, he penned that frighteningly constricting letter to his daughter demanding that she at all times display marital fidelity and that her monogamous constancy be found not only in her outward actions, but even in her reading habits. 2 And then, at exactly this same time--although presumably with another quill--Diderot composed the wildly erotic dream of free love, sexual incontinence, and easily desolved marriage ties that is the Supplfment au voyage de Bougainville. How such a contradiction can have occurred in the same, single philosopher may never be fully understood , but it is certainly one of the most interesting and diverting features of Diderot's mind that, in a truly Hegelian fashion, the idea of"fidelity" bears within it, and brings on, the idea of "infidelity," and vice versa. Examples of such antitheses are everywhere in Diderot's work, numerous enough to make one suspicious of anyone claiming to explain anything in him "sans paradoxe," for indeed the paradox, like the dialogue, was what enabled Diderot to think. In the foregoing instance, knowledge of the first part of the contradiction--the letter to the daughter--is not absolutely essential to our understanding of the Supplement: however curious Diderot's reaction to his daughter's marriage may be, we can still appreciate the Supplement as literature and philosophy without it. This is not always the case with Diderot, however, for there are other instances when it is more important to keep in mind the negative inspiration that was Diderot's starting point. The PensOesphilosophiques is a good example: scholars are just beginning to realizeMhanks in part to the new edition of Diderot's Oeuvres cornplOtes3--the degree to which the Pens~es philosophiques was literally inspired by the PensOes of Pascal, as well as by Jansenism in general. The point is that only if we keep in mind the severe, repressive, side of Jansenism4 can we see Diderot's words for what they are: a gesture of defiance, an act of liberation, as the crippling, JThe introductionto his edition of Diderot's Suppl4mentau voyagede Bougamville(Geneva, 1951), pp. cxxxi-cxxxiii. 2Roth and Varloot, eds., Diderot, Correspondance,ed. G Rothand J. Varloot, 16vols. (Paris:Editionsde Minuit, 1970), 12:123-27 (13 September 1772). H. Dieckmannet al., eds. (Paris:Hermann, 1975-), 2:3 61. Henceforthpage indicationsforquotationfrom Diderotwill refer to volume 2 of this edition. 4In this connection one might cite any of the famous Pens4es m which Pascal mvoghs against the false allurementsofthepassions,orthe lesswell-knownpassagefromtheEssatsdeMorale(Paris, 1755),vol. 3, pt 2, chap. 3, pp. 69ff., in which the author conveys the miseries of the human condttion by a clinically detailed descriptionof pox sores. [445] 446 HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY humbling, punitive thoughts of a Pascal or a Nicole are converted, perverted, refuted, replaced, and denied by a new kind of Pens~es; pens6es that are philosophiques because they are totally other. These remarks may also have a bearing on a rather neglected work usually attributed to Diderot and assumed to date from the 1740s: De la suffi'sance de la religion naturelle. It was recently republished in the new edition of the complete works, the text being edited by John S. Spink. 5For present purposes I shall assume that Diderot's authorship of it is unquestionable just as the editor claims, even though, in the last analysis, we only have Naigeon's word for it, 6and though the uniquely deistic message of the work and the almost syllogistic form of the arguments seem oddly out of joint with the more diverse and speculative approaches one finds in Diderot's other early productions. Nevertheless, I am willing to assume--at least for the sake of argument--that Spink is correct in declaring Diderot to be the author. On the other hand, 1 do not...