"Will you kindly tell us why such a strange animal as man was ever made?"

Candide is a book different from any other I have ever read. As I went further into the story, I tried looking for works it reminded me of. Yet, I found none. This is of no surprise, though. Never before had I read a satirical piece. I didn't even know what satire was until a few weeks ago. So it is undeniable that satire is what makes this work different from any other.

In Candide the reader is not meant to identify with the characters or even wish that they succeed. On the contrary, I was constantly looking forward to Candide's failures and to being able to make fun of all the characters. It usually bothers me when I can't really relate to the characters, but in this case, it thrilled me. I loved it when Candide killed the two monkeys and these happened to be the two ladies' lovers,  I was excited for Pangloss's death, and I was delighted after reading that Cunégonde had become ugly. I guess the irony of it all made me happy.

In addition, I found that what I wanted most was to have Candide discover that Pangloss was in fact wrong: We do not live in the "best of all possible worlds", as Pangloss never failed to remind him. It was for this reason that the only character I really liked was Martin. Martin constantly disagreed with Pangloss's teachings and ideas. Many would believe he was pessimistic, but I just think he was realistic.  Everyone in this story was too optimistic, and Martin was the only one who was able to see what everything was really like. Too bad this makes him seem as the pessimistic character in Candide.

Voltaire maintains a constant battle between optimism and pessimism. Pangloss always says everything is for the best. He even develops an explanation as to why getting syphilis was not a curse, but a blessing. Since without it, America would not exist, and therefore, there'd be no chocolate. On the other hand, when Candide asks Martin why the Earth was formed, he answers "To drive us mad." So is this the best of all possible worlds or are we just here to fight the constant injustices and learn to survive? Well, I guess that is up to each one of us to decide.

"'What is optimism?' asked Cacambo. 'It's the for maintaining all is right when all goes wrong with us.'"

Optimism. Something not everybody has. Something people wish to acquire, but still annoys many. Something Pangloss had. He used to say everything is for the best and that we "live in the best of all possible worlds." But is this really so? Is there no place that could be better than the one we live in?

It is true: we are living in a world quite different from the one Voltaire was referring to. But we still keep all those aspects he so strongly disapproved of. We have religions, lack of free will (even though supposedly do have it). and wars all the time. But he must've know that it would always be the same.  This is evident when Candide asks "Do you think, that men have always massacred each other, as the do to-day, that they have always been weak, inconstant, mean-spirited, envious, greedy, drunken, miserly, ambitious, bloody, slanderous, debauched, fanatic, hypocritical, and stupid?" And Martin only answers: "Do you think, that hawks have always eaten pigeons when they could find them?" (Page 96) So it is obvious that Voltaire believes that all these bad characteristics of humans, are simply in their nature. There's just no way to change it.

There are better places to live in. If this is the best of possible worlds, what would the worst be like? We have people living in squalor, we have orphans living on the streets, we have children working and fighting to survive in awful places. So what a great place it is for everybody! It is true, this is the best of all possible worlds for me. I have nothing to complain about, and basically everything I could ever want and few will ever have. But it is not just me in this world. It's almost seven billion people, of which more than 50% have a difficult life in which each day is another fight for survival.

"The prodigious superiority of its materials over the sand and pebbles which we call gold and precious stones was clearly manifest."

“The door was mere silver, and the rooms were paneled with nothing better than gold; but the workmanship was in such good taste as to vie with the richest paneling. It is true that the hall was incrusted only with rubies and emeralds, but everything was so well designed as to compensate for this extreme simplicity.”

            For the inhabitants of Eldorado this was a very simple understated household. As one of the countrymen said when referring to the rubies and emeralds, “[those are] the pebbles and dirt found in our soil.” To them this kind of ornament wasn’t only common, but also insignificant. Yet, for Candide and Cacambo it was lavish and extravagant. When they first came across these precious stones they, “had the curiosity to pick some up, and found that they were gold nuggets, emeralds, and rubies, the least of which would have been the grandest ornament in the Mogul throne.” In short, they both thought the riches were “fit for kings”.

            In our society we would agree with Candide and Cacambo. The emeralds, rubies, gold, and silver were magnificent materials to come upon. However, the reason is that we have been brought up believing so. The value of these riches weren’t assigned by nature, instead they were appointed by society. If we had been educated in Eldorado, we would side with them in thinking that the gemstones were common everyday objects with no value. Yet, since we have been raised in a different environment, we end up coinciding with the views of Candide and his servant.

            One of the inhabitants also says, “We have been sheltered from the greed of European nations, who have a quite irrational lust for the pebbles and dirt found in our soil, and would kill every man of us to get hold of them.” This, unfortunately, is very true. They would most definitely commence a brutal blood bath against each other in order to gain control of the riches, which in Eldorado were trivial to say the least. The most ironic thing of it all, is that they created the value of these items and therefore also the desire for them. Truth is, society has always given everything it’s meaning, and we have blindly accepted and followed these set standards. 

"In fact, the laws of nature teach us to kill our fellow-creatures, and that is what happens in every corner of the earth."

War has been present since the beginnings of time. We know of wars as old as those in ancient Greece, and as recent as those occurring today like the Palestine-Israeli Conflict. So it should come as no surprise that there are so many wars in Candide. Yet, I was shocked at the amount of conflict there is in this book over such minor disagreements.

Candide starts off with various conflicts and wars. First Candide is banished for kissing Cunégonde, then he finds himself in the middle of war, and then the reader finds out that Cunégonde's and the old woman's stories both revolve around conflicts. I thought war would stop at one point, but so far, it hasn't. Now Candide has traveled to the New World, a place people believed was the ultimate sanctuary and safe-haven. Turns out, Voltaire wasn't one of these people. Once Candide arrives, he finds out the police want him for murder, and then he kills a Jesuit Priest. This is not unexpected, since Voltaire has been criticizing European society all along. However, further ahead in the story, an indian tribe wants to eat Candide and his servant because they believe they're Jesuits. So apparently, Europeans aren't the only ones who fight because of idealistic disagreements.

So it is evident that Voltaire believed it wasn't only people in his society who fought over anything, it was people everywhere. So he must have believed that it wasn't society that corrupted the individual, but that the individual was simply born corrupted. Throughout the book Voltaire demonstrates  how discontent he is with European society, and now he criticizes American cultures as well. It is eminently obvious in this satirical quote referring to the cannibal tribe: "'What grand people they are! What fine fellows! And what culture!... When all is said and done, there is a sterling goodness in unsophisticated Nature.'"So Voltaire disapproves of European society. And he disapproves of American society as well. Then is there anything he is content with?

"A few days later they decided to eat the women."

Can you imagine what it would be like to go from the life of your dreams to an absolute nightmare? Well, this is what happens to Cunégonde's waiting-woman. She was born a pope's daughter and lived in an immense castle. She married the man of her dreams, the one she loved "to the point of idolatry." However, this man died two hours after the wedding. So the now-widowed bride, left with her mom to mourn him in Gaeta, but her ship was attacked by pirates. Her life became a total wreck then.

I find it unbelievable how Voltaire takes any chance he can to criticize either the Church or the Aristocracy. Aren't popes forbidden from having sexual relationships? But this one apparently couldn't help himself and had a child. Way to maintain the Church's sincerity and stick to his vows. In addition, Voltaire makes fun of nobles by giving Buenos Aires's most important nobleman a long name and then saying he "had a degree of pride appropriate to one who bore so many names." The sarcasm is evident, and so is his hate towards these people in society.

Not only does he use satire to criticize society's elite, but also to show that women are treated as objects. First, the woman, her mother, and their servants are all raped while traveling to Gaeta. It is not outright said that they were raped, though. Voltaire just says that these men "put their fingers into a place where we women normally admit nothing but a syringe-tube," and leaves the interpretation to the reader. In addition, once they reach Morocco, men begin to fight for the women and end up dismembering them. Nice way to choose a winner, I must say. The woman is the only one left alive, and wakes up to a man trying to rape her. (Can't these men control themselves? It's one rape after another!) Nevertheless, they become friends and both the woman and the reader begin to trust this man. But as soon as one does, he sells the woman. So apparently, not even the nicest man can treat a woman like an actual person. Then, the woman is moved to Azov, which is sieged. So then the soldiers try to eat the women in the fortress. Fortunately, a "pious and compassionate"priest convinces them to "cut just one buttock of each of these ladies." It's truly nice of him, isn't it? Again, Voltaire is using irony to prove his point.

Although this woman has gone through terrible occurrences, she refuses to pity herself, something I truly admire. Most people, as it is even shown in the book, think their lives are awful and that they are great beings for upholding all this suffering. I must say, Im no exception and neither are most of the people I know. It is true, some people are more dramatic about it than others, but still everybody has thought at some point or another that their life is full of problems. So I do look up to the woman and how she is at no point seeking to have anybody say "Oh! You're so brave! You've been through so much!", but just believes these stories will reduce boredom. Maybe it's something we should all start doing: Stop self-pity. Pity solves nothing, so we might as well do anything else instead.

"'If this is the best of all possible worlds... what can the rest be like?'"

I've heard people go against the Church millions of time. Some say it's all a fake, others say it only seeks power and control. However, I have never heard someone so biased against the church as Voltaire. His opinions must have been clear to anybody who heard him during the enlightenment era, and they are evident to anybody today who reads Candide.


Candide is a huge criticism towards the Catholic religion. Not towards the beliefs, but towards the people's hypocrisy. He tells of how a Cunégonde belonged to Don Issachar, a Jew, but then an Inquisitor wished to own her as well. Seeing as Don Issachar would not let him have her, he threatened to burn him alive. By doing so, the Grand Inquisitor is taking advantage of his power and using it for is benefit in things that are not even religion-related. In addition, when the Inquisitor and Don Issachar are murdered by Candide, the Catholic man is buried in a "beautiful church", while the Jew is "thrown in a dunghill." To further strengthen Voltaire's arguments, Caunégonde has her jewels stolen. But not by a poor man, seeking anything that will help him prevail. On the contrary, the thief turns out to be a reverend friar. Aren't friars supposed to have vowed to poverty? So, since when does stealing jewels comply with this bow? This, is a perfect example of the Church's hypocrisy.

One would expect Voltaire to prove his point with simple examples nobody would be able to miss. However, he uses satire instead. There is not a single time when he has a character say something like "See? That's how hypocritical the Church is," or anything of the sort. Instead, he leaves it to the audience to see it in whatever way they desire. Yet, for some fortunate reason, most readers will analyze these example in the exact way Voltaire wants them to.

At the beginning of the story, Pangloss's teachings are portrayed as exemplary ones, far from being wrong. However, as the story develops, Candide begins to doubt these teachings. In his opinion, they are way too optimistic. Everything is not for the best and this is not the "best of possible worlds". It is strange how it is evident that Voltaire was against Pangloss's teachings since the start. Yet he chooses to show how his characters stop trusting these, instead of having them go against these teachings since the beginning. I believe he does this to have the reader go through the same change of opinion as the characters, rather than having him doubt the characters and go against their disagreements with Panglos.  This technique reminds me of a movie called Inception. In this movie, the characters fake an opinion and then slowly change it, in order to have another character slowly do so as well. Whether Voltaire did this on purpose or accidentally, this is a genius technique an might have helped him gain even more support.

"It was useless to declare his belief in free will and say he wanted neither"

What is "free will"? A punishment for getting us into hard situations and dilemmas? Or a gift for allowing us to choose what we want? It is hard sometimes to decide what it is that we want. Sometimes I'd even like somebody to makeup my mind for it, but I would never address free will as a punishment. And neither would Voltaire. Voltaire actually uses Candide, a satirical piece, to show his thoughts on society, especially free will. He verbally fought in the French Revolution, and this work was most probably one of his means to present his ideas to the public.

"'Your Excellency must excuse me... Free Will is consistent with Absolute Necessity, for it was ordained the we should be free,'" writes Voltaire on the fifth chapter of his book. By doing so, he is trying to convince the reader that free will is a basic right for everybody. During that time, people just did what the church and the monarchs wanted them to... anyone who went against them would be punished. Awful, right? But they were used to it, just like we're used to many of today's injustices. Yet, Voltaire chose to take a stand and show that there was another way. Something called "free will". He doesn't just put it as something that would be nice for  people. He chooses to portray it as something everybody needs, this way increasing potential support.

Voltaire not only shows his support for free will in direct way. In fact, he mostly uses satire to prove his points. There's a point in the story where the authorities kill a man for marrying his godmother, two Portuguese Jews for refusing to eat bacon, and Panglos and Candide are arrested for speaking and "listening intently." With this situation Voltaire criticizes the government and the lack of free will it allows. Of course it's an exaggeration, and this most likely did not happen back then. But it was a way to make the reader stop and maybe say "Wait a minute. This kind of does sound like the society I live in. There's so many things I'm not allowed to do." With this novel, Voltaire proved that the only way to gain supporters was not through speeches. He was able to create an entertaining piece while still fighting for his cause and gaining support.