Denis Diderot

SUPPLEMENT TO THE VOYAGE OF BOUGAINVILLE


I

Judgment on the Voyage of Bougainville

III

Conversation of the Chaplain and Orou

B.: In the division which the Tahitiens made of Bougainville's crew, the chaplain fell to the lot of Orou. They were about the same age, thirty-five to thirty-six. Just then Orou had at home only his wife and three daughters, Asto, Palli and Thia. These undressed him, washed his face, hands and feet, and served him a healthy and frugal meal. When he was about to go to bed, Orou, who had gone away with his family, reappeared, presented his wife and three daughters quite naked and said:

"Thou hast had supper, thou art young and in good health. Sleep alone, and thou wilt sleep badly. Man needs a companion by his side at night. Here is my wife, here are my daughters. Take your choice. But you would oblige me by fixing for preference on my youngest daughter, who has not yet had a child.
" The mother added: "Alas!Alas! But it is no good complaining. Poor Thia, it is not her fault."
The chaplain replied that his religion, his calling, good morals and honourability forbade him to accept these offers.
Orou replied: "I do not know what thou meanest by religion, but I cannot think well of it, if it forbids thee to enjoy an innocent pleasure, to which nature, the sovereign mistress, invites us all -- to give existence to one like thee: to render a service that father mother and children ask of thee; to make a fitting return to a host who has welcomed thee warmly and to enrich a nation, by increase, with one subject the more. I do not know what thou meanest by thy calling. But thy first duty is to be a man and grateful. I dare not suggest that thou carry away into thy country the morals of Orou. But Orou, thy host and friend, beseeches thee to lend thyself to the morals of Tahiti. Are the morals of Tahiti better or worse than yours? It is a question that can be easily settled. Has the country of thy birth more children than it can feed? In that case thy morals are neither better nor worse than ours. Can it feed more than it has? Then our morals are better than thine. As for the honourability thou objectest against me, I understand thee. I admit my fault and hope to be forgiven. I do not ask thee to damage thy health. If thou art tired, thou must rest. But I hope thou wilt not continue to sadden us. See the care thou hast spread on all these faces. They fear thou hast remarked in them some faults which have made thee disdain them. But even so, would not the pleasure of honouring one of my daughters, among her companions and sisters, and doing a good action, make up for this? Be generous."
THE CHAPLAIN: It is not that: they are all four equally beautiful: but my religion! but my calling!
OROU: They belong to me and I offer them to thee. They are their own and they give themselves to thee. Whatever may be the purity of conscience which the thing religion and the thing calling prescribe, thou canst accept them without scruple. I do not abuse my authority; thou mayest be certain I know and respect the rights of men. … But pray tell me what is this word religion, that thou didst repeat so often and with so much pain?"
The chaplain, after reflecting for a moment, answered: "Who made thy cabin and its articles of furniture?"
OROU: I did.
CHAPLAIN: Very well. We believe that this world and all it contains is the work of a workman.
OROU: Then he has feet, hands and a head?
CHAPLAIN: No.
OROU: Where does he live?
CHAPLAIN: Everywhere.
OROU: Here too?
CHAPLAIN: Yes.
OROU: We have never seen him.
CHAPLAIN: He is not to be seen.
OROU: A poor sort of father! He must be old. For he must be at least as old as his handiwork.
CHAPLAIN: He never grows old. He has spoken to our ancestors: he has given them laws: and has prescribed the manner in which he would be honoured. He has ordained for them certain actions as good and forbidden them others as bad.
OROU: I see, and one of those actions he has forbidden as bad is to sleep with a woman or girl. Why then has he made two sexes?
CHAPLAIN: For union, but on certain fixed conditions and after certain preliminary ceremonies, as a result of which a man belongs to a woman and belongs to her alone. A woman belongs to a man and belongs to a man alone.
OROU: For their whole life?
CHAPLAIN: For their whole life.
OROU: So that if a woman slept with anyone else than her husband and a husband with anyone else than his wife -- but the case can never arise, for since the workman is there and disapproves of it, he knows how to stop them.
CHAPLAIN: No, he lets them go their way, and they sin against the law of God (for that is what we call the great workman) and the law of the land; and they commit a crime.
OROU: I should hate to offend you with my remarks, but with your permission, I will give you my opinion.
CHAPLAIN: Go on.
OROU: I find these singular precepts opposed to nature and contrary to reason: they needs must multiply the number of crimes and continually annoy the old workman, who has made everything without the help of head, hands, or tools, who exists everywhere and is to be seen nowhere: who endures to-day and to-morrow and is never a day the older: who commands and is never obeyed: who can prevent and does not do so. These precepts are contrary to nature because they presuppose that a thinking, feeling, free being can be the property of another like himself. Upon what can this right be founded? Do you not see that, in your country, you have mixed up two different things? That which has neither feeling, thought, desire nor will, and which one can take, keep or exchange, without its suffering or complaining; and that which cannot be exchanged or acquired: which has liberty, will, desires: which can give itself and refuse itself for a single instant, or for ever: which complains and suffers: which could not become a mere article of commerce without its character being forgotten and violence done to its nature? These precepts are contrary to the general law of existence. Does anything really appear to thee more senseless than a precept which refuses to admit the change which is in ourselves: which insists on a constancy which has no counterpart in us and which violates the liberty of male and female, by chaining them for ever one to the other: more senseless than a constancy which confines the most capricious of pleasures to a single person: than an oath of immutability between two fleshly beings in the face of a heaven which is not a moment the same: under caverns that threaten ruin: beneath a rock that falls in powder: at the foot of a tree that cracks: upon a stone that breaks in pieces? Believe me, you have made the condition of men worse than that of animals. I know not who thy great workman is. But I am glad he has never spoken to our fathers and I hope he never speaks to our children. For he might say the same silly things to them and they might be silly enough to believe him. Yesterday at supper thou toldest of magistrates and priests, whose authority rules your conduct. But tell me, are they lords of good and evil? Can they make what is just unjust, and what is unjust just? Does it rest with them to label good actions harmful and harmful actions innocent or useful? Thou canst not well admit it, for then there would be neither true nor false, good nor bad, beautiful nor ugly, except in so far as thy great workman, thy magistrates and priests thought good to say so. Then from one moment to another thou wouldst be compelled to change thy opinion and thy conduct. …Dost thou wish to know what is good and bad in all times and all places? Cling to the nature of things and actions: to thy relations with those like thee: to the influence of thy conduct on thy private convenience and the public good. Thou art mad if thou thinkest there be anything, high or low, in the universe which can supplement or be subtracted from the law of nature. Her eternal will is that good be preferred to evil and public to private good.

Continuation of the Dialogue

A.: I respect this polite chaplain.
B.: And I rather the morals of the Tahitiens and the speech of Orou.
A.: Though a trifle European in style.
B.: Undoubtedly.

.
A.: But how has it come about that this act, so solemn in its object, and to which nature invites us by the most pressing of attractions, the greatest, the sweetest, and the most innocent of pleasures, has grown to be the most fruitful source of all our depravity and evil?
B.: Orou explained it a dozen times to the chaplain. Listen to him again and try to remember it.
By the tyranny of man, who has turned the possession of a woman into a right of property.
By manners and customs, which have overweighted the conjugal union with conditions.
By civil laws, which have subjected marriage to an infinity of formalities.
By the nature of our society, in which difference of rank and fortune have introduced the proper and improper.
By a strange contradiction, common to all existing societies, by which the birth of a child, which was always regarded as an increase of wealth for the nation, is now more often and more certainly an increase of poverty for the family.
By the political views of sovereigns, who have related everything to their own interest and safety.
By religious institutions, which have attached the names of vice and virtue to actions not susceptible to moral treatment.
How far we are from nature and happiness! The empire of nature cannot be destroyed. However much you handicap it with obstacles it will endure. Write as much as you please on tables of bronze (to use the expression of the wise Marcus Aurelius), that the pleasurable friction of two intestines is a crime, the heart of man will still be torn between the threats on your inscriptions and the violence of its own leanings. This untutored heart will not cease to cry out, and a hundred times in the course of life your terrifying inscriptions will disappear before our eyes. Engrave upon marble: Thou shalt not eat the dodo or the gryphon: thou shalt only know thy wife: thou shalt not be the husband of thy sister; and do not forget to increase the punishment to suit the strangeness of the discipline. You will become cruel yourselves, but you will not succeed in changing my nature.
A.: How short the code of nations would be if it conformed rigidly to the law of nature. How many errors and vices man would be spared!
Return to Enlightenment Homepage