Transcriber's Note: The Introduction, by Jacob Viner, was firstpublished without a copyright notice and, therefore, is in the publicdomain. The Augustan Reprint Society BERNARD MANDEVILLE _A Letter to Dion_ (1732) With an Introduction by Jacob Viner Publication Number 41 Los AngelesWilliam Andrews Clark Memorial LibraryUniversity of California1953 GENERAL EDITORS H. RICHARD ARCHER, _Clark Memorial Library_RICHARD C. BOYS, _University of Michigan_RALPH COHEN, _University of California, Los Angeles_VINTON A. DEARING, _University of California, Los Angeles_ ASSISTANT EDITOR W. EARL BRITTON, _University of Michigan_ ADVISORY EDITORS EMMETT L. AVERY, _State College of Washington_BENJAMIN BOYCE, _Duke University_LOUIS BREDVOLD, _University of Michigan_JOHN BUTT, _King's College, University of Durham_JAMES L. CLIFFORD, _Columbia University_ARTHUR FRIEDMAN, _University of Chicago_EDWARD NILES HOOKER, _University of California, Los Angeles_LOUIS A. LANDA, _Princeton University_SAMUEL H. MONK, _University of Minnesota_EARNEST MOSSNER, _University of Texas_JAMES SUTHERLAND, _University College, London_H. T. SWEDENBERG, JR. , _University of California, Los Angeles_ CORRESPONDING SECRETARY EDNA C. DAVIS, _Clark Memorial Library_ INTRODUCTION The _Letter to Dion_, Mandeville's last publication, was, in form, areply to Bishop Berkeley's _Alciphron: or, the Minute Philosopher_. In_Alciphron_, a series of dialogues directed against "free thinkers" ingeneral, Dion is the presiding host and Alciphron and Lysicles are theexpositors of objectionable doctrines. Mandeville's _Fable of the Bees_is attacked in the Second Dialogue, where Lysicles expounds someMandevillian views but is theologically an atheist, politically arevolutionary, and socially a leveller. In the _Letter to Dion_, however, Mandeville assumes that Berkeley is charging him with all ofthese views, and accuses Berkeley of unfairness and misrepresentation. Neither _Alciphron_ nor the _Letter to Dion_ caused much of a stir. The_Letter_ never had a second edition, [1] and is now exceedingly scarce. The significance of the _Letter_ would be minor if it were confined toits role in the exchange between Berkeley and Mandeville. [2] Berkeleyhad more sinners in mind than Mandeville, and Mandeville more criticsthan Berkeley. Berkeley, however, mere than any other critic seems tohave gotten under Mandeville's skin, perhaps because Berkeley alonemade effective use against him of his own weapons of satire andridicule. [3] [1] In its only foreign language translation, the _Letter_, somewhat abbreviated, is appended to the German translation of _The Fable of the Bees_ by Otto Bobertag, _Mandevilles Bienenfabel_, Munich, 1914, pp. 349-398. [2] Berkeley again criticized Mandeville in _A Discourse Addressed to Magistrates_, [1736], _Works_, A. C. Fraser ed. , Oxford, 1871, III. 424. [3] _A Vindication of the Reverend D---- B--y_, London, 1734, applies to _Alciphron_ the comment of Shaftesbury that reverend authors who resort to dialogue form may "perhaps, find means to laugh gentlemen into their religion, who have unfortunately been laughed out of it. " See Alfred Owen Aldridge, "Shaftesbury and the Deist Manifesto, " _Transactions of the American Philosophical Society_, New Series, XLI (1951), Part 2, p. 358. Berkeley came to closest grips with _The Fable of the Bees_ when herejected Mandeville's grim picture of human nature, and when he metMandeville's eulogy of luxury by the argument that expenditures onluxuries were no better support of employment than equivalent spendingon charity to the poor or than the more lasting life which would resultfrom avoidance of luxury. [4] [4] Francis Hutcheson, a fellow-townsman of Berkeley, had previously made these points against Mandeville's treatment of luxury in letters to the _Dublin Journal_ in 1726, (reprinted in Hutcheson, _Reflections upon Laughter, and Remarks upon the Fable of the Bees_, Glasgow, 1750, pp. 61-63, and in James Arbuckle, _Hibernicus' Letters_, London, 1729, Letter 46). In _The Fable of the Bees_, Mandeville concedes that gifts to charity would support employment as much as would equivalent expenditures on luxuries, but argues that in practice the gifts would not be made. Of the few contemporary notices of the _Letter to Dion_, the mostimportant was by John, Lord Hervey. Hervey charged both Berkeley andMandeville with unfairness, but aimed most of his criticism atBerkeley. He claimed that _Alciphron_ displayed the weaknesses ofargument in dialogue form, that it tended either to state theopponent's case so strongly that it became difficult afterwards torefute it or so weakly that it was not worth answering. He found faultwith Berkeley for denying that Mandeville had told a great manydisagreeable truths--presumably about human nature and its mode ofoperation in society--and with Mandeville for having told them inpublic. He held, I believe rightly, that Mandeville, in associatingvice with prosperity, deliberately blurred the distinction between viceas an incidental consequence of prosperity and vice as its cause: vice, said Hervey, "is the child of Prosperity, but not the Parent; and . .. The Vices which grow upon a flourishing People, are not the Means bywhich they become so. "[5] [5] [Lord Hervey], _Some Remarks on the Minute Philosopher_, London, 1732, pp. 22-23, 42-50. T. E. Jessop, in his introduction to his edition of _Alciphron_, characterizes Berkeley's account of the argument of _The Fable of theBees_ as "not unfair, " and says: "I can see no reason for whitewashingMandeville. The content and manner of his writing invite retort ratherthan argument. Berkeley gives both, in the most sparkling of hisdialogues. Mandeville wrote a feeble reply, A _Letter to Dion_. "[6] F. B. Kaye, on the other hand, says of the exchange between Berkeley andMandeville that "men like . .. Berkeley, who may be termed thereligious-minded . .. In their anguish, threw logic to the winds, andcriticized him [i. E. , Mandeville] for the most inconsistent reasons. "[7] [6] _Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher_, T. E. Jessop, ed. , in _The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne_. Edited by A. A. Luce and T. E. Jessop. London, etc. , III. (1950), 9-10. [7] In his edition of _The Fable of the Bees_, Oxford, 1924, II. 415-416. All subsequent references to _The Fable of the Bees_ will be to this edition. Objective appraisal of the outcome of the debate between Berkeley andMandeville would presumably lead to a verdict somewhere between thoserendered, with appropriate loyalty to their authors, by theirrespective editors. It is mainly for other reasons, however, that the_Letter to Dion_ is still of interest. There is first its literarymerit. More important, the _Letter_ presents in more emphatic andsharper form than elsewhere two essential elements of Mandeville'ssystem of thought, the advocacy, real or pretended, of unqualifiedrigorism in morals, and the stress on the role of the State, of the"skilful Politician, " in evoking a flourishing society out of theoperations of a community of selfish rogues and sinners. The remainderof this introduction will be confined to comments on these two aspectsof Mandeville's doctrine. Since the publication in 1924 of F. B. Kaye'smagnificent edition of _The Fable of the Bees_, no one can dealseriously with Mandeville's thought without heavy reliance on it, evenwhen, as is the case here, there is disagreement with Kaye'sinterpretation of Mandeville's position. It was Mandeville's central thesis, expressed by the motto, "PrivateVices, Publick Benefits, " of _The Fable of the Bees_, that theattainment of temporal prosperity has both as prerequisite and asinevitable consequence types of human behavior which fail to meet therequirements of Christian morality and therefore are "vices. " Heconfined "the Name of Virtue to every Performance, by which Man, contrary to the impulse of Nature, should endeavour the Benefit ofothers, or the Conquest of his own Passions out of a Rational Ambitionof being good. "[8] If "out of a Rational Ambition of being good" beunderstood to mean out of "charity" in its theological sense ofconscious love of God, this definition of virtue is in strictconformity to Augustinian rigorism as expounded from the sixteenthcentury on by Calvinists and, in the Catholic Church, by Baius, Jansenius, the Jansenists, and others. Mandeville professes also theextreme rigorist doctrine that whatever is not virtue is vice: inAugustinian terms, _aut caritas aut cupiditas_. Man must thereforechoose between temporal prosperity and virtue, and Mandeville insists, especially in the _Letter to Dion_, that on his part the choice isalways of virtue: . .. The Kingdom of Christ is not of this World, and . .. The last-named is the very Thing a true Christian ought to renounce. (p. 18)[9] [8] _Fable of the Bees_, I. 48-49. [9] All page references placed in the main text of this introduction are to the _Letter to Dion_. "Tho' I have shewn the Way to Worldly Greatness, I have, without Hesitation, preferr'd the Road that leads to Virtue. " (p. 31) Kaye concedes: that Mandeville's rigorism "was merely verbal andsuperficial, and that he would much regret it if the world were runaccording to rigoristic morality;" that "emotionally" and "practically, if not always theoretically, " Mandeville chooses the "utilitarian" sideof the dilemma between virtue and prosperity; and that "Mandeville'sphilosophy, indeed, forms a complete whole without the extraneousrigorism. "[10] Kaye nevertheless insists that Mandeville's rigorism wassincere, and that it is necessary so to accept it to understand him. Itseems to me, on the contrary, that if Mandeville's rigorism weresincere, the whole satirical structure of his argument, its provocativetone, its obvious fun-making gusto, would be incomprehensible, andthere would be manifest inconsistency between his satirical purposesand his procedures as a writer. [10] _Fable of the Bees_, II. 411. I, lxi, I, lvi. Kaye argues that rigorism was not so unusual as of itself to justifydoubt as to its genuineness in the case of Mandeville; rigorism was "acontemporary point of view both popular and respected, a view-point notyet extinct. " To show that rigorism was "the respectable orthodoxposition for both Catholics and Protestants, " Kaya cites as rigorists, in addition to Bayle, St. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Daniel Dyke (theauthor of _Mystery of Selfe-Deceiving_, 1642), Thomas Fuller(1608-1661), William Law, and three Continental moralists, Esprit andPascal, Jansenists, and J. F. Bernard, a French Calvinist. [11] [11] _Ibid. _, I. Li, I. Lv, I. Cxxi. Christian rigorism by Mandeville's time had had a long history. From andincluding St. Augustine on, it had undergone many types of doctrinaldilution and moderation even on the part of some of its most ardentexponents. In Mandeville, and in Kaye, it is presented only in its barestand starkest form. Kaye, however, required by his thesis to show thatMandeville's doctrine was "in accord with a great body of contemporarytheory, "[12] while accepting it as "the code of rigorism" treats it asif it were identical with any moral system calling for any measure ofself-discipline or associated with any type of religious-mindedness. [13]He also identifies it with rationalism in ethics as such, as if anyrationalistic ethics, merely because it calls for some measure ofdiscipline of the passions by "reason, " is _ipso facto_ "rigorist. "[14] [12] _Ibid. _ I. Cxxiv, note. [13] For example, Kaye cites from Blewitt, a critic of Mandeville, this passage: "nothing can make a Man honest or virtuous but a Regard to _some_ religious or moral Principles" and characterizes it as "precisely the rigorist position from which Mandeville was arguing when he asserted that our so-called virtues were really vices, because not based _only_ on this regard to principle. " (_Ibid. _ II. 411. The italics in both cases are mine). The passage from Blewitt is not, of itself, manifestly rigoristic, while the position attributed to Mandeville is rigorism at its most extreme. As further evidence of the prevalence of rigorism, Kaye cites from Thomas Fuller the following passage: "corrupt nature (which without thy restraining grace will have a Vent. )" _Ibid. _ I. Cxxi, note. But in Calvinist theology "restraining grace, " which was not a "purifying" grace, operated to make some men who were not purged of sin lead a serviceable social life. (See John Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Bk. II, Ch. III, () 3, pp. I. 315-316 of the "Seventh American Edition, " Philadelphia, n. D. ) As I understand it, the role of "restraining grace" in Calvinist doctrine is similar to that of "honnêteté" in Jansenist doctrine, referred to _infra_. The rascals whom Mandeville finds useful to society are not to be identified either with those endowed with the "restraining grace" of the Calvinists or with the "honnêtes hommes" of the Jansenists. For other instances of disregard by Kaye of the variations in substance and degree of the rigorism of genuine rigorists, see _ibid. _ II. 403-406, II. 415-416. [14] See especially F. B. Kaye, "The Influence of Bernard Mandeville, " _Studies in Philology_, XIX (1922), 90-102. Mandeville was presumably directing his satire primarily at contemporaryEnglishmen, not at men who had been dead for generations nor atparticipants in Continental theological controversies without realcounterpart in England, at least since the Restoration. If this isaccepted, then of the men cited by Kaye to show the orthodoxy and thecontemporaneity of rigorism only William Law has any relevance. But Lawwas an avowed "enthusiast, " and in the England of Mandeville's time thiswas almost as heretical as to be an avowed sceptic. Calvinism in itsorigins had been unquestionably--though not unqualifiedly--rigoristic. ByMandeville's time, however, avowed Calvinism was almost extinct inEngland; even in Geneva, in Scotland, in Holland, its rigorism had beenmuch softened by the spread of Arminianism and by a variety of proceduresof theological accommodation or mediation between the life of grace andthe life of this sinful world. On the Continent, Jansenists were stillexpounding a severe rigorism. But Jansenist rigorism was not "orthodox. "Though not as extreme as Mandeville's rigorism, it had repeatedly beencondemned by Catholic authorities as "_rigorisme outré_. "[15] [15] Cf. Denziger-Bannwart, _Enchiridion Symbolorum_. (See index of any edition under "Baius, " "Fénelon, " "Iansen, " "Iansenistae, " "Quesnell. ") To take seriously Mandeville's rigorism, the narrowness with which hedefines "virtue, " the broadness with which he defines "vice, " hisfailure to recognize any intermediate ground between "virtue" andoutright "vice, " or any shades or degrees of either, the positivenesswith which he assigns to eternal damnation all who depart in any degreefrom "virtue" as he defines it, is therefore to accept Mandeville as agenuine exponent of a rigorism too austere and too grim not only forthe ordinary run of orthodox Anglicans or Catholics of his time buteven for St. Augustine (at times), for the Calvinists, and for theJansenists. Kaye justifiably puts great stress on the extent of Mandeville'sindebtedness to Pierre Bayle. There is not the space here to elaborate, but it could be shown, I believe, that Mandeville was also indebtedgreatly, both indirectly through Bayle and directly, to the Jansenist, Pierre Nicole, and that Mandeville's rigorism was a gross distortionof, while Bayle's was essentially faithful to, Nicole's system. [16]Nicole insisted that "true virtue" in the rigorist sense was necessaryfor salvation, but at the same time expounded the usefulness forsociety of behavior which theologically was "sinful. " But it was the"sinful" behavior of _honnêtes hommes_, of citizens conforming to theprevalent moral standards of their class, not of rogues and rascals, which Nicole conceded to be socially useful. [17] Mandeville, on theother hand, not only lumped the respectable citizens with the roguesand rascals, but it was the usefulness for society of the vices of therogues and rascals more than--and rather than--those of honest andrespectable citizens which he emphasized. In the flourishing hive, prior to its reform, there were: . .. Sharpers, Parasites, Pimps, Players, Pick-pockets, Coiners, Quacks, South-sayers, * * * These were call'd Knaves, but bar the Name, The grave Industrious were the same. [18] [16] The most pertinent writings of Nicole for present purposes were his essays, "De la charité & de l'amour-propre, " "De la grandeur, " and "Sur l'évangile du Jeudi-Saint, " which in the edition of his works published by Guillaume Desprez, Paris, 1755-1768, under the title _Essais de morale_, are to be found in volumes III, VI, and XI. [17] For a similar distinction by Bayle between _honnêtes hommes_ who are not of the elect and the outright rascals, see Pierre Bayle, _Dictionaire historique et critiqué_. 5th ed. , Amsterdam, 1740, "Éclaircissement sur les obscénités, " IV. () iv, p. 649. [18] _Fable of the Bees_, I. 19. The moral reform which brought disaster to the "Grumbling Hive"consisted merely in abandonment of roguery and adoption of thestandards of the _honnête homme_. [19] [19] In the French versions of 1740 and 1750, the title, _The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits_, is translated as _La fable des abeilles ou les fripons devenus honnestes gens_. For the "honnête homme" in 17th and 18th century usage as intermediate between a knave and a saint, see M. Magendie, _La politesse mondaine et les théories de l'honnêteté en France_, Paris, n. D. , (ca. 1925), and William Empson, _The Structure of Complex Words_, London, 1951, ch. 9, "Honest Man. " The contrast between his general argument and that of Nicole or Baylethrows light on the role which Mandeville's professed rigorism playedin the execution of his satirical purposes. It not only supports theview of all his contemporaries that Mandeville's rigorism was a sham, but also the view that he was not averse to having its insincerity begenerally detected, provided only that it should not be subject toclear and unambiguous demonstration. By lumping together the "vices" ofthe knave and the honest man, Mandeville could without serious risk ofcivil or ecclesiastical penalties make rigorism of any degree seemridiculous and thus provide abundant amusement for himself and forlike-minded readers; he could then proceed to undermine all the reallyimportant systems of morality of his time by applying more exactingstandards than they could meet. Against a naturalistic and sentimentalsystem, like Shaftesbury's, he could argue that it rested on anappraisal of human nature too optimistic to be realistic. Againstcurrent Anglican systems of morality, if they retained elements ofolder rigoristic doctrine he could level the charge of hypocrisy, andif they were latitudinarian in their tendencies he could object thatthey were expounding an "easy Christianity" inconsistent with Holy Writand with tradition. Mandeville clearly did not like clergymen, especially hypocriticalones, and there still existed sufficient pulpit rigorism to provide himwith an adequate target for satire and a substantial number of readerswho would detect and approve the satire. As Fielding's Squire Westernsaid to Parson Supple when the latter reproved him for some misdeed:"At'nt in pulpit now? when art a got up there I never mind what dostsay; but I won't be priest-ridden, nor taught how to behave myself bythee. " Only if it is read as a satire on rigorist sermons can there befull appreciation of the cleverness of the "parable of small beer"which Mandeville, with obvious contentment with his craftsmanship, reproduces in the _Letter to Dion_ (pp. 25-29) from _The Fable of theBees_. Here the standard rigorist proposition that there is sin both inthe lust and in the act of satisfying it is applied to drink, where thethirst and its quenching are both treated as vicious. [20] [20] Kaye in a note to this parable, _Fable of the Bees_, I. 238, cites as relevant, _I Cor. X. 31_; "Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. " Even more relevant, I believe, is _Deut. Xxix. 19_, where, in the King James version, the sinner boasts: "I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst. " Mandeville, as Kaye interprets him, resembles the "_Jansénistes duSalon_" who prided themselves on the fashionable rigor of theirdoctrine but insisted on the practical impossibility of living up to itin the absence of efficacious grace. In my interpretation, Mandevillewas both intellectually and temperamentally a "libertine" patentlyputting on the mask of rigorism in order to be able at the same time toattack the exponents of austere theological morality from their rearwhile making a frontal attack on less exacting and more humanisticsystems of morality. The phenomenon was not a common one, but it wasnot unique. Bourdaloue, the great seventeenth-century Jesuit preacher, not very long before had called attention to libertines in France whomasqueraded in rigorist clothes in order to deepen the cleavages amongthe members of the Church: "D'òu il arrive assez souvent, parl'assemblage le plus bizarre et le plus monstrueux, qu'un homme qui necroit pas en Dieu, se porte pour défenseur du pouvoir invincible de lagrâce, et devient à toute outrance le panégyriste de la plus étroitemorale. "[21] [21] "Pensées diverses sur la foi, et sur les vices opposés, " _Oeuvres de Bourdaloue_, Paris, 1840, III. 362-363. The _Letter to Dion_ has bearing also on another phase of Mandeville'sdoctrine which is almost universally misinterpreted. Many scholars, including economists who should know better, regard Mandeville as apioneer expounder of laissez-faire individualism in the economic fieldand as such as an anticipator of Adam Smith. Kaye accepts thisinterpretation without argument. The evidence provided by _The Fable of the Bees_ in support of such aninterpretation is confined to these facts: Mandeville stressed theimportance of self-interest, of individual desires and ambitions, asthe driving force of socially useful economic activity; he held that abetter allocation of labor among different occupations would result, atleast in England, if left to individual determination than if regulatedor guided; he rejected some types of sumptuary legislation. All of this, however, though required for laissez-faire doctrine, wasalso consistent with mercantilism, at least of the English type. Thelater exponents of laissez-faire did not invent the "economic man" whopursued only his own interest, but inherited him from the mercantilistsand from the doctrine of original sin. English analysis of socialprocess had in this sense always been "individualistic, " and in thissense both mercantilism and the widely-prevalent theologicalutilitarianism were at least as individualistic as later laissez-faireeconomics. Englishmen, moreover, had long been jealous of governmentalpower, and at the height of English mercantilism they insisted uponlimits to appropriate governmental intervention. It is not safe, therefore, to label anyone before Adam Smith as an exponent oflaissez-faire merely on the ground that he would exempt a few specifiedtypes of economic activity from interference by government. It would bemisleading also to apply to eighteenth-century writers modern ideas asto the dividing line between "interventionists" and exponents of"liberalism" or of "laissez faire. " As compared to moderntotalitarianism, or even to modern "central economic planning, " or to"Keynesianism, " the English mercantilism of the late seventeenth andthe eighteenth century was essentially libertarian. It is only ascompared to Adam Smith, or to English classical and the Continental"liberal" schools of economics of the nineteenth century, that it wasinterventionist. Adam Smith is regarded as an exponent of laissez-faire because he laidit down as a general principle (subject in practice to numerous andfairly important specific exceptions) that the activities of governmentshould be limited to the enforcement of justice, to defense, and topublic works of a kind inherently unsuitable for private enterprise. Hebased this doctrine partly on natural rights grounds, partly on thebelief that there was a pervasive natural and self-operating harmony, providentially established, between individual interest and theinterest of the community, partly on the empirical ground thatgovernment was generally inefficient, improvident, and unintelligent. There is nothing of such doctrine in Mandeville; there is abundantevidence in his writings that Mandeville was a convinced adherent ofthe prevailing mercantilism of his time. Most English mercantilistsdisapproved of some or all kinds of sumptuary regulations on the samegrounds as Mandeville disapproved of some of them, namely, theexistence of more suitable ways of accomplishing their objectives orthe mistaken character of their objectives. Mandeville's objection tocharity schools on the ground that they would alter for the worse thesupplies of labor for different occupations was based on his beliefthat England, unlike some other countries, already had more tradesmenand skilled artisans than it needed. Mandeville, in contrast to AdamSmith, put great and repeated stress on the importance of the rôle ofgovernment in producing a strong and prosperous society, throughdetailed and systematic regulation of economic activity. It is a common misinterpretation of Mandeville in this respect to readhis motto, "Private Vices, Publick Benefits, " as a laissez-faire motto, postulating the natural or spontaneous harmony between individualinterests and the public good. The motto as it appeared on title pagesof _The Fable of the Bees_ was elliptical. In his text, Mandevillerepeatedly stated that it was by "the skilful Management of the cleverPolitician" that private vices could be made to serve the public good, thus ridding the formula of any implication of laissez-faire. This is made clear beyond reasonable doubt by the _Letter to Dion_. Berkeley, in _Alciphron_, had made Lysicles say: "Leave nature at fullfreedom to work her own way, find all will be well. " Mandeville, takingthis as directed against himself, disavows it vigorously, and cites thestress he had put on "laws and governments" in _The Fable of the Bees_. (pp. 3-4; see also 55). He repeats from _The Fable of the Bees_ hisexplanation that when he used as a subtitle the "Private Vices, PublickBenefits" motto, "I understood by it, that Private Vices, by thedexterous Management of a skilful Politician, might be turned intoPublick Benefits. " (pp. 36-37). Later he refers to the role of the"skilful Management" of the "Legislator" (p. 42), and to "the Wisdom ofthe Politician, by whose skilful Management the Private Vices of theWorst of Men are made to turn to a Publick Benefit. " (p. 45). "They aresilly People, " he says, "who imagine, that the Good of the Whole isconsistent with the Good of every Individual. " (p. 49). A recent work[22] provides indirectly unintentional support to mydenial that Mandeville was an exponent of laissez-faire. In this workwe are told that "The most famous exponent of what Halévy calls thenatural identity of interests is Bernard Mandeville" and that "WhatMandeville did for the principle of the natural identity of interestsHelvétius did for that of their artificial identity, " that is, "thatthe chief utility of governments consists in their ability to force mento act in their own best interests when they feel disinclined to doso. " It so happens, however, that Helvétius as an apostle of stateintervention was not only not departing from Mandeville but was echoinghim even as to language. Helvétius said that motives of personaltemporal interest sufficed for the formation of a good society, provided they were "maniés avec adresse par un législateur habile. "[23] [22] John Plamenatz, _The British Utilitarians_, Oxford and New York, 1949, pp. 48-49. [23] Helvétius, _De l'esprit_, Discours II. Ch. XXIV. In the French version of _The Fable of the Bees_, the phrasing is almost identical: See _La fable des abeilles_, Paris, 1750, e. G. II. 261: "ménagés avec dextérité par d'habiles politiques. " When the Sorbonne, in 1759, condemned _De l'esprit_, it cited _The Fable of the Bees_ as among the works which could have inspired it. (F. Grégoire. _Bernard De Mandeville_, Nancy, 1947, p. 206). Kaye, in his "The Influence of Bernard Mandeville, " (_loc. Cit. _, p. 102), says that _De l'esprit_ "Is in many ways simply a French paraphrase of _The Fable_. " In his edition of _The Fable of the Bees_, however, he says, "I think we may conclude no more than that Helvétius had probably read _The Fable_. " (_Fable of the Bees_, I. CXLV, Note). Kaye systematically fails to notice the significance of Mandeville's emphasis on the rôle of the "skilful Politician. " Here also there is a close link between Mandeville, Bayle, and theJansenists, especially Nicole and Domat. All of them adopted aHobbesian view of human nature. All of them followed Hobbes inbelieving that the discipline imposed by positive law and enforced bygovernment was essential if a prosperous and flourishing society was tobe derived from communities of individuals vigorously pursuing theirself-regarding interests. Mandeville's originality was in pretendingthat in the interest of true morality he preferred that the individualpursuit of prosperity be abandoned even at the cost of social disaster. A LETTER TO DION, Occasion'd by his Book CALL'D ALCIPHRON, OR The MINUTE PHILOSOPHER. _By the Author of the_ FABLE _of the_ BEES. _LONDON:_ Printed and Sold by J. ROBERTS in _Warwick-Lane_. M. DCC. XXXII. _SIR_, I have read your Two Volumes of _Alciphron_, or, The _MinutePhilosopher_ with Attention. As far as I am a Judge, the Language isvery good, the Diction correct, and the Style and whole Manner ofWriting are both polite and entertaining: All together bespeak theAuthor to be a Man of Learning, good Sense and Capacity. My Design introubling you with this tedious Epistle in Print, which perhaps will belonger than you could have wish'd it, is to rescue the Publick from avulgar Error, which Thousands of knowing and well-meaning People, andyour self, I see, among the Rest, have been led into by a commonReport, concerning _The Fable of the Bees_, as if it was a wicked Book, wrote for the Encouragement of Vice, and to debauch the Nation. I begof you not to imagine, that I intend to blame you, or any other candidMan like your self, for having rashly given Credit to such a Reportwithout further Examination. The _Fable of the Bees_ has been presentedby a Grand Jury more than once; and there is hardly a Book that hasbeen preach'd and wrote against with greater Vehemence or Severity. When a Work is so generally exclaim'd against, a wise Man, who has noMind to mispend his Time, has a very good Reason for not reading it. But as your second Dialogue is almost entirely levell'd at that Bookand its Author, and you have no where declar'd in Words at length (atleast, as I remember) that you never read _The Fable of the Bees_, itis possible I might be ask'd, why I would take it for granted, that younever had read it, when many of your Readers perhaps will believe thecontrary. If this Question was put to me, I would readily answer, thatI chose to be of that Opinion, because it is the most favourable I canpossibly entertain of _Dion_. It is not, Sir, believe me, out ofDisrespect, that I call you plain _Dion_; but because I would treat youwith the utmost Civility: It is the Name under which, I find, you arepleas'd to disguise your self; and offering to guess at an Author, whenhe chuses to be conceal'd, is, I think a Rudeness almost equal to thatof pulling off a Woman's Mask against her Will. Whoever reads your second Dialogue, will not find in it any realQuotations from my Book, either stated or examined into, but that thewicked Tenets and vile Assertions there justly exposed, are either suchNotions and Sentiments, as first, my Enemies, to render me odious, andafterwards Common Fame had already father'd upon me, tho' not to be metwith in any Part of my Book; or else, that they are spitefulInferences, and invidious Comments, which others before you, withoutJustness or Necessity, had drawn from and made upon what I hadinnocently said. I find no Fault with you, Sir; for whilst a Personbelieves these Accusations against me to be true, and is entirelyunacquainted with the Book they point at, it is not impossible that hemight inveigh against it without having any Mischief in his Heart, tho'it was the most useful Performance in the World. A Man may be credulousand yet well disposed; but if a Man of Sense and Penetration, who hadactually read _The Fable of the Bees_, and with Attention perused everyPart of it, should write against it in the same strain, as _Dion_ hasdone in his second Dialogue, then I must confess, I should be at aLoss, what Excuse to make for him. It is impossible that a Man of the least Probity, whilst he is writingin Behalf of Virtue and the Christian Religion, should commit such animmoral Act as to calumniate his Neighbour, and willfully misrepresenthim in the most atrocious Manner. If _Dion_ had read _The Fable of theBees_, he would not have suffer'd such lawless Libertines as_Alciphron_ and _Lysicles_ to have shelter'd themselves under my Wings;but he would have demonstrated to them, that my Principles differ'dfrom theirs, as Sunshine does from Darkness. When they boasted ofsetting Men free, and their abominable Design of ridding them of theShackles of Laws and Governments, he would have quoted to them the veryBeginning of my Preface. _Laws and Government are to the politicalBodies of civil Societies, what the vital Spirits and Life it self areto the natural Bodies of animated Creatures. _ From the same Preface hewould have shew'd those barefaced Advocates for all Manner ofWickedness, the small Encouragement they were like to get from my Book;and as soon as it appear'd, that by Liberty they meant Licentiousness, and a Privilege to commit the most detestable Crimes with Impunity, hewould have quoted these Words: _When I assert, that Vices areinseperable from great and potent Societies, and that it is impossible, that their Wealth and Grandeur should subsist without; I do not say, that the particular Members of them, who are guilty of any, should notbe continually reproved, or not punish'd for them when they grew intoCrimes. _ This he would have corroborated by several Passages in theBook it self, and not have forgot what I say, page 255. _I lay down asa first Principle, that in all Societies, great or small, it is theDuty of every Member of it to be good, that Virtue ought to beencouraged, Vice discountenanc'd, the Laws obey'd, and theTransgressors punish'd. _ If he had only read the first Edition, alittle Book in Twelves, a Man of _Dion's_ Virtue and Integrity couldnot have stifled the Care I have taken in Fifty Places, nor the manyCautions I have given, that I might not offend or be misunderstood: Onthe Contrary, he would have made use of them, to undeceive his Friends, and prevented their groundless Fears and senseless Insinuations. If_Dion_ had read what I have said about the Fire of _London_, Nothingbut his Politeness could have hinder'd him from bursting out into aloud Laughter at the judicious Remark of the Learned _Crito_, where hepoints at the Probability, that the late Incendiaries had taken theHint of their Villainies from _The Fable of the Bees_. I can't say, that there are not several Passages in that Dialogue, which would induce one to believe, that you had dipt into _The Fable ofthe Bees_; but then to suppose, that upon having only dipt in it, youwould have wrote against it as you have done, would be so injurious toyour Character, the Character of an honest Man, that I have notPatience to reason upon such an uncharitable Supposition. I know verywell, Sir, that I am addressing my self to a Man of Parts, a Master inLogick, and a subtle Metaphysician, not to be imposed upon by Sophistryor false Pretences: Therefore I beg of you, carefully to examine what Ihave said hitherto, and you'll be convinced; that my not believing youto have read _The Fable of the Bees_, can proceed from Nothing but thegood Opinion I have of your Worth and Candour, which I hope I shallnever have any Occasion to alter. You are not the first, Sir, by fivehundred, who has been very severe upon _The Fable of the Bees_ withouthaving ever read it. I have been at Church my self when the Book inQuestion has been preach'd against with great Warmth by a worthyDivine, who own'd, that he had never seen it; and there are livingWitnesses now, Persons of unquestion'd Reputation, who heard it as wellas I. After all, you have advanced Nothing in the second Dialogue concerningme, which it may not be proved to have been said or insinuated over andover in Pamphlets, Sermons and News-Papers of all Sorts and Parties. Ican help you to another very good Reason why a Man of Sense might notmistrust the ill Report, that has been spread about _The Fable of theBees_, and write against it in general Terms, tho' he had not read it. Every body knows, what Pains our Party-writers take in contradictingone another, and that there are few Things, which if the one praises, the other does not condemn. Now, if we find the _London Journal_ have aFling at _The Fable of the Bees_ one Day, and _The Craftsman_ another, it is a certain Sign that the ill Repute of the Book, must be wellestablish'd and not to be doubted of. Then why might not an Authorwrite against it, without giving himself the Trouble of reading it? Itwould be hard, a Man should not dare to affirm, that it is hot in the_East-Indies_, without having made a tedious Voyage thither and feltit. The more therefore I reflect, Sir, on your second Dialogue, and theManner you treat me in, the more I am convinced, that you never readthe Book I speak of, I mean, not read it through, or at least not withAttention. If _Dion_ had inform'd himself concerning _The Fable of theBees_, as he might have done, he must have met with my Vindication ofit in some Shape or other. First, it came out in a News-Paper; afterthat, I publish'd it in a Six-penny Pamphlet, together with the Wordsof the first Presentment of the Grand Jury and an injurious abusiveLetter to Lord C. That came out immediately after it; both which hadbeen the Occasion of my writing that Vindication. The Reason I gave fordoing this, was, that the Reader might be fully instructed in theMerits of the Cause between my Adversaries and my Self; and because Ithought it requisite, that to judge of my Defence, he should know thewhole Charge, and all the Accusations against me at large. I took Careto have this printed in such a Manner, as to the Letter and Form, thatfor the Benefit of the Buyers, it might conveniently be bound up, andlook of a Piece with the then last, which was the second Edition. Eversince the whole Contents of this Pamphlet have been added to the Book, and are at the End of the third, the fourth, and the fifth, as well asthis last Impression of 1732. If _Dion_ had seen and approved of thisVindication, he would not have wrote against me at all; and if he hadthought my Answers not satisfactory, and that I had not clear'd my selffrom the Aspersions, which had been cast upon me, it was unkind, if nota great Disregard to the Publick, not to take Notice of it, and shewthe Insufficiency of my Defence, which from his own Writings it isevident, that great Numbers of the _beau monde_ must have acquiesc'din, or not thought necessary. Give me Leave, then, Sir, for your own Sake, to treat you, as if younever had read _The Fable of the Bees_ and in Return I give you myWord, that I shall make no use of it to your Disadvantage; on theContrary, I take it for granted, that from the bad Character you hadheard of the Book from every Quarter, you had sufficient Reason towrite against it, as you have done, without any further Enquiry. Thisbeing settled, I shall attempt to shew you the Possibility, that a Bookmight come into such a general Disrepute without deserving it. AnAuthor, who dares to expose Vice, and the Luxury of the Time he livesin, pulls off the Disguises of artful Men, and examining in to thefalse Pretences, which are made to Virtue, lays open the Lives ofthose, _Qui Curios simulant & Bacchanalia vivunt_: An Author, I say, who dares to do this in a great, and opulent, and flourishing Nation, can never fail of drawing upon him a great Number of Enemies. Few Mencan bear with Patience, to see those Things detected, which it is theirInterest, and they take Pains to conceal. As to Grand Juries, what theygo upon is, the Testimony of others; they don't judge of Books fromtheir own Reading; and many have been presented by them, which none, orat least the greatest Part of them had never seen before. Yet when everthe Publisher of a Book is presented by a Grand Jury, it is counted apublick Censure upon the Author, a Disgrace not easily wiped off. The News-Writers, whose chief Business it is, to fill their Papers andraise the Attention of their Readers, never forget any Scandal whichcan be publish'd with Impunity. By this Means a Book, which once thisIndignity has been put upon, is in a few Days render'd odious, and inless than a Fortnight comes to be infamous throughout the Kingdomwithout any other Demerit; Those Polemick Authors among them, who areParty-Men, and write either for or against Courts and Ministers, have agreater Regard to what will serve their Purpose, than they have toTruth or Sincerity. As they subsist by vulgar Errors, and are keptalive by the Spirit of Strife and Contention, so it is not theirBusiness to rectify Mistakes in Opinion, but rather to encrease themwhen it serves their Turn. They know, that whoever would ingratiatethemselves with Multitudes and gain Credit amongst them, must notcontradict them; which is the Reason that, how widely soever theseParty-Writers may differ from One another in Principles and Sentiments, they will never differ in their Censure or Applause, when they touchupon such Notions which are generally receiv'd. If you'll consider, Sir, what I have said in the two last Paragraphs, you will easily see the Possibility that Books may get into an illRepute and a very bad Character without deserving it. The next I shallendeavour to demonstrate to you, is, that this has been the Case of_The Fable of the Bees_, and that the Animosities which have been shewnagainst it, were originally owing to another Cause, than what myAdversaries pretended to be the true one. In order to this, I shall beobliged to make several Quotations from the Book it self, and repeatmany Things, which I have already said in the Vindication hinted atbefore: But as I design this only for your self and those who havejudged of the Book from Common Report, and never perused either theFirst or the Second Part of it, these Citations will be as new to youas any other Part of my Letter. I am not ignorant of the Prejudice and real Hurt, which Authors dothemselves by making long Quotations. They interrupt the Sense, andoften break off the Thread of the Discourse; and many a Reader, when hecomes to the End of a long Citation, has forgot the main Subject, andoften the Thing it self, which that very Citation was brought in toprove. For this Reason we see, that Judicious Writers avoid them asmuch as possible; or that where they cannot do without, instead ofinserting them in the main Text of their Works, they make Place forthem in Notes or Remarks, which they refer to, or else an Appendix, where many of them may be put together, and are never seen but byChoice, and when the Reader is at Leisure. That this segregating allextraneous Matter from the main Body of the Book, the Text it self, isless disagreeable to most Readers, than the other, which I hinted atfirst, is certain; but it is attended with this ill Consequence, whichthe less engaging Method of Writing is not, to wit, that many curiousand often the most valuable Things, and which it is of the highestConcern to the Author, that they should be known, are neglected andnever look'd into, only because they are put into Notes or Appendixes. In my Case you'll find, Sir, that the long Quotations, some of them ofseveral Pages, which I am obliged to trouble you with, are morematerial for the Vindication of my Book than all that can possibly besaid besides. For they will not only demonstrate to you, that I havebeen shamefully misrepresented, but likewise give you a clear Insightinto the real Cause of the Anger, the Hatred, and Inveteracy, of myEnemies, who first gave the Book an ill Name, and were the industriousAuthors of the false Reports, by which your self and many other goodMen, to my great Affliction, have been impos'd upon. You'll pardon methen, Sir, if, consulting my own Interest in a just Defence, ratherthan your Pleasure in reading it, I plant my strongest Evidences sodirectly in your Way, that, if you'll do me the Favour of perusing thisLetter, it shall be impossible for you to remain ignorant any longer ofthe Innocence of my Intentions, and the Injustice that has been doneme. In the Presentment of the Grand Jury in 1723, it is insinuated that in_The Fable of the Bees_ there are Encomiums upon Stews, which I canassure you, Sir, is not true. What might have given a Handle to thisCharge, must be a Political Dissertation concerning the best Method toguard and preserve Women of Honour and Virtue from the Insults ofdissolute Men, whose Passions are often ungovernable. As in this thereis a Dilemma between two Evils, which it is impracticable to shun both, so I have treated it with the utmost Caution, and begin thus: _I am farfrom encouraging Vice, and should think it an unspeakable Felicity fora State, if the Sin of Uncleanness could be utterly banish'd from it;but I am afraid it is impossible. _ I give my Reasons, why I think itso; and speaking occasionally of the Musick-Houses at _Amsterdam_, Igive a short Account of them, than which Nothing can be more harmless. To prove this to those who have bought or are possess'd of _The Fableof the Bees_, it would be sufficient to appeal and refer to the Book:But as one great Reason of my printing this Letter, is to shew myInnocence to such, who, as well as your self, neither have read norcare to buy the Book, it is requisite I should transcribe the whole. You'll see, Sir, that my Aim is to shew, that these Musick-Houses arediscountenanc'd, at the same Time they are tolerated. _In the first Place, the Houses I speak of, are allow'd to be no wherebut in the most slovenly and unpolish'd Part of the Town, where Seamenand Strangers of no Repute chiefly lodge and resort. The Street, inwhich most of them stand, is counted scandalous, and the Infamy isextended to all the Neighbourhood round it. In the Second, they areonly Places to meet and bargain in, to make Appointments, in order topromote Interviews of greater Secrecy, and no Manner of Lewdness isever suffer'd to be transacted in them; which Order is so strictlyobserv'd, that, bar the Ill Manners and Noise of the Company thatfrequent them, you'll meet with no more Indecency, and generally lessLasciviousness there, than with us are to seen at a Play-House. Thirdly, the Female Traders, that come to these Evening-Exchanges, arealways the Scum of the People, and generally such, as in the Day-Timecarry Fruit and other Eatables about in Wheel-barrows. The Habitsindeed they appear in at Night, are very different from their ordinarayones; yet they are commonly so ridiculously gay, that they look morelike the_ Roman _Dresses of strolling Actresses, than GentlewomensCloaths: If to this you add the Awkwardness, the hard Hands and courseBreeding of the Damsels that wear them, there is no great Reason tofear, that many of the better Sort of People will be tempted by them. _ _The Musick in these Temples of_ Venus _is perform'd by Organs, not outof Respect to the Deity that is worship'd in them, but the Frugality ofthe Owners, whose Business it is to procure as much Sound for as littleMoney as they can, and the Policy of the Government, which endeavoursas little as is possible, to encourage the Breed of Pipers andScrapers. All Sea-faring Men, especially the_ Dutch, _are, like theElement they belong to, much given to Loudness and Roaring, and theNoise of Half a Dozen of them, when they call themselves Merry, issufficient to drown Twice the Number of Flutes or Violins; whereas withone Pair of Organs they can make the whole House ring, and are at noother Charge than the keeping of one scurvy Musician, which can costthem but little, yet notwithstanding the good Rules and strictDiscipline that are observ'd in these Markets of Love, the Schout andhis Officers are always vexing, mulcting, and, upon the leastComplaint, removing the miserable Keepers of them: Which Policy is oftwo great Uses; First, it gives an Opportunity to a large Parcel ofOfficers, the Magistrates make use of on many Occasions, and which theycould not be without, to squeeze a Living out of the immoderate Gainsaccruing from the worst of Employments, and at the same Time punishthose necessary Profligates, the Bawds and Panders, whom, tho' theyabominate, they desire yet not wholly to destroy. Secondly, as onseveral Accounts it might be dangerous to let the Multitude into theSecret, that those Houses and the Trade that is drove in them areconniv'd at, so, by this Means appearing unblameable, the waryMagistrates preserve themselves in the good Opinion of the weaker Sortof People, who imagine, that the Government is always endeavouring, tho' unable, to suppress what it actually tolerates: Whereas if theyhad a Mind to rout them out, their Power in the Administration ofJustice is so sovereign and extensive, and they know so well how tohave it executed, that one Week, nay one Night, might send them all apacking. _ I appeal to your self, Sir, whether this Relation is not more proper togive Men (even the Voluptuous, of any Taste) a Disgust and Aversion tothe Women in those Houses, than it is to raise any criminal Desire. Iam sorry the Grand Jury should conceive, as they said, that I publish'dthis with a Design to debauch the Nation; without considering, in thefirst Place, that there is not a Sentence nor a Syllable, that caneither offend the chastest Ear, or sully the Imagination of the mostvicious; or, in the Second, that the Matter complain'd of, ismanifestly address'd to Magistrates and Politicians, or at least themost serious and thinking Part of Mankind; whereas a general Corruptionof Manners, as to Lewdness, to be produced by Reading, can only beapprehended from Obscenities, easily purchased, and every Way adaptedto the Tastes and Capacities of the heedless Multitude, andunexperienc'd Youth of both Sexes; but that the Performance sooutragiously exclaim'd against was never calculated for either of theseClasses of People, is self-evident from every Circumstance. TheBeginning of the Prose is altogether Philosophical, and hardlyintelligible to any, that have not been used to Matters of Speculation;and the running Title of it is so far from being specious, or inviting, that, without having read the Book it self, No body knows what to makeof it, whilst at the same Time the Price is Five Shillings. From allwhich it is very plain, that if the Book contains any dangerous Tenets, I have not been very sollicitous to scatter them among the People. Ihave not said a Word to please or engage them, and the greatestCompliment I have made them, has been, _Apage Vulgus_. _But as Nothing_(I say p 257. ) _would more clearly demonstrate the Falsity of myNotions, than that the Generality of the People should fall in withthem, so I don't expect the Approbation of the Multitude. I write notto Many, nor seek for any Well-wishers, but among the Few that canthink abstractly, and have their Minds elevated above the Vulgar. _ Ofthis I have made no ill Use, and ever preserv'd such a tender Regard tothe Publick, that when I have advanced any uncommon Sentiments, I haveused all the Precautions imaginable that they might not be hurtful toweak Minds that might casually dip into the Book. When (_page 255_) _Iown'd, that it was my Sentiment, that no Society could be raised into arich and mighty Kingdom, or, so raised, subsist in their Wealth andPower for any considerable Time, without the Vices of Man, I hadpremised what was true, _ that I had _never said or imagin'd, that Mancould not be virtuous, as well in a rich and mighty Kingdom, as in themost pitiful Commonwealth;_ mind Sir, p. 257. _When I say, thatSocieties cannot be raised to Wealth and Power and the Top of EarthlyGlory without Vices, I don't think, that by so saying, I bid Men bevicious, any more than I bid them be quarrelsome or covetous, when Iaffirm, that the Profession of the Law could not be maintain'd in suchNumbers and Splendour, if there was not Abundance of too selfish andlitigious People. _ A Caution of the same Nature I had already giventowards the End of the Preface, on Account of a palpable Evil, inseparable from the Felicity of _London_. The Words are these, _Thereare, I believe, few People in London, of those that are at any Timeforc'd to go a-foot, but what could wish the Streets of it much cleanerthan generally they are, whilst they regard Nothing but their ownCloaths and private Conveniency: but when once they come to consider, that what offends them, is the Result of the Plenty, great Traffick andOpulency of that mighty City, if they have any Concern in its Welfare, they will hardly ever wish to see the Streets of it less dirty. For ifwe mind the Materials of all Sorts, that must supply such an infiniteNumber of Trades and Handicrafts as are always going forward, and thevast Quantities of Victuals, Drink, and Fuel, that are daily consumedin it; the Waste and Superfluities, that must be produced from them;the Multitudes of Horses and other Cattle, that are always daubing theStreets; the Carts, Coaches, and more heavy Carriages, that areperpetually wearing and breaking the Pavement of them; and, above all, the numberless Swarms of People, that are continually harassing andtrampling through every Part of them: If, I say, we mind all these, weshall find, that every Moment must produce new Filth; and consideringhow far distant the great Streets are from the River-side, what Costand Care soever be bestow'd to remove the Nastiness almost as fast asit is made, it is impossible_ London _should be more cleanly before itis less flourishing. Now would I ask if a good Citizen, inConsideration of what has been said, might not assert, that dirtyStreets are a necessary Evil inseparable from the Felicity of_ London, _without being the least Hindrance to the Cleaning of Shoes, orSweeping of Streets, and consequently without any Prejudice either tothe_ Blackguard _or the_ Scavengers. _But if, without any Regard to the Interest or Happiness of the City, the Question was put, What Place I thought most pleasant to walk in? Nobody can doubt but before the stinking Streets of_ London, _I wouldesteem a fragrant Garden, or shady Grove in the Country. In the sameManner, if, laying aside all worldly Greatness and Vain Glory, I shouldbe ask'd, where I thought it was most probable that Men might enjoytrue Happiness, I would prefer a small peaceable Society, in which Men, neither envy'd nor esteem'd by Neighbours, should be contented to liveupon the Natural Product of the Spot they inhabit, to a vast Multitudeabounding in Wealth and Power, that should always be conquering othersby their Arms Abroad, and debauching themselves by Foreign Luxury atHome. _ I own, Sir, it is my Opinion, and I have endeavour'd to prove, thatLuxury, tho' depending upon the Vices of Man, is absolutely necessaryto render a great Nation formidable, opulent and polite at the sameTime. But before you pass any Judgment upon me for this, give me Leaveto put you in Mind of Two Things, which I take to be undeniably true. The First is, that the Kingdom of _Christ_ is not of this World; andthat the last-named is the very Thing a true Christian ought torenounce: I mean, that when we speak of the World in a figurativeSense, as the Knowledge of the World, the Glory of the World; or in_French, Le beau Monde, le grand Monde_; and when in a Man's Praise wesay, that he understands the World very well; that, I say, when we usethe Word in this Manner, it signifies, and we understand by it thatsame World which the Gospel gives us so many Cautions and pronounces soseverely against. The Second is, that I have wrote in an Age and aNation, where the greatest Part of the Fashionable, and what we callthe better Sort of People, seem to be far more delighted with Temporal, than they are with Spiritual Enjoyments, at the same Time that theyprofess themselves to be Christians; and that whatever they may talk, preach or write of a Future State and eternal Felicity, they are allclosely attach'd to this wicked World; or at least, that theGenerality, in their Actions and Endeavours, seem to be infinitely moresollicitous about the one, than they are about the other. If you will consider these Two Things, you'll find, that I havesupposed no Necessity of Vice, but among those by whom worldlyGreatness is in Esteem and thought necessary to Happiness. The morecurious and operose Manufactures are, the more Hands they employ; andthat with the Variety of them, the Number of Workmen must stillencrease, wants no Proof. It is evident likewise, that Foreign Traffickconsists in changing of Commodities, and removing them from one Placeto another. No Nation, that has no Gold or Silver of their own Growth, can purchase our Product long, unless we, or Some body else, will buytheirs. The Epithets of polite and flourishing are never given toCountries, before they are arriv'd at a considerable Degree of Luxury;and a flourishing Nation without it, is Bread without Corn, a Perriwigwithout Hair, or a Library without Books. Assertions as these, an indulgent Reader will say, might yet be bornewith; and Hypocrites, by putting false Glosses on Things, and givingfavourable Constructions to their Actions, might persuade the World, that to make this necessary Consumption, they labour'd for the PublickGood; that they fed on Trouts and Turbots, Quails and Ortolans, and themost expensive Dishes, not to please their dainty Palates or theirVanity, but to maintain the Fishmonger and the Poulterer and the manyWretches, who, for a miserable Livelyhood, are daily slaving to furnishthem. That they wore gold Brocades, and made new Cloaths everyFortnight, not to gratify their own Pride or Fickleness, but for theBenefit of the Mercer, the Merchant, and the Weaver, and theEncouragement of Trade in general. That the Extravagancy of theirTables, and Splendor of Entertainments, were only the Effects of anHospitable Temper, their Benevolence to others, and a generousDisposition: That Pride or Ostentation had no Hand in these Things, noryet in the laying out of the immense Sums for the Elegancy andMagnificence of Equipages, Gardens, Furniture and Buildings. All theseThings, I dare say, you would let pass; but if you should hear a Mansay, that this Consumption depends chiefly upon Qualities, we pretendto be asham'd of, it would be offensive to you; and if he shouldmaintain, that, without the Vices of Man, it would be impossible toenjoy all the Ease, Glory, and Greatness, the World can afford, andwhich, in short, we are fond of, you would think his Assertion to be aterrible Paradox. Many People would believe, that Hunger, tho' they never felt theExtremities of it, is, in order to live, as requisite to a Man, as itis to a Cormorant, or to a Wolf; and that without Lust, if you give ita softer Name, our Species could not be preserv'd, any more than thatof Bulls or Goats. But not One in a Thousand can imagine, tho' it beequally demonstrable, that in the Civil Society the Avarice of Some andthe Profuseness of Others, together with the Pride and Envy of mostIndividuals, are absolutely necessary to raise them to a great andpowerful, and, in the Language of the World, polite Nation. It seemsstill to be a greater Paradox, that natural as well as moral Evil, andthe very Calamities we pray against, do not only contribute to thisworldly Greatness, but a certain Proportion of them is so necessary toall Nations, that it is not to be conceiv'd, how any Society couldsubsist upon Earth, exempt from all Evil, both natural and moral. Yet these Things are asserted, and, I think, demonstrated in _The Fableof the Bees_. The Book has run through several Impressions, and metwith innumerable Enemies: Nothing was ever more reviled from the Pulpitas well as the Press. I have been call'd all the ugly Names in Print, that Malice or ill Manners can invent; but not one of my Adversarieshas attempted to disprove what I had said, or overthrow any oneArgument, I made Use of, otherwise than by exclaiming against it, andsaying that it was not true: which to me is a Sign, that not only whatI have advanced is not easy to refute, but likewise, that my Opposersare more closely attach'd to the World, than even I my self hadimagined them to be. Otherwise it is impossible, but, perceiving thisDifficulty, some of them would have reason'd after the followingManner, _viz. _ Since this worldly Greatness is not to be attain'd towithout the Vices of Man, I will have Nothing to do with it; since itis impossible to serve God and Mammon, my Choice shall be soon made: Notemper I Pleasure can be worth running the Risque of being eternallymiserable; and, let who will labour to aggrandise the Nation, I willaim at higher Ends, and take Care of my own Soul. The Moment such a Thought enters into a Man's Head, all the Poison istaken away from the Book, and every Bee has lost his Sting. Those who should in Reality prefer Spirituals to Temporals, and be seento take more Pains to attain an everlasting Felicity, than they did forthe Enjoyment of the fading Pleasures and transient Glorie of thisLife, would not grudge to make some Abatements in the Ease, theConveniencies, and the Comforts of it, or even to part with some oftheir Possessions upon Earth, to make sure of their Inheritance in theKingdom of Heaven. Whatever Liking they might have to the curiousEmbellishments and elegant Inventions of the Voluptuous, they wouldrefuse to purchase them at the Hazard of Damnation. In Judging ofthemselves they would not be such easy Casuists, nor think itsufficient not to act contrary to the Laws of the Land, unless theylikewise obey'd the Precepts of _Christ_. No Book would be plainer ormore intelligible to them than the Gospel; and without consultingeither Fathers or Councils, they would be satisfied, that mortifyingthe Flesh never could signify to indulge every Appetite, not prohibitedby an Earthly Legislator. What Skill, pray, would it require in Controversy, to be convinced, that to yield to all the Allurements, to comply with every Mode andFashion, and partake of all the Vanities of the World, was the veryReverse of Renouncing it, if Words had any Signification at all? Herelies the Difficulty; and here is the true Cause of the Quarrel, and allthe Spite and Invectives against _The Fable of the Bees_ and itsAuthor. My Adversaries will not be stinted, or abate an Ace of thewordly Enjoyments they can purchase, because the whole Earth was madefor Man; Libertines say the same of Women, and with equal Justice; yetrelying on this pitiful Reason, they will eat and drink as deliciouslyas they can: No Pleasure is denied them, forsooth, that is used withModeration; and in Cloaths, Houses, Furniture, Equipages andAttendance, they may live in perfect Conformity with the most vain andluxurious of the fashionable People; only with this Difference, thattheir Hearts must not be attach'd to these Things, and their grand Hopebe in Futurity. This notable Proviso being once made, tho' in Wordsonly, all is safe; and no Luxury or Epicurism are so barefac'd, no Easeis so effeminate, no Elegancy so vainly curious, and no Invention sooperose or expensive, as to interfere with Religion or any Promisesmade of Renouncing the World; if they are warranted by Custom, and theUsage of others, who are their Equals in Estate and Dignity. Oh rare Doctrine! Oh easy Christianity! To be moderate in numberlessExtravagancies, _Terence_ would tell them was as practicable as _cumratione insanire_: But if we grant the Possibility of it, how shall weknow and be convinced that they are sincere; that their Hearts andDesires are so little engaged to this vile Earth, as they pretend; orthat the Thoughts of a World to come are any Part of their realConcern, when we have Nothing but their bare Word for it, and all otherAppearances are unanimous, and the most positive Witnesses againstthem? I know, that my Enemies won't allow, that I wrote with this View; tho'I have told them before, and demonstrated, that _The Fable of the Bees_was a Book of exalted Morality; they refuse to believe me; theirClamours against it continue; and what I have now said in Defence ofit, will be rejected, and call'd an Artifice to come off; that it isfull of dangerous, wicked and Atheistical Notions, and could not havebeen wrote with any other Design than the Encouragement of Vice. ShouldI ask them what Vices they were; Whoring, Drinking, Gaming; or desirethem to name any one Passage, where the least Immorality isrecommended, spoke well of, or so much as conniv'd at, they would haveNothing to lay hold on but the Title Page. But why then, will you say, are they so inveterate against it? I have hinted at it just now, but Iwill more openly unfold that Mystery. I have, in the Book in Question, exposed the real Pleasures of theVoluptuous, and taken Notice of the great Scarcity of true Self-denialamong Christians, and in doing this I have spared the Clergy no morethan the Laity: This has highly provoked a great many. But as I havedone this without the least Exaggeration, meddled with Nothing, butwhat is plainly known and seen, and always said less than I could haveproved, my Adversaries were obliged to dissemble the Cause of theirAnger. What vex'd them the more was, that it was wrote without Rancouror Peevishness; and, if not in a pleasant, at least in an opengood-humour'd Manner, free, I dare say, from Pedantry and Sourness. Therefore None of them ever touch'd upon this Point, or spoke oneSyllable of the only Thing, which in their Hearts they hate me for. Here, Sir, I must trouble you with a Parable, in which are couch'd thePrevarications and false Pretences with which the Generality of theWorld would cover their real Inclinations and the Ends of their Wishes. May it prove as diverting to you as the Matter is really instructive. _In old Heathen Times there was, they say, a Whimsical Country, wherethe People talked much of Religion; and the greatest Part, as tooutward Appearance, seem'd really devout: The chief moral Evil amongthem was Thirst, and to quench it, a Damnable Sin; yet they unanimouslyagreed, that Every one was born Thirsty more or less. Small Beer inModeration was allow'd to All; and he was counted an Hypocrite, aCynick, or a Madman, who pretended that One could live altogetherwithout it; yet those, who owned they loved it, and drank it to Excess, were counted Wicked. All this while the Beer it self was reckon'd aBlessing from Heaven, and there was no Harm in the Use of it; all theEnormity lay in the Abuse, the Motive of the Heart, that made themdrink it. He that took the least Drop of it to quench his Thirst, committed a heinous Crime, whilst others drank large Quantities withoutany Guilt, so they did it indifferently, and for no other Reason thanto mend their Complexion. _ _They brew'd for other Countries as well as their own; and for theSmall Beer they sent abroad, they receiv'd large Returns ofWestphaly-Hams, Neats-Tongues, Hung-Beef, and Bolonia-Sausages, RedHerrings, Pickled Sturgeon, Cavear, Anchovies, and every Thing that wasproper to make their Liquor go down with Pleasure. Those who kept greatStores of Small Beer by them, without making use of it, were generallyenvied, and at the same Time very odious to the Publick; and No bodywas easy that had not enough of it to come to his own Share. Thegreatest Calamity they thought could befall them, was to keep theirHops and Barley upon their Hands; and the more they yearly consumed ofthem, the more they reckon'd the Country to flourish. _ _The Government had made very wise Regulations concerning the Returnsthat were made for their Exports; encouraged very much the Importationof Salt and Pepper, and laid heavy Duties on every Thing that was notwell season'd, and might any ways obstruct the Sale of their own Hopsand Barley. Those at_ Helm, _when they acted in Publick, shew'dthemselves on all Accounts exempt and wholly divested from Thirst; madeseveral Laws to prevent the Growth of it, and punish the Wicked whoopenly dared to quench it. If you examin'd them in their privatePersons, and pry'd narrowly into their Lives and Conversations, theyseem'd to be more fond, or at least drank larger Draughts of Small Beerthan others, but always under Pretence that the Mending of Complexionsrequired greater Quantities of Liquor in them, than it did in thosethey ruled over; and that what they had chiefly at Heart, without anyRegard to themselves, was to procure great Plenty of Small Beer amongthe Subjects in general, and a great Demand for their Hops and Barley. _ _As No body was debarr'd from Small Beer, the Clergy made use of it aswell as the Laity, and some of them very plentifully; yet all of themdesired to be thought less Thirsty by their Function than others, andnever would own, that they drank any, but to mend their Complexions. Intheir Religious Assemblies they were more sincere; for as soon as theycame there, they all openly confess'd, the Clergy as well as the Laity, from the highest to the lowest, that they were Thirsty; that Mendingtheir Complexions was what they minded the least, and that all theirHearts were set upon Small Beer and Quenching their Thirst, whateverthey might pretend to the Contrary. What was remarkable is, that tohave laid Hold of those Truths to any one's Prejudice, and made use ofthose Confessions afterwards out of their Temples, would have beencounted very impertinent; and Every body thought it a heinous Affrontto be call'd_ Thirsty, _tho' you had seen him drink Small Beer by wholeGallons. The chief Topicks of their Preachers was the great Evil ofThirst, and the Folly there was in quenching it. They exhorted theirHearers to resist the Temptations of it, inveigh'd against Small Beer, and often told them it was Poyson, if they drank it with Pleasure, orany other Design than to mend their Complexions. _ _In their Acknowledgments to the Gods, they thank'd them for the Plentyof comfortable Small Beer they had received from them, notwithstandingthey had so little deserv'd it, and continually quench'd their Thirstwith it; whereas they were so thorowly satisfy'd, that it was giventhem for a better Use. Having begg'd Pardon for those Offences, theydesired the Gods to lessen their Thirst, and give them Strength toresist the Importunities of it; yet, in the Midst of their sorestRepentance, and most humble Supplications, they never forgot SmallBeer, and pray'd that they might continue to have it in great Plenty, with a solemn Promise, that how neglectful soever they might hithertohave been in this Point, they would for the Future not drink a Drop ofit with any other Design than to mend their Complexions. _ _These were standing Petitions, put together to last; and havingcontinued to be made use of without any Alterations for several HundredYears together, it was thought by Some, that the Gods, who understoodFuturity, and knew, that the same Promise they heard in_ June, _wouldbe made to them the_ January _following, did not rely much more onthose Vows, than we do on those waggish Inscriptions by which Men offerus their Goods, _ To Day for Money, and to Morrow for Nothing. _Theyoften began their Prayers very mystically, and spoke many Things in aspiritual Sense; yet they never were so abstract from the World inthem, as to end One without beseeching the Gods to bless and prosperthe Brewing Trade in all its Branches, and, for the Good of the Whole, more and more to increase the Consumption of the Hops and Barley. _ This Parable likewise has been very displeasing to my Enemies, yet theynever complain'd of it, nor ever shew'd their Resentment against thosePassages, where their Frailties were most exposed. But the trueGrievance not being to be named, their next Care was to hinder theSpreading of my Animadversions upon them; that what I had said mightnot be read by Many; and accordingly, giving the Book an ill Name, andmaking some imperfect Quotations from it, they procure, as I have saidbefore, the Grand Jury's Presentment against it. But this beingnow-a-Days the wrongest Way in the World to stifle Books, it made itmore known, and encreas'd the Sale of it. This made some hot Peopleraving mad; and now I began to be attack'd with great Fury from allQuarters; but as Nothing has appeared yet, that might not be easilyanswer'd from _The Fable of the Bees_ it self, or the Vindication Ihave spoke of before, I have not hitherto thought fit to take Notice ofany. It was wrote for the Entertainment of idle People, and calculated forPersons of Education, when they are at Leisure and want Amusement; andtherefore to ask Men of Business, or that have any Thing else to do, toread such an incoherent Rhapsody throughout, would be an unreasonableRequest; at least, the Author himself ought to be more modest than toexpect it: Yet I must beg Leave to say, that whoever has not done this, ought not to be so magisterial in his Censures, as Some have been onPassages the most justifiable in the World. It is impossible to sayevery Thing at once; and yet Every body, who has a Book before him, hasthe Liberty of opening and shutting it, when and where he pleases. There are many Things, which we entirely approve of, Part of which wedisliked, before we were acquainted with the whole; and we ought alwaysto consider, that Authors often reserve some Places on Purpose to clearup and explain others, that are difficult and obscure: Even when wemeet with a Thing really offensive and no ways to be maintain'd, unlesswe read a Book through, we do not know but the Author has exceptedagainst that very Passage himself; perhaps he has retracted, or begg'dPardon for it. It is hardly possible, that a Man of Candour and any tolerableJudgment, who seriously considers the Book, can be offended at it. Inthe First Place, he will find, that what I call Vices are theFashionable Ways of Living, the Manners of the Age, that are oftenpractis'd and preach'd against by the same People: Those Vices, thatthe Persons who are guilty of them, are angry with me for calling themso: The Decencies and Conveniencies, which my Adversaries are so fondof, and which, rather than forsake and part with, they would take Painsto justify. In the Second, That I address myself to the Voluptuous, whose greatest Delight is in this World; and, that when I speak toOthers, that would be contented without Superfluities, and preferVirtue and Honesty to Pomp and Greatness, I lay down quite differentMaxims: That what I have said, Page 258, is true, _viz. _ Tho' I haveshewn the Way to Worldly Greatness, I have, without Hesitation, preferr'd the Road that leads to Virtue. Should it be objected, that I was not in Earnest, when I recommendedthose mortifying Maxims, I would answer, That those, who think so, would have said the same to St. _Paul_, or JESUS CHRIST himself, if hehad bid them sell their Estates and give their Money to the Poor. Poverty and Self-denial have no Allurements in Sight of my Enemies;they hate the Aspect and the very Thoughts of them, as much as they dome; and therefore, whoever recommends them must be in Jest. NoMathematical Demonstration is more true, than that to prohibitNavigation, and all Commerce with Strangers, is the most effectual Wayto keep out Vice and Luxury: It is almost as true, that Citizens, andMen of Worth, who defend their own, and fight _pro Aris & Focis_, whenonce disciplin'd and inur'd to Hardship, are more to be depended uponthan hired Troops and mercenary Soldiers. Let a Man preach this in_London_, and they'll say he is craz'd. But if Men won't buy Virtue atthe Price it is only to be had at, Whose Fault is that? I knew what People I had to deal with; and when I spoke of the_Spartans_ and their Frugality, and how formidable they were to theirEnemies, I said then, that such a Way of Living, and a Glory to beobtain'd by so austere a Self-denial, were not the Things whichEnglishmen wanted or desired. There are Twenty Passages in the Book tothe same Purpose; but from this alone it is manifest, that, unless Iwas a Fool, or a Madman, I could have no Design to encourage or promotethe Vices of the Age. It will be difficult to shew me an Author, thathas exposed and ridicul'd them more openly. Breaches of the Law I havetreated in a more serious Manner; and tho' it has been insinuated, thatI was an Advocate for all Wickedness and Villany in General, there isno such Thing in the Book. I have said indeed, that we often saw anevident Good spring up from a palpable Evil, and given Instances toprove, that, by the wonderful Direction of unsearchable Providence, Robbers, Murderers, and the worst of Malefactors were sometimes madeinstrumental to great Deliverances in Distress, and remarkableBlessings, which God wrought and conferr'd on the Innocent andIndustrious; but as to the Crimes themselves, I have never spoke ofthem, but with the utmost Detestation, and on all Occasions urg'd thegreat Necessity of punishing all, that are guilty of them, withoutFavour or Connivance. That Honesty is the best Policy, even as to Temporals, is generallytrue; but it does not so often raise Men to great Wealth and Power asKnavery and Ambition; and Opportunity is a great Rascal. Attorneys, Money-Scriveners, Bankers and Brokers, as well as Factors of all Sorts, may, without doubt, be as honest in their Callings as Men of any other;but it is evident in all Trades, that the greater the Trust is to bereposed in Persons, and the more their Transactions are Secrets andsuch as they can only be accountable for to God and their Conscience, the more Latitude they have of being Knaves without being discover'd. Should now a Man of a Business, where he has great Opportunity ofdefrauding others with Impunity, be a cunning Sharper, a covetousMiser, and a wicked Hypocrite; can it be a Question, whether he is notmore likely to get a great Estate, with the same setting out in a fewYears, than a charitable, religious Man, whose chief Care is not forthis World, in the same or any other Calling, equally beneficial tofair Dealers? I am not ignorant of what may be said against me, aboutGod's Blessing, and on whom it is most likely to fall. The Dispositionsof Providence are unfathomable, and the Distribution of what we callGood and Evil in this World, is a Mystery not to be accounted for bythe Notions we have of God's Justice, without having Recourse to aFuture State; therefore I need not to take this in Consideration here. The Question is not, which is the readiest Way to Riches, but whetherthe Riches themselves are worth being damn'd for. There never was yet, and it is impossible to conceive, an opulentNation, without great Vices: This is a Truth; and I am not accessary toits being so, for divulging it. When I have shewn the Necessity ofVice, to render a Society great and potent, I have exposed thatGreatness, and left it to them, the Members of it, whether it is worthbuying at that Price; and I defy all my Enemies to shew me, where Ihave recommended Vice, or said the least Tittle, by which I contradictthat true, as well as remarkable Saying of Monsieur _Baile_. _Lesutilités du vice n'empèchent pas qu' il ne soit mauvais. _ Vice isalways bad, whatever Benefit we may receive from it. --But I have beenstrangely treated. Should a thriving Youth in Athletick Health, almost arriv'd at Manhood, industriously waste his Flesh for no other Purpose, than to weigh less, I would 'count him a Fool for his Pains; because he runs the Risque ofdoing himself great Injury. But he must ride; the Match is made; he hasa Master to oblige, and he is undone it he refuses: So he is managedaccordingly against the Time. If I had a Mind to expose this Practice, and, laying open the whole Regimen Men are to go through in order towaste, acquaint the World with the sharp Liquors they take, how theyare purged, sweated, stinted in their Food, and debarr'd from theirnatural Rest; If, I say, I had a Mind to do this, and ridicule theExpedient, I don't see where would be the Harm. As to the Thing itself, No body would doubt, but drinking Vinegar, Physicking, Watching, and Starving, would be a more proper Means to lose Flesh, than goodNourishment three Times a Day, and comfortable Sleep at Night. But theQuestion is, whether Weighing less, or the Riding it self, be of thatImportance, that a Man would undergo so much for it; and I believe, most People, far from following this Method, would content themselveswith admiring and laughing at the Folly of it. But it would bebarbarous to say, that I had prescrib'd it, when I had openly declaredagainst it. But what Name would you give it, if the Jockeys themselves, continuing their former Practice, should in Revenge, that I had expos'dit, pretend seriously to exclaim against me for broaching a destructiveDoctrine, that would endanger the Health, and spoil the Growth of youngPeople, and to prove their Assertions, quote as many of my own Words aswould serve their Purpose, and no more? I take this to be a pretty near Resemblance of my Case: _Omne Simileclaudicat_. But it is not sufficient for me to say, that I am innocent, any more than it is for my Enemies to cry out, that I am guilty: Men ofSense can not be long imposed upon by either: It is the Book we muststand or fall by at last; and it is to this I refer all judicious aswell as impartial Readers. They will soon find out the true Cause ofthe Malice, and all the Clamours against me, and that my laying openthe luxurious Lives of some Men; my shewing the great Scarcity ofSelf-denial among Christians as well as others, and, in short, myreprehending, lashing and ridiculing Vice and Insincerity, haveprocured me infinitely more Enemies than all the pretendedEncouragement to Vice and Immorality they can meet with; and if, afterperusing the whole, all Persons of Candour, and Capacity to read Booksof that Nature, are not fully convinced of this, may I be despised forever, and forfeit the good Opinion of all Men I value. But still theTitle, _Private Vices, Publick Benefits_: The hearing and seeing of it, I shall be told, must be offensive to those, who don't read the Book, and will never vouchsafe to look into it. Pray, Sir, let us examine this. It is evident, that the Words _PrivateVices, Publick Benefits_ make not a compleat Sentence according toGrammar; and that there is at least a Verb, if not a great deal morewanting to make the Sense perfect. In the Vindication of _The Fable ofthe Bees_, I have said, that I understood by it, that _Private Vices_, by the dexterous Management of a skilful Politician, might be turn'dinto _Publick Benefits_. There is Nothing forc'd or unnatural in thisExplanation; and Everybody ought to have the Liberty of being anInterpreter of his own Words. But if I wave this Privilege, the worstConstruction that can be put upon the Words is, that they are anEpitome of what I have labour'd to prove throughout the Book, thatLuxury and the Vices of Man, under the Regulations and Restrictionslaid down in the _Fable of the Bees_, are subservient to, and eveninseparable from the Earthly Felicity of the Civil Society; I mean whatis commonly call'd Temporal Happiness, and esteem'd to be such. As to those who, without reading the Book, may be corrupted by theSight, or by the bare Sound of the Words _Private Vices, PublickBenefits_, I confess, I don't know what Provision to make for them. People who judge of Books from their Titles, must be often imposedupon. There is neither Blasphemy nor Treason in the Words, and they arefar enough from Obscenity: If any Mischief is to be fear'd from them, _Drink and be Rich_, a Title that has been bawl'd about the Streets, must be far more dangerous. This latter is a direct Precept, apernicious, as well as deceitful Doctrine, comprised in a fullSentence, wrote in the Imperative Mood. What strange Consequence wouldit be of, especially among the Poor, if, relying on the Wisdom of thisTitle, and taking it for wholesome Advice, People should actaccordingly, without any further Examination? The true Reason why I made use of the Title, _Private Vices, PublickBenefits_, I sincerely believe, was to raise Attention: As it isgenerally counted to be a Paradox, I pitch'd upon it in Hopes thatthose who might hear or see it, would have the Curiosity to know, whatcould be said to maintain it; and perhaps sooner buy the Book, thanthey would have done otherwise. This, to the best of my Knowledge, isall the Meaning I had in it; and I think it must have been Stupidity tohave had any other. If it be urged, that these Benefits are worldly, I own it; and Everybody may see, in whose Sense I call them so; in the Language of theWorld, the Age and the Time I live: This one of my Adversariesperceived plainly, and endeavoured to take Advantage of it against me, by saying, that Nothing could be a real Benefit, that did not conduceto a Man's eternal Happiness; and that it was evident, that the Things, to which I gave that Name, did not. I agree with him, that a Man'sSalvation is the greatest Benefit he can receive or wish for; and I ampersuaded, that, speaking of Things Spiritual, the Word is very properin that Sense; the same may be said of the Words Profit, Gain, and, ifyou please, Lucre; but I deny, that without any Addition, this is thecommon Acceptation of them; in which, I hope, I may have the Liberty tomake use of Words with the Rest of my Fellow-Subjects. All temporalPrivileges and worldly Advantages whatever, are call'd Benefits, and aThousand Things are beneficial to the Body, that have Nothing to dowith the Soul. So a Felon may have the Benefit of the Clergy; such areBenefit-Tickets; and so a Man may go in the Country for the Benefit ofthe Air. I would ask this wise Gentleman, when he reads, that a Play isto be acted for the Benefit of such a one; which he thinks it is, theMoney the Person receives, or the Performance it self, that contributesmost to his eternal Happiness. But I am more cautious and exact, than my Enemies imagine: If I wouldhave made my Readers to understand, that the Vices of Men often proveof worldly Advantage to those who commit them, tho' it is very true, yet in this Case, I would not have used the Word Benefit in so generala Manner: for as Nothing is of greater Concern to every individualPerson, than his future Welfare, Nothing can be Beneficial to him, inan unlimited Sense, that might destroy, or any Ways interfere with hiseternal Happiness: But this eternal Happiness cannot at the soonestcommence till after this Life; and when a Man is dead, he ceases to bea Member of the Society, and he is no longer a Part of the Publick;which latter is a collective Body of living Creatures, living upon thisEarth, and consequently, as such, not capable of enjoying eternalHappiness. A Miser may go directly to Hell, as the Reward of hisAvarice and Extortion, at the same Time, that the great Wealth heleaves, and the Hospital he builds, are a considerable Relief to thePoor, and consequently a Publick Benefit. If a Man should affirm, that the Publick is wholly incapable of havingany Religion at all, it would, perhaps, be shocking to some People; yetit is as true, as that the Body Politick, which is but another Name forthe Publick, has no Liver nor Kidneys, no real Lungs nor Eyes in aliteral Sense. Mix'd Multitudes of Good and Bad Men, high and lowQuality, may join in outward Signs of Devotion, and perform togetherwhat is call'd Publick Worship; but Religion it self can have no Placebut in the Heart of Individuals; and the most a Legislator can act inBehalf of it in a Christian Country, is, first, to establish it by Law;and, after that, every way to secure and promote the Exercise of it onthe one Hand; and, on the other, to prohibit and punish Wickedness, andall Manner of Impiety, that can fall under the Cognizance ofMagistrates. But thus much I think to be necessary in the CivilAdministration of all Governments, for the temporal Interest of theWhole, before true Christianity comes in Question, which is a privateConcern of every Individual: And tho' I have not every where takenNotice of this, when I have been soothing the Voluptuous, yet when ithas come directly in my Way, I have earnestly recommended to allMagistrates the Care of Divine Worship, even when my greatest Regardhas been for the Wealth and Greatness of Nations, and the Advancementof worldly Glory; which good Christians ought to have little to dowith. Of which you may see an undeniable Proof in Page 352, wherespeaking of the Instructions the Children of the Poor might receive atChurch; _From which, _ I say, _or some other Place of Worship, I wouldnot have the meanest of the Parish, that is able to walk to it, beabsent on Sundays, _ I have these Words: _It is the Sabbath, the mostuseful Day in Seven, that is set apart for Divine Service & ReligiousExercise, as well as Resting from bodily Labour; and it is a Dutyincumbent on all Magistrates, to take a particular Care of that Day. The Poor more especially, and their Children, should be made to go toChurch on it, both in the Fore- and the Afternoon, because they have noTime on any other. By Precept and Example they ought to be encourag'dto it from their Infancy. The wilful Neglect of it ought to be 'countedscandalous; and if down-right Compulsion to what I urge, might seem tooharsh, and perhaps impracticable, all Diversions, at least, oughtstrictly to be prohibited, and the Poor hinder'd from every Amusementabroad, that might allure or draw them from it. _ I return to my Subject. How shocking to Some, and ridiculous to others, the explanatory Part of the Title I mention'd, may have been, yet it isirrefragrably true; and there are various Ways, by which Private Vicesmay become Publick Benefits, Ways more real and practicable, than what, some Time ago, was offer'd by that serious Divine, whose Religion andPiety are so amply set forth in that undisguised Confession of hisFaith, _The Tale of a Tub_. People may wrangle about the Definition ofLuxury as long as they please; but when Men may be furnish'd with allthe Necessaries for Life from their own Growth, and yet will send forSuperfluities from Foreign Countries, which they might (as manyactually do) live comfortably without, it certainly is a Degree ofLuxury, if there be such a Thing as Luxury in the World. Now, if aLegislator, who is to take Care of the Welfare, and consequently theDefence, as well as the Tranquility of the Publick, perceiving thisvicious Inclination and Longing after Superfluities, made use of it asa Means to provide for the Publick Safety, and actually raised Money byLicensing the Importation of such Foreign Superfluities; might it notbe said, that, by such skilful Management, _Private Vices_ were turn'dinto _Publick Benefits_? And is this not done, when heavy Duties arelaid on Sugar, Wine, Silk, Tobacco, and a Hundred other Things lessnecessary, and not to be purchas'd but with infinite Toil and Trouble, and at the Hazard of Men's Lives? If you tell me, that Men may make useof all these Things with Moderation, and consequently that the Desireafter them is no Vice, then I answer, that either no Degree of Luxuryought to be call'd a Vice, or, that it is impossible to give aDefinition of Luxury, which Every body will allow to be a just one. But I'll give you another Instance, how palpable and gross Vices maybe, and are turn'd into Publick Benefits. It is the Business of allLaw-givers to watch over the Publick Welfare, and, in order to procurethat, to submit to any Inconveniency, any Evil, to prevent a muchgreater, if it is impossible to avoid that greater Evil at a cheaperRate. Thus the Law, taking into Consideration the daily Encrease ofRogues and Villains, has enacted, that if a Felon, before he isconvicted himself, will impeach two or more of his Accomplices, or anyother Malefactors, so that they are convicted of a Capital Crime, heshall be pardon'd and dismiss'd with a Reward in Money. There is noDoubt but this is a good and wise Law; for without such an Expedient, the Country would swarm with Robbers and Highwaymen Ten-times more thanit does; for by this Means we are not only deliver'd from a greaterNumber of Villains, than we could expect to be from any other; but itlikewise stops the Growth of them, breaks their Gangs, and hinders themfrom trusting One another. For Three Rogues, acting separately, cannotdo so much substantial Mischief on all Occasions, as when they act inCompany. All this while it is evident, that in this Case the Law hasonly Regard to the Publick Good, and, to procure that, sets aside allother Laws, and proceeds rather contrary to the Common Notions we haveof Justice; which, according to the _Civilians_, consists _in aconstant and perpetual Desire of giving every one his Due_: For insteadof Hanging, which is a Felon's Due, it pardons him; and for Fear heshould have some Goodness left, and that natural Compassion might makehim unwilling to destroy his dearest Friends, and perhaps his Brother, with his Breath, the Law invites him to it by a large Sum of Money, andactually bribes him to add to the Rest of his Crimes that Piece ofTreachery to his Companions, whom he had sworn Fidelity to, and perhapsdrawn into the Villany. It is in vain to tell me, that this Impeaching of his Companions is noCrime in a Felon, but a Duty which he owes his Country; and that Idon't know but it is the Effect of his sincere Repentance, which makeshim look upon this open Confession as the only Attonement he is able tomake the Publick for all his Offences against it. Those who wouldimpeach Others from a Motive of Conscience, and a Sense of their Duty, were not the Men the Legislature had in View. When that Law was made, it was well known, from what was observed of Thieves, Pickpockets, andHouse-breakers, that those Common Villains will do any Thing to getMoney, and still more to save Life, when they are conscious that it isforfeited. The Knowledge of this was the Foundation of that Law. Forthe Worst of Rogues have Friendship and Affection for one another; andConstancy, Faithfulness, and Intrepidity are 'counted valuableQualities among them, as well as among other People. One Villain whobetrays another merely for Money, and without Necessity, thinks himselfto be guilty of a bad Action; and among the many Hundreds of Rogues, who have impeach'd and hang'd their Companions, I don't believe thereever was one, who made himself a Witness against an Associate, withwhom he was not at Enmity before, if he could have got the sameTemporal Advantage by holding his Tongue. This shews the Usefulness of such a Law, and at the same Time theWisdom of the Politician, by whose skilful Management the Private Vicesof the Worst of Men are made to turn to a Publick Benefit. There areMen who are of Opinion, that no positive Evil may be done or commanded, that Good may come of it, on any Account whatever: Should any one ofthese be in doubt whether there is not some Reasonableness or otherMerit in this Law, besides its contributing to the Welfare of theSociety; I would ask him, if it would not be an unpardonable Folly, naya wicked Action in any Legislature, to enact, that a most abandon'dWretch, who has been guilty of many Capital Crimes, should, withouthaving shewn any Remorse, not only be pardon'd, but likewise with aReward in Money be let loose again upon the Publick; if what isdesign'd by such an extraordinary Conduct, to wit, the Decrease ofThefts and Villanies, might be obtain'd by any other Method, lessclashing with the common Notions we have of Justice: Which beingundeniably true, the only Reason that can be given, why Enacting thisis neither Wickedness nor Folly, is Necessity, and the Publick Benefit, which is expected from it. If All I have said hitherto in Defence of the _Fable of the Bees_, andwhat I have quoted from it, have not alter'd the Opinion you seem tohave had of the Book, I believe it is in vain to say any more: OtherReaders, I hope, will be less obdurate, and convinced by this Time, that it was not wrote for the Encouragement of Vice and to debauch theNation; which is all I want; for as to the Performance, whether good orbad, I shall say Nothing about it, whatever I think. I sincerelybelieve, Sir, that most Authors (whatever they say to the Contrary)have a better Opinion of their Works than they deserve; and I fancy, that most People believe so too: Therefore whether it is well or illwrote, as to the Diction, Manner, and whatever regards the Composition, is what I would never have troubled my Head about, tho' it had beenmore generally condemn'd than it has been. The Censurers of the Book themselves, who have publickly attack'd it, are not unanimous about the Merit of it; and Two of them, who have bothwrote against it by Name, differ very widely in their Opinionconcerning this Composition. A noted[24] Critick, who seems to hate allBooks that sell, and no other, has, in his Anger at that Circumstance, pronounced against _The Fable of the Bees_ in this Manner: _It is awretched Rhapsody; the Wit of it is low; the Humour of it contemptiblylow, and the language often barbarous_. But a Reverend Divine, who haswrote a long Preface against the same Book, seems not to have dislikedthe Performance of it, nor to wonder at the quick Sale of it, which heascribes in a great Measure[25] _to the free, easy and lively Manner ofthe Author_. From this Contrariety of Opinions, I shall infer Nothingmore, than that, if Men would be truly inform'd of the Book, it is notsafe to trust to the Reports which are spread of it. What Pity it is, you did not know this before you wrote your _Minute Philosopher_! [24] _Mr. Dennis. _ [25] _Dr. Fiddes's Treatise of Morality, Pref. Page XIX. _ There are few Men, even among the most able, who can judge of Booksimpartially. We are often influenc'd by our Love, or our Hatred, beforewe are aware of it our selves. I have met with several good Judges ofBooks, who disliked, and spoke very slightingly of your _Alciphron_;and I found, the chief Reason was, because you attack'd all _FreeThinkers_, without Exception. But I declare, that I think your Book, for the Generality, to be well wrote; tho' you have us'd me mostunmercifully, and not acted, if you had read _The Fable of the Bees_, like an honest Man. When a Person has a handsome Face, I can't be sostupid as to believe him ugly, because he has us'd me ill. I differfrom My Lord _Shaftesbury_ entirely, as to the Certainty of the_Pulchrum & Honestum_, abstract from Mode and Custom: I do the sameabout the Origin of Society, and in many other Things, especially theReasons why Man is a Sociable Creature, beyond other Animals. I amfully persuaded, His Lordship was in the Wrong in these Things; butthis does not blind my Understanding so far, as not to see, that he isa very fine Author, and a much better Writer than my self, or youeither. If that noble Lord had been a much worse Author, and wrote onthe Side of Orthodoxy and the Church, I fancy, you would have thoughtmore favourably of his Capacity. I have seen what you have cited fromhim, and the Manner you have done it in. But what Proportion does thatbear to Three large Volumes, and the many admirable Things he has saidagainst Priestcraft, and on the Side of Liberty and Human Happiness. Upon the Whole, I dare say, that your _Minute Philosopher_ will meetwith very few Readers, among those that have read, and are not lash'din the _Characteristicks_, who will think, that My Lord _Shaftsbury_deserves one Tenth Part of the Indignity and Contempt, which you treat_Cratylus_ with. Men may differ in Opinion, and both mean well. You, Sir, think it forthe Good of Society, that human Nature should be extoll'd as much aspossible: I think, the real Meanness and Deformity of it to be moreinstructive. Your Design is, to make Men copy after the beautifulOriginal, and endeavour to live up to the Dignity of it: Mine is, toenforce the Necessity of Education, and mortify Pride. I was very muchdelighted with what you say in your First Dialogue of Apple-trees andOranges; the different Productions of the first, and the Culture of theother. The Allegory is very ingenious, and the Application just; but Idon't think, that the Conclusion, which must be drawn from it, will beof great Use to you. Page 51. _Euphranor_ asks _Alciphron, Why may wenot conclude by a Parity of Reason, that Things may be natural to HumanKind, and yet neither found in all Men, nor invariably the same, wherethey are found?_ I answer, They may. But if all the Knowledge andAccomplishments, which Men can attain to, are to be look'd upon asnatural, and peculiar to the whole Species, it must be the same withVice and Wickedness, as it is with Virtue and the Liberal Arts; and, what I never could have imagin'd before, it must be as natural for aMan to murder his Father, as it is to reverence him; and for a Woman topoison her Husband, as it is to love him. If you would but look into the Reasons, Sir, I have given fordistinguishing between what is natural, and what is acquired, you wouldnot find any ill Intention in that Practice. Many Things are true, which the Vulgar think Paradoxes. Believe me, Sir, to understand theNature of Civil Society, requires Study and Experience. Evil is, if notthe Basis of it, at least a necessary Ingredient in the Compound; andthe temporal Happiness of Some is inseparable from the Misery ofothers. They are silly People who imagine, that the Good of the Wholeis consistent with the Good of every Individual; and the best of us areinsincere. Every body exclaims against Luxury; yet there is no Order ofMen which is not guilty of it; and if the Lawgivers are not alwaysendeavouring to keep up all Trades and Manufactures, that supply uswith the Means and Implements of Luxury, they are blamed. To wish forthe Encrease of Trade and Navigation, and the Decrease of Luxury at thesame Time, is a Contradiction. For suppose, that the Legislature, bythe Help of the Clergy, could introduce a general Frugality in thisNation, we could never keep up our Traffick, and employ the same Handsand Shipping, unless they could likewise persuade the Nations, we dealwith, to be more profuse than now they are, that they might take offfrom our Hands so much more of the Implements of Luxury, as ourConsumption of them should be less than it had been before. The very same Things, which are Blessings in One Year, are Calamitiesin another. In every Nation, those who are employ'd in Gardening andAgriculture, are taught by Experience to manage their Affairs, as ismost suitable to the Climate and the Certainty or Irregularities of theSeasons. If there were no Blasts in _England_, nine Tenths of theApple-trees would be superfluous. Ask the Gardeners about _London_, whether they don't get more by a middling Crop, than a plentifulProduct; and whether Half of them would not be ruin'd, if every Thingthey sow or plant should come to Perfection: Yet Every body wishes forPlenty and Cheapness of Provisions: But they are often Calamities to agreat Part of the Nation. If the Farmer can't have a reasonable Pricefor his Corn, he can't pay his Landlord. We have often had the goodFortune of having great Plenty, when other Nations have wanted. This isa real Gain: But when all our Neighbours are sufficiently provided, andwe can no where export our Corn with Profit, Two plentiful Years, oneafter an other, are a greater Detriment to the Publick by far, than amiddling Scarcity. A benevolent Man, who has a favourable Opinion ofhis Kind, would perhaps imagine, that Labourers of all Sorts would goto their Work with greater Alacrity, and bear the Fatigue of it withmore Chearfulness, in plentiful Years, than when Corn is at a highPrice, and with all their Industry they can hardly procure Food fortheir Families. But the Contrary is true; and ask all considerableDealers, of Experience, who for many Years have employ'd a great Numberof Hands in the Woollen Manufacture, in Hard Ware, or Agriculture, andthey will tell you unanimously, that the Poor are most insolent, andtheir Labour is least to be depended upon, when Provisions are verycheap; and that they never can have so much Work done, or their Ordersso punctually comply'd with, as when Bread is dear. Your _Crito_ and _Euphranor_ are very good Characters; but what Iadmire the most in them, is the consummate Patience in keeping Company, and bearing for a whole Week together, with two such insupportable, outof the way Rascals, as you have represented _Alciphron_ and _Lysicles_to be. I believe with you, that among the Vain and Voluptuous, thereare Abundance of superficial People, who call themselves _FreeThinkers_, and are proud of being thought to be Unbelievers, withouthaving laid the Foundation of any Philosophy at all. But there neverwere Two such Creatures in the World as those whom you have made theChampions for Free-thinking. I don't speak as to their Irreligion andImpiety, or their Incapacity of maintaining what they loudly assert;for such there are many among Rakes and Gamesters. But the Knowledge, good Sense and Penetration, which your Libertines display at someTimes, are inconsistent with the Ignorance, Folly and Stupidity theyshew at others. It is impossible that Men of Parts, and the leastSpirit, how much soever they were in the Wrong, could see themselvesdefeated, banter'd and exposed with so much Tranquility andChearfulness; and I can't conceive how any, but egregious Coxcombs, without Sense of Shame, could behave as _Alciphron_ and _Lysicles_ dothroughout your Dialogues. They are Fellows without Feeling or Manners. If among Gentlemen there are abandon'd Wretches, who harbour Sentimentsso abominable and openly destructive to Society, as several are whichthey advance, I am very well assured, that no well-bred Men would ventthem before Strangers in so shocking a Manner as they do. No Mortalever saw such Disputants before; they always begin with swaggering andboasting of what they'll prove; and in every Argument they pretend tomaintain, they are laid upon their Backs, and constantly beaten toPieces, till they have not a Word more to say; and when this has beenrepeated above half a Score times, they still retain the same Arroganceand _mal-à-pert_ Briskness they were made to set out with at first; andimmediately after every Defeat, they are making fresh Challenges, seemingly with as much Unconcern and Confidence of Success, as ifNothing had pass'd before, or they remember'd Nothing of what hadhappened. Such an Undauntedness in assaulting, and Alacrity inyielding, as you have made them display, never met in the sameIndividuals before. I know, Sir, that in drawing those Characters, you design'd them forMonsters to be abhorr'd and detested; and in this you have succeeded toAdmiration, at least with me; for I can assure you, that I never sawany two Interlocutors in the same Dialogue or Drama, whose Behaviourand Principles I execrate more heartily, than I do theirs. And if youwould read the _Fable of the Bees_ impartially, you would be convincedof this, from my Description of the Company I would chuse to conversewith. Upon, such a Condescension, I would likewise demonstrate to you, how you and I might assist and be useful to one another, as Authors. You allow, that there are vicious Clergymen, who are unworthy of theirFunction. I foresee, that Some of these, who have neither _Crito's_Learning, nor _Euphranor_'s good Sense, will make use of your_Alciphron_ for an evil Purpose. Having by their bad Courses madethemselves contemptible to all who know them, they will endeavour tostop the Mouths of all Opposers, by barely naming the _MinutePhilosopher_; and having, by the Credit of that Book, repell'd theCensure they had deserv'd, insult the Laity, and lay claim to theHonour and Deference, which ought only to be paid to worthy Divines. These I will take in Hand, and convince, that you have not wrote tojustify those Ecclesiasticks, who by their Practice contradict theDoctrine of _Christ_; and that they misconstrued your Intentions; wholeading vicious Lives themselves, demanded the same Respect fromOthers, which you only affirm to be due to Clergymen of Merit and goodMorals. And as I would handle these, so you, in like Manner, would taketo Task those vile Profligates, who, copying after your Originals, should at any Time endeavour to shelter themselves under my Wings. Should ever a second _Lysicles_ pretend to prove, that the moreMischief Men did, the more they acted for the Publick Welfare, becauseit is said, in _The Fable of the Bees_, that without Vices, no greatNation can be rich and flourishing, you would laugh at his Folly; andif, for the same Reason, he urged, that Rapes, Murder, Theft, and allManner of Villanies ought to be applauded, or at least pass'd by withImpunity, you would demonstrate to him, how immensly far my Design wasfrom screening Criminals, and shew him the many Passages, where Iinsist upon it, that impartial Justice ought to be administer'd, andthat even for the Welfare of worldly-minded Men, Crimes should beseverely punish'd. You would inform him likewise, that I thoughtNothing more cruel, than the Lenity of Juries, and the Frequencies of_Pardons_, and not forget to tell him, that my Book contained severalEssays on Politicks; that the greatest Part of it was a PhilosophicalDisquisition into the Force of the Passions, and the Nature of Society, and that they were silly People, who made any other Construction of it. I observe in your fifth Dialogue, that you think the Multitudes amongChristians to have better Morals, than they were possess'd of among theantient Heathens. The Vices of Men have always been so inseparable fromgreat Nations, that it is difficult to determine any Thing withCertainty about that Matter. But I am of Opinion, that the Morals of aPeople in general, I mean the Virtues and Vices of a whole Nation, arenot so much influenced by the Religion that is profess'd among them, asthey are by the Laws of the Country, the Administration of Justice, thePoliticks of the Rulers, and the Circumstances of the People. Those whoimagine, that the Heathens were encouraged and led to criminalPleasures by the bad Examples of the Deities they worship'd, seem notto distinguish between the Appetites themselves, the strong Passions inour Nature, that prompt Men to Vices, and the Excuses they make forcommitting them. If the Laws and Government, the Administration ofJustice, and the Care of the Magistrates were the same, and theCircumstances of the People were likewise the same, I should be glad tohear a Reason, why there should be more or less Incontinence in_England_, if we were Heathens, than there is, now we are Christians. The real Cause of Fornication, and Adultery, the Root of the Evil, isLust. This is the Passion, which is so difficult to conquer, whilst itaffects us. There are many Christians, no doubt, who subdue it by theFear of God, and Punishment hereafter; but I believe, that theHeathens, who triumph'd over this Passion, from a Regard to Virtue, were as considerable in Number. Among the nominal Christians, there arenot a Few, who forbear indulging this Passion, from worse Principles. Ibelieve it was the same with the Heathens. However, in _Great-Britain_there are Thousands that abstain from unlawful Pleasures, who would notbe so cautious, if they were not deterr'd from them by the Expence, theFear of Diseases, and that of losing their Reputation. These are threeEvils, against which all the bad Examples of the Gods can bring noRemedy. In all Ages, Men have display'd Virtues and Vices, which their Religionhad Nothing to do with; and in many Actions, and even the mostimportant Affairs, they are not more influenced by what they believe ofa Future State, than they are by the Name of the Street they live in. When People shew great Attachment to the World and their Pleasure, andare very cool, and even neglectful in Religious Duties, it isridiculous to ascribe their good Qualities to their Christianity. You'll give me Leave, Sir, to expatiate a little upon this Head, andillustrate my Meaning in a Character or two, which I am going to draw. _Lepidus_, a Man of good Sense, is a Batchellor, and never intends tomarry. He is far from being chast, but cautious in his Amours. He is aLover of Mirth and Gaiety, hates Solitude, and would rather take upwith almost any Company, than be alone. He keeps a very good Table; noMan treats with a better Grace; and seems never to be better pleased, than when he is entertaining his Friends. He has a very great Estate, yet at the Year's End he lays up but little of his large Revenue. Notwithstanding this, he lives within Compass, and would think Nothingmore miserable, than not to be rich. He is a Man of Honour, and has ahigh Value for Reputation. He is of the establish'd Church, andcommonly goes to it once every Sunday; but never comes near it at anyother Time. Once likewise every Year, either at _Easter_ or_Whitsuntide_, he takes the Sacrament. For the Rest, Pleasure andPoliteness are his chief Study: He seems to be little affected withReligion, and seldom speaks of it, either for or against it. Now, if aMan, having well weigh'd and examin'd this Character, was ask'd what hethought of _Lepidus_, as to his Principle, and the Motives of hisActions, and he should give it as his Opinion, that this Sociableness, this generous and _debonnair_ Temper of _Lepidus_ were owing to hisbeing a Christian, and not a Heathen or a Freethinker, it might becall'd a charitable Construction, but I could never think it welljudg'd. But be that as it will, if a _Crito_ or an _Euphranor_ had aMind to advance such an Opinion, and stand to it, I am fully persuaded, that it would be easy for them to say so much in Behalf of it; that itwould not only be difficult to disprove it, but likewise a very odiousTask to set about it. _Nicanor_ is a very sober Man; hardly ever drinks to Excess; yet he isnever without Wine of several Sorts, and is very free with it to hisFriends, and all who come to see him. But whatever his Company may do, he always fills very sparingly for himself, and seldom drinks abovehalf a Pint at a Sitting. He never goes to a Tavern but about Business;and when he is alone, Small Beer or Water are the Liquors he chuses. _Nicanor_, who was always an industrious Man, is become rich by hisTrade, yet as indefatigable as ever, and seems to know no greaterPleasure than the getting of Money. He is not void of Ambition; isDeputy of the Ward he lives in, and hopes to be an Alderman before hedies. Once in his Life he was drunk, but that was in driving a Bargain, by which he got Five Hundred Pound in one Morning. Let us suppose, thatthis Character being likewise look'd into, a Man shou'd take it intohis Head to affirm, that the Industry and Desire after Wealth of_Nicanor_ were owing to his Love of Wine, One would imagine, that itwould not be difficult to refute this Man, and to prove, that what headvanced was a wrong Judgment, if not a ridiculous Surmise. For if _Nicanor_ loved Wine, he would drink more of it. He is richenough to buy it, nay he has Plenty of it, tho' he hardly ever touchesit, when he is by himself. He grudges it not to Others; and it isincredible, that if he loved Wine, he should only fill Thimbles fullfor himself, whilst he saw Others drink Bumpers to his Cost withPleasure. You will think perhaps, that I have said too much already, toprove a Thing that is as clear as the Sun. But if it was as reputable, and 'counted as necessary to real Happiness to love Wine, as it is tobe Religious; and a Man of _Euphranor_'s Capacity had a Mind to be_Nicanor_'s Advocate, and maintain, that the Love of Wine was theMotive of his Industry, in Spight of all the Appearances to theContrary; if, I say, a Man had a Mind to maintain this, and had_Euphranor_'s Capacity, he might make a great Shew for his Client, without the Learning of _Crito_, and would certainly baffle hisAdversaries, if he had such pliable ones as _Alciphron_ and _Lysicles_to deal with. Come, would _Euphranor_ say, answer me, _Alciphron_; isit not demonstrable, that the more Money a Man has, the more able he isto buy Wine. _Alciphron_ would answer, I cannot deny that; and here theDialogue would begin. _Euphr. _ When there are plain Evidences that aMan has been drunk, would you deny it to be true? _Alciph. _ I wouldnever speak against Matter of Fact. _Euph. _ Would you pretend to provefrom a Man's having been drunk, that he does not love Wine? _Alciph. _ Iown I would not. _Euph. _ You, who are a Free Thinker, and have enquir'dso minutely into Human Nature, do you think there is a Capacity in Man, by which he can dive into the Hearts of others, and know their mostsecret Thoughts with Certainty? _Alciph. _ I don't think there is. _Euph. _ When Actions are good and laudable in themselves, and there aretwo different Motives from which they might proceed, the one veryhonourable, and the other scandalous; which is it most charitable, toascribe these Actions to the first Motive, or the latter? Why do youhesitate, _Alciphron_? Would not a polite Man, speaking to another'sFace, say, that he thought his Actions proceeded from that Motive whichdoes the most Honour to him? _Alciph. _ I should think so. _Euph. _ O_Alciphron_! from your own Concessions I can prove to you, how we oughtto judge of _Nicanor_; and that it is highly injurious to ascribe hisIndustry, and the Pains he takes to get Money, to any Thing but hisLove of Wine. The Minute Philosophers may say what they please; butWine is not to be bought without Money; and you have own'd your self, that the more Money a Man has, the more he is able to buy Wine. TheseThings are self-evident: What a Man chuses, who is at Liberty to dowhat he pleases, he must prefer to that which he chuses not; and whyshould _Nicanor_ drink Wine any more than he would eat Cheese, if hedid not love it? That he drinks it, is plain; all his Friends andAcquaintance can testify it; they have been Eye-witnesses to it;therefore he loves it. And that he must love it beyond Measure, isplain; for he has forfeited his Reason for the Sake of it, and hasdrank Wine till he was drunk. _Alciphron_ being silenced by the Forceof these Arguments, _Lysicles_ perhaps would say, that he could notgive up this Point as _Alciphron_ had done; but that he was notprepar'd to speak to it now, and therefore desired, that they mightbreak off the Discourse. Thus _Euphranor_ would triumph over hisAdversary, and the Dialogue would end. Duely to weigh these Two Characters, it is plain, that _Nicanor_ was anabstemious Man; that the Motives which spurred him on to Industry, werehis Love of Money, and Desire after worldly Greatness. Considering thesmall Delight he always seem'd to take in strong Liquors, and his knownThirst after Gain, it is impossible to account rationally for hisexcessive Drinking one Morning, than by ascribing it to his darlingPassion, the Love of Lucre, which made him venture to lose his Sobrietyrather than the Advantage which he expected from the Bargain he wasdriving. Therefore it is plain from this Character, that the Love ofWine, whether it was, counted blameable or praise-worthy, had noInfluence upon _Nicanor_'s Actions, and consequently that, tho' it hadbeen less than it was, it would never have diminish'd his Industry. In _Lepidus_ we see a fond Admirer of Company, and a discreet Lover ofhimself, who would enjoy as much of the World as is possible, withoutforfeiting the good Opinion of it: And a rich Man, of an even Temper, might perform all this in a Christian Country, from no betterPrinciples than Pride and worldly Prudence, tho' he had very little orno Religion. All This an hasty and inconsiderate Reader will call Folly, and tellme, that I am fighting with my own Shadow; and that, from the Characterof _Nicanor_, no Mortal would imagine, that his Industry and Desireafter Wealth could proceed from, and be owing to his Love of Wine: ButI insist upon it, and you must allow it, Sir, that there would be nogreater Absurdity in an Attempt of proving this, than there would be inascribing the Sociableness and generous Behaviour of _Lepidus_ to hisbeing a Christian. All Men who are born of Christian Parents, andbrought up among Christians, are always deem'd to be such themselves, whilst they acquiesce in, and not disown the Name: But unless Peopleare palpably influenc'd by their Religion, in their Actions andBehaviour, there is no greater Advantage in being a Christian, thanthere is in being a Mahometan or a Heathen. If a Person was made freeof a Company which presided over Artizans, in a toilsome laboriousTrade, and he neither had serv'd his Time to it before, nor everfollowed it afterwards, it could not be said of such a Person, whateverother Use he might make of his Freedom, that he actually was, or hadbeen, of that laborious, toilsome Employment. A Man who was baptiz'd inhis Infancy, may comply with all the outward Forms of his Religion;and, if he loves his Reputation, never be guilty of any notoriousWickedness. But if all this While, which is not impossible, his Heartis closely attach'd to this World; if he has a far greater Value forSensual, than he has for Spiritual Pleasures, and persists in a Courseof a voluptuous Life for many Years, without Repentance: A Man, I say, who does this, cannot be a more real Christian, tho' he conform'd toall the Rites and Ceremonies, and bore a great Sway in the Vestry, thana Linnen-Draper could be a real Blacksmith, tho' he was free of theBlacksmiths Company, and was a Livery-Man amongst them. That weak silly People may form such wrong Judgments, as I have hintedat, from no worse Cause, than Want of Capacity, and mere Folly, I amwilling to believe. But when I see Men of very good Sense, andconsiderable Knowledge, guilty of it, I can't help thinking, that theydo it with Design, and because they find their Interest in it. This iscertain, that when once it is taken for granted, that to be aChristian, it is sufficient to acquiesce in being call'd so, and attendthe outward Worship of some Sect or other, it saves the Clergy a vastDeal of Trouble, from Friends as well as Foes. For to quiet and satisfyall scrupulous Consciences, is as great a Drudgery as it is to write inDefence of Miracles. The Reason, Sir, why I have said so much on this Head, is, that amongthose who outwardly shew the greatest Zeal for Religion and the Gospel, I see hardly Any who teach us, either by Precept or Example, theSeverity of Manners which Christianity requires. They seem to be muchmore sollicitous about the Name, than they are about the Thing it self;as if, when Men would but own themselves to be Christians, it was nogreat Matter for the Qualifications which must make them so. When oflate I have cast my Eyes upon the Behaviour of some People, who shallbe nameless, it has put me in Mind of the _Free-Masons_. These, youknow, are divided in several Companies; each Company have a Lodge oftheir own; every Lodge has a Master; over all these Masters again, there is a Grand Master. Some of them meet once a Month; others not sooften; they pretend to Mysteries, and eat and drink together; they makeuse of several Ceremonies, which are peculiar to themselves, with greatGravity; and with all this Bustle they make, I could never learn yet, that they had any Thing to do, but to be _Free-Masons_, speak well ofthe Honour of their Society, and either pity or despise all those whoare not Members of it: Out of their Assemblies, they live and converselike other Men: And tho' I have been in Company with several of them, Iprofess, unless I am told it, I can never know, who is a _Free-Mason_, and who is not. I know, Sir, you love _Allegory_; and on that Score, I have beenextremely delighted with what you say, Page 332, of your first Volume;where you justly ridicule and expose those Libertines, who pretend tobe Patriots for _Liberty and Property_. I beg Leave, for the Benefit ofother Readers, to transcribe the Passage. _When I hear, says Crito, these two Words in the Mouth of a_ Minute Philosopher, _I am put inMind of the_ Teste di Ferro _at Rome. His Holiness, it seems, nothaving Power to assign Pensions, on_ Spanish _Benefices, to Any butNatives of_ Spain, _always keeps at_ Rome _Two Spaniards, call'd_ Testedi Ferro, _who have the Name of all such Pensions, but not the Profit, which goes to_ Italians. _As we may see every Day, both Things andNotions placed to the Account of Liberty and Property, which in Realityneither have, nor are meant to have any Share in them. What! is itimpossible for a Man to be a Christian, but he must be a Slave; or aClergyman, but he must have the Principles of an Inquisitor?_ This isvery _à propos_, and admirably well applied. I thank you for it. I knowAbundance of Divines, who seem to be very fond of the World, and arealways grasping at Wealth and Power; and whenever I hear Any of thesemention their Concern for Religion, and the Spiritual Welfare ofOthers, as they often do, I shall always think on _Crito_'s Story, laugh heartily, and say no more. For if I should imitate him, inexclaiming every Time I saw _both Things and Notions placed to theAccount of_ Religion and the Spiritual Welfare of Others, _which, inReality, neither have, nor are meant to have any Share in them_, Ishould never be able to follow any other Business, than to cry out, What! is it impossible, that the Christian Religion should be takenCare of, unless Ecclesiasticks ride in Coaches and Six; or theSpiritual Welfare of the Laity, without Temporal Dominion and anextravagant Power in the Clergy? My _Allegory_, you see, Sir, is but a Copy of yours, and thereforecannot have the same Merit. How you will like it I can't tell; but Ifancy, that most of my Readers besides, will be of Opinion, that if hisHoliness makes no greater Advantage by his _Teste di Ferro_ at _Rome_, than the Cause, which you espouse, is like to get by yours here, itwill hardly be worth his while to keep them any longer. Here, Sir, I shall take my Leave of you, in full Expectation, that, inwhat relates to me, I shall find great Alterations in your nextEdition. To furnish you with as many Materials for this Purpose as Ican conveniently, I shall fill what Room I have left with anotherQuotation from _The Fable of the Bees_, beginning Page 410. If my Paperwould have held out, and I could have added a Page or two more, youwould have seen how wickedly I have been misrepresented in what I sayabout the Fire of _London_. _It is certain, that the fewer Desires a Man has, and the less heCovets, the more easy he is to himself: The more active he is to supplyhis own Wants, and the less he requires to be waited upon, the more hewill be beloved, and the less Trouble he is in a Family: The more heloves Peace and Concord, the more Charity he has for his Neighbour: Andthe more he shines in real Virtue, there is no doubt, but that inProportion he is acceptable to God and Man. But let us be Just. WhatBenefit can these Things be of, or what Earthly Good can they do, topromote the Wealth, the Glory and Worldly Greatness of Nations? It isthe Sensual Courtier, that sets no Limits to his Luxury; the FickleStrumpet that invents New Fashions every Week; the Haughty Dutchess, that in Equipage, Entertainments, and all her Behaviour, would imitatea Princess; the Profuse Rake and lavish Heir, that scatter about theirMoney without Wit or Judgment, buy every Thing they see, and eitherdestroy or give it away the next Day; the Covetous and perjur'dVillain, that squeez'd an immense Treasure from the Tears of Widows andOrphans, and left the Prodigals the Money to spend. It is these thatare the Prey and proper Food of a full-grown_ Leviathan; _or, in otherWords, such is the calamitous Condition of Human Affairs, that we standin Need of the Plagues and Monsters I named, to have all the Variety ofLabour perform'd, which the Skill of Men is capable of inventing, inorder to procure an Honest Livelihood to the vast Multitudes of WorkingPoor, that are required to make a large Society: And it is Folly toimagine, that great and wealthy Nations can subsist, and be at oncePowerful and Polite, without. _ _I protest against Popery as much as ever Luther or_ Calvin _did, orQueen_ Elizabeth _herself; but I believe from my Heart, that theReformation has, scarce been more instrumental in rendring the Kingdomsand States, that have embraced it, flourishing beyond other Nations, than the silly and capricious Invention of Hoop'd and QuiltedPetticoats. But if this should be denied me by the Enemies of PriestlyPower, at least I am sure, that, bar the brave Men, who have fought forand against that Lay-Man's Blessing, it has from its first Beginning tothis Day, not employ'd so many Hands, honest industrious labouringHands, as the abominable Improvement on Female Luxury, I named, hasdone in Few Years. Religion is one Thing, and Trade is another. He thatgives most Trouble to Thousands of his Neighbours, and invents the mostoperose Manufactures is, right or wrong, the greatest Friend to theSociety. _ _What a Bustle is there to be made in several Parts of the World, before a fine Scarlet, or Crimson Cloth can be produced? What aMultiplicity of Trades and Artificers must be employ'd? Not only suchas are obvious, as Wool-combers, Spinners, the Weaver, theCloth-worker, the Scowrer, the Dyer, the Setter, the Drawer, and thePacker; but others that are more remote, and might seem foreign to it;as the Mill-wright, the Pewterer, and the Chymist, which yet are allnecessary, as well as a great Number of other Handicrafts, to have theTools, Utensils, and other Implements belonging to the Trades alreadynamed: But all these Things are done at Home, and may be perform'dwithout extraordinary Fatigue or Danger; the most frightful Prospect isleft behind, when we reflect on the Toil and Hazard that are to beundergone Abroad, the vast Seas we are to go over, the differentClimates we are to endure, and the several Nations we must be obligedto for their Assistance. _ Spain _alone, it is true, might furnish uswith Wool to make the finest Cloth; but what Skill and Pains, whatExperience and Ingenuity are required to dye it of those beautifulColours! How widely are the Drugs and other Ingredients dispers'dthrough the Universe, that are to meet in one Kettle. Allom, indeed, wehave of our own; Argol we might have from the_ Rhine, _and Vitriolfrom_ Hungary; _all this is in_ Europe; _but then for Saltpetre inQuantity, we are forc'd to go as far as the_ East-Indies: _Cochenille, unknown to the Ancients, is not much nearer to us, tho' in a quitedifferent Part of the Earth; we buy it, 'tis true, from the_ Spaniards;_but not being their Product, they are forc'd to fetch it for us fromthe remotest Corner of the New World in the_ West-Indies. _Whilst somany Sailors are broiling in the Sun, and swelter'd with Heat in the_East _and_ West _of us, another Set of them are freezing in the_ North, _to fetch Potashes from_ Russia. _When we are thoroughly acquainted with all the Variety of Toil andLabour, the Hardships and Calamities, that must be undergone to compassthe End I speak of, and we consider the vast Risques and Perils thatare run in those Voyages, and that Few of them are ever made, but atthe Expence, not only of the Health and Welfare, but even the Lives ofMany: When we are acquainted with, I say and duely consider the ThingsI named, it is scarce possible to conceive a Tyrant so inhuman and voidof Shame, that beholding Things in the same View, he should exact suchterrible Services from his innocent Slaves; and at the same Time dareto own, that he did it for no other Reason, than the Satisfaction a Manreceives from having a Garment made of Scarlet or Crimson Cloth. But towhat Height of Luxury must a Nation be arriv'd, where not only theKing's Officers, but likewise his Guards, even the Private Soldiers, should have such impudent Desires!_ _But if we turn the Prospect, and look on all those Labours, as so manyvoluntary Actions, belonging to different Callings and Occupations, that Men are brought up to for a Livelihood, and in which Every oneworks for himself, how much soever he may seem to labour for Others: Ifwe consider, that even the Sailors, who undergo the greatest Hardships, as soon as one Voyage is ended, even after a Ship-wreck, are lookingout and solliciting for Employment in another: If we consider, I say, and look on these Things in another View, we shall find, that theLabour of the Poor is so far from being a Burthen, and an Impositionupon them, that to have Employment is a Blessing, which, in theirAddresses to Heaven, they pray for; and to procure it for theGenerality of them, is the greatest Care of every Legislature. _ _FINIS. _ PUBLICATIONS OF THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY FIRST YEAR (1946-47) Numbers 1-6 out of print. SECOND YEAR (1947-1948) 7. John Gay's _The Present State of Wit_ (1711); and a section on Wit from _The English Theophrastus_ (1702). 8. Rapin's _De Carmine Pastorali_, translated by Creech (1684). 9. T. Hanmer's (?) _Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet_ (1736). 10. Corbyn Morris' _Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit, etc. _ (1744). 11. Thomas Purney's _Discourse on the Pastoral_ (1717). 12. Essays on the Stage, selected, with an Introduction by Joseph WoodKrutch. THIRD YEAR (1948-1949) 13. Sir John Falstaff (pseud. ), _The Theatre_ (1720). 14. Edward Moore's _The Gamester_ (1753). 15. John Oldmixon's _Reflections on Dr. Swift's Letter to Harley_(1712); and Arthur Mainwaring's _The British Academy_ (1712). 16. Nevil Payne's _Fatal Jealousy_ (1673). 17. Nicholas Rowe's _Some Account of the Life of Mr. WilliamShakespeare_ (1709). 18. "Of Genius, " in _The Occasional Paper_, Vol. III, No. 10 (1719);and Aaron Hill's Preface to _The Creation_ (1720). FOURTH YEAR (1949-1950) 19. Susanna Centlivre's _The Busie Body_ (1709). 20. Lewis Theobold's _Preface to The Works of Shakespeare_ (1734). 21. _Critical Remarks on Sir Charles Grandison, Clarissa, and Pamela_(1754). 22. Samuel Johnson's _The Vanity of Human Wishes_ (1749) and Two_Rambler_ papers (1750). 23. John Dryden's _His Majesties Declaration Defended_ (1681). 24. Pierre Nicole's _An Essay on True and Apparent Beauty in Which fromSettled Principles is Rendered the Grounds for Choosing and RejectingEpigrams_, translated by J. V. Cunningham. FIFTH YEAR (1950-51) 25. Thomas Baker's _The Fine Lady's Airs_ (1709). 26. Charles Macklin's _The Man of the World_ (1792). 27. Frances Reynolds' _An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Taste, and of the Origin of Our Ideas of Beauty, etc. _ (1785). 28. John Evelyn's _An Apologie for the Royal Party_ (1659); and _APanegyric to Charles the Second_ (1661). 29. Daniel Defoe's _A Vindication of the Press_ (1718). 30. Essays on Taste from John Gilbert Cooper's _Letters ConcerningTaste_, 3rd edition (1757), & John Armstrong's _Miscellanies_ (1770). SIXTH YEAR (1951-1952) 31. Thomas Gray's _An Elegy Wrote in a Country Church Yard_ (1751); and_The Eton College Manuscript_. 32. Prefaces to Fiction; Georges de Scudéry's Preface to _Ibrahim_(1674), etc. 33. Henry Gally's _A Critical Essay on Characteristic-Writings_ (1725). 34. Thomas Tyers' A Biographical Sketch of Dr. Samuel Johnson (1785). 35. James Boswell, Andrew Erskine, and George Dempster. _CriticalStrictures on the New Tragedy of Elvira, Written by Mr. David Malloch_(1763). 36. Joseph Harris's _The City Bride_ (1696). 37. Thomas Morrison's _A Pindarick Ode on Painting_ (1767). 38. John Phillips' _A Satyr Against Hypocrites_. 39. Thomas Warton's _A History of English Poetry_. 40. Edward Bysshe's _The Art of English Poetry_. William Andrews Clark Memorial Library: University of California THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY _General Editors_ H. RICHARD ARCHERWm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library R. C. BOYSUniversity of Michigan RALPH COHENUniversity of California, Los Angeles VINTON A. DEARINGUniversity of California, Los Angeles _Corresponding Secretary:_ MRS. EDNA C. DAVIS, Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library THE SOCIETY exists to make available inexpensive reprints (usuallyfacsimile reproductions) of rare seventeenth and eighteenth centuryworks. The editorial policy of the Society remains unchanged. As in thepast, the editors welcome suggestions concerning publications. Allincome of the Society is devoted to defraying cost of publication andmailing. All correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States andCanada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark MemorialLibrary, 2205 West Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles 18, California. Correspondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any ofthe general editors. The membership fee is $3. 00 a year for subscribersin the United States and Canada and 15/- for subscribers in GreatBritain and Europe. British and European subscribers should address B. H. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England. * * * * * Publications for the seventh year [1952-1953] (At least six items, most of them from the following list, will bereprinted. ) _Selections from the Tatler, the Spectator, the Guardian. _ Introductionby Donald F. Bond. BERNARD MANDEVILLE: _A Letter to Dion_ (1732). Introduction by Jacob Viner. M. C. SARBIEWSKI: _The Odes of Casimire_ (1646), Introduction by Maren-Sofie Roestvig. _An Essay on the New Species of Writing Founded by Mr. Fielding_(1751). Introduction by James A. Work. [THOMAS MORRISON]: _A Pindarick Ode on Painting_ (1767). Introduction by Frederick W. Hilles. [JOHN PHILLIPS]: _Satyr Against Hypocrits_ (1655). Introduction by Leon Howard. _Prefaces to Fiction. _ Second series. Selected with anintroduction by Charles Davies. THOMAS WARTON: _A History of English Poetry: An UnpublishedContinuation_. Introduction by Rodney M. Baine. Publications for the first six years (with the exception ofNOS. 1-6, which are out of print) are available at the rate of$3. 00 a year. Prices for individual numbers may be obtained by writingto the Society. * * * * * THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY_WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY_2205 WEST ADAMS BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES 18, CALIFORNIA Make check or money order payable to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA.