Transcriber's Note: The Introduction, by Jacob Viner, was first
published without a copyright notice and, therefore, is in the public
domain.



The Augustan Reprint Society


BERNARD MANDEVILLE


_A Letter to Dion_

(1732)


With an Introduction by Jacob Viner

Publication Number 41

Los Angeles
William Andrews Clark Memorial Library
University of California
1953




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, a
reply to Bishop Berkeley's _Alciphron: or, the Minute Philosopher_. In
_Alciphron_, a series of dialogues directed against "free thinkers" in
general, Dion is the presiding host and Alciphron and Lysicles are the
expositors of objectionable doctrines. Mandeville's _Fable of the Bees_
is attacked in the Second Dialogue, where Lysicles expounds some
Mandevillian views but is theologically an atheist, politically a
revolutionary, and socially a leveller. In the _Letter to Dion_,
however, Mandeville assumes that Berkeley is charging him with all of
these 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 to
its role in the exchange between Berkeley and Mandeville.[2] Berkeley
had more sinners in mind than Mandeville, and Mandeville more critics
than Berkeley. Berkeley, however, mere than any other critic seems to
have gotten under Mandeville's skin, perhaps because Berkeley alone
made effective use against him of his own weapons of satire and
ridicule.[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 he
rejected Mandeville's grim picture of human nature, and when he met
Mandeville's eulogy of luxury by the argument that expenditures on
luxuries were no better support of employment than equivalent spending
on charity to the poor or than the more lasting life which would result
from 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 most
important was by John, Lord Hervey. Hervey charged both Berkeley and
Mandeville with unfairness, but aimed most of his criticism at
Berkeley. He claimed that _Alciphron_ displayed the weaknesses of
argument in dialogue form, that it tended either to state the
opponent's case so strongly that it became difficult afterwards to
refute it or so weakly that it was not worth answering. He found fault
with Berkeley for denying that Mandeville had told a great many
disagreeable truths--presumably about human nature and its mode of
operation in society--and with Mandeville for having told them in
public. He held, I believe rightly, that Mandeville, in associating
vice with prosperity, deliberately blurred the distinction between vice
as 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 by
which 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 the
Bees_ as "not unfair," and says: "I can see no reason for whitewashing
Mandeville. The content and manner of his writing invite retort rather
than argument. Berkeley gives both, in the most sparkling of his
dialogues. Mandeville wrote a feeble reply, A _Letter to Dion_."[6] F.
B. Kaye, on the other hand, says of the exchange between Berkeley and
Mandeville that "men like ... Berkeley, who may be termed the
religious-minded ... in their anguish, threw logic to the winds, and
criticized 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 and
Mandeville would presumably lead to a verdict somewhere between those
rendered, with appropriate loyalty to their authors, by their
respective editors. It is mainly for other reasons, however, that the
_Letter to Dion_ is still of interest. There is first its literary
merit. More important, the _Letter_ presents in more emphatic and
sharper form than elsewhere two essential elements of Mandeville's
system of thought, the advocacy, real or pretended, of unqualified
rigorism in morals, and the stress on the role of the State, of the
"skilful Politician," in evoking a flourishing society out of the
operations of a community of selfish rogues and sinners. The remainder
of this introduction will be confined to comments on these two aspects
of Mandeville's doctrine. Since the publication in 1924 of F. B. Kaye's
magnificent edition of _The Fable of the Bees_, no one can deal
seriously with Mandeville's thought without heavy reliance on it, even
when, as is the case here, there is disagreement with Kaye's
interpretation of Mandeville's position.

It was Mandeville's central thesis, expressed by the motto, "Private
Vices, Publick Benefits," of _The Fable of the Bees_, that the
attainment of temporal prosperity has both as prerequisite and as
inevitable consequence types of human behavior which fail to meet the
requirements of Christian morality and therefore are "vices." He
confined "the Name of Virtue to every Performance, by which Man,
contrary to the impulse of Nature, should endeavour the Benefit of
others, or the Conquest of his own Passions out of a Rational Ambition
of being good."[8] If "out of a Rational Ambition of being good" be
understood to mean out of "charity" in its theological sense of
conscious love of God, this definition of virtue is in strict
conformity to Augustinian rigorism as expounded from the sixteenth
century on by Calvinists and, in the Catholic Church, by Baius,
Jansenius, the Jansenists, and others. Mandeville professes also the
extreme rigorist doctrine that whatever is not virtue is vice: in
Augustinian terms, _aut caritas aut cupiditas_. Man must therefore
choose between temporal prosperity and virtue, and Mandeville insists,
especially in the _Letter to Dion_, that on his part the choice is
always 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 and
superficial, and that he would much regret it if the world were run
according to rigoristic morality;" that "emotionally" and "practically,
if not always theoretically," Mandeville chooses the "utilitarian" side
of the dilemma between virtue and prosperity; and that "Mandeville's
philosophy, indeed, forms a complete whole without the extraneous
rigorism."[10] Kaye nevertheless insists that Mandeville's rigorism was
sincere, and that it is necessary so to accept it to understand him. It
seems to me, on the contrary, that if Mandeville's rigorism were
sincere, the whole satirical structure of his argument, its provocative
tone, its obvious fun-making gusto, would be incomprehensible, and
there would be manifest inconsistency between his satirical purposes
and 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 justify
doubt as to its genuineness in the case of Mandeville; rigorism was "a
contemporary point of view both popular and respected, a view-point not
yet extinct." To show that rigorism was "the respectable orthodox
position for both Catholics and Protestants," Kaya cites as rigorists,
in addition to Bayle, St. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Daniel Dyke (the
author of _Mystery of Selfe-Deceiving_, 1642), Thomas Fuller
(1608-1661), William Law, and three Continental moralists, Esprit and
Pascal, 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 and
including St. Augustine on, it had undergone many types of doctrinal
dilution and moderation even on the part of some of its most ardent
exponents. In Mandeville, and in Kaye, it is presented only in its barest
and starkest form. Kaye, however, required by his thesis to show that
Mandeville's doctrine was "in accord with a great body of contemporary
theory,"[12] while accepting it as "the code of rigorism" treats it as
if it were identical with any moral system calling for any measure of
self-discipline or associated with any type of religious-mindedness.[13]
He also identifies it with rationalism in ethics as such, as if any
rationalistic ethics, merely because it calls for some measure of
discipline 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 contemporary
Englishmen, not at men who had been dead for generations nor at
participants in Continental theological controversies without real
counterpart in England, at least since the Restoration. If this is
accepted, then of the men cited by Kaye to show the orthodoxy and the
contemporaneity of rigorism only William Law has any relevance. But Law
was an avowed "enthusiast," and in the England of Mandeville's time this
was almost as heretical as to be an avowed sceptic. Calvinism in its
origins had been unquestionably--though not unqualifiedly--rigoristic. By
Mandeville's time, however, avowed Calvinism was almost extinct in
England; even in Geneva, in Scotland, in Holland, its rigorism had been
much softened by the spread of Arminianism and by a variety of procedures
of theological accommodation or mediation between the life of grace and
the life of this sinful world. On the Continent, Jansenists were still
expounding a severe rigorism. But Jansenist rigorism was not "orthodox."
Though not as extreme as Mandeville's rigorism, it had repeatedly been
condemned 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 he
defines "virtue," the broadness with which he defines "vice," his
failure to recognize any intermediate ground between "virtue" and
outright "vice," or any shades or degrees of either, the positiveness
with which he assigns to eternal damnation all who depart in any degree
from "virtue" as he defines it, is therefore to accept Mandeville as a
genuine exponent of a rigorism too austere and too grim not only for
the ordinary run of orthodox Anglicans or Catholics of his time but
even for St. Augustine (at times), for the Calvinists, and for the
Jansenists.

Kaye justifiably puts great stress on the extent of Mandeville's
indebtedness to Pierre Bayle. There is not the space here to elaborate,
but it could be shown, I believe, that Mandeville was also indebted
greatly, both indirectly through Bayle and directly, to the Jansenist,
Pierre Nicole, and that Mandeville's rigorism was a gross distortion
of, while Bayle's was essentially faithful to, Nicole's system.[16]
Nicole insisted that "true virtue" in the rigorist sense was necessary
for salvation, but at the same time expounded the usefulness for
society of behavior which theologically was "sinful." But it was the
"sinful" behavior of _honnêtes hommes_, of citizens conforming to the
prevalent moral standards of their class, not of rogues and rascals,
which Nicole conceded to be socially useful.[17] Mandeville, on the
other hand, not only lumped the respectable citizens with the rogues
and rascals, but it was the usefulness for society of the vices of the
rogues and rascals more than--and rather than--those of honest and
respectable 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 the
standards 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 Bayle
throws light on the role which Mandeville's professed rigorism played
in the execution of his satirical purposes. It not only supports the
view of all his contemporaries that Mandeville's rigorism was a sham,
but also the view that he was not averse to having its insincerity be
generally detected, provided only that it should not be subject to
clear and unambiguous demonstration. By lumping together the "vices" of
the knave and the honest man, Mandeville could without serious risk of
civil or ecclesiastical penalties make rigorism of any degree seem
ridiculous and thus provide abundant amusement for himself and for
like-minded readers; he could then proceed to undermine all the really
important systems of morality of his time by applying more exacting
standards than they could meet. Against a naturalistic and sentimental
system, like Shaftesbury's, he could argue that it rested on an
appraisal of human nature too optimistic to be realistic. Against
current Anglican systems of morality, if they retained elements of
older rigoristic doctrine he could level the charge of hypocrisy, and
if they were latitudinarian in their tendencies he could object that
they were expounding an "easy Christianity" inconsistent with Holy Writ
and with tradition.

Mandeville clearly did not like clergymen, especially hypocritical
ones, and there still existed sufficient pulpit rigorism to provide him
with an adequate target for satire and a substantial number of readers
who would detect and approve the satire. As Fielding's Squire Western
said 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 dost
say; but I won't be priest-ridden, nor taught how to behave myself by
thee." Only if it is read as a satire on rigorist sermons can there be
full 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 the
Bees_. Here the standard rigorist proposition that there is sin both in
the lust and in the act of satisfying it is applied to drink, where the
thirst 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 du
Salon_" who prided themselves on the fashionable rigor of their
doctrine but insisted on the practical impossibility of living up to it
in the absence of efficacious grace. In my interpretation, Mandeville
was both intellectually and temperamentally a "libertine" patently
putting on the mask of rigorism in order to be able at the same time to
attack the exponents of austere theological morality from their rear
while making a frontal attack on less exacting and more humanistic
systems of morality. The phenomenon was not a common one, but it was
not unique. Bourdaloue, the great seventeenth-century Jesuit preacher,
not very long before had called attention to libertines in France who
masqueraded in rigorist clothes in order to deepen the cleavages among
the members of the Church: "D'òu il arrive assez souvent, par
l'assemblage le plus bizarre et le plus monstrueux, qu'un homme qui ne
croit pas en Dieu, se porte pour défenseur du pouvoir invincible de la
grâce, et devient à toute outrance le panégyriste de la plus étroite
morale."[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's
doctrine which is almost universally misinterpreted. Many scholars,
including economists who should know better, regard Mandeville as a
pioneer expounder of laissez-faire individualism in the economic field
and as such as an anticipator of Adam Smith. Kaye accepts this
interpretation without argument.

The evidence provided by _The Fable of the Bees_ in support of such an
interpretation is confined to these facts: Mandeville stressed the
importance of self-interest, of individual desires and ambitions, as
the driving force of socially useful economic activity; he held that a
better allocation of labor among different occupations would result, at
least in England, if left to individual determination than if regulated
or guided; he rejected some types of sumptuary legislation.

All of this, however, though required for laissez-faire doctrine, was
also consistent with mercantilism, at least of the English type. The
later exponents of laissez-faire did not invent the "economic man" who
pursued only his own interest, but inherited him from the mercantilists
and from the doctrine of original sin. English analysis of social
process had in this sense always been "individualistic," and in this
sense both mercantilism and the widely-prevalent theological
utilitarianism were at least as individualistic as later laissez-faire
economics. Englishmen, moreover, had long been jealous of governmental
power, and at the height of English mercantilism they insisted upon
limits to appropriate governmental intervention. It is not safe,
therefore, to label anyone before Adam Smith as an exponent of
laissez-faire merely on the ground that he would exempt a few specified
types of economic activity from interference by government. It would be
misleading also to apply to eighteenth-century writers modern ideas as
to the dividing line between "interventionists" and exponents of
"liberalism" or of "laissez faire." As compared to modern
totalitarianism, or even to modern "central economic planning," or to
"Keynesianism," the English mercantilism of the late seventeenth and
the eighteenth century was essentially libertarian. It is only as
compared to Adam Smith, or to English classical and the Continental
"liberal" schools of economics of the nineteenth century, that it was
interventionist.

Adam Smith is regarded as an exponent of laissez-faire because he laid
it down as a general principle (subject in practice to numerous and
fairly important specific exceptions) that the activities of government
should be limited to the enforcement of justice, to defense, and to
public works of a kind inherently unsuitable for private enterprise. He
based this doctrine partly on natural rights grounds, partly on the
belief that there was a pervasive natural and self-operating harmony,
providentially established, between individual interest and the
interest of the community, partly on the empirical ground that
government was generally inefficient, improvident, and unintelligent.

There is nothing of such doctrine in Mandeville; there is abundant
evidence in his writings that Mandeville was a convinced adherent of
the prevailing mercantilism of his time. Most English mercantilists
disapproved of some or all kinds of sumptuary regulations on the same
grounds as Mandeville disapproved of some of them, namely, the
existence of more suitable ways of accomplishing their objectives or
the mistaken character of their objectives. Mandeville's objection to
charity schools on the ground that they would alter for the worse the
supplies of labor for different occupations was based on his belief
that England, unlike some other countries, already had more tradesmen
and skilled artisans than it needed. Mandeville, in contrast to Adam
Smith, put great and repeated stress on the importance of the rôle of
government in producing a strong and prosperous society, through
detailed and systematic regulation of economic activity.

It is a common misinterpretation of Mandeville in this respect to read
his motto, "Private Vices, Publick Benefits," as a laissez-faire motto,
postulating the natural or spontaneous harmony between individual
interests and the public good. The motto as it appeared on title pages
of _The Fable of the Bees_ was elliptical. In his text, Mandeville
repeatedly stated that it was by "the skilful Management of the clever
Politician" 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 full
freedom to work her own way, find all will be well." Mandeville, taking
this as directed against himself, disavows it vigorously, and cites the
stress 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_ his
explanation that when he used as a subtitle the "Private Vices, Publick
Benefits" motto, "I understood by it, that Private Vices, by the
dexterous Management of a skilful Politician, might be turned into
Publick Benefits." (pp. 36-37). Later he refers to the role of the
"skilful Management" of the "Legislator" (p. 42), and to "the Wisdom of
the Politician, by whose skilful Management the Private Vices of the
Worst of Men are made to turn to a Publick Benefit." (p. 45). "They are
silly People," he says, "who imagine, that the Good of the Whole is
consistent with the Good of every Individual." (p. 49).

A recent work[22] provides indirectly unintentional support to my
denial that Mandeville was an exponent of laissez-faire. In this work
we are told that "The most famous exponent of what Halévy calls the
natural identity of interests is Bernard Mandeville" and that "What
Mandeville did for the principle of the natural identity of interests
Helvétius did for that of their artificial identity," that is, "that
the chief utility of governments consists in their ability to force men
to act in their own best interests when they feel disinclined to do
so." It so happens, however, that Helvétius as an apostle of state
intervention was not only not departing from Mandeville but was echoing
him even as to language. Helvétius said that motives of personal
temporal 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 the
Jansenists, especially Nicole and Domat. All of them adopted a
Hobbesian view of human nature. All of them followed Hobbes in
believing that the discipline imposed by positive law and enforced by
government was essential if a prosperous and flourishing society was to
be derived from communities of individuals vigorously pursuing their
self-regarding interests. Mandeville's originality was in pretending
that in the interest of true morality he preferred that the individual
pursuit 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 _Minute
Philosopher_ with Attention. As far as I am a Judge, the Language is
very good, the Diction correct, and the Style and whole Manner of
Writing are both polite and entertaining: All together bespeak the
Author to be a Man of Learning, good Sense and Capacity. My Design in
troubling you with this tedious Epistle in Print, which perhaps will be
longer than you could have wish'd it, is to rescue the Publick from a
vulgar Error, which Thousands of knowing and well-meaning People, and
your self, I see, among the Rest, have been led into by a common
Report, 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 beg
of you not to imagine, that I intend to blame you, or any other candid
Man like your self, for having rashly given Credit to such a Report
without further Examination. The _Fable of the Bees_ has been presented
by a Grand Jury more than once; and there is hardly a Book that has
been preach'd and wrote against with greater Vehemence or Severity.
When a Work is so generally exclaim'd against, a wise Man, who has no
Mind 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 Book
and its Author, and you have no where declar'd in Words at length (at
least, as I remember) that you never read _The Fable of the Bees_, it
is possible I might be ask'd, why I would take it for granted, that you
never had read it, when many of your Readers perhaps will believe the
contrary. If this Question was put to me, I would readily answer, that
I chose to be of that Opinion, because it is the most favourable I can
possibly entertain of _Dion_. It is not, Sir, believe me, out of
Disrespect, that I call you plain _Dion_; but because I would treat you
with the utmost Civility: It is the Name under which, I find, you are
pleas'd to disguise your self; and offering to guess at an Author, when
he chuses to be conceal'd, is, I think a Rudeness almost equal to that
of pulling off a Woman's Mask against her Will.

Whoever reads your second Dialogue, will not find in it any real
Quotations from my Book, either stated or examined into, but that the
wicked Tenets and vile Assertions there justly exposed, are either such
Notions and Sentiments, as first, my Enemies, to render me odious, and
afterwards Common Fame had already father'd upon me, tho' not to be met
with in any Part of my Book; or else, that they are spiteful
Inferences, and invidious Comments, which others before you, without
Justness or Necessity, had drawn from and made upon what I had
innocently said. I find no Fault with you, Sir; for whilst a Person
believes these Accusations against me to be true, and is entirely
unacquainted with the Book they point at, it is not impossible that he
might inveigh against it without having any Mischief in his Heart, tho'
it was the most useful Performance in the World. A Man may be credulous
and yet well disposed; but if a Man of Sense and Penetration, who had
actually read _The Fable of the Bees_, and with Attention perused every
Part of it, should write against it in the same strain, as _Dion_ has
done in his second Dialogue, then I must confess, I should be at a
Loss, what Excuse to make for him.

It is impossible that a Man of the least Probity, whilst he is writing
in Behalf of Virtue and the Christian Religion, should commit such an
immoral Act as to calumniate his Neighbour, and willfully misrepresent
him in the most atrocious Manner. If _Dion_ had read _The Fable of the
Bees_, 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'd
from theirs, as Sunshine does from Darkness. When they boasted of
setting Men free, and their abominable Design of ridding them of the
Shackles of Laws and Governments, he would have quoted to them the very
Beginning of my Preface. _Laws and Government are to the political
Bodies of civil Societies, what the vital Spirits and Life it self are
to the natural Bodies of animated Creatures._ From the same Preface he
would have shew'd those barefaced Advocates for all Manner of
Wickedness, 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, he
would have quoted these Words: _When I assert, that Vices are
inseperable 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 not
be continually reproved, or not punish'd for them when they grew into
Crimes._ This he would have corroborated by several Passages in the
Book it self, and not have forgot what I say, page 255. _I lay down as
a first Principle, that in all Societies, great or small, it is the
Duty of every Member of it to be good, that Virtue ought to be
encouraged, Vice discountenanc'd, the Laws obey'd, and the
Transgressors punish'd._ If he had only read the first Edition, a
little Book in Twelves, a Man of _Dion's_ Virtue and Integrity could
not have stifled the Care I have taken in Fifty Places, nor the many
Cautions I have given, that I might not offend or be misunderstood: On
the 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_, Nothing
but his Politeness could have hinder'd him from bursting out into a
loud Laughter at the judicious Remark of the Learned _Crito_, where he
points at the Probability, that the late Incendiaries had taken the
Hint 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 of
the Bees_; but then to suppose, that upon having only dipt in it, you
would have wrote against it as you have done, would be so injurious to
your Character, the Character of an honest Man, that I have not
Patience to reason upon such an uncharitable Supposition. I know very
well, Sir, that I am addressing my self to a Man of Parts, a Master in
Logick, and a subtle Metaphysician, not to be imposed upon by Sophistry
or false Pretences: Therefore I beg of you, carefully to examine what I
have said hitherto, and you'll be convinced; that my not believing you
to have read _The Fable of the Bees_, can proceed from Nothing but the
good Opinion I have of your Worth and Candour, which I hope I shall
never have any Occasion to alter. You are not the first, Sir, by five
hundred, who has been very severe upon _The Fable of the Bees_ without
having ever read it. I have been at Church my self when the Book in
Question has been preach'd against with great Warmth by a worthy
Divine, who own'd, that he had never seen it; and there are living
Witnesses now, Persons of unquestion'd Reputation, who heard it as well
as I.

After all, you have advanced Nothing in the second Dialogue concerning
me, which it may not be proved to have been said or insinuated over and
over in Pamphlets, Sermons and News-Papers of all Sorts and Parties. I
can help you to another very good Reason why a Man of Sense might not
mistrust the ill Report, that has been spread about _The Fable of the
Bees_, and write against it in general Terms, tho' he had not read it.
Every body knows, what Pains our Party-writers take in contradicting
one 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 a
Fling 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 well
establish'd and not to be doubted of. Then why might not an Author
write against it, without giving himself the Trouble of reading it? It
would 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 felt
it. The more therefore I reflect, Sir, on your second Dialogue, and the
Manner you treat me in, the more I am convinced, that you never read
the Book I speak of, I mean, not read it through, or at least not with
Attention. If _Dion_ had inform'd himself concerning _The Fable of the
Bees_, as he might have done, he must have met with my Vindication of
it in some Shape or other. First, it came out in a News-Paper; after
that, I publish'd it in a Six-penny Pamphlet, together with the Words
of the first Presentment of the Grand Jury and an injurious abusive
Letter to Lord C. that came out immediately after it; both which had
been the Occasion of my writing that Vindication. The Reason I gave for
doing this, was, that the Reader might be fully instructed in the
Merits of the Cause between my Adversaries and my Self; and because I
thought it requisite, that to judge of my Defence, he should know the
whole Charge, and all the Accusations against me at large. I took Care
to have this printed in such a Manner, as to the Letter and Form, that
for the Benefit of the Buyers, it might conveniently be bound up, and
look of a Piece with the then last, which was the second Edition. Ever
since 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 as
this last Impression of 1732. If _Dion_ had seen and approved of this
Vindication, he would not have wrote against me at all; and if he had
thought my Answers not satisfactory, and that I had not clear'd my self
from the Aspersions, which had been cast upon me, it was unkind, if not
a great Disregard to the Publick, not to take Notice of it, and shew
the Insufficiency of my Defence, which from his own Writings it is
evident, that great Numbers of the _beau monde_ must have acquiesc'd
in, or not thought necessary.

Give me Leave, then, Sir, for your own Sake, to treat you, as if you
never had read _The Fable of the Bees_ and in Return I give you my
Word, that I shall make no use of it to your Disadvantage; on the
Contrary, I take it for granted, that from the bad Character you had
heard of the Book from every Quarter, you had sufficient Reason to
write against it, as you have done, without any further Enquiry. This
being settled, I shall attempt to shew you the Possibility, that a Book
might come into such a general Disrepute without deserving it. An
Author, who dares to expose Vice, and the Luxury of the Time he lives
in, pulls off the Disguises of artful Men, and examining in to the
false Pretences, which are made to Virtue, lays open the Lives of
those, _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 Men
can bear with Patience, to see those Things detected, which it is their
Interest, and they take Pains to conceal. As to Grand Juries, what they
go upon is, the Testimony of others; they don't judge of Books from
their own Reading; and many have been presented by them, which none, or
at least the greatest Part of them had never seen before. Yet when ever
the Publisher of a Book is presented by a Grand Jury, it is counted a
publick Censure upon the Author, a Disgrace not easily wiped off.

The News-Writers, whose chief Business it is, to fill their Papers and
raise the Attention of their Readers, never forget any Scandal which
can be publish'd with Impunity. By this Means a Book, which once this
Indignity has been put upon, is in a few Days render'd odious, and in
less than a Fortnight comes to be infamous throughout the Kingdom
without any other Demerit; Those Polemick Authors among them, who are
Party-Men, and write either for or against Courts and Ministers, have a
greater Regard to what will serve their Purpose, than they have to
Truth or Sincerity. As they subsist by vulgar Errors, and are kept
alive by the Spirit of Strife and Contention, so it is not their
Business to rectify Mistakes in Opinion, but rather to encrease them
when it serves their Turn. They know, that whoever would ingratiate
themselves with Multitudes and gain Credit amongst them, must not
contradict them; which is the Reason that, how widely soever these
Party-Writers may differ from One another in Principles and Sentiments,
they will never differ in their Censure or Applause, when they touch
upon 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 ill
Repute and a very bad Character without deserving it. The next I shall
endeavour to demonstrate to you, is, that this has been the Case of
_The Fable of the Bees_, and that the Animosities which have been shewn
against it, were originally owing to another Cause, than what my
Adversaries pretended to be the true one. In order to this, I shall be
obliged to make several Quotations from the Book it self, and repeat
many Things, which I have already said in the Vindication hinted at
before: But as I design this only for your self and those who have
judged of the Book from Common Report, and never perused either the
First or the Second Part of it, these Citations will be as new to you
as any other Part of my Letter.

I am not ignorant of the Prejudice and real Hurt, which Authors do
themselves by making long Quotations. They interrupt the Sense, and
often break off the Thread of the Discourse; and many a Reader, when he
comes to the End of a long Citation, has forgot the main Subject, and
often the Thing it self, which that very Citation was brought in to
prove. For this Reason we see, that Judicious Writers avoid them as
much as possible; or that where they cannot do without, instead of
inserting them in the main Text of their Works, they make Place for
them 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 by
Choice, and when the Reader is at Leisure. That this segregating all
extraneous Matter from the main Body of the Book, the Text it self, is
less disagreeable to most Readers, than the other, which I hinted at
first, is certain; but it is attended with this ill Consequence, which
the less engaging Method of Writing is not, to wit, that many curious
and often the most valuable Things, and which it is of the highest
Concern to the Author, that they should be known, are neglected and
never 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 of
several Pages, which I am obliged to trouble you with, are more
material for the Vindication of my Book than all that can possibly be
said besides. For they will not only demonstrate to you, that I have
been shamefully misrepresented, but likewise give you a clear Insight
into the real Cause of the Anger, the Hatred, and Inveteracy, of my
Enemies, who first gave the Book an ill Name, and were the industrious
Authors of the false Reports, by which your self and many other good
Men, to my great Affliction, have been impos'd upon. You'll pardon me
then, Sir, if, consulting my own Interest in a just Defence, rather
than your Pleasure in reading it, I plant my strongest Evidences so
directly in your Way, that, if you'll do me the Favour of perusing this
Letter, it shall be impossible for you to remain ignorant any longer of
the Innocence of my Intentions, and the Injustice that has been done
me.

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 can
assure you, Sir, is not true. What might have given a Handle to this
Charge, must be a Political Dissertation concerning the best Method to
guard and preserve Women of Honour and Virtue from the Insults of
dissolute Men, whose Passions are often ungovernable. As in this there
is 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 far
from encouraging Vice, and should think it an unspeakable Felicity for
a 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 it
so; and speaking occasionally of the Musick-Houses at _Amsterdam_, I
give 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 Fable
of 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 my
Innocence to such, who, as well as your self, neither have read nor
care 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 are
discountenanc'd, at the same Time they are tolerated.

_In the first Place, the Houses I speak of, are allow'd to be no where
but in the most slovenly and unpolish'd Part of the Town, where Seamen
and Strangers of no Repute chiefly lodge and resort. The Street, in
which most of them stand, is counted scandalous, and the Infamy is
extended to all the Neighbourhood round it. In the Second, they are
only Places to meet and bargain in, to make Appointments, in order to
promote Interviews of greater Secrecy, and no Manner of Lewdness is
ever suffer'd to be transacted in them; which Order is so strictly
observ'd, that, bar the Ill Manners and Noise of the Company that
frequent them, you'll meet with no more Indecency, and generally less
Lasciviousness there, than with us are to seen at a Play-House.
Thirdly, the Female Traders, that come to these Evening-Exchanges, are
always the Scum of the People, and generally such, as in the Day-Time
carry Fruit and other Eatables about in Wheel-barrows. The Habits
indeed they appear in at Night, are very different from their ordinaray
ones; yet they are commonly so ridiculously gay, that they look more
like the_ Roman _Dresses of strolling Actresses, than Gentlewomens
Cloaths: If to this you add the Awkwardness, the hard Hands and course
Breeding of the Damsels that wear them, there is no great Reason to
fear, 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 out
of Respect to the Deity that is worship'd in them, but the Frugality of
the Owners, whose Business it is to procure as much Sound for as little
Money as they can, and the Policy of the Government, which endeavours
as little as is possible, to encourage the Breed of Pipers and
Scrapers. All Sea-faring Men, especially the_ Dutch, _are, like the
Element they belong to, much given to Loudness and Roaring, and the
Noise of Half a Dozen of them, when they call themselves Merry, is
sufficient to drown Twice the Number of Flutes or Violins; whereas with
one Pair of Organs they can make the whole House ring, and are at no
other Charge than the keeping of one scurvy Musician, which can cost
them but little, yet notwithstanding the good Rules and strict
Discipline that are observ'd in these Markets of Love, the Schout and
his Officers are always vexing, mulcting, and, upon the least
Complaint, removing the miserable Keepers of them: Which Policy is of
two great Uses; First, it gives an Opportunity to a large Parcel of
Officers, the Magistrates make use of on many Occasions, and which they
could not be without, to squeeze a Living out of the immoderate Gains
accruing from the worst of Employments, and at the same Time punish
those necessary Profligates, the Bawds and Panders, whom, tho' they
abominate, they desire yet not wholly to destroy. Secondly, as on
several Accounts it might be dangerous to let the Multitude into the
Secret, that those Houses and the Trade that is drove in them are
conniv'd at, so, by this Means appearing unblameable, the wary
Magistrates preserve themselves in the good Opinion of the weaker Sort
of People, who imagine, that the Government is always endeavouring,
tho' unable, to suppress what it actually tolerates: Whereas if they
had a Mind to rout them out, their Power in the Administration of
Justice is so sovereign and extensive, and they know so well how to
have it executed, that one Week, nay one Night, might send them all a
packing._

I appeal to your self, Sir, whether this Relation is not more proper to
give Men (even the Voluptuous, of any Taste) a Disgust and Aversion to
the Women in those Houses, than it is to raise any criminal Desire. I
am sorry the Grand Jury should conceive, as they said, that I publish'd
this with a Design to debauch the Nation; without considering, in the
first Place, that there is not a Sentence nor a Syllable, that can
either offend the chastest Ear, or sully the Imagination of the most
vicious; or, in the Second, that the Matter complain'd of, is
manifestly address'd to Magistrates and Politicians, or at least the
most serious and thinking Part of Mankind; whereas a general Corruption
of Manners, as to Lewdness, to be produced by Reading, can only be
apprehended from Obscenities, easily purchased, and every Way adapted
to the Tastes and Capacities of the heedless Multitude, and
unexperienc'd Youth of both Sexes; but that the Performance so
outragiously exclaim'd against was never calculated for either of these
Classes of People, is self-evident from every Circumstance. The
Beginning of the Prose is altogether Philosophical, and hardly
intelligible 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 make
of it, whilst at the same Time the Price is Five Shillings. From all
which it is very plain, that if the Book contains any dangerous Tenets,
I have not been very sollicitous to scatter them among the People. I
have not said a Word to please or engage them, and the greatest
Compliment I have made them, has been, _Apage Vulgus_. _But as Nothing_
(I say p 257.) _would more clearly demonstrate the Falsity of my
Notions, than that the Generality of the People should fall in with
them, so I don't expect the Approbation of the Multitude. I write not
to Many, nor seek for any Well-wishers, but among the Few that can
think abstractly, and have their Minds elevated above the Vulgar._ Of
this I have made no ill Use, and ever preserv'd such a tender Regard to
the Publick, that when I have advanced any uncommon Sentiments, I have
used all the Precautions imaginable that they might not be hurtful to
weak Minds that might casually dip into the Book. When (_page 255_) _I
own'd, that it was my Sentiment, that no Society could be raised into a
rich and mighty Kingdom, or, so raised, subsist in their Wealth and
Power for any considerable Time, without the Vices of Man, I had
premised what was true,_ that I had _never said or imagin'd, that Man
could not be virtuous, as well in a rich and mighty Kingdom, as in the
most pitiful Commonwealth;_ mind Sir, p. 257. _When I say, that
Societies cannot be raised to Wealth and Power and the Top of Earthly
Glory without Vices, I don't think, that by so saying, I bid Men be
vicious, any more than I bid them be quarrelsome or covetous, when I
affirm, that the Profession of the Law could not be maintain'd in such
Numbers and Splendour, if there was not Abundance of too selfish and
litigious People._ A Caution of the same Nature I had already given
towards the End of the Preface, on Account of a palpable Evil,
inseparable from the Felicity of _London_. The Words are these, _There
are, I believe, few People in London, of those that are at any Time
forc'd to go a-foot, but what could wish the Streets of it much cleaner
than generally they are, whilst they regard Nothing but their own
Cloaths and private Conveniency: but when once they come to consider,
that what offends them, is the Result of the Plenty, great Traffick and
Opulency 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 if
we mind the Materials of all Sorts, that must supply such an infinite
Number of Trades and Handicrafts as are always going forward, and the
vast Quantities of Victuals, Drink, and Fuel, that are daily consumed
in it; the Waste and Superfluities, that must be produced from them;
the Multitudes of Horses and other Cattle, that are always daubing the
Streets; the Carts, Coaches, and more heavy Carriages, that are
perpetually wearing and breaking the Pavement of them; and, above all,
the numberless Swarms of People, that are continually harassing and
trampling through every Part of them: If, I say, we mind all these, we
shall find, that every Moment must produce new Filth; and considering
how far distant the great Streets are from the River-side, what Cost
and Care soever be bestow'd to remove the Nastiness almost as fast as
it is made, it is impossible_ London _should be more cleanly before it
is less flourishing. Now would I ask if a good Citizen, in
Consideration of what has been said, might not assert, that dirty
Streets are a necessary Evil inseparable from the Felicity of_ London,
_without being the least Hindrance to the Cleaning of Shoes, or
Sweeping of Streets, and consequently without any Prejudice either to
the_ 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? No
body can doubt but before the stinking Streets of_ London, _I would
esteem a fragrant Garden, or shady Grove in the Country. In the same
Manner, if, laying aside all worldly Greatness and Vain Glory, I should
be ask'd, where I thought it was most probable that Men might enjoy
true Happiness, I would prefer a small peaceable Society, in which Men,
neither envy'd nor esteem'd by Neighbours, should be contented to live
upon the Natural Product of the Spot they inhabit, to a vast Multitude
abounding in Wealth and Power, that should always be conquering others
by their Arms Abroad, and debauching themselves by Foreign Luxury at
Home._

I own, Sir, it is my Opinion, and I have endeavour'd to prove, that
Luxury, tho' depending upon the Vices of Man, is absolutely necessary
to render a great Nation formidable, opulent and polite at the same
Time. But before you pass any Judgment upon me for this, give me Leave
to 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; and
that the last-named is the very Thing a true Christian ought to
renounce: I mean, that when we speak of the World in a figurative
Sense, 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 we
say, that he understands the World very well; that, I say, when we use
the Word in this Manner, it signifies, and we understand by it that
same World which the Gospel gives us so many Cautions and pronounces so
severely against. The Second is, that I have wrote in an Age and a
Nation, where the greatest Part of the Fashionable, and what we call
the better Sort of People, seem to be far more delighted with Temporal,
than they are with Spiritual Enjoyments, at the same Time that they
profess themselves to be Christians; and that whatever they may talk,
preach or write of a Future State and eternal Felicity, they are all
closely attach'd to this wicked World; or at least, that the
Generality, in their Actions and Endeavours, seem to be infinitely more
sollicitous about the one, than they are about the other.

If you will consider these Two Things, you'll find, that I have
supposed no Necessity of Vice, but among those by whom worldly
Greatness is in Esteem and thought necessary to Happiness. The more
curious and operose Manufactures are, the more Hands they employ; and
that with the Variety of them, the Number of Workmen must still
encrease, wants no Proof. It is evident likewise, that Foreign Traffick
consists in changing of Commodities, and removing them from one Place
to 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 buy
theirs. The Epithets of polite and flourishing are never given to
Countries, before they are arriv'd at a considerable Degree of Luxury;
and a flourishing Nation without it, is Bread without Corn, a Perriwig
without Hair, or a Library without Books.

Assertions as these, an indulgent Reader will say, might yet be borne
with; and Hypocrites, by putting false Glosses on Things, and giving
favourable Constructions to their Actions, might persuade the World,
that to make this necessary Consumption, they labour'd for the Publick
Good; that they fed on Trouts and Turbots, Quails and Ortolans, and the
most expensive Dishes, not to please their dainty Palates or their
Vanity, but to maintain the Fishmonger and the Poulterer and the many
Wretches, who, for a miserable Livelyhood, are daily slaving to furnish
them. That they wore gold Brocades, and made new Cloaths every
Fortnight, not to gratify their own Pride or Fickleness, but for the
Benefit of the Mercer, the Merchant, and the Weaver, and the
Encouragement of Trade in general. That the Extravagancy of their
Tables, and Splendor of Entertainments, were only the Effects of an
Hospitable Temper, their Benevolence to others, and a generous
Disposition: That Pride or Ostentation had no Hand in these Things, nor
yet in the laying out of the immense Sums for the Elegancy and
Magnificence of Equipages, Gardens, Furniture and Buildings. All these
Things, I dare say, you would let pass; but if you should hear a Man
say, that this Consumption depends chiefly upon Qualities, we pretend
to be asham'd of, it would be offensive to you; and if he should
maintain, that, without the Vices of Man, it would be impossible to
enjoy all the Ease, Glory, and Greatness, the World can afford, and
which, in short, we are fond of, you would think his Assertion to be a
terrible Paradox.

Many People would believe, that Hunger, tho' they never felt the
Extremities of it, is, in order to live, as requisite to a Man, as it
is to a Cormorant, or to a Wolf; and that without Lust, if you give it
a softer Name, our Species could not be preserv'd, any more than that
of Bulls or Goats. But not One in a Thousand can imagine, tho' it be
equally demonstrable, that in the Civil Society the Avarice of Some and
the Profuseness of Others, together with the Pride and Envy of most
Individuals, are absolutely necessary to raise them to a great and
powerful, and, in the Language of the World, polite Nation. It seems
still to be a greater Paradox, that natural as well as moral Evil, and
the very Calamities we pray against, do not only contribute to this
worldly Greatness, but a certain Proportion of them is so necessary to
all Nations, that it is not to be conceiv'd, how any Society could
subsist upon Earth, exempt from all Evil, both natural and moral.

Yet these Things are asserted, and, I think, demonstrated in _The Fable
of the Bees_. The Book has run through several Impressions, and met
with innumerable Enemies: Nothing was ever more reviled from the Pulpit
as 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 Adversaries
has attempted to disprove what I had said, or overthrow any one
Argument, I made Use of, otherwise than by exclaiming against it, and
saying that it was not true: which to me is a Sign, that not only what
I have advanced is not easy to refute, but likewise, that my Opposers
are more closely attach'd to the World, than even I my self had
imagined them to be. Otherwise it is impossible, but, perceiving this
Difficulty, some of them would have reason'd after the following
Manner, _viz._ Since this worldly Greatness is not to be attain'd to
without the Vices of Man, I will have Nothing to do with it; since it
is impossible to serve God and Mammon, my Choice shall be soon made: No
temper I Pleasure can be worth running the Risque of being eternally
miserable; and, let who will labour to aggrandise the Nation, I will
aim at higher Ends, and take Care of my own Soul.

The Moment such a Thought enters into a Man's Head, all the Poison is
taken away from the Book, and every Bee has lost his Sting.

Those who should in Reality prefer Spirituals to Temporals, and be seen
to take more Pains to attain an everlasting Felicity, than they did for
the Enjoyment of the fading Pleasures and transient Glorie of this
Life, would not grudge to make some Abatements in the Ease, the
Conveniencies, and the Comforts of it, or even to part with some of
their Possessions upon Earth, to make sure of their Inheritance in the
Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever Liking they might have to the curious
Embellishments and elegant Inventions of the Voluptuous, they would
refuse to purchase them at the Hazard of Damnation. In Judging of
themselves they would not be such easy Casuists, nor think it
sufficient not to act contrary to the Laws of the Land, unless they
likewise obey'd the Precepts of _Christ_. No Book would be plainer or
more intelligible to them than the Gospel; and without consulting
either Fathers or Councils, they would be satisfied, that mortifying
the Flesh never could signify to indulge every Appetite, not prohibited
by 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 and
Fashion, and partake of all the Vanities of the World, was the very
Reverse of Renouncing it, if Words had any Signification at all? Here
lies the Difficulty; and here is the true Cause of the Quarrel, and all
the Spite and Invectives against _The Fable of the Bees_ and its
Author. My Adversaries will not be stinted, or abate an Ace of the
wordly Enjoyments they can purchase, because the whole Earth was made
for Man; Libertines say the same of Women, and with equal Justice; yet
relying on this pitiful Reason, they will eat and drink as deliciously
as they can: No Pleasure is denied them, forsooth, that is used with
Moderation; and in Cloaths, Houses, Furniture, Equipages and
Attendance, they may live in perfect Conformity with the most vain and
luxurious of the fashionable People; only with this Difference, that
their Hearts must not be attach'd to these Things, and their grand Hope
be in Futurity. This notable Proviso being once made, tho' in Words
only, all is safe; and no Luxury or Epicurism are so barefac'd, no Ease
is so effeminate, no Elegancy so vainly curious, and no Invention so
operose or expensive, as to interfere with Religion or any Promises
made of Renouncing the World; if they are warranted by Custom, and the
Usage of others, who are their Equals in Estate and Dignity.

Oh rare Doctrine! Oh easy Christianity! To be moderate in numberless
Extravagancies, _Terence_ would tell them was as practicable as _cum
ratione insanire_: But if we grant the Possibility of it, how shall we
know and be convinced that they are sincere; that their Hearts and
Desires are so little engaged to this vile Earth, as they pretend; or
that the Thoughts of a World to come are any Part of their real
Concern, when we have Nothing but their bare Word for it, and all other
Appearances are unanimous, and the most positive Witnesses against
them?

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; their
Clamours against it continue; and what I have now said in Defence of
it, will be rejected, and call'd an Artifice to come off; that it is
full of dangerous, wicked and Atheistical Notions, and could not have
been wrote with any other Design than the Encouragement of Vice. Should
I ask them what Vices they were; Whoring, Drinking, Gaming; or desire
them to name any one Passage, where the least Immorality is
recommended, spoke well of, or so much as conniv'd at, they would have
Nothing 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 I
will more openly unfold that Mystery.

I have, in the Book in Question, exposed the real Pleasures of the
Voluptuous, and taken Notice of the great Scarcity of true Self-denial
among Christians, and in doing this I have spared the Clergy no more
than the Laity: This has highly provoked a great many. But as I have
done this without the least Exaggeration, meddled with Nothing, but
what is plainly known and seen, and always said less than I could have
proved, my Adversaries were obliged to dissemble the Cause of their
Anger. What vex'd them the more was, that it was wrote without Rancour
or Peevishness; and, if not in a pleasant, at least in an open
good-humour'd Manner, free, I dare say, from Pedantry and Sourness.
Therefore None of them ever touch'd upon this Point, or spoke one
Syllable 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 the
Prevarications and false Pretences with which the Generality of the
World 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, where
the People talked much of Religion; and the greatest Part, as to
outward Appearance, seem'd really devout: The chief moral Evil among
them was Thirst, and to quench it, a Damnable Sin; yet they unanimously
agreed, that Every one was born Thirsty more or less. Small Beer in
Moderation was allow'd to All; and he was counted an Hypocrite, a
Cynick, or a Madman, who pretended that One could live altogether
without 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 a
Blessing from Heaven, and there was no Harm in the Use of it; all the
Enormity lay in the Abuse, the Motive of the Heart, that made them
drink it. He that took the least Drop of it to quench his Thirst,
committed a heinous Crime, whilst others drank large Quantities without
any Guilt, so they did it indifferently, and for no other Reason than
to mend their Complexion._

_They brew'd for other Countries as well as their own; and for the
Small Beer they sent abroad, they receiv'd large Returns of
Westphaly-Hams, Neats-Tongues, Hung-Beef, and Bolonia-Sausages, Red
Herrings, Pickled Sturgeon, Cavear, Anchovies, and every Thing that was
proper to make their Liquor go down with Pleasure. Those who kept great
Stores of Small Beer by them, without making use of it, were generally
envied, and at the same Time very odious to the Publick; and No body
was easy that had not enough of it to come to his own Share. The
greatest Calamity they thought could befall them, was to keep their
Hops and Barley upon their Hands; and the more they yearly consumed of
them, the more they reckon'd the Country to flourish._

_The Government had made very wise Regulations concerning the Returns
that were made for their Exports; encouraged very much the Importation
of Salt and Pepper, and laid heavy Duties on every Thing that was not
well season'd, and might any ways obstruct the Sale of their own Hops
and Barley. Those at_ Helm, _when they acted in Publick, shew'd
themselves on all Accounts exempt and wholly divested from Thirst; made
several Laws to prevent the Growth of it, and punish the Wicked who
openly dared to quench it. If you examin'd them in their private
Persons, and pry'd narrowly into their Lives and Conversations, they
seem'd to be more fond, or at least drank larger Draughts of Small Beer
than others, but always under Pretence that the Mending of Complexions
required greater Quantities of Liquor in them, than it did in those
they ruled over; and that what they had chiefly at Heart, without any
Regard to themselves, was to procure great Plenty of Small Beer among
the 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 as
well as the Laity, and some of them very plentifully; yet all of them
desired to be thought less Thirsty by their Function than others, and
never would own, that they drank any, but to mend their Complexions. In
their Religious Assemblies they were more sincere; for as soon as they
came there, they all openly confess'd, the Clergy as well as the Laity,
from the highest to the lowest, that they were Thirsty; that Mending
their Complexions was what they minded the least, and that all their
Hearts were set upon Small Beer and Quenching their Thirst, whatever
they might pretend to the Contrary. What was remarkable is, that to
have laid Hold of those Truths to any one's Prejudice, and made use of
those Confessions afterwards out of their Temples, would have been
counted very impertinent; and Every body thought it a heinous Affront
to be call'd_ Thirsty, _tho' you had seen him drink Small Beer by whole
Gallons. The chief Topicks of their Preachers was the great Evil of
Thirst, and the Folly there was in quenching it. They exhorted their
Hearers to resist the Temptations of it, inveigh'd against Small Beer,
and often told them it was Poyson, if they drank it with Pleasure, or
any other Design than to mend their Complexions._

_In their Acknowledgments to the Gods, they thank'd them for the Plenty
of comfortable Small Beer they had received from them, notwithstanding
they had so little deserv'd it, and continually quench'd their Thirst
with it; whereas they were so thorowly satisfy'd, that it was given
them for a better Use. Having begg'd Pardon for those Offences, they
desired the Gods to lessen their Thirst, and give them Strength to
resist the Importunities of it; yet, in the Midst of their sorest
Repentance, and most humble Supplications, they never forgot Small
Beer, and pray'd that they might continue to have it in great Plenty,
with a solemn Promise, that how neglectful soever they might hitherto
have been in this Point, they would for the Future not drink a Drop of
it with any other Design than to mend their Complexions._

_These were standing Petitions, put together to last; and having
continued to be made use of without any Alterations for several Hundred
Years together, it was thought by Some, that the Gods, who understood
Futurity, and knew, that the same Promise they heard in_ June, _would
be made to them the_ January _following, did not rely much more on
those Vows, than we do on those waggish Inscriptions by which Men offer
us their Goods,_ To Day for Money, and to Morrow for Nothing. _They
often began their Prayers very mystically, and spoke many Things in a
spiritual Sense; yet they never were so abstract from the World in
them, as to end One without beseeching the Gods to bless and prosper
the 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 they
never complain'd of it, nor ever shew'd their Resentment against those
Passages, where their Frailties were most exposed. But the true
Grievance not being to be named, their next Care was to hinder the
Spreading of my Animadversions upon them; that what I had said might
not be read by Many; and accordingly, giving the Book an ill Name, and
making some imperfect Quotations from it, they procure, as I have said
before, the Grand Jury's Presentment against it. But this being
now-a-Days the wrongest Way in the World to stifle Books, it made it
more known, and encreas'd the Sale of it. This made some hot People
raving mad; and now I began to be attack'd with great Fury from all
Quarters; but as Nothing has appeared yet, that might not be easily
answer'd from _The Fable of the Bees_ it self, or the Vindication I
have spoke of before, I have not hitherto thought fit to take Notice of
any.

It was wrote for the Entertainment of idle People, and calculated for
Persons of Education, when they are at Leisure and want Amusement; and
therefore to ask Men of Business, or that have any Thing else to do, to
read such an incoherent Rhapsody throughout, would be an unreasonable
Request; at least, the Author himself ought to be more modest than to
expect 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 on
Passages the most justifiable in the World. It is impossible to say
every Thing at once; and yet Every body, who has a Book before him, has
the Liberty of opening and shutting it, when and where he pleases.
There are many Things, which we entirely approve of, Part of which we
disliked, before we were acquainted with the whole; and we ought always
to consider, that Authors often reserve some Places on Purpose to clear
up and explain others, that are difficult and obscure: Even when we
meet with a Thing really offensive and no ways to be maintain'd, unless
we read a Book through, we do not know but the Author has excepted
against that very Passage himself; perhaps he has retracted, or begg'd
Pardon for it.

It is hardly possible, that a Man of Candour and any tolerable
Judgment, who seriously considers the Book, can be offended at it. In
the First Place, he will find, that what I call Vices are the
Fashionable Ways of Living, the Manners of the Age, that are often
practis'd and preach'd against by the same People: Those Vices, that
the Persons who are guilty of them, are angry with me for calling them
so: The Decencies and Conveniencies, which my Adversaries are so fond
of, and which, rather than forsake and part with, they would take Pains
to justify. In the Second, That I address myself to the Voluptuous,
whose greatest Delight is in this World; and, that when I speak to
Others, that would be contented without Superfluities, and prefer
Virtue and Honesty to Pomp and Greatness, I lay down quite different
Maxims: That what I have said, Page 258, is true, _viz._ Tho' I have
shewn 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 recommended
those mortifying Maxims, I would answer, That those, who think so,
would have said the same to St. _Paul_, or JESUS CHRIST himself, if he
had 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 do
me; and therefore, whoever recommends them must be in Jest. No
Mathematical Demonstration is more true, than that to prohibit
Navigation, and all Commerce with Strangers, is the most effectual Way
to keep out Vice and Luxury: It is almost as true, that Citizens, and
Men of Worth, who defend their own, and fight _pro Aris & Focis_, when
once disciplin'd and inur'd to Hardship, are more to be depended upon
than 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 at
the 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 their
Enemies, I said then, that such a Way of Living, and a Glory to be
obtain'd by so austere a Self-denial, were not the Things which
Englishmen wanted or desired. There are Twenty Passages in the Book to
the same Purpose; but from this alone it is manifest, that, unless I
was a Fool, or a Madman, I could have no Design to encourage or promote
the Vices of the Age. It will be difficult to shew me an Author, that
has exposed and ridicul'd them more openly. Breaches of the Law I have
treated in a more serious Manner; and tho' it has been insinuated, that
I was an Advocate for all Wickedness and Villany in General, there is
no such Thing in the Book. I have said indeed, that we often saw an
evident Good spring up from a palpable Evil, and given Instances to
prove, that, by the wonderful Direction of unsearchable Providence,
Robbers, Murderers, and the worst of Malefactors were sometimes made
instrumental to great Deliverances in Distress, and remarkable
Blessings, which God wrought and conferr'd on the Innocent and
Industrious; but as to the Crimes themselves, I have never spoke of
them, but with the utmost Detestation, and on all Occasions urg'd the
great Necessity of punishing all, that are guilty of them, without
Favour or Connivance.

That Honesty is the best Policy, even as to Temporals, is generally
true; but it does not so often raise Men to great Wealth and Power as
Knavery 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 be
reposed in Persons, and the more their Transactions are Secrets and
such 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 of
defrauding others with Impunity, be a cunning Sharper, a covetous
Miser, and a wicked Hypocrite; can it be a Question, whether he is not
more likely to get a great Estate, with the same setting out in a few
Years, than a charitable, religious Man, whose chief Care is not for
this World, in the same or any other Calling, equally beneficial to
fair Dealers? I am not ignorant of what may be said against me, about
God's Blessing, and on whom it is most likely to fall. The Dispositions
of Providence are unfathomable, and the Distribution of what we call
Good and Evil in this World, is a Mystery not to be accounted for by
the Notions we have of God's Justice, without having Recourse to a
Future State; therefore I need not to take this in Consideration here.
The Question is not, which is the readiest Way to Riches, but whether
the Riches themselves are worth being damn'd for.

There never was yet, and it is impossible to conceive, an opulent
Nation, without great Vices: This is a Truth; and I am not accessary to
its being so, for divulging it. When I have shewn the Necessity of
Vice, to render a Society great and potent, I have exposed that
Greatness, and left it to them, the Members of it, whether it is worth
buying at that Price; and I defy all my Enemies to shew me, where I
have recommended Vice, or said the least Tittle, by which I contradict
that true, as well as remarkable Saying of Monsieur _Baile_. _Les
utilités du vice n'empèchent pas qu' il ne soit mauvais._ Vice is
always bad, whatever Benefit we may receive from it.--But I have been
strangely 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 of
doing himself great Injury. But he must ride; the Match is made; he has
a Master to oblige, and he is undone it he refuses: So he is managed
accordingly 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 to
waste, acquaint the World with the sharp Liquors they take, how they
are purged, sweated, stinted in their Food, and debarr'd from their
natural Rest; If, I say, I had a Mind to do this, and ridicule the
Expedient, I don't see where would be the Harm. As to the Thing it
self, No body would doubt, but drinking Vinegar, Physicking, Watching,
and Starving, would be a more proper Means to lose Flesh, than good
Nourishment three Times a Day, and comfortable Sleep at Night. But the
Question is, whether Weighing less, or the Riding it self, be of that
Importance, that a Man would undergo so much for it; and I believe,
most People, far from following this Method, would content themselves
with admiring and laughing at the Folly of it. But it would be
barbarous to say, that I had prescrib'd it, when I had openly declared
against it. But what Name would you give it, if the Jockeys themselves,
continuing their former Practice, should in Revenge, that I had expos'd
it, pretend seriously to exclaim against me for broaching a destructive
Doctrine, that would endanger the Health, and spoil the Growth of young
People, and to prove their Assertions, quote as many of my own Words as
would serve their Purpose, and no more?

I take this to be a pretty near Resemblance of my Case: _Omne Simile
claudicat_. 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 of
Sense can not be long imposed upon by either: It is the Book we must
stand or fall by at last; and it is to this I refer all judicious as
well as impartial Readers. They will soon find out the true Cause of
the Malice, and all the Clamours against me, and that my laying open
the luxurious Lives of some Men; my shewing the great Scarcity of
Self-denial among Christians as well as others, and, in short, my
reprehending, lashing and ridiculing Vice and Insincerity, have
procured me infinitely more Enemies than all the pretended
Encouragement to Vice and Immorality they can meet with; and if, after
perusing the whole, all Persons of Candour, and Capacity to read Books
of that Nature, are not fully convinced of this, may I be despised for
ever, and forfeit the good Opinion of all Men I value. But still the
Title, _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 _Private
Vices, Publick Benefits_ make not a compleat Sentence according to
Grammar; and that there is at least a Verb, if not a great deal more
wanting to make the Sense perfect. In the Vindication of _The Fable of
the Bees_, I have said, that I understood by it, that _Private Vices_,
by the dexterous Management of a skilful Politician, might be turn'd
into _Publick Benefits_. There is Nothing forc'd or unnatural in this
Explanation; and Everybody ought to have the Liberty of being an
Interpreter of his own Words. But if I wave this Privilege, the worst
Construction that can be put upon the Words is, that they are an
Epitome of what I have labour'd to prove throughout the Book, that
Luxury and the Vices of Man, under the Regulations and Restrictions
laid down in the _Fable of the Bees_, are subservient to, and even
inseparable from the Earthly Felicity of the Civil Society; I mean what
is commonly call'd Temporal Happiness, and esteem'd to be such.

As to those who, without reading the Book, may be corrupted by the
Sight, or by the bare Sound of the Words _Private Vices, Publick
Benefits_, I confess, I don't know what Provision to make for them.
People who judge of Books from their Titles, must be often imposed
upon. There is neither Blasphemy nor Treason in the Words, and they are
far 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, a
pernicious, as well as deceitful Doctrine, comprised in a full
Sentence, wrote in the Imperative Mood. What strange Consequence would
it be of, especially among the Poor, if, relying on the Wisdom of this
Title, and taking it for wholesome Advice, People should act
accordingly, without any further Examination?

The true Reason why I made use of the Title, _Private Vices, Publick
Benefits_, I sincerely believe, was to raise Attention: As it is
generally counted to be a Paradox, I pitch'd upon it in Hopes that
those who might hear or see it, would have the Curiosity to know, what
could be said to maintain it; and perhaps sooner buy the Book, than
they would have done otherwise. This, to the best of my Knowledge, is
all the Meaning I had in it; and I think it must have been Stupidity to
have had any other.

If it be urged, that these Benefits are worldly, I own it; and Every
body may see, in whose Sense I call them so; in the Language of the
World, the Age and the Time I live: This one of my Adversaries
perceived plainly, and endeavoured to take Advantage of it against me,
by saying, that Nothing could be a real Benefit, that did not conduce
to 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's
Salvation is the greatest Benefit he can receive or wish for; and I am
persuaded, that, speaking of Things Spiritual, the Word is very proper
in that Sense; the same may be said of the Words Profit, Gain, and, if
you please, Lucre; but I deny, that without any Addition, this is the
common Acceptation of them; in which, I hope, I may have the Liberty to
make use of Words with the Rest of my Fellow-Subjects. All temporal
Privileges and worldly Advantages whatever, are call'd Benefits, and a
Thousand Things are beneficial to the Body, that have Nothing to do
with the Soul. So a Felon may have the Benefit of the Clergy; such are
Benefit-Tickets; and so a Man may go in the Country for the Benefit of
the Air. I would ask this wise Gentleman, when he reads, that a Play is
to be acted for the Benefit of such a one; which he thinks it is, the
Money the Person receives, or the Performance it self, that contributes
most to his eternal Happiness.

But I am more cautious and exact, than my Enemies imagine: If I would
have made my Readers to understand, that the Vices of Men often prove
of 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 general
a Manner: for as Nothing is of greater Concern to every individual
Person, than his future Welfare, Nothing can be Beneficial to him, in
an unlimited Sense, that might destroy, or any Ways interfere with his
eternal Happiness: But this eternal Happiness cannot at the soonest
commence till after this Life; and when a Man is dead, he ceases to be
a 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 this
Earth, and consequently, as such, not capable of enjoying eternal
Happiness. A Miser may go directly to Hell, as the Reward of his
Avarice and Extortion, at the same Time, that the great Wealth he
leaves, and the Hospital he builds, are a considerable Relief to the
Poor, and consequently a Publick Benefit.

If a Man should affirm, that the Publick is wholly incapable of having
any Religion at all, it would, perhaps, be shocking to some People; yet
it is as true, as that the Body Politick, which is but another Name for
the Publick, has no Liver nor Kidneys, no real Lungs nor Eyes in a
literal Sense. Mix'd Multitudes of Good and Bad Men, high and low
Quality, may join in outward Signs of Devotion, and perform together
what is call'd Publick Worship; but Religion it self can have no Place
but in the Heart of Individuals; and the most a Legislator can act in
Behalf 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 on
the one Hand; and, on the other, to prohibit and punish Wickedness, and
all Manner of Impiety, that can fall under the Cognizance of
Magistrates. But thus much I think to be necessary in the Civil
Administration of all Governments, for the temporal Interest of the
Whole, before true Christianity comes in Question, which is a private
Concern of every Individual: And tho' I have not every where taken
Notice of this, when I have been soothing the Voluptuous, yet when it
has come directly in my Way, I have earnestly recommended to all
Magistrates the Care of Divine Worship, even when my greatest Regard
has been for the Wealth and Greatness of Nations, and the Advancement
of worldly Glory; which good Christians ought to have little to do
with. Of which you may see an undeniable Proof in Page 352, where
speaking of the Instructions the Children of the Poor might receive at
Church; _From which,_ I say, _or some other Place of Worship, I would
not have the meanest of the Parish, that is able to walk to it, be
absent on Sundays,_ I have these Words: _It is the Sabbath, the most
useful Day in Seven, that is set apart for Divine Service & Religious
Exercise, as well as Resting from bodily Labour; and it is a Duty
incumbent on all Magistrates, to take a particular Care of that Day.
The Poor more especially, and their Children, should be made to go to
Church on it, both in the Fore- and the Afternoon, because they have no
Time on any other. By Precept and Example they ought to be encourag'd
to it from their Infancy. The wilful Neglect of it ought to be 'counted
scandalous; and if down-right Compulsion to what I urge, might seem too
harsh, and perhaps impracticable, all Diversions, at least, ought
strictly to be prohibited, and the Poor hinder'd from every Amusement
abroad, 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 is
irrefragrably true; and there are various Ways, by which Private Vices
may become Publick Benefits, Ways more real and practicable, than what,
some Time ago, was offer'd by that serious Divine, whose Religion and
Piety are so amply set forth in that undisguised Confession of his
Faith, _The Tale of a Tub_. People may wrangle about the Definition of
Luxury as long as they please; but when Men may be furnish'd with all
the Necessaries for Life from their own Growth, and yet will send for
Superfluities from Foreign Countries, which they might (as many
actually do) live comfortably without, it certainly is a Degree of
Luxury, if there be such a Thing as Luxury in the World. Now, if a
Legislator, who is to take Care of the Welfare, and consequently the
Defence, as well as the Tranquility of the Publick, perceiving this
vicious Inclination and Longing after Superfluities, made use of it as
a Means to provide for the Publick Safety, and actually raised Money by
Licensing the Importation of such Foreign Superfluities; might it not
be said, that, by such skilful Management, _Private Vices_ were turn'd
into _Publick Benefits_? And is this not done, when heavy Duties are
laid on Sugar, Wine, Silk, Tobacco, and a Hundred other Things less
necessary, 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 use
of all these Things with Moderation, and consequently that the Desire
after them is no Vice, then I answer, that either no Degree of Luxury
ought to be call'd a Vice, or, that it is impossible to give a
Definition of Luxury, which Every body will allow to be a just one.

But I'll give you another Instance, how palpable and gross Vices may
be, and are turn'd into Publick Benefits. It is the Business of all
Law-givers to watch over the Publick Welfare, and, in order to procure
that, to submit to any Inconveniency, any Evil, to prevent a much
greater, if it is impossible to avoid that greater Evil at a cheaper
Rate. Thus the Law, taking into Consideration the daily Encrease of
Rogues and Villains, has enacted, that if a Felon, before he is
convicted himself, will impeach two or more of his Accomplices, or any
other Malefactors, so that they are convicted of a Capital Crime, he
shall be pardon'd and dismiss'd with a Reward in Money. There is no
Doubt but this is a good and wise Law; for without such an Expedient,
the Country would swarm with Robbers and Highwaymen Ten-times more than
it does; for by this Means we are not only deliver'd from a greater
Number of Villains, than we could expect to be from any other; but it
likewise stops the Growth of them, breaks their Gangs, and hinders them
from trusting One another. For Three Rogues, acting separately, cannot
do so much substantial Mischief on all Occasions, as when they act in
Company. All this while it is evident, that in this Case the Law has
only Regard to the Publick Good, and, to procure that, sets aside all
other Laws, and proceeds rather contrary to the Common Notions we have
of Justice; which, according to the _Civilians_, consists _in a
constant and perpetual Desire of giving every one his Due_: For instead
of Hanging, which is a Felon's Due, it pardons him; and for Fear he
should have some Goodness left, and that natural Compassion might make
him 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, and
actually bribes him to add to the Rest of his Crimes that Piece of
Treachery to his Companions, whom he had sworn Fidelity to, and perhaps
drawn into the Villany.

It is in vain to tell me, that this Impeaching of his Companions is no
Crime in a Felon, but a Duty which he owes his Country; and that I
don't know but it is the Effect of his sincere Repentance, which makes
him look upon this open Confession as the only Attonement he is able to
make the Publick for all his Offences against it. Those who would
impeach 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, and
House-breakers, that those Common Villains will do any Thing to get
Money, and still more to save Life, when they are conscious that it is
forfeited. The Knowledge of this was the Foundation of that Law. For
the Worst of Rogues have Friendship and Affection for one another; and
Constancy, Faithfulness, and Intrepidity are 'counted valuable
Qualities among them, as well as among other People. One Villain who
betrays another merely for Money, and without Necessity, thinks himself
to 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 there
ever was one, who made himself a Witness against an Associate, with
whom he was not at Enmity before, if he could have got the same
Temporal Advantage by holding his Tongue.

This shews the Usefulness of such a Law, and at the same Time the
Wisdom of the Politician, by whose skilful Management the Private Vices
of the Worst of Men are made to turn to a Publick Benefit. There are
Men 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 of
these be in doubt whether there is not some Reasonableness or other
Merit in this Law, besides its contributing to the Welfare of the
Society; I would ask him, if it would not be an unpardonable Folly, nay
a wicked Action in any Legislature, to enact, that a most abandon'd
Wretch, who has been guilty of many Capital Crimes, should, without
having shewn any Remorse, not only be pardon'd, but likewise with a
Reward in Money be let loose again upon the Publick; if what is
design'd by such an extraordinary Conduct, to wit, the Decrease of
Thefts and Villanies, might be obtain'd by any other Method, less
clashing with the common Notions we have of Justice: Which being
undeniably true, the only Reason that can be given, why Enacting this
is 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_, and
what I have quoted from it, have not alter'd the Opinion you seem to
have had of the Book, I believe it is in vain to say any more: Other
Readers, I hope, will be less obdurate, and convinced by this Time,
that it was not wrote for the Encouragement of Vice and to debauch the
Nation; which is all I want; for as to the Performance, whether good or
bad, I shall say Nothing about it, whatever I think. I sincerely
believe, 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 ill
wrote, as to the Diction, Manner, and whatever regards the Composition,
is what I would never have troubled my Head about, tho' it had been
more 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 both
wrote against it by Name, differ very widely in their Opinion
concerning this Composition. A noted[24] Critick, who seems to hate all
Books that sell, and no other, has, in his Anger at that Circumstance,
pronounced against _The Fable of the Bees_ in this Manner: _It is a
wretched Rhapsody; the Wit of it is low; the Humour of it contemptibly
low, and the language often barbarous_. But a Reverend Divine, who has
wrote a long Preface against the same Book, seems not to have disliked
the Performance of it, nor to wonder at the quick Sale of it, which he
ascribes in a great Measure[25] _to the free, easy and lively Manner of
the Author_. From this Contrariety of Opinions, I shall infer Nothing
more, than that, if Men would be truly inform'd of the Book, it is not
safe 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 Books
impartially. We are often influenc'd by our Love, or our Hatred, before
we are aware of it our selves. I have met with several good Judges of
Books, who disliked, and spoke very slightingly of your _Alciphron_;
and I found, the chief Reason was, because you attack'd all _Free
Thinkers_, without Exception. But I declare, that I think your Book,
for the Generality, to be well wrote; tho' you have us'd me most
unmercifully, 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 so
stupid as to believe him ugly, because he has us'd me ill. I differ
from My Lord _Shaftesbury_ entirely, as to the Certainty of the
_Pulchrum & Honestum_, abstract from Mode and Custom: I do the same
about the Origin of Society, and in many other Things, especially the
Reasons why Man is a Sociable Creature, beyond other Animals. I am
fully persuaded, His Lordship was in the Wrong in these Things; but
this does not blind my Understanding so far, as not to see, that he is
a very fine Author, and a much better Writer than my self, or you
either. If that noble Lord had been a much worse Author, and wrote on
the Side of Orthodoxy and the Church, I fancy, you would have thought
more favourably of his Capacity. I have seen what you have cited from
him, and the Manner you have done it in. But what Proportion does that
bear to Three large Volumes, and the many admirable Things he has said
against Priestcraft, and on the Side of Liberty and Human Happiness.
Upon the Whole, I dare say, that your _Minute Philosopher_ will meet
with very few Readers, among those that have read, and are not lash'd
in 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 for
the Good of Society, that human Nature should be extoll'd as much as
possible: I think, the real Meanness and Deformity of it to be more
instructive. Your Design is, to make Men copy after the beautiful
Original, and endeavour to live up to the Dignity of it: Mine is, to
enforce the Necessity of Education, and mortify Pride. I was very much
delighted with what you say in your First Dialogue of Apple-trees and
Oranges; the different Productions of the first, and the Culture of the
other. The Allegory is very ingenious, and the Application just; but I
don't think, that the Conclusion, which must be drawn from it, will be
of great Use to you. Page 51. _Euphranor_ asks _Alciphron, Why may we
not conclude by a Parity of Reason, that Things may be natural to Human
Kind, and yet neither found in all Men, nor invariably the same, where
they are found?_ I answer, They may. But if all the Knowledge and
Accomplishments, which Men can attain to, are to be look'd upon as
natural, and peculiar to the whole Species, it must be the same with
Vice 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 a
Man to murder his Father, as it is to reverence him; and for a Woman to
poison her Husband, as it is to love him.

If you would but look into the Reasons, Sir, I have given for
distinguishing between what is natural, and what is acquired, you would
not find any ill Intention in that Practice. Many Things are true,
which the Vulgar think Paradoxes. Believe me, Sir, to understand the
Nature of Civil Society, requires Study and Experience. Evil is, if not
the Basis of it, at least a necessary Ingredient in the Compound; and
the temporal Happiness of Some is inseparable from the Misery of
others. They are silly People who imagine, that the Good of the Whole
is consistent with the Good of every Individual; and the best of us are
insincere. Every body exclaims against Luxury; yet there is no Order of
Men which is not guilty of it; and if the Lawgivers are not always
endeavouring to keep up all Trades and Manufactures, that supply us
with the Means and Implements of Luxury, they are blamed. To wish for
the Encrease of Trade and Navigation, and the Decrease of Luxury at the
same Time, is a Contradiction. For suppose, that the Legislature, by
the Help of the Clergy, could introduce a general Frugality in this
Nation, we could never keep up our Traffick, and employ the same Hands
and Shipping, unless they could likewise persuade the Nations, we deal
with, to be more profuse than now they are, that they might take off
from our Hands so much more of the Implements of Luxury, as our
Consumption of them should be less than it had been before.

The very same Things, which are Blessings in One Year, are Calamities
in another. In every Nation, those who are employ'd in Gardening and
Agriculture, are taught by Experience to manage their Affairs, as is
most suitable to the Climate and the Certainty or Irregularities of the
Seasons. If there were no Blasts in _England_, nine Tenths of the
Apple-trees would be superfluous. Ask the Gardeners about _London_,
whether they don't get more by a middling Crop, than a plentiful
Product; and whether Half of them would not be ruin'd, if every Thing
they sow or plant should come to Perfection: Yet Every body wishes for
Plenty and Cheapness of Provisions: But they are often Calamities to a
great Part of the Nation. If the Farmer can't have a reasonable Price
for his Corn, he can't pay his Landlord. We have often had the good
Fortune of having great Plenty, when other Nations have wanted. This is
a real Gain: But when all our Neighbours are sufficiently provided, and
we can no where export our Corn with Profit, Two plentiful Years, one
after an other, are a greater Detriment to the Publick by far, than a
middling Scarcity. A benevolent Man, who has a favourable Opinion of
his Kind, would perhaps imagine, that Labourers of all Sorts would go
to their Work with greater Alacrity, and bear the Fatigue of it with
more Chearfulness, in plentiful Years, than when Corn is at a high
Price, and with all their Industry they can hardly procure Food for
their Families. But the Contrary is true; and ask all considerable
Dealers, of Experience, who for many Years have employ'd a great Number
of Hands in the Woollen Manufacture, in Hard Ware, or Agriculture, and
they will tell you unanimously, that the Poor are most insolent, and
their Labour is least to be depended upon, when Provisions are very
cheap; and that they never can have so much Work done, or their Orders
so punctually comply'd with, as when Bread is dear.

Your _Crito_ and _Euphranor_ are very good Characters; but what I
admire the most in them, is the consummate Patience in keeping Company,
and bearing for a whole Week together, with two such insupportable, out
of the way Rascals, as you have represented _Alciphron_ and _Lysicles_
to be. I believe with you, that among the Vain and Voluptuous, there
are Abundance of superficial People, who call themselves _Free
Thinkers_, and are proud of being thought to be Unbelievers, without
having laid the Foundation of any Philosophy at all. But there never
were Two such Creatures in the World as those whom you have made the
Champions for Free-thinking. I don't speak as to their Irreligion and
Impiety, 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 some
Times, are inconsistent with the Ignorance, Folly and Stupidity they
shew at others. It is impossible that Men of Parts, and the least
Spirit, how much soever they were in the Wrong, could see themselves
defeated, banter'd and exposed with so much Tranquility and
Chearfulness; and I can't conceive how any, but egregious Coxcombs,
without Sense of Shame, could behave as _Alciphron_ and _Lysicles_ do
throughout your Dialogues. They are Fellows without Feeling or Manners.
If among Gentlemen there are abandon'd Wretches, who harbour Sentiments
so abominable and openly destructive to Society, as several are which
they advance, I am very well assured, that no well-bred Men would vent
them before Strangers in so shocking a Manner as they do. No Mortal
ever saw such Disputants before; they always begin with swaggering and
boasting of what they'll prove; and in every Argument they pretend to
maintain, they are laid upon their Backs, and constantly beaten to
Pieces, till they have not a Word more to say; and when this has been
repeated above half a Score times, they still retain the same Arrogance
and _mal-à-pert_ Briskness they were made to set out with at first; and
immediately after every Defeat, they are making fresh Challenges,
seemingly with as much Unconcern and Confidence of Success, as if
Nothing had pass'd before, or they remember'd Nothing of what had
happened. Such an Undauntedness in assaulting, and Alacrity in
yielding, as you have made them display, never met in the same
Individuals before.

I know, Sir, that in drawing those Characters, you design'd them for
Monsters to be abhorr'd and detested; and in this you have succeeded to
Admiration, at least with me; for I can assure you, that I never saw
any two Interlocutors in the same Dialogue or Drama, whose Behaviour
and Principles I execrate more heartily, than I do theirs. And if you
would read the _Fable of the Bees_ impartially, you would be convinced
of this, from my Description of the Company I would chuse to converse
with. 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 their
Function. 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 made
themselves contemptible to all who know them, they will endeavour to
stop the Mouths of all Opposers, by barely naming the _Minute
Philosopher_; and having, by the Credit of that Book, repell'd the
Censure they had deserv'd, insult the Laity, and lay claim to the
Honour and Deference, which ought only to be paid to worthy Divines.
These I will take in Hand, and convince, that you have not wrote to
justify those Ecclesiasticks, who by their Practice contradict the
Doctrine of _Christ_; and that they misconstrued your Intentions; who
leading vicious Lives themselves, demanded the same Respect from
Others, which you only affirm to be due to Clergymen of Merit and good
Morals. And as I would handle these, so you, in like Manner, would take
to 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 more
Mischief Men did, the more they acted for the Publick Welfare, because
it is said, in _The Fable of the Bees_, that without Vices, no great
Nation can be rich and flourishing, you would laugh at his Folly; and
if, for the same Reason, he urged, that Rapes, Murder, Theft, and all
Manner of Villanies ought to be applauded, or at least pass'd by with
Impunity, you would demonstrate to him, how immensly far my Design was
from screening Criminals, and shew him the many Passages, where I
insist upon it, that impartial Justice ought to be administer'd, and
that even for the Welfare of worldly-minded Men, Crimes should be
severely punish'd. You would inform him likewise, that I thought
Nothing more cruel, than the Lenity of Juries, and the Frequencies of
_Pardons_, and not forget to tell him, that my Book contained several
Essays on Politicks; that the greatest Part of it was a Philosophical
Disquisition 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 among
Christians to have better Morals, than they were possess'd of among the
antient Heathens. The Vices of Men have always been so inseparable from
great Nations, that it is difficult to determine any Thing with
Certainty about that Matter. But I am of Opinion, that the Morals of a
People in general, I mean the Virtues and Vices of a whole Nation, are
not so much influenced by the Religion that is profess'd among them, as
they are by the Laws of the Country, the Administration of Justice, the
Politicks of the Rulers, and the Circumstances of the People. Those who
imagine, that the Heathens were encouraged and led to criminal
Pleasures by the bad Examples of the Deities they worship'd, seem not
to distinguish between the Appetites themselves, the strong Passions in
our Nature, that prompt Men to Vices, and the Excuses they make for
committing them. If the Laws and Government, the Administration of
Justice, and the Care of the Magistrates were the same, and the
Circumstances of the People were likewise the same, I should be glad to
hear 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, is
Lust. This is the Passion, which is so difficult to conquer, whilst it
affects us. There are many Christians, no doubt, who subdue it by the
Fear of God, and Punishment hereafter; but I believe, that the
Heathens, who triumph'd over this Passion, from a Regard to Virtue,
were as considerable in Number. Among the nominal Christians, there are
not a Few, who forbear indulging this Passion, from worse Principles. I
believe it was the same with the Heathens. However, in _Great-Britain_
there are Thousands that abstain from unlawful Pleasures, who would not
be so cautious, if they were not deterr'd from them by the Expence, the
Fear of Diseases, and that of losing their Reputation. These are three
Evils, against which all the bad Examples of the Gods can bring no
Remedy.

In all Ages, Men have display'd Virtues and Vices, which their Religion
had Nothing to do with; and in many Actions, and even the most
important Affairs, they are not more influenced by what they believe of
a 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, and
are very cool, and even neglectful in Religious Duties, it is
ridiculous to ascribe their good Qualities to their Christianity.
You'll give me Leave, Sir, to expatiate a little upon this Head, and
illustrate 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 to
marry. He is far from being chast, but cautious in his Amours. He is a
Lover of Mirth and Gaiety, hates Solitude, and would rather take up
with almost any Company, than be alone. He keeps a very good Table; no
Man 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 Nothing
more miserable, than not to be rich. He is a Man of Honour, and has a
high Value for Reputation. He is of the establish'd Church, and
commonly goes to it once every Sunday; but never comes near it at any
other Time. Once likewise every Year, either at _Easter_ or
_Whitsuntide_, he takes the Sacrament. For the Rest, Pleasure and
Politeness are his chief Study: He seems to be little affected with
Religion, and seldom speaks of it, either for or against it. Now, if a
Man, having well weigh'd and examin'd this Character, was ask'd what he
thought of _Lepidus_, as to his Principle, and the Motives of his
Actions, and he should give it as his Opinion, that this Sociableness,
this generous and _debonnair_ Temper of _Lepidus_ were owing to his
being a Christian, and not a Heathen or a Freethinker, it might be
call'd a charitable Construction, but I could never think it well
judg'd. But be that as it will, if a _Crito_ or an _Euphranor_ had a
Mind 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 it
would not only be difficult to disprove it, but likewise a very odious
Task to set about it.

_Nicanor_ is a very sober Man; hardly ever drinks to Excess; yet he is
never without Wine of several Sorts, and is very free with it to his
Friends, and all who come to see him. But whatever his Company may do,
he always fills very sparingly for himself, and seldom drinks above
half 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 his
Trade, yet as indefatigable as ever, and seems to know no greater
Pleasure than the getting of Money. He is not void of Ambition; is
Deputy of the Ward he lives in, and hopes to be an Alderman before he
dies. 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, that
this Character being likewise look'd into, a Man shou'd take it into
his Head to affirm, that the Industry and Desire after Wealth of
_Nicanor_ were owing to his Love of Wine, One would imagine, that it
would not be difficult to refute this Man, and to prove, that what he
advanced was a wrong Judgment, if not a ridiculous Surmise.

For if _Nicanor_ loved Wine, he would drink more of it. He is rich
enough to buy it, nay he has Plenty of it, tho' he hardly ever touches
it, when he is by himself. He grudges it not to Others; and it is
incredible, that if he loved Wine, he should only fill Thimbles full
for himself, whilst he saw Others drink Bumpers to his Cost with
Pleasure. You will think perhaps, that I have said too much already, to
prove 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 to
be Religious; and a Man of _Euphranor_'s Capacity had a Mind to be
_Nicanor_'s Advocate, and maintain, that the Love of Wine was the
Motive of his Industry, in Spight of all the Appearances to the
Contrary; 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 his
Adversaries, if he had such pliable ones as _Alciphron_ and _Lysicles_
to deal with. Come, would _Euphranor_ say, answer me, _Alciphron_; is
it not demonstrable, that the more Money a Man has, the more able he is
to buy Wine. _Alciphron_ would answer, I cannot deny that; and here the
Dialogue would begin. _Euphr._ When there are plain Evidences that a
Man has been drunk, would you deny it to be true? _Alciph._ I would
never speak against Matter of Fact. _Euph._ Would you pretend to prove
from a Man's having been drunk, that he does not love Wine? _Alciph._ I
own I would not. _Euph._ You, who are a Free Thinker, and have enquir'd
so 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 most
secret Thoughts with Certainty? _Alciph._ I don't think there is.
_Euph._ When Actions are good and laudable in themselves, and there are
two different Motives from which they might proceed, the one very
honourable, and the other scandalous; which is it most charitable, to
ascribe these Actions to the first Motive, or the latter? Why do you
hesitate, _Alciphron_? Would not a polite Man, speaking to another's
Face, say, that he thought his Actions proceeded from that Motive which
does the most Honour to him? _Alciph._ I should think so. _Euph._ O
_Alciphron_! from your own Concessions I can prove to you, how we ought
to judge of _Nicanor_; and that it is highly injurious to ascribe his
Industry, and the Pains he takes to get Money, to any Thing but his
Love of Wine. The Minute Philosophers may say what they please; but
Wine 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. These
Things are self-evident: What a Man chuses, who is at Liberty to do
what he pleases, he must prefer to that which he chuses not; and why
should _Nicanor_ drink Wine any more than he would eat Cheese, if he
did not love it? That he drinks it, is plain; all his Friends and
Acquaintance can testify it; they have been Eye-witnesses to it;
therefore he loves it. And that he must love it beyond Measure, is
plain; for he has forfeited his Reason for the Sake of it, and has
drank Wine till he was drunk. _Alciphron_ being silenced by the Force
of these Arguments, _Lysicles_ perhaps would say, that he could not
give up this Point as _Alciphron_ had done; but that he was not
prepar'd to speak to it now, and therefore desired, that they might
break off the Discourse. Thus _Euphranor_ would triumph over his
Adversary, and the Dialogue would end.

Duely to weigh these Two Characters, it is plain, that _Nicanor_ was an
abstemious Man; that the Motives which spurred him on to Industry, were
his Love of Money, and Desire after worldly Greatness. Considering the
small Delight he always seem'd to take in strong Liquors, and his known
Thirst after Gain, it is impossible to account rationally for his
excessive Drinking one Morning, than by ascribing it to his darling
Passion, the Love of Lucre, which made him venture to lose his Sobriety
rather than the Advantage which he expected from the Bargain he was
driving. Therefore it is plain from this Character, that the Love of
Wine, whether it was, counted blameable or praise-worthy, had no
Influence upon _Nicanor_'s Actions, and consequently that, tho' it had
been 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 of
himself, who would enjoy as much of the World as is possible, without
forfeiting the good Opinion of it: And a rich Man, of an even Temper,
might perform all this in a Christian Country, from no better
Principles than Pride and worldly Prudence, tho' he had very little or
no Religion.

All This an hasty and inconsiderate Reader will call Folly, and tell
me, that I am fighting with my own Shadow; and that, from the Character
of _Nicanor_, no Mortal would imagine, that his Industry and Desire
after Wealth could proceed from, and be owing to his Love of Wine: But
I insist upon it, and you must allow it, Sir, that there would be no
greater Absurdity in an Attempt of proving this, than there would be in
ascribing the Sociableness and generous Behaviour of _Lepidus_ to his
being a Christian. All Men who are born of Christian Parents, and
brought up among Christians, are always deem'd to be such themselves,
whilst they acquiesce in, and not disown the Name: But unless People
are palpably influenc'd by their Religion, in their Actions and
Behaviour, there is no greater Advantage in being a Christian, than
there is in being a Mahometan or a Heathen. If a Person was made free
of a Company which presided over Artizans, in a toilsome laborious
Trade, and he neither had serv'd his Time to it before, nor ever
followed it afterwards, it could not be said of such a Person, whatever
other Use he might make of his Freedom, that he actually was, or had
been, of that laborious, toilsome Employment. A Man who was baptiz'd in
his Infancy, may comply with all the outward Forms of his Religion;
and, if he loves his Reputation, never be guilty of any notorious
Wickedness. But if all this While, which is not impossible, his Heart
is closely attach'd to this World; if he has a far greater Value for
Sensual, than he has for Spiritual Pleasures, and persists in a Course
of 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 to
all the Rites and Ceremonies, and bore a great Sway in the Vestry, than
a Linnen-Draper could be a real Blacksmith, tho' he was free of the
Blacksmiths Company, and was a Livery-Man amongst them.

That weak silly People may form such wrong Judgments, as I have hinted
at, from no worse Cause, than Want of Capacity, and mere Folly, I am
willing to believe. But when I see Men of very good Sense, and
considerable Knowledge, guilty of it, I can't help thinking, that they
do it with Design, and because they find their Interest in it. This is
certain, that when once it is taken for granted, that to be a
Christian, it is sufficient to acquiesce in being call'd so, and attend
the outward Worship of some Sect or other, it saves the Clergy a vast
Deal of Trouble, from Friends as well as Foes. For to quiet and satisfy
all scrupulous Consciences, is as great a Drudgery as it is to write in
Defence of Miracles.

The Reason, Sir, why I have said so much on this Head, is, that among
those who outwardly shew the greatest Zeal for Religion and the Gospel,
I see hardly Any who teach us, either by Precept or Example, the
Severity of Manners which Christianity requires. They seem to be much
more 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 no
great Matter for the Qualifications which must make them so. When of
late I have cast my Eyes upon the Behaviour of some People, who shall
be nameless, it has put me in Mind of the _Free-Masons_. These, you
know, are divided in several Companies; each Company have a Lodge of
their 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 so
often; they pretend to Mysteries, and eat and drink together; they make
use of several Ceremonies, which are peculiar to themselves, with great
Gravity; 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 of
the Honour of their Society, and either pity or despise all those who
are not Members of it: Out of their Assemblies, they live and converse
like other Men: And tho' I have been in Company with several of them, I
profess, 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 been
extremely delighted with what you say, Page 332, of your first Volume;
where you justly ridicule and expose those Libertines, who pretend to
be Patriots for _Liberty and Property_. I beg Leave, for the Benefit of
other Readers, to transcribe the Passage. _When I hear, says Crito,
these two Words in the Mouth of a_ Minute Philosopher, _I am put in
Mind of the_ Teste di Ferro _at Rome. His Holiness, it seems, not
having Power to assign Pensions, on_ Spanish _Benefices, to Any but
Natives of_ Spain, _always keeps at_ Rome _Two Spaniards, call'd_ Teste
di 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 and
Notions placed to the Account of Liberty and Property, which in Reality
neither have, nor are meant to have any Share in them. What! is it
impossible for a Man to be a Christian, but he must be a Slave; or a
Clergyman, but he must have the Principles of an Inquisitor?_ This is
very _à propos_, and admirably well applied. I thank you for it. I know
Abundance of Divines, who seem to be very fond of the World, and are
always grasping at Wealth and Power; and whenever I hear Any of these
mention their Concern for Religion, and the Spiritual Welfare of
Others, as they often do, I shall always think on _Crito_'s Story,
laugh heartily, and say no more. For if I should imitate him, in
exclaiming every Time I saw _both Things and Notions placed to the
Account of_ Religion and the Spiritual Welfare of Others, _which, in
Reality, neither have, nor are meant to have any Share in them_, I
should never be able to follow any other Business, than to cry out,
What! is it impossible, that the Christian Religion should be taken
Care of, unless Ecclesiasticks ride in Coaches and Six; or the
Spiritual Welfare of the Laity, without Temporal Dominion and an
extravagant Power in the Clergy?

My _Allegory_, you see, Sir, is but a Copy of yours, and therefore
cannot have the same Merit. How you will like it I can't tell; but I
fancy, that most of my Readers besides, will be of Opinion, that if his
Holiness makes no greater Advantage by his _Teste di Ferro_ at _Rome_,
than the Cause, which you espouse, is like to get by yours here, it
will hardly be worth his while to keep them any longer.

Here, Sir, I shall take my Leave of you, in full Expectation, that, in
what relates to me, I shall find great Alterations in your next
Edition. To furnish you with as many Materials for this Purpose as I
can conveniently, I shall fill what Room I have left with another
Quotation from _The Fable of the Bees_, beginning Page 410. If my Paper
would have held out, and I could have added a Page or two more, you
would have seen how wickedly I have been misrepresented in what I say
about the Fire of _London_.

_It is certain, that the fewer Desires a Man has, and the less he
Covets, the more easy he is to himself: The more active he is to supply
his own Wants, and the less he requires to be waited upon, the more he
will be beloved, and the less Trouble he is in a Family: The more he
loves Peace and Concord, the more Charity he has for his Neighbour: And
the more he shines in real Virtue, there is no doubt, but that in
Proportion he is acceptable to God and Man. But let us be Just. What
Benefit can these Things be of, or what Earthly Good can they do, to
promote the Wealth, the Glory and Worldly Greatness of Nations? It is
the Sensual Courtier, that sets no Limits to his Luxury; the Fickle
Strumpet that invents New Fashions every Week; the Haughty Dutchess,
that in Equipage, Entertainments, and all her Behaviour, would imitate
a Princess; the Profuse Rake and lavish Heir, that scatter about their
Money without Wit or Judgment, buy every Thing they see, and either
destroy or give it away the next Day; the Covetous and perjur'd
Villain, that squeez'd an immense Treasure from the Tears of Widows and
Orphans, and left the Prodigals the Money to spend. It is these that
are the Prey and proper Food of a full-grown_ Leviathan; _or, in other
Words, such is the calamitous Condition of Human Affairs, that we stand
in Need of the Plagues and Monsters I named, to have all the Variety of
Labour perform'd, which the Skill of Men is capable of inventing, in
order to procure an Honest Livelihood to the vast Multitudes of Working
Poor, that are required to make a large Society: And it is Folly to
imagine, that great and wealthy Nations can subsist, and be at once
Powerful and Polite, without._

_I protest against Popery as much as ever Luther or_ Calvin _did, or
Queen_ Elizabeth _herself; but I believe from my Heart, that the
Reformation has, scarce been more instrumental in rendring the Kingdoms
and States, that have embraced it, flourishing beyond other Nations,
than the silly and capricious Invention of Hoop'd and Quilted
Petticoats. But if this should be denied me by the Enemies of Priestly
Power, at least I am sure, that, bar the brave Men, who have fought for
and against that Lay-Man's Blessing, it has from its first Beginning to
this Day, not employ'd so many Hands, honest industrious labouring
Hands, as the abominable Improvement on Female Luxury, I named, has
done in Few Years. Religion is one Thing, and Trade is another. He that
gives most Trouble to Thousands of his Neighbours, and invents the most
operose Manufactures is, right or wrong, the greatest Friend to the
Society._

_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 a
Multiplicity of Trades and Artificers must be employ'd? Not only such
as are obvious, as Wool-combers, Spinners, the Weaver, the
Cloth-worker, the Scowrer, the Dyer, the Setter, the Drawer, and the
Packer; but others that are more remote, and might seem foreign to it;
as the Mill-wright, the Pewterer, and the Chymist, which yet are all
necessary, as well as a great Number of other Handicrafts, to have the
Tools, Utensils, and other Implements belonging to the Trades already
named: But all these Things are done at Home, and may be perform'd
without extraordinary Fatigue or Danger; the most frightful Prospect is
left behind, when we reflect on the Toil and Hazard that are to be
undergone Abroad, the vast Seas we are to go over, the different
Climates we are to endure, and the several Nations we must be obliged
to for their Assistance._ Spain _alone, it is true, might furnish us
with Wool to make the finest Cloth; but what Skill and Pains, what
Experience and Ingenuity are required to dye it of those beautiful
Colours! How widely are the Drugs and other Ingredients dispers'd
through the Universe, that are to meet in one Kettle. Allom, indeed, we
have of our own; Argol we might have from the_ Rhine, _and Vitriol
from_ Hungary; _all this is in_ Europe; _but then for Saltpetre in
Quantity, 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 quite
different 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 from
the remotest Corner of the New World in the_ West-Indies. _Whilst so
many 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 and
Labour, the Hardships and Calamities, that must be undergone to compass
the End I speak of, and we consider the vast Risques and Perils that
are run in those Voyages, and that Few of them are ever made, but at
the Expence, not only of the Health and Welfare, but even the Lives of
Many: When we are acquainted with, I say and duely consider the Things
I named, it is scarce possible to conceive a Tyrant so inhuman and void
of Shame, that beholding Things in the same View, he should exact such
terrible Services from his innocent Slaves; and at the same Time dare
to own, that he did it for no other Reason, than the Satisfaction a Man
receives from having a Garment made of Scarlet or Crimson Cloth. But to
what Height of Luxury must a Nation be arriv'd, where not only the
King'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 many
voluntary Actions, belonging to different Callings and Occupations,
that Men are brought up to for a Livelihood, and in which Every one
works for himself, how much soever he may seem to labour for Others: If
we consider, that even the Sailors, who undergo the greatest Hardships,
as soon as one Voyage is ended, even after a Ship-wreck, are looking
out and solliciting for Employment in another: If we consider, I say,
and look on these Things in another View, we shall find, that the
Labour of the Poor is so far from being a Burthen, and an Imposition
upon them, that to have Employment is a Blessing, which, in their
Addresses to Heaven, they pray for; and to procure it for the
Generality 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 Wood
Krutch.


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. William
Shakespeare_ (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 from
Settled Principles is Rendered the Grounds for Choosing and Rejecting
Epigrams_, 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 _A
Panegyric 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 Concerning
Taste_, 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. _Critical
Strictures 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 ARCHER
Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library

R. C. BOYS
University of Michigan

RALPH COHEN
University of California, Los Angeles

VINTON A. DEARING
University of California, Los Angeles

_Corresponding Secretary:_ MRS. EDNA C. DAVIS,
Wm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library

THE SOCIETY exists to make available inexpensive reprints (usually
facsimile reproductions) of rare seventeenth and eighteenth century
works. The editorial policy of the Society remains unchanged. As in the
past, the editors welcome suggestions concerning publications. All
income of the Society is devoted to defraying cost of publication and
mailing.

All correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States and
Canada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark Memorial
Library, 2205 West Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles 18, California.
Correspondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any of
the general editors. The membership fee is $3.00 a year for subscribers
in the United States and Canada and 15/- for subscribers in Great
Britain 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 be
reprinted.)

_Selections from the Tatler, the Spectator, the Guardian._ Introduction
by 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 an
introduction by Charles Davies.

THOMAS WARTON: _A History of English Poetry: An Unpublished
Continuation_. Introduction by Rodney M. Baine.

Publications for the first six years (with the exception of
NOS. 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 writing
to 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 OF
CALIFORNIA.








--- Provided by LoyalBooks.com ---