{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_29478/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_29478","id":"gutenberg_29478","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29478","summary":null,"tags":["Berkeley, George, 1685-1753. Alciphron","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Early Modern (c. 1450-1750)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics"],"text":"Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTranscriber's Note: The Introduction, by Jacob Viner, was first\npublished without a copyright notice and, therefore, is in the public\ndomain.\n\n\n\nThe Augustan Reprint Society\n\n\nBERNARD MANDEVILLE\n\n\n_A Letter to Dion_\n\n(1732)\n\n\nWith an Introduction by Jacob Viner\n\nPublication Number 41\n\nLos Angeles\nWilliam Andrews Clark Memorial Library\nUniversity of California\n1953\n\n\n\n\nGENERAL EDITORS\n\nH. RICHARD ARCHER, _Clark Memorial Library_\nRICHARD C. BOYS, _University of Michigan_\nRALPH COHEN, _University of California, Los Angeles_\nVINTON A. DEARING, _University of California, Los Angeles_\n\nASSISTANT EDITOR\n\nW. EARL BRITTON, _University of Michigan_\n\nADVISORY EDITORS\n\nEMMETT L. AVERY, _State College of Washington_\nBENJAMIN BOYCE, _Duke University_\nLOUIS BREDVOLD, _University of Michigan_\nJOHN BUTT, _King's College, University of Durham_\nJAMES L. CLIFFORD, _Columbia University_\nARTHUR FRIEDMAN, _University of Chicago_\nEDWARD NILES HOOKER, _University of California, Los Angeles_\nLOUIS A. LANDA, _Princeton University_\nSAMUEL H. MONK, _University of Minnesota_\nEARNEST MOSSNER, _University of Texas_\nJAMES SUTHERLAND, _University College, London_\nH. T. SWEDENBERG, JR., _University of California, Los Angeles_\n\nCORRESPONDING SECRETARY\n\nEDNA C. DAVIS, _Clark Memorial Library_\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION\n\n\nThe _Letter to Dion_, Mandeville's last publication, was, in form, a\nreply to Bishop Berkeley's _Alciphron: or, the Minute Philosopher_. In\n_Alciphron_, a series of dialogues directed against \"free thinkers\" in\ngeneral, Dion is the presiding host and Alciphron and Lysicles are the\nexpositors of objectionable doctrines. Mandeville's _Fable of the Bees_\nis attacked in the Second Dialogue, where Lysicles expounds some\nMandevillian views but is theologically an atheist, politically a\nrevolutionary, and socially a leveller. In the _Letter to Dion_,\nhowever, Mandeville assumes that Berkeley is charging him with all of\nthese views, and accuses Berkeley of unfairness and misrepresentation.\n\nNeither _Alciphron_ nor the _Letter to Dion_ caused much of a stir. The\n_Letter_ never had a second edition,[1] and is now exceedingly scarce.\nThe significance of the _Letter_ would be minor if it were confined to\nits role in the exchange between Berkeley and Mandeville.[2] Berkeley\nhad more sinners in mind than Mandeville, and Mandeville more critics\nthan Berkeley. Berkeley, however, mere than any other critic seems to\nhave gotten under Mandeville's skin, perhaps because Berkeley alone\nmade effective use against him of his own weapons of satire and\nridicule.[3]\n\n      [1] In its only foreign language translation, the _Letter_,\n      somewhat abbreviated, is appended to the German translation of\n      _The Fable of the Bees_ by Otto Bobertag, _Mandevilles\n      Bienenfabel_, Munich, 1914, pp. 349-398.\n\n      [2] Berkeley again criticized Mandeville in _A Discourse\n      Addressed to Magistrates_, [1736], _Works_, A. C. Fraser ed.,\n      Oxford, 1871, III. 424.\n\n      [3] _A Vindication of the Reverend D---- B--y_, London, 1734,\n      applies to _Alciphron_ the comment of Shaftesbury that reverend\n      authors who resort to dialogue form may \"perhaps, find means to\n      laugh gentlemen into their religion, who have unfortunately been\n      laughed out of it.\" See Alfred Owen Aldridge, \"Shaftesbury and\n      the Deist Manifesto,\" _Transactions of the American Philosophical\n      Society_, New Series, XLI (1951), Part 2, p. 358.\n\nBerkeley came to closest grips with _The Fable of the Bees_ when he\nrejected Mandeville's grim picture of human nature, and when he met\nMandeville's eulogy of luxury by the argument that expenditures on\nluxuries were no better support of employment than equivalent spending\non charity to the poor or than the more lasting life which would result\nfrom avoidance of luxury.[4]\n\n      [4] Francis Hutcheson, a fellow-townsman of Berkeley, had\n      previously made these points against Mandeville's treatment of\n      luxury in letters to the _Dublin Journal_ in 1726, (reprinted in\n      Hutcheson, _Reflections upon Laughter, and Remarks upon the Fable\n      of the Bees_, Glasgow, 1750, pp. 61-63, and in James Arbuckle,\n      _Hibernicus' Letters_, London, 1729, Letter 46). In _The Fable of\n      the Bees_, Mandeville concedes that gifts to charity would\n      support employment as much as would equivalent expenditures on\n      luxuries, but argues that in practice the gifts would not be\n      made.\n\nOf the few contemporary notices of the _Letter to Dion_, the most\nimportant was by John, Lord Hervey. Hervey charged both Berkeley and\nMandeville with unfairness, but aimed most of his criticism at\nBerkeley. He claimed that _Alciphron_ displayed the weaknesses of\nargument in dialogue form, that it tended either to state the\nopponent's case so strongly that it became difficult afterwards to\nrefute it or so weakly that it was not worth answering. He found fault\nwith Berkeley for denying that Mandeville had told a great many\ndisagreeable truths--presumably about human nature and its mode of\noperation in society--and with Mandeville for having told them in\npublic. He held, I believe rightly, that Mandeville, in associating\nvice with prosperity, deliberately blurred the distinction between vice\nas an incidental consequence of prosperity and vice as its cause: vice,\nsaid Hervey, \"is the child of Prosperity, but not the Parent; and ...\nthe Vices which grow upon a flourishing People, are not the Means by\nwhich they become so.\"[5]\n\n      [5] [Lord Hervey], _Some Remarks on the Minute Philosopher_,\n      London, 1732, pp. 22-23, 42-50.\n\nT. E. Jessop, in his introduction to his edition of _Alciphron_,\ncharacterizes Berkeley's account of the argument of _The Fable of the\nBees_ as \"not unfair,\" and says: \"I can see no reason for whitewashing\nMandeville. The content and manner of his writing invite retort rather\nthan argument. Berkeley gives both, in the most sparkling of his\ndialogues. Mandeville wrote a feeble reply, A _Letter to Dion_.\"[6] F.\nB. Kaye, on the other hand, says of the exchange between Berkeley and\nMandeville that \"men like ... Berkeley, who may be termed the\nreligious-minded ... in their anguish, threw logic to the winds, and\ncriticized him [i.e., Mandeville] for the most inconsistent reasons.\"[7]\n\n      [6] _Alciphron, or the Minute Philosopher_, T. E. Jessop, ed., in\n      _The Works of George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne_. Edited by A. A.\n      Luce and T. E. Jessop. London, etc., III. (1950), 9-10.\n\n      [7] In his edition of _The Fable of the Bees_, Oxford, 1924, II.\n      415-416. All subsequent references to _The Fable of the Bees_\n      will be to this edition.\n\nObjective appraisal of the outcome of the debate between Berkeley and\nMandeville would presumably lead to a verdict somewhere between those\nrendered, with appropriate loyalty to their authors, by their\nrespective editors. It is mainly for other reasons, however, that the\n_Letter to Dion_ is still of interest. There is first its literary\nmerit. More important, the _Letter_ presents in more emphatic and\nsharper form than elsewhere two essential elements of Mandeville's\nsystem of thought, the advocacy, real or pretended, of unqualified\nrigorism in morals, and the stress on the role of the State, of the\n\"skilful Politician,\" in evoking a flourishing society out of the\noperations of a community of selfish rogues and sinners. The remainder\nof this introduction will be confined to comments on these two aspects\nof Mandeville's doctrine. Since the publication in 1924 of F. B. Kaye's\nmagnificent edition of _The Fable of the Bees_, no one can deal\nseriously with Mandeville's thought without heavy reliance on it, even\nwhen, as is the case here, there is disagreement with Kaye's\ninterpretation of Mandeville's position.\n\nIt was Mandeville's central thesis, expressed by the motto, \"Private\nVices, Publick Benefits,\" of _The Fable of the Bees_, that the\nattainment of temporal prosperity has both as prerequisite and as\ninevitable consequence types of human behavior which fail to meet the\nrequirements of Christian morality and therefore are \"vices.\" He\nconfined \"the Name of Virtue to every Performance, by which Man,\ncontrary to the impulse of Nature, should endeavour the Benefit of\nothers, or the Conquest of his own Passions out of a Rational Ambition\nof being good.\"[8] If \"out of a Rational Ambition of being good\" be\nunderstood to mean out of \"charity\" in its theological sense of\nconscious love of God, this definition of virtue is in strict\nconformity to Augustinian rigorism as expounded from the sixteenth\ncentury on by Calvinists and, in the Catholic Church, by Baius,\nJansenius, the Jansenists, and others. Mandeville professes also the\nextreme rigorist doctrine that whatever is not virtue is vice: in\nAugustinian terms, _aut caritas aut cupiditas_. Man must therefore\nchoose between temporal prosperity and virtue, and Mandeville insists,\nespecially in the _Letter to Dion_, that on his part the choice is\nalways of virtue:\n\n    ... the Kingdom of Christ is not of this World, and ... the\n    last-named is the very Thing a true Christian ought to renounce.\n    (p. 18)[9]\n\n      [8] _Fable of the Bees_, I. 48-49.\n\n      [9] All page references placed in the main text of this\n      introduction are to the _Letter to Dion_.\n\n      \"Tho' I have shewn the Way to Worldly Greatness, I have, without\n      Hesitation, preferr'd the Road that leads to Virtue.\" (p. 31)\n\nKaye concedes: that Mandeville's rigorism \"was merely verbal and\nsuperficial, and that he would much regret it if the world were run\naccording to rigoristic morality;\" that \"emotionally\" and \"practically,\nif not always theoretically,\" Mandeville chooses the \"utilitarian\" side\nof the dilemma between virtue and prosperity; and that \"Mandeville's\nphilosophy, indeed, forms a complete whole without the extraneous\nrigorism.\"[10] Kaye nevertheless insists that Mandeville's rigorism was\nsincere, and that it is necessary so to accept it to understand him. It\nseems to me, on the contrary, that if Mandeville's rigorism were\nsincere, the whole satirical structure of his argument, its provocative\ntone, its obvious fun-making gusto, would be incomprehensible, and\nthere would be manifest inconsistency between his satirical purposes\nand his procedures as a writer.\n\n      [10] _Fable of the Bees_, II. 411. I, lxi, I, lvi.\n\nKaye argues that rigorism was not so unusual as of itself to justify\ndoubt as to its genuineness in the case of Mandeville; rigorism was \"a\ncontemporary point of view both popular and respected, a view-point not\nyet extinct.\" To show that rigorism was \"the respectable orthodox\nposition for both Catholics and Protestants,\" Kaya cites as rigorists,\nin addition to Bayle, St. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Daniel Dyke (the\nauthor of _Mystery of Selfe-Deceiving_, 1642), Thomas Fuller\n(1608-1661), William Law, and three Continental moralists, Esprit and\nPascal, Jansenists, and J. F. Bernard, a French Calvinist.[11]\n\n      [11] _Ibid._, I. li, I. lv, I. cxxi.\n\nChristian rigorism by Mandeville's time had had a long history. From and\nincluding St. Augustine on, it had undergone many types of doctrinal\ndilution and moderation even on the part of some of its most ardent\nexponents. In Mandeville, and in Kaye, it is presented only in its barest\nand starkest form. Kaye, however, required by his thesis to show that\nMandeville's doctrine was \"in accord with a great body of contemporary\ntheory,\"[12] while accepting it as \"the code of rigorism\" treats it as\nif it were identical with any moral system calling for any measure of\nself-discipline or associated with any type of religious-mindedness.[13]\nHe also identifies it with rationalism in ethics as such, as if any\nrationalistic ethics, merely because it calls for some measure of\ndiscipline of the passions by \"reason,\" is _ipso facto_ \"rigorist.\"[14]\n\n      [12] _Ibid._ I. cxxiv, note.\n\n      [13] For example, Kaye cites from Blewitt, a critic of\n      Mandeville, this passage: \"nothing can make a Man honest or\n      virtuous but a Regard to _some_ religious or moral Principles\"\n      and characterizes it as \"precisely the rigorist position from\n      which Mandeville was arguing when he asserted that our so-called\n      virtues were really vices, because not based _only_ on this\n      regard to principle.\" (_Ibid._ II. 411. The italics in both cases\n      are mine). The passage from Blewitt is not, of itself, manifestly\n      rigoristic, while the position attributed to Mandeville is\n      rigorism at its most extreme.\n\n      As further evidence of the prevalence of rigorism, Kaye cites\n      from Thomas Fuller the following passage: \"corrupt nature (which\n      without thy restraining grace will have a Vent.)\" _Ibid._ I.\n      cxxi, note. But in Calvinist theology \"restraining grace,\" which\n      was not a \"purifying\" grace, operated to make some men who were\n      not purged of sin lead a serviceable social life. (See John\n      Calvin, _Institutes of the Christian Religion_, Bk. II, Ch. III,\n      () 3, pp. I. 315-316 of the \"Seventh American Edition,\"\n      Philadelphia, n.d.) As I understand it, the role of \"restraining\n      grace\" in Calvinist doctrine is similar to that of \"honnetete\" in\n      Jansenist doctrine, referred to _infra_. The rascals whom\n      Mandeville finds useful to society are not to be identified\n      either with those endowed with the \"restraining grace\" of the\n      Calvinists or with the \"honnetes hommes\" of the Jansenists.\n\n      For other instances of disregard by Kaye of the variations in\n      substance and degree of the rigorism of genuine rigorists, see\n      _ibid._ II. 403-406, II. 415-416.\n\n      [14] See especially F. B. Kaye, \"The Influence of Bernard\n      Mandeville,\" _Studies in Philology_, XIX (1922), 90-102.\n\nMandeville was presumably directing his satire primarily at contemporary\nEnglishmen, not at men who had been dead for generations nor at\nparticipants in Continental theological controversies without real\ncounterpart in England, at least since the Restoration. If this is\naccepted, then of the men cited by Kaye to show the orthodoxy and the\ncontemporaneity of rigorism only William Law has any relevance. But Law\nwas an avowed \"enthusiast,\" and in the England of Mandeville's time this\nwas almost as heretical as to be an avowed sceptic. Calvinism in its\norigins had been unquestionably--though not unqualifiedly--rigoristic. By\nMandeville's time, however, avowed Calvinism was almost extinct in\nEngland; even in Geneva, in Scotland, in Holland, its rigorism had been\nmuch softened by the spread of Arminianism and by a variety of procedures\nof theological accommodation or mediation between the life of grace and\nthe life of this sinful world. On the Continent, Jansenists were still\nexpounding a severe rigorism. But Jansenist rigorism was not \"orthodox.\"\nThough not as extreme as Mandeville's rigorism, it had repeatedly been\ncondemned by Catholic authorities as \"_rigorisme outre_.\"[15]\n\n      [15] Cf. Denziger-Bannwart, _Enchiridion Symbolorum_. (See index\n      of any edition under \"Baius,\" \"Fenelon,\" \"Iansen,\" \"Iansenistae,\"\n      \"Quesnell.\")\n\nTo take seriously Mandeville's rigorism, the narrowness with which he\ndefines \"virtue,\" the broadness with which he defines \"vice,\" his\nfailure to recognize any intermediate ground between \"virtue\" and\noutright \"vice,\" or any shades or degrees of either, the positiveness\nwith which he assigns to eternal damnation all who depart in any degree\nfrom \"virtue\" as he defines it, is therefore to accept Mandeville as a\ngenuine exponent of a rigorism too austere and too grim not only for\nthe ordinary run of orthodox Anglicans or Catholics of his time but\neven for St. Augustine (at times), for the Calvinists, and for the\nJansenists.\n\nKaye justifiably puts great stress on the extent of Mandeville's\nindebtedness to Pierre Bayle. There is not the space here to elaborate,\nbut it could be shown, I believe, that Mandeville was also indebted\ngreatly, both indirectly through Bayle and directly, to the Jansenist,\nPierre Nicole, and that Mandeville's rigorism was a gross distortion\nof, while Bayle's was essentially faithful to, Nicole's system.[16]\nNicole insisted that \"true virtue\" in the rigorist sense was necessary\nfor salvation, but at the same time expounded the usefulness for\nsociety of behavior which theologically was \"sinful.\" But it was the\n\"sinful\" behavior of _honnetes hommes_, of citizens conforming to the\nprevalent moral standards of their class, not of rogues and rascals,\nwhich Nicole conceded to be socially useful.[17] Mandeville, on the\nother hand, not only lumped the respectable citizens with the rogues\nand rascals, but it was the usefulness for society of the vices of the\nrogues and rascals more than--and rather than--those of honest and\nrespectable citizens which he emphasized. In the flourishing hive,\nprior to its reform, there were:\n\n    ... Sharpers, Parasites, Pimps, Players,\n    Pick-pockets, Coiners, Quacks, South-sayers,\n\n                  *      *      *\n\n    These were call'd Knaves, but bar the Name,\n    The grave Industrious were the same.[18]\n\n      [16] The most pertinent writings of Nicole for present purposes\n      were his essays, \"De la charite & de l'amour-propre,\" \"De la\n      grandeur,\" and \"Sur l'evangile du Jeudi-Saint,\" which in the\n      edition of his works published by Guillaume Desprez, Paris,\n      1755-1768, under the title _Essais de morale_, are to be found in\n      volumes III, VI, and XI.\n\n      [17] For a similar distinction by Bayle between _honnetes hommes_\n      who are not of the elect and the outright rascals, see Pierre\n      Bayle, _Dictionaire historique et critique_. 5th ed., Amsterdam,\n      1740, \"Eclaircissement sur les obscenites,\" IV. () iv, p. 649.\n\n      [18] _Fable of the Bees_, I. 19.\n\nThe moral reform which brought disaster to the \"Grumbling Hive\"\nconsisted merely in abandonment of roguery and adoption of the\nstandards of the _honnete homme_.[19]\n\n      [19] In the French versions of 1740 and 1750, the title, _The\n      Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Publick Benefits_, is\n      translated as _La fable des abeilles ou les fripons devenus\n      honnestes gens_.\n\n      For the \"honnete homme\" in 17th and 18th century usage as\n      intermediate between a knave and a saint, see M. Magendie, _La\n      politesse mondaine et les theories de l'honnetete en France_,\n      Paris, n.d., (ca. 1925), and William Empson, _The Structure of\n      Complex Words_, London, 1951, ch. 9, \"Honest Man.\"\n\nThe contrast between his general argument and that of Nicole or Bayle\nthrows light on the role which Mandeville's professed rigorism played\nin the execution of his satirical purposes. It not only supports the\nview of all his contemporaries that Mandeville's rigorism was a sham,\nbut also the view that he was not averse to having its insincerity be\ngenerally detected, provided only that it should not be subject to\nclear and unambiguous demonstration. By lumping together the \"vices\" of\nthe knave and the honest man, Mandeville could without serious risk of\ncivil or ecclesiastical penalties make rigorism of any degree seem\nridiculous and thus provide abundant amusement for himself and for\nlike-minded readers; he could then proceed to undermine all the really\nimportant systems of morality of his time by applying more exacting\nstandards than they could meet. Against a naturalistic and sentimental\nsystem, like Shaftesbury's, he could argue that it rested on an\nappraisal of human nature too optimistic to be realistic. Against\ncurrent Anglican systems of morality, if they retained elements of\nolder rigoristic doctrine he could level the charge of hypocrisy, and\nif they were latitudinarian in their tendencies he could object that\nthey were expounding an \"easy Christianity\" inconsistent with Holy Writ\nand with tradition.\n\nMandeville clearly did not like clergymen, especially hypocritical\nones, and there still existed sufficient pulpit rigorism to provide him\nwith an adequate target for satire and a substantial number of readers\nwho would detect and approve the satire. As Fielding's Squire Western\nsaid to Parson Supple when the latter reproved him for some misdeed:\n\"At'nt in pulpit now? when art a got up there I never mind what dost\nsay; but I won't be priest-ridden, nor taught how to behave myself by\nthee.\" Only if it is read as a satire on rigorist sermons can there be\nfull appreciation of the cleverness of the \"parable of small beer\"\nwhich Mandeville, with obvious contentment with his craftsmanship,\nreproduces in the _Letter to Dion_ (pp. 25-29) from _The Fable of the\nBees_. Here the standard rigorist proposition that there is sin both in\nthe lust and in the act of satisfying it is applied to drink, where the\nthirst and its quenching are both treated as vicious.[20]\n\n      [20] Kaye in a note to this parable, _Fable of the Bees_, I. 238,\n      cites as relevant, _I Cor. x. 31_; \"Whether therefore ye eat, or\n      drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.\" Even\n      more relevant, I believe, is _Deut. xxix. 19_, where, in the King\n      James version, the sinner boasts: \"I shall have peace, though I\n      walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to\n      thirst.\"\n\nMandeville, as Kaye interprets him, resembles the \"_Jansenistes du\nSalon_\" who prided themselves on the fashionable rigor of their\ndoctrine but insisted on the practical impossibility of living up to it\nin the absence of efficacious grace. In my interpretation, Mandeville\nwas both intellectually and temperamentally a \"libertine\" patently\nputting on the mask of rigorism in order to be able at the same time to\nattack the exponents of austere theological morality from their rear\nwhile making a frontal attack on less exacting and more humanistic\nsystems of morality. The phenomenon was not a common one, but it was\nnot unique. Bourdaloue, the great seventeenth-century Jesuit preacher,\nnot very long before had called attention to libertines in France who\nmasqueraded in rigorist clothes in order to deepen the cleavages among\nthe members of the Church: \"D'ou il arrive assez souvent, par\nl'assemblage le plus bizarre et le plus monstrueux, qu'un homme qui ne\ncroit pas en Dieu, se porte pour defenseur du pouvoir invincible de la\ngrace, et devient a toute outrance le panegyriste de la plus etroite\nmorale.\"[21]\n\n      [21] \"Pensees diverses sur la foi, et sur les vices opposes,\"\n      _Oeuvres de Bourdaloue_, Paris, 1840, III. 362-363.\n\nThe _Letter to Dion_ has bearing also on another phase of Mandeville's\ndoctrine which is almost universally misinterpreted. Many scholars,\nincluding economists who should know better, regard Mandeville as a\npioneer expounder of laissez-faire individualism in the economic field\nand as such as an anticipator of Adam Smith. Kaye accepts this\ninterpretation without argument.\n\nThe evidence provided by _The Fable of the Bees_ in support of such an\ninterpretation is confined to these facts: Mandeville stressed the\nimportance of self-interest, of individual desires and ambitions, as\nthe driving force of socially useful economic activity; he held that a\nbetter allocation of labor among different occupations would result, at\nleast in England, if left to individual determination than if regulated\nor guided; he rejected some types of sumptuary legislation.\n\nAll of this, however, though required for laissez-faire doctrine, was\nalso consistent with mercantilism, at least of the English type. The\nlater exponents of laissez-faire did not invent the \"economic man\" who\npursued only his own interest, but inherited him from the mercantilists\nand from the doctrine of original sin. English analysis of social\nprocess had in this sense always been \"individualistic,\" and in this\nsense both mercantilism and the widely-prevalent theological\nutilitarianism were at least as individualistic as later laissez-faire\neconomics. Englishmen, moreover, had long been jealous of governmental\npower, and at the height of English mercantilism they insisted upon\nlimits to appropriate governmental intervention. It is not safe,\ntherefore, to label anyone before Adam Smith as an exponent of\nlaissez-faire merely on the ground that he would exempt a few specified\ntypes of economic activity from interference by government. It would be\nmisleading also to apply to eighteenth-century writers modern ideas as\nto the dividing line between \"interventionists\" and exponents of\n\"liberalism\" or of \"laissez faire.\" As compared to modern\ntotalitarianism, or even to modern \"central economic planning,\" or to\n\"Keynesianism,\" the English mercantilism of the late seventeenth and\nthe eighteenth century was essentially libertarian. It is only as\ncompared to Adam Smith, or to English classical and the Continental\n\"liberal\" schools of economics of the nineteenth century, that it was\ninterventionist.\n\nAdam Smith is regarded as an exponent of laissez-faire because he laid\nit down as a general principle (subject in practice to numerous and\nfairly important specific exceptions) that the activities of government\nshould be limited to the enforcement of justice, to defense, and to\npublic works of a kind inherently unsuitable for private enterprise. He\nbased this doctrine partly on natural rights grounds, partly on the\nbelief that there was a pervasive natural and self-operating harmony,\nprovidentially established, between individual interest and the\ninterest of the community, partly on the empirical ground that\ngovernment was generally inefficient, improvident, and unintelligent.\n\nThere is nothing of such doctrine in Mandeville; there is abundant\nevidence in his writings that Mandeville was a convinced adherent of\nthe prevailing mercantilism of his time. Most English mercantilists\ndisapproved of some or all kinds of sumptuary regulations on the same\ngrounds as Mandeville disapproved of some of them, namely, the\nexistence of more suitable ways of accomplishing their objectives or\nthe mistaken character of their objectives. Mandeville's objection to\ncharity schools on the ground that they would alter for the worse the\nsupplies of labor for different occupations was based on his belief\nthat England, unlike some other countries, already had more tradesmen\nand skilled artisans than it needed. Mandeville, in contrast to Adam\nSmith, put great and repeated stress on the importance of the role of\ngovernment in producing a strong and prosperous society, through\ndetailed and systematic regulation of economic activity.\n\nIt is a common misinterpretation of Mandeville in this respect to read\nhis motto, \"Private Vices, Publick Benefits,\" as a laissez-faire motto,\npostulating the natural or spontaneous harmony between individual\ninterests and the public good. The motto as it appeared on title pages\nof _The Fable of the Bees_ was elliptical. In his text, Mandeville\nrepeatedly stated that it was by \"the skilful Management of the clever\nPolitician\" that private vices could be made to serve the public good,\nthus ridding the formula of any implication of laissez-faire.\n\nThis is made clear beyond reasonable doubt by the _Letter to Dion_.\nBerkeley, in _Alciphron_, had made Lysicles say: \"Leave nature at full\nfreedom to work her own way, find all will be well.\" Mandeville, taking\nthis as directed against himself, disavows it vigorously, and cites the\nstress he had put on \"laws and governments\" in _The Fable of the Bees_.\n(pp. 3-4; see also 55). He repeats from _The Fable of the Bees_ his\nexplanation that when he used as a subtitle the \"Private Vices, Publick\nBenefits\" motto, \"I understood by it, that Private Vices, by the\ndexterous Management of a skilful Politician, might be turned into\nPublick Benefits.\" (pp. 36-37). Later he refers to the role of the\n\"skilful Management\" of the \"Legislator\" (p. 42), and to \"the Wisdom of\nthe Politician, by whose skilful Management the Private Vices of the\nWorst of Men are made to turn to a Publick Benefit.\" (p. 45). \"They are\nsilly People,\" he says, \"who imagine, that the Good of the Whole is\nconsistent with the Good of every Individual.\" (p. 49).\n\nA recent work[22] provides indirectly unintentional support to my\ndenial that Mandeville was an exponent of laissez-faire. In this work\nwe are told that \"The most famous exponent of what Halevy calls the\nnatural identity of interests is Bernard Mandeville\" and that \"What\nMandeville did for the principle of the natural identity of interests\nHelvetius did for that of their artificial identity,\" that is, \"that\nthe chief utility of governments consists in their ability to force men\nto act in their own best interests when they feel disinclined to do\nso.\" It so happens, however, that Helvetius as an apostle of state\nintervention was not only not departing from Mandeville but was echoing\nhim even as to language. Helvetius said that motives of personal\ntemporal interest sufficed for the formation of a good society,\nprovided they were \"manies avec adresse par un legislateur habile.\"[23]\n\n      [22] John Plamenatz, _The British Utilitarians_, Oxford and New\n      York, 1949, pp. 48-49.\n\n      [23] Helvetius, _De l'esprit_, Discours II. Ch. XXIV. In the\n      French version of _The Fable of the Bees_, the phrasing is almost\n      identical: See _La fable des abeilles_, Paris, 1750, e.g. II.\n      261: \"menages avec dexterite par d'habiles politiques.\" When the\n      Sorbonne, in 1759, condemned _De l'esprit_, it cited _The Fable\n      of the Bees_ as among the works which could have inspired it. (F.\n      Gregoire. _Bernard De Mandeville_, Nancy, 1947, p. 206).\n\n      Kaye, in his \"The Influence of Bernard Mandeville,\" (_loc. cit._,\n      p. 102), says that _De l'esprit_ \"Is in many ways simply a French\n      paraphrase of _The Fable_.\" In his edition of _The Fable of the\n      Bees_, however, he says, \"I think we may conclude no more than\n      that Helvetius had probably read _The Fable_.\" (_Fable of the\n      Bees_, I. CXLV, Note). Kaye systematically fails to notice the\n      significance of Mandeville's emphasis on the role of the \"skilful\n      Politician.\"\n\nHere also there is a close link between Mandeville, Bayle, and the\nJansenists, especially Nicole and Domat. All of them adopted a\nHobbesian view of human nature. All of them followed Hobbes in\nbelieving that the discipline imposed by positive law and enforced by\ngovernment was essential if a prosperous and flourishing society was to\nbe derived from communities of individuals vigorously pursuing their\nself-regarding interests. Mandeville's originality was in pretending\nthat in the interest of true morality he preferred that the individual\npursuit of prosperity be abandoned even at the cost of social disaster.\n\n\n\n\nA\n\nLETTER\n\nTO\n\nDION,\n\nOccasion'd by his Book\n\nCALL'D\n\nALCIPHRON,\n\nOR\n\nThe MINUTE PHILOSOPHER.\n\n\n\n_By the Author of the_ FABLE _of the_ BEES.\n\n\n\n_LONDON:_\n\nPrinted and Sold by J. ROBERTS in _Warwick-Lane_.\nM.DCC.XXXII.\n\n\n\n\n_SIR_,\n\nI have read your Two Volumes of _Alciphron_, or, The _Minute\nPhilosopher_ with Attention. As far as I am a Judge, the Language is\nvery good, the Diction correct, and the Style and whole Manner of\nWriting are both polite and entertaining: All together bespeak the\nAuthor to be a Man of Learning, good Sense and Capacity. My Design in\ntroubling you with this tedious Epistle in Print, which perhaps will be\nlonger than you could have wish'd it, is to rescue the Publick from a\nvulgar Error, which Thousands of knowing and well-meaning People, and\nyour self, I see, among the Rest, have been led into by a common\nReport, concerning _The Fable of the Bees_, as if it was a wicked Book,\nwrote for the Encouragement of Vice, and to debauch the Nation. I beg\nof you not to imagine, that I intend to blame you, or any other candid\nMan like your self, for having rashly given Credit to such a Report\nwithout further Examination. The _Fable of the Bees_ has been presented\nby a Grand Jury more than once; and there is hardly a Book that has\nbeen preach'd and wrote against with greater Vehemence or Severity.\nWhen a Work is so generally exclaim'd against, a wise Man, who has no\nMind to mispend his Time, has a very good Reason for not reading it.\nBut as your second Dialogue is almost entirely levell'd at that Book\nand its Author, and you have no where declar'd in Words at length (at\nleast, as I remember) that you never read _The Fable of the Bees_, it\nis possible I might be ask'd, why I would take it for granted, that you\nnever had read it, when many of your Readers perhaps will believe the\ncontrary. If this Question was put to me, I would readily answer, that\nI chose to be of that Opinion, because it is the most favourable I can\npossibly entertain of _Dion_. It is not, Sir, believe me, out of\nDisrespect, that I call you plain _Dion_; but because I would treat you\nwith the utmost Civility: It is the Name under which, I find, you are\npleas'd to disguise your self; and offering to guess at an Author, when\nhe chuses to be conceal'd, is, I think a Rudeness almost equal to that\nof pulling off a Woman's Mask against her Will.\n\nWhoever reads your second Dialogue, will not find in it any real\nQuotations from my Book, either stated or examined into, but that the\nwicked Tenets and vile Assertions there justly exposed, are either such\nNotions and Sentiments, as first, my Enemies, to render me odious, and\nafterwards Common Fame had already father'd upon me, tho' not to be met\nwith in any Part of my Book; or else, that they are spiteful\nInferences, and invidious Comments, which others before you, without\nJustness or Necessity, had drawn from and made upon what I had\ninnocently said. I find no Fault with you, Sir; for whilst a Person\nbelieves these Accusations against me to be true, and is entirely\nunacquainted with the Book they point at, it is not impossible that he\nmight inveigh against it without having any Mischief in his Heart, tho'\nit was the most useful Performance in the World. A Man may be credulous\nand yet well disposed; but if a Man of Sense and Penetration, who had\nactually read _The Fable of the Bees_, and with Attention perused every\nPart of it, should write against it in the same strain, as _Dion_ has\ndone in his second Dialogue, then I must confess, I should be at a\nLoss, what Excuse to make for him.\n\nIt is impossible that a Man of the least Probity, whilst he is writing\nin Behalf of Virtue and the Christian Religion, should commit such an\nimmoral Act as to calumniate his Neighbour, and willfully misrepresent\nhim in the most atrocious Manner. If _Dion_ had read _The Fable of the\nBees_, he would not have suffer'd such lawless Libertines as\n_Alciphron_ and _Lysicles_ to have shelter'd themselves under my Wings;\nbut he would have demonstrated to them, that my Principles differ'd\nfrom theirs, as Sunshine does from Darkness. When they boasted of\nsetting Men free, and their abominable Design of ridding them of the\nShackles of Laws and Governments, he would have quoted to them the very\nBeginning of my Preface. _Laws and Government are to the political\nBodies of civil Societies, what the vital Spirits and Life it self are\nto the natural Bodies of animated Creatures._ From the same Preface he\nwould have shew'd those barefaced Advocates for all Manner of\nWickedness, the small Encouragement they were like to get from my Book;\nand as soon as it appear'd, that by Liberty they meant Licentiousness,\nand a Privilege to commit the most detestable Crimes with Impunity, he\nwould have quoted these Words: _When I assert, that Vices are\ninseperable from great and potent Societies, and that it is impossible,\nthat their Wealth and Grandeur should subsist without; I do not say,\nthat the particular Members of them, who are guilty of any, should not\nbe continually reproved, or not punish'd for them when they grew into\nCrimes._ This he would have corroborated by several Passages in the\nBook it self, and not have forgot what I say, page 255. _I lay down as\na first Principle, that in all Societies, great or small, it is the\nDuty of every Member of it to be good, that Virtue ought to be\nencouraged, Vice discountenanc'd, the Laws obey'd, and the\nTransgressors punish'd._ If he had only read the first Edition, a\nlittle Book in Twelves, a Man of _Dion's_ Virtue and Integrity could\nnot have stifled the Care I have taken in Fifty Places, nor the many\nCautions I have given, that I might not offend or be misunderstood: On\nthe Contrary, he would have made use of them, to undeceive his Friends,\nand prevented their groundless Fears and senseless Insinuations. If\n_Dion_ had read what I have said about the Fire of _London_, Nothing\nbut his Politeness could have hinder'd him from bursting out into a\nloud Laughter at the judicious Remark of the Learned _Crito_, where he\npoints at the Probability, that the late Incendiaries had taken the\nHint of their Villainies from _The Fable of the Bees_.\n\nI can't say, that there are not several Passages in that Dialogue,\nwhich would induce one to believe, that you had dipt into _The Fable of\nthe Bees_; but then to suppose, that upon having only dipt in it, you\nwould have wrote against it as you have done, would be so injurious to\nyour Character, the Character of an honest Man, that I have not\nPatience to reason upon such an uncharitable Supposition. I know very\nwell, Sir, that I am addressing my self to a Man of Parts, a Master in\nLogick, and a subtle Metaphysician, not to be imposed upon by Sophistry\nor false Pretences: Therefore I beg of you, carefully to examine what I\nhave said hitherto, and you'll be convinced; that my not believing you\nto have read _The Fable of the Bees_, can proceed from Nothing but the\ngood Opinion I have of your Worth and Candour, which I hope I shall\nnever have any Occasion to alter. You are not the first, Sir, by five\nhundred, who has been very severe upon _The Fable of the Bees_ without\nhaving ever read it. I have been at Church my self when the Book in\nQuestion has been preach'd against with great Warmth by a worthy\nDivine, who own'd, that he had never seen it; and there are living\nWitnesses now, Persons of unquestion'd Reputation, who heard it as well\nas I.\n\nAfter all, you have advanced Nothing in the second Dialogue concerning\nme, which it may not be proved to have been said or insinuated over and\nover in Pamphlets, Sermons and News-Papers of all Sorts and Parties. I\ncan help you to another very good Reason why a Man of Sense might not\nmistrust the ill Report, that has been spread about _The Fable of the\nBees_, and write against it in general Terms, tho' he had not read it.\nEvery body knows, what Pains our Party-writers take in contradicting\none another, and that there are few Things, which if the one praises,\nthe other does not condemn. Now, if we find the _London Journal_ have a\nFling at _The Fable of the Bees_ one Day, and _The Craftsman_ another,\nit is a certain Sign that the ill Repute of the Book, must be well\nestablish'd and not to be doubted of. Then why might not an Author\nwrite against it, without giving himself the Trouble of reading it? It\nwould be hard, a Man should not dare to affirm, that it is hot in the\n_East-Indies_, without having made a tedious Voyage thither and felt\nit. The more therefore I reflect, Sir, on your second Dialogue, and the\nManner you treat me in, the more I am convinced, that you never read\nthe Book I speak of, I mean, not read it through, or at least not with\nAttention. If _Dion_ had inform'd himself concerning _The Fable of the\nBees_, as he might have done, he must have met with my Vindication of\nit in some Shape or other. First, it came out in a News-Paper; after\nthat, I publish'd it in a Six-penny Pamphlet, together with the Words\nof the first Presentment of the Grand Jury and an injurious abusive\nLetter to Lord C. that came out immediately after it; both which had\nbeen the Occasion of my writing that Vindication. The Reason I gave for\ndoing this, was, that the Reader might be fully instructed in the\nMerits of the Cause between my Adversaries and my Self; and because I\nthought it requisite, that to judge of my Defence, he should know the\nwhole Charge, and all the Accusations against me at large. I took Care\nto have this printed in such a Manner, as to the Letter and Form, that\nfor the Benefit of the Buyers, it might conveniently be bound up, and\nlook of a Piece with the then last, which was the second Edition. Ever\nsince the whole Contents of this Pamphlet have been added to the Book,\nand are at the End of the third, the fourth, and the fifth, as well as\nthis last Impression of 1732. If _Dion_ had seen and approved of this\nVindication, he would not have wrote against me at all; and if he had\nthought my Answers not satisfactory, and that I had not clear'd my self\nfrom the Aspersions, which had been cast upon me, it was unkind, if not\na great Disregard to the Publick, not to take Notice of it, and shew\nthe Insufficiency of my Defence, which from his own Writings it is\nevident, that great Numbers of the _beau monde_ must have acquiesc'd\nin, or not thought necessary.\n\nGive me Leave, then, Sir, for your own Sake, to treat you, as if you\nnever had read _The Fable of the Bees_ and in Return I give you my\nWord, that I shall make no use of it to your Disadvantage; on the\nContrary, I take it for granted, that from the bad Character you had\nheard of the Book from every Quarter, you had sufficient Reason to\nwrite against it, as you have done, without any further Enquiry. This\nbeing settled, I shall attempt to shew you the Possibility, that a Book\nmight come into such a general Disrepute without deserving it. An\nAuthor, who dares to expose Vice, and the Luxury of the Time he lives\nin, pulls off the Disguises of artful Men, and examining in to the\nfalse Pretences, which are made to Virtue, lays open the Lives of\nthose, _Qui Curios simulant & Bacchanalia vivunt_: An Author, I say,\nwho dares to do this in a great, and opulent, and flourishing Nation,\ncan never fail of drawing upon him a great Number of Enemies. Few Men\ncan bear with Patience, to see those Things detected, which it is their\nInterest, and they take Pains to conceal. As to Grand Juries, what they\ngo upon is, the Testimony of others; they don't judge of Books from\ntheir own Reading; and many have been presented by them, which none, or\nat least the greatest Part of them had never seen before. Yet when ever\nthe Publisher of a Book is presented by a Grand Jury, it is counted a\npublick Censure upon the Author, a Disgrace not easily wiped off.\n\nThe News-Writers, whose chief Business it is, to fill their Papers and\nraise the Attention of their Readers, never forget any Scandal which\ncan be publish'd with Impunity. By this Means a Book, which once this\nIndignity has been put upon, is in a few Days render'd odious, and in\nless than a Fortnight comes to be infamous throughout the Kingdom\nwithout any other Demerit; Those Polemick Authors among them, who are\nParty-Men, and write either for or against Courts and Ministers, have a\ngreater Regard to what will serve their Purpose, than they have to\nTruth or Sincerity. As they subsist by vulgar Errors, and are kept\nalive by the Spirit of Strife and Contention, so it is not their\nBusiness to rectify Mistakes in Opinion, but rather to encrease them\nwhen it serves their Turn. They know, that whoever would ingratiate\nthemselves with Multitudes and gain Credit amongst them, must not\ncontradict them; which is the Reason that, how widely soever these\nParty-Writers may differ from One another in Principles and Sentiments,\nthey will never differ in their Censure or Applause, when they touch\nupon such Notions which are generally receiv'd.\n\nIf you'll consider, Sir, what I have said in the two last Paragraphs,\nyou will easily see the Possibility that Books may get into an ill\nRepute and a very bad Character without deserving it. The next I shall\nendeavour to demonstrate to you, is, that this has been the Case of\n_The Fable of the Bees_, and that the Animosities which have been shewn\nagainst it, were originally owing to another Cause, than what my\nAdversaries pretended to be the true one. In order to this, I shall be\nobliged to make several Quotations from the Book it self, and repeat\nmany Things, which I have already said in the Vindication hinted at\nbefore: But as I design this only for your self and those who have\njudged of the Book from Common Report, and never perused either the\nFirst or the Second Part of it, these Citations will be as new to you\nas any other Part of my Letter.\n\nI am not ignorant of the Prejudice and real Hurt, which Authors do\nthemselves by making long Quotations. They interrupt the Sense, and\noften break off the Thread of the Discourse; and many a Reader, when he\ncomes to the End of a long Citation, has forgot the main Subject, and\noften the Thing it self, which that very Citation was brought in to\nprove. For this Reason we see, that Judicious Writers avoid them as\nmuch as possible; or that where they cannot do without, instead of\ninserting them in the main Text of their Works, they make Place for\nthem in Notes or Remarks, which they refer to, or else an Appendix,\nwhere many of them may be put together, and are never seen but by\nChoice, and when the Reader is at Leisure. That this segregating all\nextraneous Matter from the main Body of the Book, the Text it self, is\nless disagreeable to most Readers, than the other, which I hinted at\nfirst, is certain; but it is attended with this ill Consequence, which\nthe less engaging Method of Writing is not, to wit, that many curious\nand often the most valuable Things, and which it is of the highest\nConcern to the Author, that they should be known, are neglected and\nnever look'd into, only because they are put into Notes or Appendixes.\nIn my Case you'll find, Sir, that the long Quotations, some of them of\nseveral Pages, which I am obliged to trouble you with, are more\nmaterial for the Vindication of my Book than all that can possibly be\nsaid besides. For they will not only demonstrate to you, that I have\nbeen shamefully misrepresented, but likewise give you a clear Insight\ninto the real Cause of the Anger, the Hatred, and Inveteracy, of my\nEnemies, who first gave the Book an ill Name, and were the industrious\nAuthors of the false Reports, by which your self and many other good\nMen, to my great Affliction, have been impos'd upon. You'll pardon me\nthen, Sir, if, consulting my own Interest in a just Defence, rather\nthan your Pleasure in reading it, I plant my strongest Evidences so\ndirectly in your Way, that, if you'll do me the Favour of perusing this\nLetter, it shall be impossible for you to remain ignorant any longer of\nthe Innocence of my Intentions, and the Injustice that has been done\nme.\n\nIn the Presentment of the Grand Jury in 1723, it is insinuated that in\n_The Fable of the Bees_ there are Encomiums upon Stews, which I can\nassure you, Sir, is not true. What might have given a Handle to this\nCharge, must be a Political Dissertation concerning the best Method to\nguard and preserve Women of Honour and Virtue from the Insults of\ndissolute Men, whose Passions are often ungovernable. As in this there\nis a Dilemma between two Evils, which it is impracticable to shun both,\nso I have treated it with the utmost Caution, and begin thus: _I am far\nfrom encouraging Vice, and should think it an unspeakable Felicity for\na State, if the Sin of Uncleanness could be utterly banish'd from it;\nbut I am afraid it is impossible._ I give my Reasons, why I think it\nso; and speaking occasionally of the Musick-Houses at _Amsterdam_, I\ngive a short Account of them, than which Nothing can be more harmless.\nTo prove this to those who have bought or are possess'd of _The Fable\nof the Bees_, it would be sufficient to appeal and refer to the Book:\nBut as one great Reason of my printing this Letter, is to shew my\nInnocence to such, who, as well as your self, neither have read nor\ncare to buy the Book, it is requisite I should transcribe the whole.\nYou'll see, Sir, that my Aim is to shew, that these Musick-Houses are\ndiscountenanc'd, at the same Time they are tolerated.\n\n_In the first Place, the Houses I speak of, are allow'd to be no where\nbut in the most slovenly and unpolish'd Part of the Town, where Seamen\nand Strangers of no Repute chiefly lodge and resort. The Street, in\nwhich most of them stand, is counted scandalous, and the Infamy is\nextended to all the Neighbourhood round it. In the Second, they are\nonly Places to meet and bargain in, to make Appointments, in order to\npromote Interviews of greater Secrecy, and no Manner of Lewdness is\never suffer'd to be transacted in them; which Order is so strictly\nobserv'd, that, bar the Ill Manners and Noise of the Company that\nfrequent them, you'll meet with no more Indecency, and generally less\nLasciviousness there, than with us are to seen at a Play-House.\nThirdly, the Female Traders, that come to these Evening-Exchanges, are\nalways the Scum of the People, and generally such, as in the Day-Time\ncarry Fruit and other Eatables about in Wheel-barrows. The Habits\nindeed they appear in at Night, are very different from their ordinaray\nones; yet they are commonly so ridiculously gay, that they look more\nlike the_ Roman _Dresses of strolling Actresses, than Gentlewomens\nCloaths: If to this you add the Awkwardness, the hard Hands and course\nBreeding of the Damsels that wear them, there is no great Reason to\nfear, that many of the better Sort of People will be tempted by them._\n\n_The Musick in these Temples of_ Venus _is perform'd by Organs, not out\nof Respect to the Deity that is worship'd in them, but the Frugality of\nthe Owners, whose Business it is to procure as much Sound for as little\nMoney as they can, and the Policy of the Government, which endeavours\nas little as is possible, to encourage the Breed of Pipers and\nScrapers. All Sea-faring Men, especially the_ Dutch, _are, like the\nElement they belong to, much given to Loudness and Roaring, and the\nNoise of Half a Dozen of them, when they call themselves Merry, is\nsufficient to drown Twice the Number of Flutes or Violins; whereas with\none Pair of Organs they can make the whole House ring, and are at no\nother Charge than the keeping of one scurvy Musician, which can cost\nthem but little, yet notwithstanding the good Rules and strict\nDiscipline that are observ'd in these Markets of Love, the Schout and\nhis Officers are always vexing, mulcting, and, upon the least\nComplaint, removing the miserable Keepers of them: Which Policy is of\ntwo great Uses; First, it gives an Opportunity to a large Parcel of\nOfficers, the Magistrates make use of on many Occasions, and which they\ncould not be without, to squeeze a Living out of the immoderate Gains\naccruing from the worst of Employments, and at the same Time punish\nthose necessary Profligates, the Bawds and Panders, whom, tho' they\nabominate, they desire yet not wholly to destroy. Secondly, as on\nseveral Accounts it might be dangerous to let the Multitude into the\nSecret, that those Houses and the Trade that is drove in them are\nconniv'd at, so, by this Means appearing unblameable, the wary\nMagistrates preserve themselves in the good Opinion of the weaker Sort\nof People, who imagine, that the Government is always endeavouring,\ntho' unable, to suppress what it actually tolerates: Whereas if they\nhad a Mind to rout them out, their Power in the Administration of\nJustice is so sovereign and extensive, and they know so well how to\nhave it executed, that one Week, nay one Night, might send them all a\npacking._\n\nI appeal to your self, Sir, whether this Relation is not more proper to\ngive Men (even the Voluptuous, of any Taste) a Disgust and Aversion to\nthe Women in those Houses, than it is to raise any criminal Desire. I\nam sorry the Grand Jury should conceive, as they said, that I publish'd\nthis with a Design to debauch the Nation; without considering, in the\nfirst Place, that there is not a Sentence nor a Syllable, that can\neither offend the chastest Ear, or sully the Imagination of the most\nvicious; or, in the Second, that the Matter complain'd of, is\nmanifestly address'd to Magistrates and Politicians, or at least the\nmost serious and thinking Part of Mankind; whereas a general Corruption\nof Manners, as to Lewdness, to be produced by Reading, can only be\napprehended from Obscenities, easily purchased, and every Way adapted\nto the Tastes and Capacities of the heedless Multitude, and\nunexperienc'd Youth of both Sexes; but that the Performance so\noutragiously exclaim'd against was never calculated for either of these\nClasses of People, is self-evident from every Circumstance. The\nBeginning of the Prose is altogether Philosophical, and hardly\nintelligible to any, that have not been used to Matters of Speculation;\nand the running Title of it is so far from being specious, or inviting,\nthat, without having read the Book it self, No body knows what to make\nof it, whilst at the same Time the Price is Five Shillings. From all\nwhich it is very plain, that if the Book contains any dangerous Tenets,\nI have not been very sollicitous to scatter them among the People. I\nhave not said a Word to please or engage them, and the greatest\nCompliment I have made them, has been, _Apage Vulgus_. _But as Nothing_\n(I say p 257.) _would more clearly demonstrate the Falsity of my\nNotions, than that the Generality of the People should fall in with\nthem, so I don't expect the Approbation of the Multitude. I write not\nto Many, nor seek for any Well-wishers, but among the Few that can\nthink abstractly, and have their Minds elevated above the Vulgar._ Of\nthis I have made no ill Use, and ever preserv'd such a tender Regard to\nthe Publick, that when I have advanced any uncommon Sentiments, I have\nused all the Precautions imaginable that they might not be hurtful to\nweak Minds that might casually dip into the Book. When (_page 255_) _I\nown'd, that it was my Sentiment, that no Society could be raised into a\nrich and mighty Kingdom, or, so raised, subsist in their Wealth and\nPower for any considerable Time, without the Vices of Man, I had\npremised what was true,_ that I had _never said or imagin'd, that Man\ncould not be virtuous, as well in a rich and mighty Kingdom, as in the\nmost pitiful Commonwealth;_ mind Sir, p. 257. _When I say, that\nSocieties cannot be raised to Wealth and Power and the Top of Earthly\nGlory without Vices, I don't think, that by so saying, I bid Men be\nvicious, any more than I bid them be quarrelsome or covetous, when I\naffirm, that the Profession of the Law could not be maintain'd in such\nNumbers and Splendour, if there was not Abundance of too selfish and\nlitigious People._ A Caution of the same Nature I had already given\ntowards the End of the Preface, on Account of a palpable Evil,\ninseparable from the Felicity of _London_. The Words are these, _There\nare, I believe, few People in London, of those that are at any Time\nforc'd to go a-foot, but what could wish the Streets of it much cleaner\nthan generally they are, whilst they regard Nothing but their own\nCloaths and private Conveniency: but when once they come to consider,\nthat what offends them, is the Result of the Plenty, great Traffick and\nOpulency of that mighty City, if they have any Concern in its Welfare,\nthey will hardly ever wish to see the Streets of it less dirty. For if\nwe mind the Materials of all Sorts, that must supply such an infinite\nNumber of Trades and Handicrafts as are always going forward, and the\nvast Quantities of Victuals, Drink, and Fuel, that are daily consumed\nin it; the Waste and Superfluities, that must be produced from them;\nthe Multitudes of Horses and other Cattle, that are always daubing the\nStreets; the Carts, Coaches, and more heavy Carriages, that are\nperpetually wearing and breaking the Pavement of them; and, above all,\nthe numberless Swarms of People, that are continually harassing and\ntrampling through every Part of them: If, I say, we mind all these, we\nshall find, that every Moment must produce new Filth; and considering\nhow far distant the great Streets are from the River-side, what Cost\nand Care soever be bestow'd to remove the Nastiness almost as fast as\nit is made, it is impossible_ London _should be more cleanly before it\nis less flourishing. Now would I ask if a good Citizen, in\nConsideration of what has been said, might not assert, that dirty\nStreets are a necessary Evil inseparable from the Felicity of_ London,\n_without being the least Hindrance to the Cleaning of Shoes, or\nSweeping of Streets, and consequently without any Prejudice either to\nthe_ Blackguard _or the_ Scavengers.\n\n_But if, without any Regard to the Interest or Happiness of the City,\nthe Question was put, What Place I thought most pleasant to walk in? No\nbody can doubt but before the stinking Streets of_ London, _I would\nesteem a fragrant Garden, or shady Grove in the Country. In the same\nManner, if, laying aside all worldly Greatness and Vain Glory, I should\nbe ask'd, where I thought it was most probable that Men might enjoy\ntrue Happiness, I would prefer a small peaceable Society, in which Men,\nneither envy'd nor esteem'd by Neighbours, should be contented to live\nupon the Natural Product of the Spot they inhabit, to a vast Multitude\nabounding in Wealth and Power, that should always be conquering others\nby their Arms Abroad, and debauching themselves by Foreign Luxury at\nHome._\n\nI own, Sir, it is my Opinion, and I have endeavour'd to prove, that\nLuxury, tho' depending upon the Vices of Man, is absolutely necessary\nto render a great Nation formidable, opulent and polite at the same\nTime. But before you pass any Judgment upon me for this, give me Leave\nto put you in Mind of Two Things, which I take to be undeniably true.\nThe First is, that the Kingdom of _Christ_ is not of this World; and\nthat the last-named is the very Thing a true Christian ought to\nrenounce: I mean, that when we speak of the World in a figurative\nSense, as the Knowledge of the World, the Glory of the World; or in\n_French, Le beau Monde, le grand Monde_; and when in a Man's Praise we\nsay, that he understands the World very well; that, I say, when we use\nthe Word in this Manner, it signifies, and we understand by it that\nsame World which the Gospel gives us so many Cautions and pronounces so\nseverely against. The Second is, that I have wrote in an Age and a\nNation, where the greatest Part of the Fashionable, and what we call\nthe better Sort of People, seem to be far more delighted with Temporal,\nthan they are with Spiritual Enjoyments, at the same Time that they\nprofess themselves to be Christians; and that whatever they may talk,\npreach or write of a Future State and eternal Felicity, they are all\nclosely attach'd to this wicked World; or at least, that the\nGenerality, in their Actions and Endeavours, seem to be infinitely more\nsollicitous about the one, than they are about the other.\n\nIf you will consider these Two Things, you'll find, that I have\nsupposed no Necessity of Vice, but among those by whom worldly\nGreatness is in Esteem and thought necessary to Happiness. The more\ncurious and operose Manufactures are, the more Hands they employ; and\nthat with the Variety of them, the Number of Workmen must still\nencrease, wants no Proof. It is evident likewise, that Foreign Traffick\nconsists in changing of Commodities, and removing them from one Place\nto another. No Nation, that has no Gold or Silver of their own Growth,\ncan purchase our Product long, unless we, or Some body else, will buy\ntheirs. The Epithets of polite and flourishing are never given to\nCountries, before they are arriv'd at a considerable Degree of Luxury;\nand a flourishing Nation without it, is Bread without Corn, a Perriwig\nwithout Hair, or a Library without Books.\n\nAssertions as these, an indulgent Reader will say, might yet be borne\nwith; and Hypocrites, by putting false Glosses on Things, and giving\nfavourable Constructions to their Actions, might persuade the World,\nthat to make this necessary Consumption, they labour'd for the Publick\nGood; that they fed on Trouts and Turbots, Quails and Ortolans, and the\nmost expensive Dishes, not to please their dainty Palates or their\nVanity, but to maintain the Fishmonger and the Poulterer and the many\nWretches, who, for a miserable Livelyhood, are daily slaving to furnish\nthem. That they wore gold Brocades, and made new Cloaths every\nFortnight, not to gratify their own Pride or Fickleness, but for the\nBenefit of the Mercer, the Merchant, and the Weaver, and the\nEncouragement of Trade in general. That the Extravagancy of their\nTables, and Splendor of Entertainments, were only the Effects of an\nHospitable Temper, their Benevolence to others, and a generous\nDisposition: That Pride or Ostentation had no Hand in these Things, nor\nyet in the laying out of the immense Sums for the Elegancy and\nMagnificence of Equipages, Gardens, Furniture and Buildings. All these\nThings, I dare say, you would let pass; but if you should hear a Man\nsay, that this Consumption depends chiefly upon Qualities, we pretend\nto be asham'd of, it would be offensive to you; and if he should\nmaintain, that, without the Vices of Man, it would be impossible to\nenjoy all the Ease, Glory, and Greatness, the World can afford, and\nwhich, in short, we are fond of, you would think his Assertion to be a\nterrible Paradox.\n\nMany People would believe, that Hunger, tho' they never felt the\nExtremities of it, is, in order to live, as requisite to a Man, as it\nis to a Cormorant, or to a Wolf; and that without Lust, if you give it\na softer Name, our Species could not be preserv'd, any more than that\nof Bulls or Goats. But not One in a Thousand can imagine, tho' it be\nequally demonstrable, that in the Civil Society the Avarice of Some and\nthe Profuseness of Others, together with the Pride and Envy of most\nIndividuals, are absolutely necessary to raise them to a great and\npowerful, and, in the Language of the World, polite Nation. It seems\nstill to be a greater Paradox, that natural as well as moral Evil, and\nthe very Calamities we pray against, do not only contribute to this\nworldly Greatness, but a certain Proportion of them is so necessary to\nall Nations, that it is not to be conceiv'd, how any Society could\nsubsist upon Earth, exempt from all Evil, both natural and moral.\n\nYet these Things are asserted, and, I think, demonstrated in _The Fable\nof the Bees_. The Book has run through several Impressions, and met\nwith innumerable Enemies: Nothing was ever more reviled from the Pulpit\nas well as the Press. I have been call'd all the ugly Names in Print,\nthat Malice or ill Manners can invent; but not one of my Adversaries\nhas attempted to disprove what I had said, or overthrow any one\nArgument, I made Use of, otherwise than by exclaiming against it, and\nsaying that it was not true: which to me is a Sign, that not only what\nI have advanced is not easy to refute, but likewise, that my Opposers\nare more closely attach'd to the World, than even I my self had\nimagined them to be. Otherwise it is impossible, but, perceiving this\nDifficulty, some of them would have reason'd after the following\nManner, _viz._ Since this worldly Greatness is not to be attain'd to\nwithout the Vices of Man, I will have Nothing to do with it; since it\nis impossible to serve God and Mammon, my Choice shall be soon made: No\ntemper I Pleasure can be worth running the Risque of being eternally\nmiserable; and, let who will labour to aggrandise the Nation, I will\naim at higher Ends, and take Care of my own Soul.\n\nThe Moment such a Thought enters into a Man's Head, all the Poison is\ntaken away from the Book, and every Bee has lost his Sting.\n\nThose who should in Reality prefer Spirituals to Temporals, and be seen\nto take more Pains to attain an everlasting Felicity, than they did for\nthe Enjoyment of the fading Pleasures and transient Glorie of this\nLife, would not grudge to make some Abatements in the Ease, the\nConveniencies, and the Comforts of it, or even to part with some of\ntheir Possessions upon Earth, to make sure of their Inheritance in the\nKingdom of Heaven. Whatever Liking they might have to the curious\nEmbellishments and elegant Inventions of the Voluptuous, they would\nrefuse to purchase them at the Hazard of Damnation. In Judging of\nthemselves they would not be such easy Casuists, nor think it\nsufficient not to act contrary to the Laws of the Land, unless they\nlikewise obey'd the Precepts of _Christ_. No Book would be plainer or\nmore intelligible to them than the Gospel; and without consulting\neither Fathers or Councils, they would be satisfied, that mortifying\nthe Flesh never could signify to indulge every Appetite, not prohibited\nby an Earthly Legislator.\n\nWhat Skill, pray, would it require in Controversy, to be convinced,\nthat to yield to all the Allurements, to comply with every Mode and\nFashion, and partake of all the Vanities of the World, was the very\nReverse of Renouncing it, if Words had any Signification at all? Here\nlies the Difficulty; and here is the true Cause of the Quarrel, and all\nthe Spite and Invectives against _The Fable of the Bees_ and its\nAuthor. My Adversaries will not be stinted, or abate an Ace of the\nwordly Enjoyments they can purchase, because the whole Earth was made\nfor Man; Libertines say the same of Women, and with equal Justice; yet\nrelying on this pitiful Reason, they will eat and drink as deliciously\nas they can: No Pleasure is denied them, forsooth, that is used with\nModeration; and in Cloaths, Houses, Furniture, Equipages and\nAttendance, they may live in perfect Conformity with the most vain and\nluxurious of the fashionable People; only with this Difference, that\ntheir Hearts must not be attach'd to these Things, and their grand Hope\nbe in Futurity. This notable Proviso being once made, tho' in Words\nonly, all is safe; and no Luxury or Epicurism are so barefac'd, no Ease\nis so effeminate, no Elegancy so vainly curious, and no Invention so\noperose or expensive, as to interfere with Religion or any Promises\nmade of Renouncing the World; if they are warranted by Custom, and the\nUsage of others, who are their Equals in Estate and Dignity.\n\nOh rare Doctrine! Oh easy Christianity! To be moderate in numberless\nExtravagancies, _Terence_ would tell them was as practicable as _cum\nratione insanire_: But if we grant the Possibility of it, how shall we\nknow and be convinced that they are sincere; that their Hearts and\nDesires are so little engaged to this vile Earth, as they pretend; or\nthat the Thoughts of a World to come are any Part of their real\nConcern, when we have Nothing but their bare Word for it, and all other\nAppearances are unanimous, and the most positive Witnesses against\nthem?\n\nI know, that my Enemies won't allow, that I wrote with this View; tho'\nI have told them before, and demonstrated, that _The Fable of the Bees_\nwas a Book of exalted Morality; they refuse to believe me; their\nClamours against it continue; and what I have now said in Defence of\nit, will be rejected, and call'd an Artifice to come off; that it is\nfull of dangerous, wicked and Atheistical Notions, and could not have\nbeen wrote with any other Design than the Encouragement of Vice. Should\nI ask them what Vices they were; Whoring, Drinking, Gaming; or desire\nthem to name any one Passage, where the least Immorality is\nrecommended, spoke well of, or so much as conniv'd at, they would have\nNothing to lay hold on but the Title Page. But why then, will you say,\nare they so inveterate against it? I have hinted at it just now, but I\nwill more openly unfold that Mystery.\n\nI have, in the Book in Question, exposed the real Pleasures of the\nVoluptuous, and taken Notice of the great Scarcity of true Self-denial\namong Christians, and in doing this I have spared the Clergy no more\nthan the Laity: This has highly provoked a great many. But as I have\ndone this without the least Exaggeration, meddled with Nothing, but\nwhat is plainly known and seen, and always said less than I could have\nproved, my Adversaries were obliged to dissemble the Cause of their\nAnger. What vex'd them the more was, that it was wrote without Rancour\nor Peevishness; and, if not in a pleasant, at least in an open\ngood-humour'd Manner, free, I dare say, from Pedantry and Sourness.\nTherefore None of them ever touch'd upon this Point, or spoke one\nSyllable of the only Thing, which in their Hearts they hate me for.\n\nHere, Sir, I must trouble you with a Parable, in which are couch'd the\nPrevarications and false Pretences with which the Generality of the\nWorld would cover their real Inclinations and the Ends of their Wishes.\nMay it prove as diverting to you as the Matter is really instructive.\n\n_In old Heathen Times there was, they say, a Whimsical Country, where\nthe People talked much of Religion; and the greatest Part, as to\noutward Appearance, seem'd really devout: The chief moral Evil among\nthem was Thirst, and to quench it, a Damnable Sin; yet they unanimously\nagreed, that Every one was born Thirsty more or less. Small Beer in\nModeration was allow'd to All; and he was counted an Hypocrite, a\nCynick, or a Madman, who pretended that One could live altogether\nwithout it; yet those, who owned they loved it, and drank it to Excess,\nwere counted Wicked. All this while the Beer it self was reckon'd a\nBlessing from Heaven, and there was no Harm in the Use of it; all the\nEnormity lay in the Abuse, the Motive of the Heart, that made them\ndrink it. He that took the least Drop of it to quench his Thirst,\ncommitted a heinous Crime, whilst others drank large Quantities without\nany Guilt, so they did it indifferently, and for no other Reason than\nto mend their Complexion._\n\n_They brew'd for other Countries as well as their own; and for the\nSmall Beer they sent abroad, they receiv'd large Returns of\nWestphaly-Hams, Neats-Tongues, Hung-Beef, and Bolonia-Sausages, Red\nHerrings, Pickled Sturgeon, Cavear, Anchovies, and every Thing that was\nproper to make their Liquor go down with Pleasure. Those who kept great\nStores of Small Beer by them, without making use of it, were generally\nenvied, and at the same Time very odious to the Publick; and No body\nwas easy that had not enough of it to come to his own Share. The\ngreatest Calamity they thought could befall them, was to keep their\nHops and Barley upon their Hands; and the more they yearly consumed of\nthem, the more they reckon'd the Country to flourish._\n\n_The Government had made very wise Regulations concerning the Returns\nthat were made for their Exports; encouraged very much the Importation\nof Salt and Pepper, and laid heavy Duties on every Thing that was not\nwell season'd, and might any ways obstruct the Sale of their own Hops\nand Barley. Those at_ Helm, _when they acted in Publick, shew'd\nthemselves on all Accounts exempt and wholly divested from Thirst; made\nseveral Laws to prevent the Growth of it, and punish the Wicked who\nopenly dared to quench it. If you examin'd them in their private\nPersons, and pry'd narrowly into their Lives and Conversations, they\nseem'd to be more fond, or at least drank larger Draughts of Small Beer\nthan others, but always under Pretence that the Mending of Complexions\nrequired greater Quantities of Liquor in them, than it did in those\nthey ruled over; and that what they had chiefly at Heart, without any\nRegard to themselves, was to procure great Plenty of Small Beer among\nthe Subjects in general, and a great Demand for their Hops and Barley._\n\n_As No body was debarr'd from Small Beer, the Clergy made use of it as\nwell as the Laity, and some of them very plentifully; yet all of them\ndesired to be thought less Thirsty by their Function than others, and\nnever would own, that they drank any, but to mend their Complexions. In\ntheir Religious Assemblies they were more sincere; for as soon as they\ncame there, they all openly confess'd, the Clergy as well as the Laity,\nfrom the highest to the lowest, that they were Thirsty; that Mending\ntheir Complexions was what they minded the least, and that all their\nHearts were set upon Small Beer and Quenching their Thirst, whatever\nthey might pretend to the Contrary. What was remarkable is, that to\nhave laid Hold of those Truths to any one's Prejudice, and made use of\nthose Confessions afterwards out of their Temples, would have been\ncounted very impertinent; and Every body thought it a heinous Affront\nto be call'd_ Thirsty, _tho' you had seen him drink Small Beer by whole\nGallons. The chief Topicks of their Preachers was the great Evil of\nThirst, and the Folly there was in quenching it. They exhorted their\nHearers to resist the Temptations of it, inveigh'd against Small Beer,\nand often told them it was Poyson, if they drank it with Pleasure, or\nany other Design than to mend their Complexions._\n\n_In their Acknowledgments to the Gods, they thank'd them for the Plenty\nof comfortable Small Beer they had received from them, notwithstanding\nthey had so little deserv'd it, and continually quench'd their Thirst\nwith it; whereas they were so thorowly satisfy'd, that it was given\nthem for a better Use. Having begg'd Pardon for those Offences, they\ndesired the Gods to lessen their Thirst, and give them Strength to\nresist the Importunities of it; yet, in the Midst of their sorest\nRepentance, and most humble Supplications, they never forgot Small\nBeer, and pray'd that they might continue to have it in great Plenty,\nwith a solemn Promise, that how neglectful soever they might hitherto\nhave been in this Point, they would for the Future not drink a Drop of\nit with any other Design than to mend their Complexions._\n\n_These were standing Petitions, put together to last; and having\ncontinued to be made use of without any Alterations for several Hundred\nYears together, it was thought by Some, that the Gods, who understood\nFuturity, and knew, that the same Promise they heard in_ June, _would\nbe made to them the_ January _following, did not rely much more on\nthose Vows, than we do on those waggish Inscriptions by which Men offer\nus their Goods,_ To Day for Money, and to Morrow for Nothing. _They\noften began their Prayers very mystically, and spoke many Things in a\nspiritual Sense; yet they never were so abstract from the World in\nthem, as to end One without beseeching the Gods to bless and prosper\nthe Brewing Trade in all its Branches, and, for the Good of the Whole,\nmore and more to increase the Consumption of the Hops and Barley._\n\nThis Parable likewise has been very displeasing to my Enemies, yet they\nnever complain'd of it, nor ever shew'd their Resentment against those\nPassages, where their Frailties were most exposed. But the true\nGrievance not being to be named, their next Care was to hinder the\nSpreading of my Animadversions upon them; that what I had said might\nnot be read by Many; and accordingly, giving the Book an ill Name, and\nmaking some imperfect Quotations from it, they procure, as I have said\nbefore, the Grand Jury's Presentment against it. But this being\nnow-a-Days the wrongest Way in the World to stifle Books, it made it\nmore known, and encreas'd the Sale of it. This made some hot People\nraving mad; and now I began to be attack'd with great Fury from all\nQuarters; but as Nothing has appeared yet, that might not be easily\nanswer'd from _The Fable of the Bees_ it self, or the Vindication I\nhave spoke of before, I have not hitherto thought fit to take Notice of\nany.\n\nIt was wrote for the Entertainment of idle People, and calculated for\nPersons of Education, when they are at Leisure and want Amusement; and\ntherefore to ask Men of Business, or that have any Thing else to do, to\nread such an incoherent Rhapsody throughout, would be an unreasonable\nRequest; at least, the Author himself ought to be more modest than to\nexpect it: Yet I must beg Leave to say, that whoever has not done this,\nought not to be so magisterial in his Censures, as Some have been on\nPassages the most justifiable in the World. It is impossible to say\nevery Thing at once; and yet Every body, who has a Book before him, has\nthe Liberty of opening and shutting it, when and where he pleases.\nThere are many Things, which we entirely approve of, Part of which we\ndisliked, before we were acquainted with the whole; and we ought always\nto consider, that Authors often reserve some Places on Purpose to clear\nup and explain others, that are difficult and obscure: Even when we\nmeet with a Thing really offensive and no ways to be maintain'd, unless\nwe read a Book through, we do not know but the Author has excepted\nagainst that very Passage himself; perhaps he has retracted, or begg'd\nPardon for it.\n\nIt is hardly possible, that a Man of Candour and any tolerable\nJudgment, who seriously considers the Book, can be offended at it. In\nthe First Place, he will find, that what I call Vices are the\nFashionable Ways of Living, the Manners of the Age, that are often\npractis'd and preach'd against by the same People: Those Vices, that\nthe Persons who are guilty of them, are angry with me for calling them\nso: The Decencies and Conveniencies, which my Adversaries are so fond\nof, and which, rather than forsake and part with, they would take Pains\nto justify. In the Second, That I address myself to the Voluptuous,\nwhose greatest Delight is in this World; and, that when I speak to\nOthers, that would be contented without Superfluities, and prefer\nVirtue and Honesty to Pomp and Greatness, I lay down quite different\nMaxims: That what I have said, Page 258, is true, _viz._ Tho' I have\nshewn the Way to Worldly Greatness, I have, without Hesitation,\npreferr'd the Road that leads to Virtue.\n\nShould it be objected, that I was not in Earnest, when I recommended\nthose mortifying Maxims, I would answer, That those, who think so,\nwould have said the same to St. _Paul_, or JESUS CHRIST himself, if he\nhad bid them sell their Estates and give their Money to the Poor.\nPoverty and Self-denial have no Allurements in Sight of my Enemies;\nthey hate the Aspect and the very Thoughts of them, as much as they do\nme; and therefore, whoever recommends them must be in Jest. No\nMathematical Demonstration is more true, than that to prohibit\nNavigation, and all Commerce with Strangers, is the most effectual Way\nto keep out Vice and Luxury: It is almost as true, that Citizens, and\nMen of Worth, who defend their own, and fight _pro Aris & Focis_, when\nonce disciplin'd and inur'd to Hardship, are more to be depended upon\nthan hired Troops and mercenary Soldiers. Let a Man preach this in\n_London_, and they'll say he is craz'd. But if Men won't buy Virtue at\nthe Price it is only to be had at, Whose Fault is that?\n\nI knew what People I had to deal with; and when I spoke of the\n_Spartans_ and their Frugality, and how formidable they were to their\nEnemies, I said then, that such a Way of Living, and a Glory to be\nobtain'd by so austere a Self-denial, were not the Things which\nEnglishmen wanted or desired. There are Twenty Passages in the Book to\nthe same Purpose; but from this alone it is manifest, that, unless I\nwas a Fool, or a Madman, I could have no Design to encourage or promote\nthe Vices of the Age. It will be difficult to shew me an Author, that\nhas exposed and ridicul'd them more openly. Breaches of the Law I have\ntreated in a more serious Manner; and tho' it has been insinuated, that\nI was an Advocate for all Wickedness and Villany in General, there is\nno such Thing in the Book. I have said indeed, that we often saw an\nevident Good spring up from a palpable Evil, and given Instances to\nprove, that, by the wonderful Direction of unsearchable Providence,\nRobbers, Murderers, and the worst of Malefactors were sometimes made\ninstrumental to great Deliverances in Distress, and remarkable\nBlessings, which God wrought and conferr'd on the Innocent and\nIndustrious; but as to the Crimes themselves, I have never spoke of\nthem, but with the utmost Detestation, and on all Occasions urg'd the\ngreat Necessity of punishing all, that are guilty of them, without\nFavour or Connivance.\n\nThat Honesty is the best Policy, even as to Temporals, is generally\ntrue; but it does not so often raise Men to great Wealth and Power as\nKnavery and Ambition; and Opportunity is a great Rascal. Attorneys,\nMoney-Scriveners, Bankers and Brokers, as well as Factors of all Sorts,\nmay, without doubt, be as honest in their Callings as Men of any other;\nbut it is evident in all Trades, that the greater the Trust is to be\nreposed in Persons, and the more their Transactions are Secrets and\nsuch as they can only be accountable for to God and their Conscience,\nthe more Latitude they have of being Knaves without being discover'd.\nShould now a Man of a Business, where he has great Opportunity of\ndefrauding others with Impunity, be a cunning Sharper, a covetous\nMiser, and a wicked Hypocrite; can it be a Question, whether he is not\nmore likely to get a great Estate, with the same setting out in a few\nYears, than a charitable, religious Man, whose chief Care is not for\nthis World, in the same or any other Calling, equally beneficial to\nfair Dealers? I am not ignorant of what may be said against me, about\nGod's Blessing, and on whom it is most likely to fall. The Dispositions\nof Providence are unfathomable, and the Distribution of what we call\nGood and Evil in this World, is a Mystery not to be accounted for by\nthe Notions we have of God's Justice, without having Recourse to a\nFuture State; therefore I need not to take this in Consideration here.\nThe Question is not, which is the readiest Way to Riches, but whether\nthe Riches themselves are worth being damn'd for.\n\nThere never was yet, and it is impossible to conceive, an opulent\nNation, without great Vices: This is a Truth; and I am not accessary to\nits being so, for divulging it. When I have shewn the Necessity of\nVice, to render a Society great and potent, I have exposed that\nGreatness, and left it to them, the Members of it, whether it is worth\nbuying at that Price; and I defy all my Enemies to shew me, where I\nhave recommended Vice, or said the least Tittle, by which I contradict\nthat true, as well as remarkable Saying of Monsieur _Baile_. _Les\nutilites du vice n'empechent pas qu' il ne soit mauvais._ Vice is\nalways bad, whatever Benefit we may receive from it.--But I have been\nstrangely treated.\n\nShould a thriving Youth in Athletick Health, almost arriv'd at Manhood,\nindustriously waste his Flesh for no other Purpose, than to weigh less,\nI would 'count him a Fool for his Pains; because he runs the Risque of\ndoing himself great Injury. But he must ride; the Match is made; he has\na Master to oblige, and he is undone it he refuses: So he is managed\naccordingly against the Time. If I had a Mind to expose this Practice,\nand, laying open the whole Regimen Men are to go through in order to\nwaste, acquaint the World with the sharp Liquors they take, how they\nare purged, sweated, stinted in their Food, and debarr'd from their\nnatural Rest; If, I say, I had a Mind to do this, and ridicule the\nExpedient, I don't see where would be the Harm. As to the Thing it\nself, No body would doubt, but drinking Vinegar, Physicking, Watching,\nand Starving, would be a more proper Means to lose Flesh, than good\nNourishment three Times a Day, and comfortable Sleep at Night. But the\nQuestion is, whether Weighing less, or the Riding it self, be of that\nImportance, that a Man would undergo so much for it; and I believe,\nmost People, far from following this Method, would content themselves\nwith admiring and laughing at the Folly of it. But it would be\nbarbarous to say, that I had prescrib'd it, when I had openly declared\nagainst it. But what Name would you give it, if the Jockeys themselves,\ncontinuing their former Practice, should in Revenge, that I had expos'd\nit, pretend seriously to exclaim against me for broaching a destructive\nDoctrine, that would endanger the Health, and spoil the Growth of young\nPeople, and to prove their Assertions, quote as many of my own Words as\nwould serve their Purpose, and no more?\n\nI take this to be a pretty near Resemblance of my Case: _Omne Simile\nclaudicat_. But it is not sufficient for me to say, that I am innocent,\nany more than it is for my Enemies to cry out, that I am guilty: Men of\nSense can not be long imposed upon by either: It is the Book we must\nstand or fall by at last; and it is to this I refer all judicious as\nwell as impartial Readers. They will soon find out the true Cause of\nthe Malice, and all the Clamours against me, and that my laying open\nthe luxurious Lives of some Men; my shewing the great Scarcity of\nSelf-denial among Christians as well as others, and, in short, my\nreprehending, lashing and ridiculing Vice and Insincerity, have\nprocured me infinitely more Enemies than all the pretended\nEncouragement to Vice and Immorality they can meet with; and if, after\nperusing the whole, all Persons of Candour, and Capacity to read Books\nof that Nature, are not fully convinced of this, may I be despised for\never, and forfeit the good Opinion of all Men I value. But still the\nTitle, _Private Vices, Publick Benefits_: The hearing and seeing of it,\nI shall be told, must be offensive to those, who don't read the Book,\nand will never vouchsafe to look into it.\n\nPray, Sir, let us examine this. It is evident, that the Words _Private\nVices, Publick Benefits_ make not a compleat Sentence according to\nGrammar; and that there is at least a Verb, if not a great deal more\nwanting to make the Sense perfect. In the Vindication of _The Fable of\nthe Bees_, I have said, that I understood by it, that _Private Vices_,\nby the dexterous Management of a skilful Politician, might be turn'd\ninto _Publick Benefits_. There is Nothing forc'd or unnatural in this\nExplanation; and Everybody ought to have the Liberty of being an\nInterpreter of his own Words. But if I wave this Privilege, the worst\nConstruction that can be put upon the Words is, that they are an\nEpitome of what I have labour'd to prove throughout the Book, that\nLuxury and the Vices of Man, under the Regulations and Restrictions\nlaid down in the _Fable of the Bees_, are subservient to, and even\ninseparable from the Earthly Felicity of the Civil Society; I mean what\nis commonly call'd Temporal Happiness, and esteem'd to be such.\n\nAs to those who, without reading the Book, may be corrupted by the\nSight, or by the bare Sound of the Words _Private Vices, Publick\nBenefits_, I confess, I don't know what Provision to make for them.\nPeople who judge of Books from their Titles, must be often imposed\nupon. There is neither Blasphemy nor Treason in the Words, and they are\nfar enough from Obscenity: If any Mischief is to be fear'd from them,\n_Drink and be Rich_, a Title that has been bawl'd about the Streets,\nmust be far more dangerous. This latter is a direct Precept, a\npernicious, as well as deceitful Doctrine, comprised in a full\nSentence, wrote in the Imperative Mood. What strange Consequence would\nit be of, especially among the Poor, if, relying on the Wisdom of this\nTitle, and taking it for wholesome Advice, People should act\naccordingly, without any further Examination?\n\nThe true Reason why I made use of the Title, _Private Vices, Publick\nBenefits_, I sincerely believe, was to raise Attention: As it is\ngenerally counted to be a Paradox, I pitch'd upon it in Hopes that\nthose who might hear or see it, would have the Curiosity to know, what\ncould be said to maintain it; and perhaps sooner buy the Book, than\nthey would have done otherwise. This, to the best of my Knowledge, is\nall the Meaning I had in it; and I think it must have been Stupidity to\nhave had any other.\n\nIf it be urged, that these Benefits are worldly, I own it; and Every\nbody may see, in whose Sense I call them so; in the Language of the\nWorld, the Age and the Time I live: This one of my Adversaries\nperceived plainly, and endeavoured to take Advantage of it against me,\nby saying, that Nothing could be a real Benefit, that did not conduce\nto a Man's eternal Happiness; and that it was evident, that the Things,\nto which I gave that Name, did not. I agree with him, that a Man's\nSalvation is the greatest Benefit he can receive or wish for; and I am\npersuaded, that, speaking of Things Spiritual, the Word is very proper\nin that Sense; the same may be said of the Words Profit, Gain, and, if\nyou please, Lucre; but I deny, that without any Addition, this is the\ncommon Acceptation of them; in which, I hope, I may have the Liberty to\nmake use of Words with the Rest of my Fellow-Subjects. All temporal\nPrivileges and worldly Advantages whatever, are call'd Benefits, and a\nThousand Things are beneficial to the Body, that have Nothing to do\nwith the Soul. So a Felon may have the Benefit of the Clergy; such are\nBenefit-Tickets; and so a Man may go in the Country for the Benefit of\nthe Air. I would ask this wise Gentleman, when he reads, that a Play is\nto be acted for the Benefit of such a one; which he thinks it is, the\nMoney the Person receives, or the Performance it self, that contributes\nmost to his eternal Happiness.\n\nBut I am more cautious and exact, than my Enemies imagine: If I would\nhave made my Readers to understand, that the Vices of Men often prove\nof worldly Advantage to those who commit them, tho' it is very true,\nyet in this Case, I would not have used the Word Benefit in so general\na Manner: for as Nothing is of greater Concern to every individual\nPerson, than his future Welfare, Nothing can be Beneficial to him, in\nan unlimited Sense, that might destroy, or any Ways interfere with his\neternal Happiness: But this eternal Happiness cannot at the soonest\ncommence till after this Life; and when a Man is dead, he ceases to be\na Member of the Society, and he is no longer a Part of the Publick;\nwhich latter is a collective Body of living Creatures, living upon this\nEarth, and consequently, as such, not capable of enjoying eternal\nHappiness. A Miser may go directly to Hell, as the Reward of his\nAvarice and Extortion, at the same Time, that the great Wealth he\nleaves, and the Hospital he builds, are a considerable Relief to the\nPoor, and consequently a Publick Benefit.\n\nIf a Man should affirm, that the Publick is wholly incapable of having\nany Religion at all, it would, perhaps, be shocking to some People; yet\nit is as true, as that the Body Politick, which is but another Name for\nthe Publick, has no Liver nor Kidneys, no real Lungs nor Eyes in a\nliteral Sense. Mix'd Multitudes of Good and Bad Men, high and low\nQuality, may join in outward Signs of Devotion, and perform together\nwhat is call'd Publick Worship; but Religion it self can have no Place\nbut in the Heart of Individuals; and the most a Legislator can act in\nBehalf of it in a Christian Country, is, first, to establish it by Law;\nand, after that, every way to secure and promote the Exercise of it on\nthe one Hand; and, on the other, to prohibit and punish Wickedness, and\nall Manner of Impiety, that can fall under the Cognizance of\nMagistrates. But thus much I think to be necessary in the Civil\nAdministration of all Governments, for the temporal Interest of the\nWhole, before true Christianity comes in Question, which is a private\nConcern of every Individual: And tho' I have not every where taken\nNotice of this, when I have been soothing the Voluptuous, yet when it\nhas come directly in my Way, I have earnestly recommended to all\nMagistrates the Care of Divine Worship, even when my greatest Regard\nhas been for the Wealth and Greatness of Nations, and the Advancement\nof worldly Glory; which good Christians ought to have little to do\nwith. Of which you may see an undeniable Proof in Page 352, where\nspeaking of the Instructions the Children of the Poor might receive at\nChurch; _From which,_ I say, _or some other Place of Worship, I would\nnot have the meanest of the Parish, that is able to walk to it, be\nabsent on Sundays,_ I have these Words: _It is the Sabbath, the most\nuseful Day in Seven, that is set apart for Divine Service & Religious\nExercise, as well as Resting from bodily Labour; and it is a Duty\nincumbent on all Magistrates, to take a particular Care of that Day.\nThe Poor more especially, and their Children, should be made to go to\nChurch on it, both in the Fore- and the Afternoon, because they have no\nTime on any other. By Precept and Example they ought to be encourag'd\nto it from their Infancy. The wilful Neglect of it ought to be 'counted\nscandalous; and if down-right Compulsion to what I urge, might seem too\nharsh, and perhaps impracticable, all Diversions, at least, ought\nstrictly to be prohibited, and the Poor hinder'd from every Amusement\nabroad, that might allure or draw them from it._\n\nI return to my Subject. How shocking to Some, and ridiculous to others,\nthe explanatory Part of the Title I mention'd, may have been, yet it is\nirrefragrably true; and there are various Ways, by which Private Vices\nmay become Publick Benefits, Ways more real and practicable, than what,\nsome Time ago, was offer'd by that serious Divine, whose Religion and\nPiety are so amply set forth in that undisguised Confession of his\nFaith, _The Tale of a Tub_. People may wrangle about the Definition of\nLuxury as long as they please; but when Men may be furnish'd with all\nthe Necessaries for Life from their own Growth, and yet will send for\nSuperfluities from Foreign Countries, which they might (as many\nactually do) live comfortably without, it certainly is a Degree of\nLuxury, if there be such a Thing as Luxury in the World. Now, if a\nLegislator, who is to take Care of the Welfare, and consequently the\nDefence, as well as the Tranquility of the Publick, perceiving this\nvicious Inclination and Longing after Superfluities, made use of it as\na Means to provide for the Publick Safety, and actually raised Money by\nLicensing the Importation of such Foreign Superfluities; might it not\nbe said, that, by such skilful Management, _Private Vices_ were turn'd\ninto _Publick Benefits_? And is this not done, when heavy Duties are\nlaid on Sugar, Wine, Silk, Tobacco, and a Hundred other Things less\nnecessary, and not to be purchas'd but with infinite Toil and Trouble,\nand at the Hazard of Men's Lives? If you tell me, that Men may make use\nof all these Things with Moderation, and consequently that the Desire\nafter them is no Vice, then I answer, that either no Degree of Luxury\nought to be call'd a Vice, or, that it is impossible to give a\nDefinition of Luxury, which Every body will allow to be a just one.\n\nBut I'll give you another Instance, how palpable and gross Vices may\nbe, and are turn'd into Publick Benefits. It is the Business of all\nLaw-givers to watch over the Publick Welfare, and, in order to procure\nthat, to submit to any Inconveniency, any Evil, to prevent a much\ngreater, if it is impossible to avoid that greater Evil at a cheaper\nRate. Thus the Law, taking into Consideration the daily Encrease of\nRogues and Villains, has enacted, that if a Felon, before he is\nconvicted himself, will impeach two or more of his Accomplices, or any\nother Malefactors, so that they are convicted of a Capital Crime, he\nshall be pardon'd and dismiss'd with a Reward in Money. There is no\nDoubt but this is a good and wise Law; for without such an Expedient,\nthe Country would swarm with Robbers and Highwaymen Ten-times more than\nit does; for by this Means we are not only deliver'd from a greater\nNumber of Villains, than we could expect to be from any other; but it\nlikewise stops the Growth of them, breaks their Gangs, and hinders them\nfrom trusting One another. For Three Rogues, acting separately, cannot\ndo so much substantial Mischief on all Occasions, as when they act in\nCompany. All this while it is evident, that in this Case the Law has\nonly Regard to the Publick Good, and, to procure that, sets aside all\nother Laws, and proceeds rather contrary to the Common Notions we have\nof Justice; which, according to the _Civilians_, consists _in a\nconstant and perpetual Desire of giving every one his Due_: For instead\nof Hanging, which is a Felon's Due, it pardons him; and for Fear he\nshould have some Goodness left, and that natural Compassion might make\nhim unwilling to destroy his dearest Friends, and perhaps his Brother,\nwith his Breath, the Law invites him to it by a large Sum of Money, and\nactually bribes him to add to the Rest of his Crimes that Piece of\nTreachery to his Companions, whom he had sworn Fidelity to, and perhaps\ndrawn into the Villany.\n\nIt is in vain to tell me, that this Impeaching of his Companions is no\nCrime in a Felon, but a Duty which he owes his Country; and that I\ndon't know but it is the Effect of his sincere Repentance, which makes\nhim look upon this open Confession as the only Attonement he is able to\nmake the Publick for all his Offences against it. Those who would\nimpeach Others from a Motive of Conscience, and a Sense of their Duty,\nwere not the Men the Legislature had in View. When that Law was made,\nit was well known, from what was observed of Thieves, Pickpockets, and\nHouse-breakers, that those Common Villains will do any Thing to get\nMoney, and still more to save Life, when they are conscious that it is\nforfeited. The Knowledge of this was the Foundation of that Law. For\nthe Worst of Rogues have Friendship and Affection for one another; and\nConstancy, Faithfulness, and Intrepidity are 'counted valuable\nQualities among them, as well as among other People. One Villain who\nbetrays another merely for Money, and without Necessity, thinks himself\nto be guilty of a bad Action; and among the many Hundreds of Rogues,\nwho have impeach'd and hang'd their Companions, I don't believe there\never was one, who made himself a Witness against an Associate, with\nwhom he was not at Enmity before, if he could have got the same\nTemporal Advantage by holding his Tongue.\n\nThis shews the Usefulness of such a Law, and at the same Time the\nWisdom of the Politician, by whose skilful Management the Private Vices\nof the Worst of Men are made to turn to a Publick Benefit. There are\nMen who are of Opinion, that no positive Evil may be done or commanded,\nthat Good may come of it, on any Account whatever: Should any one of\nthese be in doubt whether there is not some Reasonableness or other\nMerit in this Law, besides its contributing to the Welfare of the\nSociety; I would ask him, if it would not be an unpardonable Folly, nay\na wicked Action in any Legislature, to enact, that a most abandon'd\nWretch, who has been guilty of many Capital Crimes, should, without\nhaving shewn any Remorse, not only be pardon'd, but likewise with a\nReward in Money be let loose again upon the Publick; if what is\ndesign'd by such an extraordinary Conduct, to wit, the Decrease of\nThefts and Villanies, might be obtain'd by any other Method, less\nclashing with the common Notions we have of Justice: Which being\nundeniably true, the only Reason that can be given, why Enacting this\nis neither Wickedness nor Folly, is Necessity, and the Publick Benefit,\nwhich is expected from it.\n\nIf All I have said hitherto in Defence of the _Fable of the Bees_, and\nwhat I have quoted from it, have not alter'd the Opinion you seem to\nhave had of the Book, I believe it is in vain to say any more: Other\nReaders, I hope, will be less obdurate, and convinced by this Time,\nthat it was not wrote for the Encouragement of Vice and to debauch the\nNation; which is all I want; for as to the Performance, whether good or\nbad, I shall say Nothing about it, whatever I think. I sincerely\nbelieve, Sir, that most Authors (whatever they say to the Contrary)\nhave a better Opinion of their Works than they deserve; and I fancy,\nthat most People believe so too: Therefore whether it is well or ill\nwrote, as to the Diction, Manner, and whatever regards the Composition,\nis what I would never have troubled my Head about, tho' it had been\nmore generally condemn'd than it has been.\n\nThe Censurers of the Book themselves, who have publickly attack'd it,\nare not unanimous about the Merit of it; and Two of them, who have both\nwrote against it by Name, differ very widely in their Opinion\nconcerning this Composition. A noted[24] Critick, who seems to hate all\nBooks that sell, and no other, has, in his Anger at that Circumstance,\npronounced against _The Fable of the Bees_ in this Manner: _It is a\nwretched Rhapsody; the Wit of it is low; the Humour of it contemptibly\nlow, and the language often barbarous_. But a Reverend Divine, who has\nwrote a long Preface against the same Book, seems not to have disliked\nthe Performance of it, nor to wonder at the quick Sale of it, which he\nascribes in a great Measure[25] _to the free, easy and lively Manner of\nthe Author_. From this Contrariety of Opinions, I shall infer Nothing\nmore, than that, if Men would be truly inform'd of the Book, it is not\nsafe to trust to the Reports which are spread of it. What Pity it is,\nyou did not know this before you wrote your _Minute Philosopher_!\n\n      [24] _Mr. Dennis._\n\n      [25] _Dr. Fiddes's Treatise of Morality, Pref. Page XIX._\n\nThere are few Men, even among the most able, who can judge of Books\nimpartially. We are often influenc'd by our Love, or our Hatred, before\nwe are aware of it our selves. I have met with several good Judges of\nBooks, who disliked, and spoke very slightingly of your _Alciphron_;\nand I found, the chief Reason was, because you attack'd all _Free\nThinkers_, without Exception. But I declare, that I think your Book,\nfor the Generality, to be well wrote; tho' you have us'd me most\nunmercifully, and not acted, if you had read _The Fable of the Bees_,\nlike an honest Man. When a Person has a handsome Face, I can't be so\nstupid as to believe him ugly, because he has us'd me ill. I differ\nfrom My Lord _Shaftesbury_ entirely, as to the Certainty of the\n_Pulchrum & Honestum_, abstract from Mode and Custom: I do the same\nabout the Origin of Society, and in many other Things, especially the\nReasons why Man is a Sociable Creature, beyond other Animals. I am\nfully persuaded, His Lordship was in the Wrong in these Things; but\nthis does not blind my Understanding so far, as not to see, that he is\na very fine Author, and a much better Writer than my self, or you\neither. If that noble Lord had been a much worse Author, and wrote on\nthe Side of Orthodoxy and the Church, I fancy, you would have thought\nmore favourably of his Capacity. I have seen what you have cited from\nhim, and the Manner you have done it in. But what Proportion does that\nbear to Three large Volumes, and the many admirable Things he has said\nagainst Priestcraft, and on the Side of Liberty and Human Happiness.\nUpon the Whole, I dare say, that your _Minute Philosopher_ will meet\nwith very few Readers, among those that have read, and are not lash'd\nin the _Characteristicks_, who will think, that My Lord _Shaftsbury_\ndeserves one Tenth Part of the Indignity and Contempt, which you treat\n_Cratylus_ with.\n\nMen may differ in Opinion, and both mean well. You, Sir, think it for\nthe Good of Society, that human Nature should be extoll'd as much as\npossible: I think, the real Meanness and Deformity of it to be more\ninstructive. Your Design is, to make Men copy after the beautiful\nOriginal, and endeavour to live up to the Dignity of it: Mine is, to\nenforce the Necessity of Education, and mortify Pride. I was very much\ndelighted with what you say in your First Dialogue of Apple-trees and\nOranges; the different Productions of the first, and the Culture of the\nother. The Allegory is very ingenious, and the Application just; but I\ndon't think, that the Conclusion, which must be drawn from it, will be\nof great Use to you. Page 51. _Euphranor_ asks _Alciphron, Why may we\nnot conclude by a Parity of Reason, that Things may be natural to Human\nKind, and yet neither found in all Men, nor invariably the same, where\nthey are found?_ I answer, They may. But if all the Knowledge and\nAccomplishments, which Men can attain to, are to be look'd upon as\nnatural, and peculiar to the whole Species, it must be the same with\nVice and Wickedness, as it is with Virtue and the Liberal Arts; and,\nwhat I never could have imagin'd before, it must be as natural for a\nMan to murder his Father, as it is to reverence him; and for a Woman to\npoison her Husband, as it is to love him.\n\nIf you would but look into the Reasons, Sir, I have given for\ndistinguishing between what is natural, and what is acquired, you would\nnot find any ill Intention in that Practice. Many Things are true,\nwhich the Vulgar think Paradoxes. Believe me, Sir, to understand the\nNature of Civil Society, requires Study and Experience. Evil is, if not\nthe Basis of it, at least a necessary Ingredient in the Compound; and\nthe temporal Happiness of Some is inseparable from the Misery of\nothers. They are silly People who imagine, that the Good of the Whole\nis consistent with the Good of every Individual; and the best of us are\ninsincere. Every body exclaims against Luxury; yet there is no Order of\nMen which is not guilty of it; and if the Lawgivers are not always\nendeavouring to keep up all Trades and Manufactures, that supply us\nwith the Means and Implements of Luxury, they are blamed. To wish for\nthe Encrease of Trade and Navigation, and the Decrease of Luxury at the\nsame Time, is a Contradiction. For suppose, that the Legislature, by\nthe Help of the Clergy, could introduce a general Frugality in this\nNation, we could never keep up our Traffick, and employ the same Hands\nand Shipping, unless they could likewise persuade the Nations, we deal\nwith, to be more profuse than now they are, that they might take off\nfrom our Hands so much more of the Implements of Luxury, as our\nConsumption of them should be less than it had been before.\n\nThe very same Things, which are Blessings in One Year, are Calamities\nin another. In every Nation, those who are employ'd in Gardening and\nAgriculture, are taught by Experience to manage their Affairs, as is\nmost suitable to the Climate and the Certainty or Irregularities of the\nSeasons. If there were no Blasts in _England_, nine Tenths of the\nApple-trees would be superfluous. Ask the Gardeners about _London_,\nwhether they don't get more by a middling Crop, than a plentiful\nProduct; and whether Half of them would not be ruin'd, if every Thing\nthey sow or plant should come to Perfection: Yet Every body wishes for\nPlenty and Cheapness of Provisions: But they are often Calamities to a\ngreat Part of the Nation. If the Farmer can't have a reasonable Price\nfor his Corn, he can't pay his Landlord. We have often had the good\nFortune of having great Plenty, when other Nations have wanted. This is\na real Gain: But when all our Neighbours are sufficiently provided, and\nwe can no where export our Corn with Profit, Two plentiful Years, one\nafter an other, are a greater Detriment to the Publick by far, than a\nmiddling Scarcity. A benevolent Man, who has a favourable Opinion of\nhis Kind, would perhaps imagine, that Labourers of all Sorts would go\nto their Work with greater Alacrity, and bear the Fatigue of it with\nmore Chearfulness, in plentiful Years, than when Corn is at a high\nPrice, and with all their Industry they can hardly procure Food for\ntheir Families. But the Contrary is true; and ask all considerable\nDealers, of Experience, who for many Years have employ'd a great Number\nof Hands in the Woollen Manufacture, in Hard Ware, or Agriculture, and\nthey will tell you unanimously, that the Poor are most insolent, and\ntheir Labour is least to be depended upon, when Provisions are very\ncheap; and that they never can have so much Work done, or their Orders\nso punctually comply'd with, as when Bread is dear.\n\nYour _Crito_ and _Euphranor_ are very good Characters; but what I\nadmire the most in them, is the consummate Patience in keeping Company,\nand bearing for a whole Week together, with two such insupportable, out\nof the way Rascals, as you have represented _Alciphron_ and _Lysicles_\nto be. I believe with you, that among the Vain and Voluptuous, there\nare Abundance of superficial People, who call themselves _Free\nThinkers_, and are proud of being thought to be Unbelievers, without\nhaving laid the Foundation of any Philosophy at all. But there never\nwere Two such Creatures in the World as those whom you have made the\nChampions for Free-thinking. I don't speak as to their Irreligion and\nImpiety, or their Incapacity of maintaining what they loudly assert;\nfor such there are many among Rakes and Gamesters. But the Knowledge,\ngood Sense and Penetration, which your Libertines display at some\nTimes, are inconsistent with the Ignorance, Folly and Stupidity they\nshew at others. It is impossible that Men of Parts, and the least\nSpirit, how much soever they were in the Wrong, could see themselves\ndefeated, banter'd and exposed with so much Tranquility and\nChearfulness; and I can't conceive how any, but egregious Coxcombs,\nwithout Sense of Shame, could behave as _Alciphron_ and _Lysicles_ do\nthroughout your Dialogues. They are Fellows without Feeling or Manners.\nIf among Gentlemen there are abandon'd Wretches, who harbour Sentiments\nso abominable and openly destructive to Society, as several are which\nthey advance, I am very well assured, that no well-bred Men would vent\nthem before Strangers in so shocking a Manner as they do. No Mortal\never saw such Disputants before; they always begin with swaggering and\nboasting of what they'll prove; and in every Argument they pretend to\nmaintain, they are laid upon their Backs, and constantly beaten to\nPieces, till they have not a Word more to say; and when this has been\nrepeated above half a Score times, they still retain the same Arrogance\nand _mal-a-pert_ Briskness they were made to set out with at first; and\nimmediately after every Defeat, they are making fresh Challenges,\nseemingly with as much Unconcern and Confidence of Success, as if\nNothing had pass'd before, or they remember'd Nothing of what had\nhappened. Such an Undauntedness in assaulting, and Alacrity in\nyielding, as you have made them display, never met in the same\nIndividuals before.\n\nI know, Sir, that in drawing those Characters, you design'd them for\nMonsters to be abhorr'd and detested; and in this you have succeeded to\nAdmiration, at least with me; for I can assure you, that I never saw\nany two Interlocutors in the same Dialogue or Drama, whose Behaviour\nand Principles I execrate more heartily, than I do theirs. And if you\nwould read the _Fable of the Bees_ impartially, you would be convinced\nof this, from my Description of the Company I would chuse to converse\nwith. Upon, such a Condescension, I would likewise demonstrate to you,\nhow you and I might assist and be useful to one another, as Authors.\n\nYou allow, that there are vicious Clergymen, who are unworthy of their\nFunction. I foresee, that Some of these, who have neither _Crito's_\nLearning, nor _Euphranor_'s good Sense, will make use of your\n_Alciphron_ for an evil Purpose. Having by their bad Courses made\nthemselves contemptible to all who know them, they will endeavour to\nstop the Mouths of all Opposers, by barely naming the _Minute\nPhilosopher_; and having, by the Credit of that Book, repell'd the\nCensure they had deserv'd, insult the Laity, and lay claim to the\nHonour and Deference, which ought only to be paid to worthy Divines.\nThese I will take in Hand, and convince, that you have not wrote to\njustify those Ecclesiasticks, who by their Practice contradict the\nDoctrine of _Christ_; and that they misconstrued your Intentions; who\nleading vicious Lives themselves, demanded the same Respect from\nOthers, which you only affirm to be due to Clergymen of Merit and good\nMorals. And as I would handle these, so you, in like Manner, would take\nto Task those vile Profligates, who, copying after your Originals,\nshould at any Time endeavour to shelter themselves under my Wings.\nShould ever a second _Lysicles_ pretend to prove, that the more\nMischief Men did, the more they acted for the Publick Welfare, because\nit is said, in _The Fable of the Bees_, that without Vices, no great\nNation can be rich and flourishing, you would laugh at his Folly; and\nif, for the same Reason, he urged, that Rapes, Murder, Theft, and all\nManner of Villanies ought to be applauded, or at least pass'd by with\nImpunity, you would demonstrate to him, how immensly far my Design was\nfrom screening Criminals, and shew him the many Passages, where I\ninsist upon it, that impartial Justice ought to be administer'd, and\nthat even for the Welfare of worldly-minded Men, Crimes should be\nseverely punish'd. You would inform him likewise, that I thought\nNothing more cruel, than the Lenity of Juries, and the Frequencies of\n_Pardons_, and not forget to tell him, that my Book contained several\nEssays on Politicks; that the greatest Part of it was a Philosophical\nDisquisition into the Force of the Passions, and the Nature of Society,\nand that they were silly People, who made any other Construction of it.\n\nI observe in your fifth Dialogue, that you think the Multitudes among\nChristians to have better Morals, than they were possess'd of among the\nantient Heathens. The Vices of Men have always been so inseparable from\ngreat Nations, that it is difficult to determine any Thing with\nCertainty about that Matter. But I am of Opinion, that the Morals of a\nPeople in general, I mean the Virtues and Vices of a whole Nation, are\nnot so much influenced by the Religion that is profess'd among them, as\nthey are by the Laws of the Country, the Administration of Justice, the\nPoliticks of the Rulers, and the Circumstances of the People. Those who\nimagine, that the Heathens were encouraged and led to criminal\nPleasures by the bad Examples of the Deities they worship'd, seem not\nto distinguish between the Appetites themselves, the strong Passions in\nour Nature, that prompt Men to Vices, and the Excuses they make for\ncommitting them. If the Laws and Government, the Administration of\nJustice, and the Care of the Magistrates were the same, and the\nCircumstances of the People were likewise the same, I should be glad to\nhear a Reason, why there should be more or less Incontinence in\n_England_, if we were Heathens, than there is, now we are Christians.\nThe real Cause of Fornication, and Adultery, the Root of the Evil, is\nLust. This is the Passion, which is so difficult to conquer, whilst it\naffects us. There are many Christians, no doubt, who subdue it by the\nFear of God, and Punishment hereafter; but I believe, that the\nHeathens, who triumph'd over this Passion, from a Regard to Virtue,\nwere as considerable in Number. Among the nominal Christians, there are\nnot a Few, who forbear indulging this Passion, from worse Principles. I\nbelieve it was the same with the Heathens. However, in _Great-Britain_\nthere are Thousands that abstain from unlawful Pleasures, who would not\nbe so cautious, if they were not deterr'd from them by the Expence, the\nFear of Diseases, and that of losing their Reputation. These are three\nEvils, against which all the bad Examples of the Gods can bring no\nRemedy.\n\nIn all Ages, Men have display'd Virtues and Vices, which their Religion\nhad Nothing to do with; and in many Actions, and even the most\nimportant Affairs, they are not more influenced by what they believe of\na Future State, than they are by the Name of the Street they live in.\nWhen People shew great Attachment to the World and their Pleasure, and\nare very cool, and even neglectful in Religious Duties, it is\nridiculous to ascribe their good Qualities to their Christianity.\nYou'll give me Leave, Sir, to expatiate a little upon this Head, and\nillustrate my Meaning in a Character or two, which I am going to draw.\n\n_Lepidus_, a Man of good Sense, is a Batchellor, and never intends to\nmarry. He is far from being chast, but cautious in his Amours. He is a\nLover of Mirth and Gaiety, hates Solitude, and would rather take up\nwith almost any Company, than be alone. He keeps a very good Table; no\nMan treats with a better Grace; and seems never to be better pleased,\nthan when he is entertaining his Friends. He has a very great Estate,\nyet at the Year's End he lays up but little of his large Revenue.\nNotwithstanding this, he lives within Compass, and would think Nothing\nmore miserable, than not to be rich. He is a Man of Honour, and has a\nhigh Value for Reputation. He is of the establish'd Church, and\ncommonly goes to it once every Sunday; but never comes near it at any\nother Time. Once likewise every Year, either at _Easter_ or\n_Whitsuntide_, he takes the Sacrament. For the Rest, Pleasure and\nPoliteness are his chief Study: He seems to be little affected with\nReligion, and seldom speaks of it, either for or against it. Now, if a\nMan, having well weigh'd and examin'd this Character, was ask'd what he\nthought of _Lepidus_, as to his Principle, and the Motives of his\nActions, and he should give it as his Opinion, that this Sociableness,\nthis generous and _debonnair_ Temper of _Lepidus_ were owing to his\nbeing a Christian, and not a Heathen or a Freethinker, it might be\ncall'd a charitable Construction, but I could never think it well\njudg'd. But be that as it will, if a _Crito_ or an _Euphranor_ had a\nMind to advance such an Opinion, and stand to it, I am fully persuaded,\nthat it would be easy for them to say so much in Behalf of it; that it\nwould not only be difficult to disprove it, but likewise a very odious\nTask to set about it.\n\n_Nicanor_ is a very sober Man; hardly ever drinks to Excess; yet he is\nnever without Wine of several Sorts, and is very free with it to his\nFriends, and all who come to see him. But whatever his Company may do,\nhe always fills very sparingly for himself, and seldom drinks above\nhalf a Pint at a Sitting. He never goes to a Tavern but about Business;\nand when he is alone, Small Beer or Water are the Liquors he chuses.\n_Nicanor_, who was always an industrious Man, is become rich by his\nTrade, yet as indefatigable as ever, and seems to know no greater\nPleasure than the getting of Money. He is not void of Ambition; is\nDeputy of the Ward he lives in, and hopes to be an Alderman before he\ndies. Once in his Life he was drunk, but that was in driving a Bargain,\nby which he got Five Hundred Pound in one Morning. Let us suppose, that\nthis Character being likewise look'd into, a Man shou'd take it into\nhis Head to affirm, that the Industry and Desire after Wealth of\n_Nicanor_ were owing to his Love of Wine, One would imagine, that it\nwould not be difficult to refute this Man, and to prove, that what he\nadvanced was a wrong Judgment, if not a ridiculous Surmise.\n\nFor if _Nicanor_ loved Wine, he would drink more of it. He is rich\nenough to buy it, nay he has Plenty of it, tho' he hardly ever touches\nit, when he is by himself. He grudges it not to Others; and it is\nincredible, that if he loved Wine, he should only fill Thimbles full\nfor himself, whilst he saw Others drink Bumpers to his Cost with\nPleasure. You will think perhaps, that I have said too much already, to\nprove a Thing that is as clear as the Sun. But if it was as reputable,\nand 'counted as necessary to real Happiness to love Wine, as it is to\nbe Religious; and a Man of _Euphranor_'s Capacity had a Mind to be\n_Nicanor_'s Advocate, and maintain, that the Love of Wine was the\nMotive of his Industry, in Spight of all the Appearances to the\nContrary; if, I say, a Man had a Mind to maintain this, and had\n_Euphranor_'s Capacity, he might make a great Shew for his Client,\nwithout the Learning of _Crito_, and would certainly baffle his\nAdversaries, if he had such pliable ones as _Alciphron_ and _Lysicles_\nto deal with. Come, would _Euphranor_ say, answer me, _Alciphron_; is\nit not demonstrable, that the more Money a Man has, the more able he is\nto buy Wine. _Alciphron_ would answer, I cannot deny that; and here the\nDialogue would begin. _Euphr._ When there are plain Evidences that a\nMan has been drunk, would you deny it to be true? _Alciph._ I would\nnever speak against Matter of Fact. _Euph._ Would you pretend to prove\nfrom a Man's having been drunk, that he does not love Wine? _Alciph._ I\nown I would not. _Euph._ You, who are a Free Thinker, and have enquir'd\nso minutely into Human Nature, do you think there is a Capacity in Man,\nby which he can dive into the Hearts of others, and know their most\nsecret Thoughts with Certainty? _Alciph._ I don't think there is.\n_Euph._ When Actions are good and laudable in themselves, and there are\ntwo different Motives from which they might proceed, the one very\nhonourable, and the other scandalous; which is it most charitable, to\nascribe these Actions to the first Motive, or the latter? Why do you\nhesitate, _Alciphron_? Would not a polite Man, speaking to another's\nFace, say, that he thought his Actions proceeded from that Motive which\ndoes the most Honour to him? _Alciph._ I should think so. _Euph._ O\n_Alciphron_! from your own Concessions I can prove to you, how we ought\nto judge of _Nicanor_; and that it is highly injurious to ascribe his\nIndustry, and the Pains he takes to get Money, to any Thing but his\nLove of Wine. The Minute Philosophers may say what they please; but\nWine is not to be bought without Money; and you have own'd your self,\nthat the more Money a Man has, the more he is able to buy Wine. These\nThings are self-evident: What a Man chuses, who is at Liberty to do\nwhat he pleases, he must prefer to that which he chuses not; and why\nshould _Nicanor_ drink Wine any more than he would eat Cheese, if he\ndid not love it? That he drinks it, is plain; all his Friends and\nAcquaintance can testify it; they have been Eye-witnesses to it;\ntherefore he loves it. And that he must love it beyond Measure, is\nplain; for he has forfeited his Reason for the Sake of it, and has\ndrank Wine till he was drunk. _Alciphron_ being silenced by the Force\nof these Arguments, _Lysicles_ perhaps would say, that he could not\ngive up this Point as _Alciphron_ had done; but that he was not\nprepar'd to speak to it now, and therefore desired, that they might\nbreak off the Discourse. Thus _Euphranor_ would triumph over his\nAdversary, and the Dialogue would end.\n\nDuely to weigh these Two Characters, it is plain, that _Nicanor_ was an\nabstemious Man; that the Motives which spurred him on to Industry, were\nhis Love of Money, and Desire after worldly Greatness. Considering the\nsmall Delight he always seem'd to take in strong Liquors, and his known\nThirst after Gain, it is impossible to account rationally for his\nexcessive Drinking one Morning, than by ascribing it to his darling\nPassion, the Love of Lucre, which made him venture to lose his Sobriety\nrather than the Advantage which he expected from the Bargain he was\ndriving. Therefore it is plain from this Character, that the Love of\nWine, whether it was, counted blameable or praise-worthy, had no\nInfluence upon _Nicanor_'s Actions, and consequently that, tho' it had\nbeen less than it was, it would never have diminish'd his Industry.\n\nIn _Lepidus_ we see a fond Admirer of Company, and a discreet Lover of\nhimself, who would enjoy as much of the World as is possible, without\nforfeiting the good Opinion of it: And a rich Man, of an even Temper,\nmight perform all this in a Christian Country, from no better\nPrinciples than Pride and worldly Prudence, tho' he had very little or\nno Religion.\n\nAll This an hasty and inconsiderate Reader will call Folly, and tell\nme, that I am fighting with my own Shadow; and that, from the Character\nof _Nicanor_, no Mortal would imagine, that his Industry and Desire\nafter Wealth could proceed from, and be owing to his Love of Wine: But\nI insist upon it, and you must allow it, Sir, that there would be no\ngreater Absurdity in an Attempt of proving this, than there would be in\nascribing the Sociableness and generous Behaviour of _Lepidus_ to his\nbeing a Christian. All Men who are born of Christian Parents, and\nbrought up among Christians, are always deem'd to be such themselves,\nwhilst they acquiesce in, and not disown the Name: But unless People\nare palpably influenc'd by their Religion, in their Actions and\nBehaviour, there is no greater Advantage in being a Christian, than\nthere is in being a Mahometan or a Heathen. If a Person was made free\nof a Company which presided over Artizans, in a toilsome laborious\nTrade, and he neither had serv'd his Time to it before, nor ever\nfollowed it afterwards, it could not be said of such a Person, whatever\nother Use he might make of his Freedom, that he actually was, or had\nbeen, of that laborious, toilsome Employment. A Man who was baptiz'd in\nhis Infancy, may comply with all the outward Forms of his Religion;\nand, if he loves his Reputation, never be guilty of any notorious\nWickedness. But if all this While, which is not impossible, his Heart\nis closely attach'd to this World; if he has a far greater Value for\nSensual, than he has for Spiritual Pleasures, and persists in a Course\nof a voluptuous Life for many Years, without Repentance: A Man, I say,\nwho does this, cannot be a more real Christian, tho' he conform'd to\nall the Rites and Ceremonies, and bore a great Sway in the Vestry, than\na Linnen-Draper could be a real Blacksmith, tho' he was free of the\nBlacksmiths Company, and was a Livery-Man amongst them.\n\nThat weak silly People may form such wrong Judgments, as I have hinted\nat, from no worse Cause, than Want of Capacity, and mere Folly, I am\nwilling to believe. But when I see Men of very good Sense, and\nconsiderable Knowledge, guilty of it, I can't help thinking, that they\ndo it with Design, and because they find their Interest in it. This is\ncertain, that when once it is taken for granted, that to be a\nChristian, it is sufficient to acquiesce in being call'd so, and attend\nthe outward Worship of some Sect or other, it saves the Clergy a vast\nDeal of Trouble, from Friends as well as Foes. For to quiet and satisfy\nall scrupulous Consciences, is as great a Drudgery as it is to write in\nDefence of Miracles.\n\nThe Reason, Sir, why I have said so much on this Head, is, that among\nthose who outwardly shew the greatest Zeal for Religion and the Gospel,\nI see hardly Any who teach us, either by Precept or Example, the\nSeverity of Manners which Christianity requires. They seem to be much\nmore sollicitous about the Name, than they are about the Thing it self;\nas if, when Men would but own themselves to be Christians, it was no\ngreat Matter for the Qualifications which must make them so. When of\nlate I have cast my Eyes upon the Behaviour of some People, who shall\nbe nameless, it has put me in Mind of the _Free-Masons_. These, you\nknow, are divided in several Companies; each Company have a Lodge of\ntheir own; every Lodge has a Master; over all these Masters again,\nthere is a Grand Master. Some of them meet once a Month; others not so\noften; they pretend to Mysteries, and eat and drink together; they make\nuse of several Ceremonies, which are peculiar to themselves, with great\nGravity; and with all this Bustle they make, I could never learn yet,\nthat they had any Thing to do, but to be _Free-Masons_, speak well of\nthe Honour of their Society, and either pity or despise all those who\nare not Members of it: Out of their Assemblies, they live and converse\nlike other Men: And tho' I have been in Company with several of them, I\nprofess, unless I am told it, I can never know, who is a _Free-Mason_,\nand who is not.\n\nI know, Sir, you love _Allegory_; and on that Score, I have been\nextremely delighted with what you say, Page 332, of your first Volume;\nwhere you justly ridicule and expose those Libertines, who pretend to\nbe Patriots for _Liberty and Property_. I beg Leave, for the Benefit of\nother Readers, to transcribe the Passage. _When I hear, says Crito,\nthese two Words in the Mouth of a_ Minute Philosopher, _I am put in\nMind of the_ Teste di Ferro _at Rome. His Holiness, it seems, not\nhaving Power to assign Pensions, on_ Spanish _Benefices, to Any but\nNatives of_ Spain, _always keeps at_ Rome _Two Spaniards, call'd_ Teste\ndi Ferro, _who have the Name of all such Pensions, but not the Profit,\nwhich goes to_ Italians. _As we may see every Day, both Things and\nNotions placed to the Account of Liberty and Property, which in Reality\nneither have, nor are meant to have any Share in them. What! is it\nimpossible for a Man to be a Christian, but he must be a Slave; or a\nClergyman, but he must have the Principles of an Inquisitor?_ This is\nvery _a propos_, and admirably well applied. I thank you for it. I know\nAbundance of Divines, who seem to be very fond of the World, and are\nalways grasping at Wealth and Power; and whenever I hear Any of these\nmention their Concern for Religion, and the Spiritual Welfare of\nOthers, as they often do, I shall always think on _Crito_'s Story,\nlaugh heartily, and say no more. For if I should imitate him, in\nexclaiming every Time I saw _both Things and Notions placed to the\nAccount of_ Religion and the Spiritual Welfare of Others, _which, in\nReality, neither have, nor are meant to have any Share in them_, I\nshould never be able to follow any other Business, than to cry out,\nWhat! is it impossible, that the Christian Religion should be taken\nCare of, unless Ecclesiasticks ride in Coaches and Six; or the\nSpiritual Welfare of the Laity, without Temporal Dominion and an\nextravagant Power in the Clergy?\n\nMy _Allegory_, you see, Sir, is but a Copy of yours, and therefore\ncannot have the same Merit. How you will like it I can't tell; but I\nfancy, that most of my Readers besides, will be of Opinion, that if his\nHoliness makes no greater Advantage by his _Teste di Ferro_ at _Rome_,\nthan the Cause, which you espouse, is like to get by yours here, it\nwill hardly be worth his while to keep them any longer.\n\nHere, Sir, I shall take my Leave of you, in full Expectation, that, in\nwhat relates to me, I shall find great Alterations in your next\nEdition. To furnish you with as many Materials for this Purpose as I\ncan conveniently, I shall fill what Room I have left with another\nQuotation from _The Fable of the Bees_, beginning Page 410. If my Paper\nwould have held out, and I could have added a Page or two more, you\nwould have seen how wickedly I have been misrepresented in what I say\nabout the Fire of _London_.\n\n_It is certain, that the fewer Desires a Man has, and the less he\nCovets, the more easy he is to himself: The more active he is to supply\nhis own Wants, and the less he requires to be waited upon, the more he\nwill be beloved, and the less Trouble he is in a Family: The more he\nloves Peace and Concord, the more Charity he has for his Neighbour: And\nthe more he shines in real Virtue, there is no doubt, but that in\nProportion he is acceptable to God and Man. But let us be Just. What\nBenefit can these Things be of, or what Earthly Good can they do, to\npromote the Wealth, the Glory and Worldly Greatness of Nations? It is\nthe Sensual Courtier, that sets no Limits to his Luxury; the Fickle\nStrumpet that invents New Fashions every Week; the Haughty Dutchess,\nthat in Equipage, Entertainments, and all her Behaviour, would imitate\na Princess; the Profuse Rake and lavish Heir, that scatter about their\nMoney without Wit or Judgment, buy every Thing they see, and either\ndestroy or give it away the next Day; the Covetous and perjur'd\nVillain, that squeez'd an immense Treasure from the Tears of Widows and\nOrphans, and left the Prodigals the Money to spend. It is these that\nare the Prey and proper Food of a full-grown_ Leviathan; _or, in other\nWords, such is the calamitous Condition of Human Affairs, that we stand\nin Need of the Plagues and Monsters I named, to have all the Variety of\nLabour perform'd, which the Skill of Men is capable of inventing, in\norder to procure an Honest Livelihood to the vast Multitudes of Working\nPoor, that are required to make a large Society: And it is Folly to\nimagine, that great and wealthy Nations can subsist, and be at once\nPowerful and Polite, without._\n\n_I protest against Popery as much as ever Luther or_ Calvin _did, or\nQueen_ Elizabeth _herself; but I believe from my Heart, that the\nReformation has, scarce been more instrumental in rendring the Kingdoms\nand States, that have embraced it, flourishing beyond other Nations,\nthan the silly and capricious Invention of Hoop'd and Quilted\nPetticoats. But if this should be denied me by the Enemies of Priestly\nPower, at least I am sure, that, bar the brave Men, who have fought for\nand against that Lay-Man's Blessing, it has from its first Beginning to\nthis Day, not employ'd so many Hands, honest industrious labouring\nHands, as the abominable Improvement on Female Luxury, I named, has\ndone in Few Years. Religion is one Thing, and Trade is another. He that\ngives most Trouble to Thousands of his Neighbours, and invents the most\noperose Manufactures is, right or wrong, the greatest Friend to the\nSociety._\n\n_What a Bustle is there to be made in several Parts of the World,\nbefore a fine Scarlet, or Crimson Cloth can be produced? What a\nMultiplicity of Trades and Artificers must be employ'd? Not only such\nas are obvious, as Wool-combers, Spinners, the Weaver, the\nCloth-worker, the Scowrer, the Dyer, the Setter, the Drawer, and the\nPacker; but others that are more remote, and might seem foreign to it;\nas the Mill-wright, the Pewterer, and the Chymist, which yet are all\nnecessary, as well as a great Number of other Handicrafts, to have the\nTools, Utensils, and other Implements belonging to the Trades already\nnamed: But all these Things are done at Home, and may be perform'd\nwithout extraordinary Fatigue or Danger; the most frightful Prospect is\nleft behind, when we reflect on the Toil and Hazard that are to be\nundergone Abroad, the vast Seas we are to go over, the different\nClimates we are to endure, and the several Nations we must be obliged\nto for their Assistance._ Spain _alone, it is true, might furnish us\nwith Wool to make the finest Cloth; but what Skill and Pains, what\nExperience and Ingenuity are required to dye it of those beautiful\nColours! How widely are the Drugs and other Ingredients dispers'd\nthrough the Universe, that are to meet in one Kettle. Allom, indeed, we\nhave of our own; Argol we might have from the_ Rhine, _and Vitriol\nfrom_ Hungary; _all this is in_ Europe; _but then for Saltpetre in\nQuantity, we are forc'd to go as far as the_ East-Indies: _Cochenille,\nunknown to the Ancients, is not much nearer to us, tho' in a quite\ndifferent Part of the Earth; we buy it, 'tis true, from the_ Spaniards;\n_but not being their Product, they are forc'd to fetch it for us from\nthe remotest Corner of the New World in the_ West-Indies. _Whilst so\nmany Sailors are broiling in the Sun, and swelter'd with Heat in the_\nEast _and_ West _of us, another Set of them are freezing in the_ North,\n_to fetch Potashes from_ Russia.\n\n_When we are thoroughly acquainted with all the Variety of Toil and\nLabour, the Hardships and Calamities, that must be undergone to compass\nthe End I speak of, and we consider the vast Risques and Perils that\nare run in those Voyages, and that Few of them are ever made, but at\nthe Expence, not only of the Health and Welfare, but even the Lives of\nMany: When we are acquainted with, I say and duely consider the Things\nI named, it is scarce possible to conceive a Tyrant so inhuman and void\nof Shame, that beholding Things in the same View, he should exact such\nterrible Services from his innocent Slaves; and at the same Time dare\nto own, that he did it for no other Reason, than the Satisfaction a Man\nreceives from having a Garment made of Scarlet or Crimson Cloth. But to\nwhat Height of Luxury must a Nation be arriv'd, where not only the\nKing's Officers, but likewise his Guards, even the Private Soldiers,\nshould have such impudent Desires!_\n\n_But if we turn the Prospect, and look on all those Labours, as so many\nvoluntary Actions, belonging to different Callings and Occupations,\nthat Men are brought up to for a Livelihood, and in which Every one\nworks for himself, how much soever he may seem to labour for Others: If\nwe consider, that even the Sailors, who undergo the greatest Hardships,\nas soon as one Voyage is ended, even after a Ship-wreck, are looking\nout and solliciting for Employment in another: If we consider, I say,\nand look on these Things in another View, we shall find, that the\nLabour of the Poor is so far from being a Burthen, and an Imposition\nupon them, that to have Employment is a Blessing, which, in their\nAddresses to Heaven, they pray for; and to procure it for the\nGenerality of them, is the greatest Care of every Legislature._\n\n\n_FINIS._\n\n\n\n\nPUBLICATIONS OF THE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\nFIRST YEAR (1946-47)\n\nNumbers 1-6 out of print.\n\n\nSECOND YEAR (1947-1948)\n\n 7. John Gay's _The Present State of Wit_ (1711); and a section on\n Wit from _The English Theophrastus_ (1702).\n\n 8. Rapin's _De Carmine Pastorali_, translated by Creech (1684).\n\n 9. T. Hanmer's (?) _Some Remarks on the Tragedy of Hamlet_ (1736).\n\n10. Corbyn Morris' _Essay towards Fixing the True Standards of Wit,\netc._ (1744).\n\n11. Thomas Purney's _Discourse on the Pastoral_ (1717).\n\n12. Essays on the Stage, selected, with an Introduction by Joseph Wood\nKrutch.\n\n\nTHIRD YEAR (1948-1949)\n\n13. Sir John Falstaff (pseud.), _The Theatre_ (1720).\n\n14. Edward Moore's _The Gamester_ (1753).\n\n15. John Oldmixon's _Reflections on Dr. Swift's Letter to Harley_\n(1712); and Arthur Mainwaring's _The British Academy_ (1712).\n\n16. Nevil Payne's _Fatal Jealousy_ (1673).\n\n17. Nicholas Rowe's _Some Account of the Life of Mr. William\nShakespeare_ (1709).\n\n18. \"Of Genius,\" in _The Occasional Paper_, Vol. III, No. 10 (1719);\nand Aaron Hill's Preface to _The Creation_ (1720).\n\n\nFOURTH YEAR (1949-1950)\n\n19. Susanna Centlivre's _The Busie Body_ (1709).\n\n20. Lewis Theobold's _Preface to The Works of Shakespeare_ (1734).\n\n21. _Critical Remarks on Sir Charles Grandison, Clarissa, and Pamela_\n(1754).\n\n22. Samuel Johnson's _The Vanity of Human Wishes_ (1749) and Two\n_Rambler_ papers (1750).\n\n23. John Dryden's _His Majesties Declaration Defended_ (1681).\n\n24. Pierre Nicole's _An Essay on True and Apparent Beauty in Which from\nSettled Principles is Rendered the Grounds for Choosing and Rejecting\nEpigrams_, translated by J. V. Cunningham.\n\n\nFIFTH YEAR (1950-51)\n\n25. Thomas Baker's _The Fine Lady's Airs_ (1709).\n\n26. Charles Macklin's _The Man of the World_ (1792).\n\n27. Frances Reynolds' _An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Taste,\nand of the Origin of Our Ideas of Beauty, etc._ (1785).\n\n28. John Evelyn's _An Apologie for the Royal Party_ (1659); and _A\nPanegyric to Charles the Second_ (1661).\n\n29. Daniel Defoe's _A Vindication of the Press_ (1718).\n\n30. Essays on Taste from John Gilbert Cooper's _Letters Concerning\nTaste_, 3rd edition (1757), & John Armstrong's _Miscellanies_ (1770).\n\n\nSIXTH YEAR (1951-1952)\n\n31. Thomas Gray's _An Elegy Wrote in a Country Church Yard_ (1751); and\n_The Eton College Manuscript_.\n\n32. Prefaces to Fiction; Georges de Scudery's Preface to _Ibrahim_\n(1674), etc.\n\n33. Henry Gally's _A Critical Essay on Characteristic-Writings_ (1725).\n\n34. Thomas Tyers' A Biographical Sketch of Dr. Samuel Johnson (1785).\n\n35. James Boswell, Andrew Erskine, and George Dempster. _Critical\nStrictures on the New Tragedy of Elvira, Written by Mr. David Malloch_\n(1763).\n\n36. Joseph Harris's _The City Bride_ (1696).\n\n37. Thomas Morrison's _A Pindarick Ode on Painting_ (1767).\n\n38. John Phillips' _A Satyr Against Hypocrites_.\n\n39. Thomas Warton's _A History of English Poetry_.\n\n40. Edward Bysshe's _The Art of English Poetry_.\n\n\n\n\nWilliam Andrews Clark Memorial Library: University of California\n\nTHE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n\n_General Editors_\n\n\nH. RICHARD ARCHER\nWm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library\n\nR. C. BOYS\nUniversity of Michigan\n\nRALPH COHEN\nUniversity of California, Los Angeles\n\nVINTON A. DEARING\nUniversity of California, Los Angeles\n\n_Corresponding Secretary:_ MRS. EDNA C. DAVIS,\nWm. Andrews Clark Memorial Library\n\nTHE SOCIETY exists to make available inexpensive reprints (usually\nfacsimile reproductions) of rare seventeenth and eighteenth century\nworks. The editorial policy of the Society remains unchanged. As in the\npast, the editors welcome suggestions concerning publications. All\nincome of the Society is devoted to defraying cost of publication and\nmailing.\n\nAll correspondence concerning subscriptions in the United States and\nCanada should be addressed to the William Andrews Clark Memorial\nLibrary, 2205 West Adams Boulevard, Los Angeles 18, California.\nCorrespondence concerning editorial matters may be addressed to any of\nthe general editors. The membership fee is $3.00 a year for subscribers\nin the United States and Canada and 15/- for subscribers in Great\nBritain and Europe. British and European subscribers should address B.\nH. Blackwell, Broad Street, Oxford, England.\n\n                     *      *      *      *      *\n\nPublications for the seventh year [1952-1953]\n\n(At least six items, most of them from the following list, will be\nreprinted.)\n\n_Selections from the Tatler, the Spectator, the Guardian._ Introduction\nby Donald F. Bond.\n\nBERNARD MANDEVILLE: _A Letter to Dion_ (1732).\nIntroduction by Jacob Viner.\n\nM. C. SARBIEWSKI: _The Odes of Casimire_ (1646),\nIntroduction by Maren-Sofie Roestvig.\n\n_An Essay on the New Species of Writing Founded by Mr. Fielding_\n(1751). Introduction by James A. Work.\n\n[THOMAS MORRISON]: _A Pindarick Ode on Painting_ (1767).\nIntroduction by Frederick W. Hilles.\n\n[JOHN PHILLIPS]: _Satyr Against Hypocrits_ (1655).\nIntroduction by Leon Howard.\n\n_Prefaces to Fiction._ Second series. Selected with an\nintroduction by Charles Davies.\n\nTHOMAS WARTON: _A History of English Poetry: An Unpublished\nContinuation_. Introduction by Rodney M. Baine.\n\nPublications for the first six years (with the exception of\nNOS. 1-6, which are out of print) are available at the rate of\n$3.00 a year. Prices for individual numbers may be obtained by writing\nto the Society.\n\n                     *      *      *      *      *\n\nTHE AUGUSTAN REPRINT SOCIETY\n_WILLIAM ANDREWS CLARK MEMORIAL LIBRARY_\n2205 WEST ADAMS BOULEVARD, LOS ANGELES 18, CALIFORNIA\n\nMake check or money order payable to THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF\nCALIFORNIA.","title":"A Letter to Dion","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":24581}