Mandeville's Paradox as Satire: The Moral Consequences of Being a Good Citizen in a Commercial...

Mandeville’s Paradox as Satire: The MoralConsequences of Being a Good Citizen in a

Commercial Society

KYLE SCOTTUniversity of North Florida

While most specialists have come to recognize that Bernard Mandevillewrote satirically, most nonspecialists have not. Moreover, even amongthose specialists who do recognize him as a satirist, their conclusionshave not been made relevant to a political science audience norhave they successfully argued why some of his statements should betaken literally and others not. This essay tries to rectify both thesedeficiencies. Mandeville argues that in commercial societies, one cannotbe a good person and a good citizen, since commercial societies requirecitizens to be motivated by greed and ambition, whereas being a goodcitizen requires the opposite: self-denial and moderation. We must, asMandeville does, consider the implications for a society that prefers viceto virtue and institutionalizes that preference.

It has been easier to undervalue Bernard Mandeville than to understand him.

—Thomas R. Edwards, Jr.

Bernard Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees is a text that is commonly referred toyet rarely read. Consequently, its importance has been lost and its messagedistorted. And while there has been a resurgence in Mandeville scholarshipin the academy, the resurgence has all but missed political science, which ispeculiar given the relevance Mandeville has for current policy debates and forthe permanent questions in political thought.

Mandeville is generally characterized as a philosopher who promotesa system that encourages economic prosperity through the promotion of

Acknowledgements: The author would like to thank participants at the 2007 Southern PoliticalScience Association Meeting and the anonymous reviewers at Politics and Policy for valuablefeedback. The author would also like to thank the editors at Politics and Policy for their patienceand guidance.

Politics & Policy, Volume 37, No. 2 (2009): 369-394. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.© The Policy Studies Organization. All rights reserved.

individual vice. However, his thought offers more to the reader than this brief,and inaccurate, characterization allows. While it is certainly accurate to say thatthe Fable depicts a private vice/public benefit paradox, it is an oversimplificationof the teaching. The paradox is that private vice—greed, pride, envy—can beturned into a public benefit—economic prosperity—in a commercial society.In his discussion of this paradox, Mandeville shows that there is a trade offbetween economic prosperity and individual virtue.1 Mandeville does not tryto relieve the tension in this paradox, nor reconcile the conflicting components,but instead makes the argument for why economic prosperity should besacrificed in favor of individual virtue. He presents his argument satirically.

The primary concern for Mandeville is whether, in a commercial society, anindividual can be a good person and a good citizen. The answer he reachesis that one cannot be a good person and a good citizen, because to be a goodcitizen in a commercial society, one must act on private vice, thus necessarilytaking individual virtue out of one’s individual actions.2 This position is ratherindisputable; what is in dispute is whether Mandeville favored such a system.Traditional Mandevillian scholars suggest that he did, and criticize himfor wanting to promote a vicious and despicable system. Those who readMandeville as a satirist suggest that he wrote to criticize a system that rests itssuccess on private vice. In this essay, I argue for the latter view, but I add to thesatirist position a new method of interpretation. Until now, the satirist readingdraws only on Mandeville’s own words, while at the same time suggesting thatwhat he says cannot be taken literally. The second group of scholars does notaddress why we should take some passages literally and others not. Forinstance, Scott-Taggart (1966) argued over 40 years ago that Mandeville wasnot an advocate of vice. However, in making his case he, and other scholars whomake a similar one, did not provide an argument for why some passages shouldbe taken literally and others not. So while a study, such as Scott-Taggart’s, isnoteworthy for showing that the internal structure of the argument of the Fablecomes out against vice, it probably will not convince the most stalwarttraditionalist, since Scott-Taggart does not argue why the passages he pulls areindicative of Mandeville’s true position. I attempt to provide a solution to thisproblem here. Also, the second group does not tell us why it is important tounderstand Mandeville. I hope to shed some light on this question as well.

1 The paradox is the creation of something good (economic prosperity) on the basis of somethingbad (private vice), and yet still considering economic prosperity good. The trade off betweeneconomic prosperity and virtue is a trade off, not the paradox necessarily.2 Vice is intended to be understood by Mandeville as all those actions that are traditionallyunderstood to be the opposite of the cardinal virtues. A more precise definition will be providedbelow. Public benefits are defined as those things that produce worldly goods. Virtue is groundedin self-denial, and is generally understood by Mandeville to be rooted in motive as well. Virtue willbe more precisely defined in the third part of this article.

370 | POLITICS & POLICY / April 2009

To achieve the primary objective, which is to convince the reader thatMandeville’s thought is richer than the common characterization leads one tobelieve, this essay must demonstrate how we can study political satire. Whilemany political theorists subscribe to the idea that authors do not always writein a literal manner, few political theorists have taken up satire. To understandMandeville, one must understand the fabular tradition and its connection tosatire, consider the passages in their proper context, balance the implications ofthe author’s statements against the author’s stated purpose for writing, andunderstand the author’s audience.

However, this essay is not an instance of pedantry in which I try to tell thereader what Mandeville really meant. Such a study would be of interest to veryfew, but Mandeville’s teaching has a direct bearing on current events and anevaluation of the U.S. system of separation of powers. For instance, when werecognize that—according to Federalist No. 51 (Hamilton, Madison, and Jay[1788] 2001)—the U.S. Constitution establishes three branches of governmentso that ambition can be made to counteract ambition, Mandeville becomesindispensable for one trying to understand the United States. Mandeville pushesus to evaluate the moral value of a system, and its effect on the character ofits citizens, that is built upon the assumption that human beings naturallylook out for their own interest—and are willing to do so even to the detrimentof his fellow man—and the motivation is so strong that it cannot be restricted,but can only be used against itself (Scott 2007, chapter 6). Thus, Publius, whenwriting in Federalist No. 51 (Hamilton, Madison, and Jay [1788] 2001), adoptsthe position that private vice can be turned into a public benefit and usesthat position to justify the government created by the U.S. Constitution.Mandeville’s work is then particularly illuminating for students of U.S. politics,as the political system created by the U.S. Constitution institutionalizesindividual ambition and other vices Mandeville critiques. Mandeville wouldsuggest that observers should not be surprised that so many elected officials andcitizens in the United States engage in elicit, or at least morally questionable,behavior when the United States has a system that requires one to act upon vicein order to reach the highest levels of public and private life.

Mandeville’s critique of the clergy of his time is applicable to those in ourtime. Mandeville can provide guidance to those looking for what the properdistance should be between church and state. As this article argues, when clergyenter into worldly matters, they become distracted from their higher calling andthus become corrupted, which forces the average citizen to lose his or her moralcompass (see Mandeville 1954, 18-21, 31; 1981, 75). Mandeville would findhumor in—if also be disturbed by—the predictability of comments by currentreligious leaders who lobby politicians for appointments or policies or thosewho preach that earthly pleasures will be bestowed upon those who believe.Mandeville was a keen observer in his own time, which makes him a valuableasset to political observers in our time as human nature seems to have changedvery little. Mandeville teaches that politics should be kept separate from religion

Scott / MANDEVILLE’S PARADOX AS SATIRE | 371

because politics by its nature is corrupting, and the only way there can be anyhope of keeping one on track morally is to have religion—and perhaps evenphilosophy—separate from politics. Our political leaders should look to ourreligious and intellectual leaders for guidance, but the latter group should neverbecome engaged in politics or have a vested interest in the outcome of a politicalor economic decision. When morality becomes dependent upon politics,morality has lost, and our political decisions will be made without a moralrudder. We should think of Mandeville as an outside observer who offers a freshperspective, and who forces us to question the foundation of our currentgovernment and economy. The answers to the questions Mandeville raises—which we may have otherwise overlooked—are as pertinent to us as they were tohis original audience.

This essay unfolds in three parts. The first deals with the extant literature onMandeville in order to introduce the reader to the academic debate. The secondmakes the argument for why Mandeville should be read as a satirist. The thirddiscusses Mandeville’s audience and his teaching on corruption, particularlyamong the clergy.

The Debate Surrounding Mandeville’s Political Philosophy

There are two types of Mandeville scholars. First, the traditionalists treatMandeville as an advisor who supports the promotion of private vice to achieveeconomic prosperity. The second are the satirists who treat Mandeville as asatirist who writes to warn his readers that if society were to follow the path ofcommerce, immorality would reign.

IA. The Traditional Reading of MandevilleFrom the first printing of the Grumbling Hive, Mandeville had to face

critics who accused him of being in support of a system that promoted vice inorder to achieve socially desirable ends, thus compromising virtue for worldlygain. Among his most vocal critics were William Law, Richard Fiddes, JohnDennis, George Bluet, Bishop Berkeley, Lord Hervey, Adam Smith, and JohnBrown. Not all of his critics had the same objections, and they varied greatly intheir level of harshness, but they all attributed to him the view that he acceptedthe paradox he discussed. George Bluet wrote, “[h]e does not . . . blame hisGrumbling Hive for taking improper Methods to root out Vice, but for rootingit out at all . . . What a fine consistent System of Ethicks is this!” (Kaye 1924,II:411; my emphasis).3 This single quote is illustrative of the criticisms he wasexposed to, criticisms that have been well rehearsed in much of the literature on

3 There have even been those who say that Mandeville is inconsistent in his thinking and did notsee the contradiction in his thesis that private vice can be turned into a public good (Alpers 1958,24). I do not wish to patronize Mandeville as these critics have done, but rather show that thereis a lesson to be learned from his writings.


Mandeville, with the most extensive review occurring in F. B. Kaye’s (1924)introduction to his two-volume edition of Mandeville’s work.

The traditionalists did not die out with his contemporaries or F. B. Kaye,and in some instances, the criticism became harsher as his originality wasquestioned. James Dean Young (1959, 10), writing in 1959, finds Mandevilleto be a popularizer of Hobbes, which he uses in a pejorative sense to arguethat Mandeville is a lower-order thinker than Hobbes. While his estimationof Mandeville’s intellect may or may not be accurate, Young’s interpretationof Mandeville as someone who agrees with Hobbes is inaccurate. Mandevillecertainly agrees with Hobbes that man’s actions—gone unchecked—are basedupon his appetites and aversions, and that a system which properly accountsfor those appetites and aversions will be stable and economically prosperous;Mandeville does not support that system if it is one that encourages individualvice.4

While the interpretation of Mandeville as a satirist has gained popularity inthe last 40 years, it is a view that has by no means edged out the traditionalistreading. In a recent article on consumerism in eighteenth-century France,Michael Kwass (2003, 90) places Mandeville alongside Voltaire, Hume, andothers who “launched the first modern defense of luxury and provoked a fierceliterary battle over the question of what precisely constituted legitimateconsumption. Intentionally reversing religious, social, and classical injunctionsagainst material excess, these writers advanced the scandalous thesis that, farfrom being evil, luxury consumption was a social good.”5 While Mandeville doesagree that material excess can be turned into a social good, if social good isdefined as a thriving economy, but his preference is for morality, not a thrivingeconomy. However, even among modern traditionalists such as Anne Hjort(1991), there is a divide between those who approve of the message that privatevice ought to be encouraged, and those who bristle at the thought.

There are traditionalist readings of Mandeville from rather nontraditionalsources. Feminist interpretations of Mandeville have argued that, “[b]y firstengendering these desires [capitalist desires] female, these texts can scapegoatthe figure of woman for morally repugnant aspects of capitalist pursuits. Suchscapegoating engenders the desire to maximize profits not only by cleaning itoff and rendering it morally respectable, but also by eroticizing the questto capitalize on investment” (Mandell 1992, 107). I agree with Mandell onthe point that Mandeville portrays consumerism as “unequivocally evil”(1992, 109), but depart from my agreement when she goes on to argue thatMandeville eventually makes such consumerism acceptable. While I agree that

4 Hobbes’ Leviathan does not necessarily rest on the private vice/public good paradox, norencourage individual vice, but I still do not think Mandeville would support Hobbes’ solution,given that Hobbes does not allow virtue or morality to enter his politics unless we were to say thatvirtue and morality are defined by the Leviathan—something which Hobbes does not say.5 See also Lynch and Walsh (2003, 46-7). They argue that Mandeville’s economic theory “freesitself from the call of virtue and pays homage to vice” (2003, 47).


had Mandeville been writing literally, Mandell (1992, 108) would be correctto condemn Mandeville for his position, but I disagree with Mandell “thatMandeville ‘defends it [unbridled consumerism] as a necessary evil.”

Historians of ideas have tended to side with the traditionalist reading whenthey compare Mandeville with Enlightenment thinkers. Pierre Force (1997, 54)contends that “[u]nlike Mandeville, Rousseau wants to believe that truemorality is possible.” Force makes this claim in the midst of arguing thatMandeville essentially gives up on goodness, where Rousseau pushes on. I donot disagree that Mandeville is less optimistic than Rousseau in hisapproximation of man’s ability to achieve goodness, but that does not meanthat Mandeville capitulates and allows individuals to fall into moral disrepair.Just because the bar is high—perhaps even too high—it does not meanMandeville thinks individuals should give up. Quite the contrary, Mandevillemaintains his standard of goodness throughout, and continually holdsindividuals to it, and condemns those who lower the bar. This is the samedynamic one sees at work in Dostoevsky’s (1993) Grand Inquisitor. TheInquisitor thinks that he loves human beings more than Jesus because he givesman an achievable goal; he has lowered the bar. Mandeville would havecondemned the Inquisitor in Dostoevsky’s tale in the same way and for the samereasons he condemns the clergy in his own time.

The confusion among traditionalists begins with Mandeville’s mostfamous exposition of his social theory in Grumbling Hive. This fable depicts ahive or society of bees in which each of the bees pursues his own best interest,but the common good is achieved.

Thus every Part was full of Vice,Yet the whole Mass a Paradise;Flatter’d in Peace, and fear’d in wars,They were th’ Esteem of Foreigners,And Lavish of their Wealth and Lives,The Balance of all other Hives.Such were the Blessings of that State;Their Crimes conspir’d to make them Great;And Virtue, who from PoliticksHad learn’d a Thousand Cunning Tricks,Was, by their happy Influence,Made Friends with Vice: And ever since,The worst of all the MultitudeDid something for the Common Good.(Kaye 1924, I:24)

There are particular vices—such as envy, vanity, and pride—that areespecially suited to promote commerce, whereas virtues such as prudence donothing for the common good in commercial societies (Kaye 1924, I:25). If oneis content, or does not seek more than his fair share, then one is not spurred on


to achieve great wealth, which is necessary for industrial and commercialadvancement. It is only when one tries to “keep up with the Joneses” that acommercial society benefits.

Mandeville says that something considered a private virtue, such astemperance, can be damaging to the common good.

Those, that remain’d, grown temp’rate, strive,Not how to spend, but how to live,And, when they paid their Tavern Score,Resolv’d to enter it no more:No Vintner’s Jilt in all the HiveCould wear now Cloth of Gold, and thrive.(Kaye 1924, I:33)

In fact, temperance and contentment ought to be replaced by pride andluxury.

As Pride and Luxury decrease,So by degrees they leave the Seas.Not Merchants now, but CompaniesRemove whole Manufactories.All Arts and Crafts neglected lie;Content, the Bane of Industry,Makes ‘em admire their homely Store,And neither seek nor covet more.(Kaye 1924, I:34-5)

Pride plays a central role for Mandeville in that it leads to ambition, whichmotivates those citizens in a commercial society to achieve a higher rank. “Thekeynote of his philosophy is expressed in his remark that ‘a most beautifulSuperstructure may be rais’d upon a rotten and despicable Foundation’ ”(Lamprecht 1926, 563).6

M. M. Goldsmith (1988, 596-7), one of the leading authorities onMandeville’s thought, deserves to be cited at length.

The Fable set out to show that man’s ‘vilest and most hateful Qualities arethe most necessary Accomplishments to fit him for the largest, and,according to the World, the happiest and most flourishing Societies’; itfollowed Montaigne (and Bayle) in being ‘well vers’d in the Defects ofMankind, but unacquainted with the Excellencies of human Nature’; it

6 I cite many secondary authors in this section and throughout, although I do not cite all that eachauthor has written on Mandeville. I cite those passages that are most indicative of the author’soverall thesis as expressed in the entire corpus of that author’s work. I do so in an effort to giveas much space as possible to Mandeville.


held that humans were inherently selfish . . . their rational souls they soprided themselves upon and their moral virtues were illusory—the lattermerely being ‘the Political Offspring which Flattery begot upon pride.’

Here, as elsewhere, Goldsmith (1976, 503) illuminates the central pointthat, for Mandeville, “[v]ice is essential to a flourishing society in twosenses: first, vice is the sense of physical defect, privation, and need makessociety necessary for human survival; second, vice in the sense of moraldefect . . . stimulates production and improvement.”

Goldsmith represents a bridge between the traditionalist reading and thesatirist reading. While Goldsmith does not go as far as Berkeley and other criticsto suggest that Mandeville is promoting a system of private vice that leads topublic benefit, Goldsmith is suggesting that Mandeville accepts the paradoxas a prerequisite for commercial success. Thus, while Mandeville, fromGoldsmith’s point of view, would rather not have a system that rests on privatevice, vice is a necessary component, since virtue cannot promote the valuesnecessary for commercial success. The argument I make in the third part ofthis essay suggests that Goldsmith confuses toleration with acceptance. Thatis, Mandeville adheres to the Christian virtue of toleration that leadsGoldsmith to conclude incorrectly that Mandeville has simply resigned himselfto a system built upon the promotion of private vice for the achievement ofpublic benefit.

On whole, the traditionalists see Mandeville as a writer who eitherencourages individual vice for the promotion of public benefit or see him assomeone who accepts private vice so long as the vice leads to public benefit. Thisis the traditional reading to which I offer an alternative.

IB. Mandeville the SatiristThe traditional reading of Mandeville misses the point that Samuel T.

Coleridge makes: “[i]t is, perhaps, a piece of simplicity to treat of Mandeville’sworks as other than an exquisite bon bouche of Satire and Irony!” (Kaye 1924,II:453). Thomas Horne (1981, 556) makes this same point when he writes,“Mandeville was acutely aware that a society that tried to employ its citizensthrough the production of luxury goods could maintain total demand only bytapping pride, vanity, and envy.” However, unlike Goldsmith, Horne considersthe ramifications of the story Mandeville tells. Horne (557), gives insight intoMandeville’s judgment of this society by telling us that while pride and vanitymay be good from an economic point of view, “Mandeville always insisted theywere ‘plagues and monsters.’ ” According to Horne,

[t]he moral problem of commercial society will be more clearly felt whenthat society emerges completely victorious—when economic activitythroughout society becomes dominated by the passion of envy. Only then


will the importance of some form of public spiritedness or altruismreemerge. (1981, 558)

A representative of the second category of Mandevillean scholars, Horneemphasizes something different from Goldsmith and other traditionalists. Hesuggests that Mandeville did not support a commercial society that sacrificedindividual virtue. Rather, his position is that Mandeville writes to warn societiesthat aspire to commercial success.

The second school of Mandevillean thought does not deny the presence ofa paradox, but the satirists argue that at no point does Mandeville justify thisarrangement as being moral or desirable. Instead, when discussing the paradox,he is saying that this is what it looks like if a society wants to be economicallysuccessful. Uncovering the motivations of someone’s writing is quite difficult,but it can be reasonably concluded that Mandeville did not recommend thepromotion of vice over the promotion of virtue. This reading of Mandeville issupported from a passage toward the end of the Fable of the Bees that says, “theNecesity, not only of Revelation and Believing, but likewise of the Practice ofChristianity, manifestly to be seen in Men’s lives . . . the Insufficiency of HumanReason and Heathen Virtue to produce real Felicity” (Kaye 1924, II:356). Theself-interested components of human nature, vices, lead to behavior that movesbeyond socially acceptable to socially beneficial.

When building his political society—and, in the Fable, his hive—Mandeville starts with individuals in possession of the necessary attributes thatgenerate economic success. Mandeville creates a person—that is prior to allsocial conditions—as being a person dominated by its self-interested nature.Thus, people can be managed through a proper political order since theirself-interest is predictable and can be manipulated through reason andconvention (Kaye 1924, I:3-4, 40-1, 347). However, it is not enough to build asociety on this self-interest, it is necessary for political leaders to facilitate thedevelopment of the passions that flow from self-interest. Malcolm Jack showsthe political implications of Mandeville’s teaching. “It soon becomes the leadingpassion and the development and maintenance of civil society depends uponcultivation of it. This cultivation is preeminently the task of the political leaders,who by ‘dexterous management’ turn private vices into public benefits” (Jack1978, 122).7 This suggests not that private vice promotes public virtue naturally,but that private vice must be turned into something beneficial for society bypolitical leaders. The trick for political leaders is to suppress their own passions,according to Jack, while promoting the passions of the ruled in a direction

7 While I agree with this point, Malcolm Jack generally falls into the traditionalist camp, althoughhis thesis on the role of the politician is accurate. Lynch and Walsh (2003, 55-6) use this samequote from Mandeville to argue that he “insists that it is the role of government to further themercantilist interest by instigating and defending commercial monopolies and, by force ifnecessary, to ensure the harsh conditions and docility of the poor.” Obviously, my interpretationof Mandeville is quite different from theirs.


toward public benefits. That is, the political leader must suppress those passionswithin himself or herself, which make for public benefits. In addition to theprivate vice/public benefits paradox, this formulation has created anotherparadox. The second paradox is one in which the only way private vice can leadto public benefit is if those people in charge do not act on those characteristicsthat make the average man publicly virtuous.8

In some respects, Mandeville’s critics benefit later researchers as hethought it necessary to defend himself and clarify his teaching, thus giving laterresearchers more material to work with. Mandeville was openly criticized byintellectuals—most famously Berkeley and Hume—by the Grand Jury for theCounty of Middlesex, and in popular publications. Mandeville took it uponhimself to write vindications of his work; in fact, the entirety of the Fable of theBees is a continued clarification of his position in the Grumbling Hive originallypublished in 1705.9 Mandeville wrote his most straightforward response in “AVindication of the Book” published in August 1723 in the London Journal. Inreference to a controversial passage in the Fable, Mandeville writes

[t]hese words I own are in the Book, and, being both innocent and true,like to remain there in all future Impressions. But I will likewise own veryfreely, that, if I had wrote with a Design to be understood by themeanest Capacities, I would not have chose the Subject there treated of; orif I had, I would have amplified and explained every Period, talked anddistinguished magisterially, and never appeared without the Fescue in myHand . . . But as nothing would more clearly demonstrate the Falsity of myNotions than the Generality of the People should fall in with them, so Idon’t expect the Appropriations of the Multitude. I write not to many, norseek for any Well-wishers, but among the few that can think abstractly, andhave their Minds elevated above the Vulgar. (Kaye 1924, I:402, 407)

While this statement does not do much to clarify a controversial point, itdoes give us insight into his manner of writing and to what ends he was writing.He tells us directly that he had not meant to be understood by everyone. Perhapshe had the same position as Montesquieu, who writes that it is not the goalof the writer to make the reader read but to make him think (Montesquieu1989, 186).

Mandeville does provide additional insight into his motivation.

8 It is important to remember, and thus reiterate, that at no point does Mandeville support thecommercial society he discusses, or the promotion of private vice. In fact, Hundert (1995, 587)suggests, “[i]t is equally clear that one of Mandeville’s express aims was to demolish the De laCourts’ assumption that the passions could only properly be harnessed in a republic.”9 The publication history of the Fable of the Bees is long and complicated, and a description of thathistory is not necessary to advance the argument of this essay. For a thorough treatment of thishistory, the interested reader should consult F. B. Kaye’s prefatory comments to his 1924 editionof the Fable of the Bees.


It is a Book of severe and exalted Morality, that contains a strict Testof Virtue, an infallible Touchstone to distinguish the real from thecounterfeited, and shows many Actions to be faulty that are palmed uponthe World for good ones: It describes the Nature and Symptoms of humanPassions, detects their Force and Disguises; and traces Self-love in itsdarkest Recesses. (Kaye 1924, I:404-5)

And if the reader is still concerned that Mandeville condones immorality inorder to achieve worldly greatness, he quotes himself on a point he made a fewyears earlier in Remark (H):

I am far from encouraging Vice, and think it would be an unspeakableFelicity to State, if the Sin of Uncleanness could be utterly banished fromit; but I am afraid it is impossible: The Passions of some People are tooviolent to be curbed by any Law or Precept; and it is Wisdom in allGovernment to bear with lesser Inconveniences to prevent greater. (Kaye1924, I:405)10

It must have been to Mandeville’s wonderment that he was somisunderstood, since he so clearly defined his position in so many instances afterthe initial publication of the Grumbling Hive.

I owned that it was my Sentiment that no Society could be raised into arich and might Kingdom, or so raised subsist in their Wealth and Powerfor any considerable time, without the Vices of Man . . . I lay down asa first Principle, that in all Societies, great or small, it is the Duty ofevery Member of it to be good, that Virtue ought to be encouraged, Vicediscountenanced, the Laws obeyed, and the Transgressors Punished . . . ifI have shown the Way to worldly greatness, I have always withouthesitation preferred the Road that leads to Virtue. (Kaye 1924, I:407).

Similar statements are made throughout Mandeville’s writings, not only inthe “Vindication,” but also in the Remarks, An Enquiry into the Origin of MoralVirtue, and A Letter to Dion.11 Clearly, Mandeville offers enough direct evidenceto convince the modern reader that he does not support the promotion of vice,

10 This passage may be read to suggest that Mandeville is lowering his sights to accept certain vicesin order to maintain the best achievable system of government, something similar to whatGoldsmith would suggest. However, I argue that Mandeville is using this passage to illustrate thepoint that any system not grounded in the most rigorous adherence to virtue will result in acompromise of virtue, a compromise that he does not support. This point is made later in thearticle, most specifically at the end of the third part.11 In A Letter to Dion, Mandeville (1954) remarks on the title Private Vices, Public Benefits. “Thetrue Reason why I made use of the Title . . . was to raise Attention: As it is generally counted tobe a Paradox, I pitch’d upon it in Hopes that those who might hear or see it, would have theCuriosity to know, what could be said to maintain it; and perhaps sooner buy the Book, than theywould have done otherwise” (1954, 38). Refer also to the footnote below.


or at least that the traditionalist view is open to question. Even if one isunconvinced by the arguments Mandeville presents on his own behalf, thereader should be convinced by the lack of a statement that encourages theparadox. There is no explicit textual evidence to support those who thinkMandeville supports the paradox he reports.

Further Support for Mandeville as a Satirist

While I find the above evidence convincing on its merits, it is not enough tosupport the point I would like to make in this essay, which is to argue thatMandeville is a satirist who cannot be taken as one who supports the systemhe discusses. This might mean that we cannot take Mandeville at his word. Ifthis is true for some of his statements then it must initially be true for alluntil a system is created for classifying his remarks.12 No system as such hasbeen established. Quoting Mandeville seems to be the least promising way toresolve the argument over the correct interpretation. From here, I will proceedby discussing the tradition of fabular writing and move on to a discussion ofthe correct method for reading Mandeville.

IIA. Fabular WritingTo understand Mandeville’s satire, one must understand the connection

between satire and fables, as well as the fabular tradition, since Mandeville’smost famous works were fables. A fable is a form of writing that conveys amoral teaching with animals assuming the primary roles (Daniel 1990, 86-9).13

Mandeville’s writings came at a time when, in England and on the Continent,fables were commonly used to socialize children and teach the lessons ofpolitical philosophy. Mandeville was already part of this tradition when hetranslated his own edition of Aesop’s fables, Aesop Dress’d, published in 1704,one year prior to the publication of the Grumbling Hive and a decade beforethe first edition of the Fable of the Bees. Mandeville’s first English publicationwas in 1703, Some Fables after the Easie and Familiar Method of Monsieurde la Fontaine, in which he not only translated 25 fables of La Fontaine, buthe included two of his own satiric fables. If we are to correctly categorizeMandeville as a fabulist, as his title suggests we ought to, then we must uncoverthe moral teaching. If we are to uncover the morality in his writings we mustassume that he is writing satirically, and not in support of the public benefit/private vice paradox, because in such a paradox, there is no morality. Apart

12 Moreover, there are those who assert that Mandeville writes satirically, but they merely asserttheir position with little evidence. Thus, this article’s contribution is not that it is the first torecognize Mandeville as a satirist, but the first to provide a systematic analysis that brings one tothat conclusion.13 Daniel references John Locke quite extensively in these pages.


from this assumption, we know that when Mandeville began involving himselfin fables that the primary reason for writing fables was political satire (Daniel1990, 87).

Although the link between satire and fable is complicated, the work ofStephen Daniel (1990) is quite helpful in uncovering the link between fable,satire, and Mandeville. Daniel shows that one of Mandeville’s intentions inwriting the Fable is to give a different account of human origin, and that thedevelopment of reason and language in humans is in fact a development and notsomething they are endowed with at birth, or at their origin. Daniel’s reading ofMandeville finds support from a passage in which Mandeville writes, “[m]an isa rational Creature, but he is not endued with Reason when he comes into theWorld; nor can he afterwards put it on when he pleases, at once, as he may asa Garmet. Speech likewise is a Characteristic of our Species, but no Man is bornwith it” (Kaye 1924, II:190).

According to Professor Daniel’s reading of Mandeville,

[t]he Fable begins as a characteristically Aesopic apologue whose moral isto show the incompatibility of prosperity and virtue. In large societies,Mandeville argues, prosperity is possible only when truly virtuous actions(i.e., those based on unselfish motives) are replaced by the pride men takein their self-restraint and use of reason . . . Typically the fable formassumes the educability of the mind. But whereas other authors . . .emphasize the excellence of such growth and ability, Mandeville focuses onthe inadequacy of the mind which requires the appeal to the fable formoriginally. (1990, 121)

Daniel’s argument for why Mandeville chose to write in fabular form isthat such a form would allow him to avoid those pitfalls associated withpassion-fueled rational action, such as pride, hypocrisy, and self-deception. Tostate another way, to avoid degeneration into vice, as commercial societies do,one must not rely solely on rational endeavors, but instead hark back to othermethods of communication, such as fables.

The more we are taught to admire ourselves, the more our Pride encreases,and the greater Stress we lay on the Sufficiency of our Reason: For asExperience teaches us, that the greater and the more transcendent theEsteem is, which Men have for their own Worth, the less capable theygenerally are to bear Injuries without Resentment; so Men entertain oftheir better part, their reasoning Faculty, the more remote and aversethey’ll be from giving their Assent to anything that seems to insult over orcontradict it. (Kaye 1924, II:15)

Daniel (1990, 113) then, draws at least one conclusion that is vital to thisarticle: “Mandeville is able to describe the origins and development of society,language, and rationality . . . he proposes a new Genesis, which circumvents the


biblical assumption of man’s self-deluding attempt to deny his heritage ofunreason.”14

Some—specifically Thomas Edwards (1964)—have suggested thatdemanding too much clarity from Mandeville is unfair in that satirists cannotbe held to such a standard. While I do think Mandeville can become clear,whoever argues Edwards’s point does strike upon a truth, that truth being thatthe satirist composes his/her prose in such a way that intentionally defies simpleinterpretation. Like Swift, Mandeville “threatens to vanish into generality if youtry to reduce his ideas to a systematic doctrine” (1964, 204). Satirists have anintellectual objective, but their method plays on emotions and the rational mind.The satirist is making a proposal that runs counter to the accepted doctrine ofthe times in which he was writing. Although the satirist may be pursuing somehigher truth that transcends time, he writes with concern for his own time. Thesatirist, rather than seeking a direct confrontation with the accepted dogma—thus running the risk of himself becoming dogmatic—writes in a way that showsthe truth of a condition that cannot be uncovered any other way.

If we go to Mandeville’s own words to unveil what he means, we comeacross the following statement with regard to satire, “there is, generallyspeaking, less truth in Panegyricks than there is in Satyrs” (Kaye 1924, II:59).However, even this does not tell us much about what his purpose of writing isuntil we read it in context. Mandeville writes, in another place, “Satyr . . . pullsoff the Disguises of artful Men, and examining in to the false Pretences, whichare made to Virtue, law open their lives, reprehending, lashing and ridiculingVice and Insincerity” (1924, II:453). Again, Mandeville’s own words cannotyet come to his salvation, as there is not yet enough evidence to suggest weought to take anything Mandeville says at face value. However, after adiscussion of the fabular form of writing, we have come to a betterunderstanding of Mandeville as a satirist and thus a true understanding of hisposition on the paradox. The next section offers suggestions on how to readMandeville, and when the arguments from Sections IB and IIA are combinedwith the remarks in IIB, it will be clear that Mandeville does not support thepromotion of private vice, which will finally allow us to move on to a discussionof his true teaching.

IIB. Recommended Method for Reading MandevillePart of the problem with analyzing satire is that it does not generally lend

itself to systematic analysis. Instead, it rests on the reader’s ability to understandthe context in which things are said, to look beyond the words on the page andthink through their implications, and then—if the author provides them—drawon subtle cues.

14 While I do not entirely support Daniel’s reading of the Biblical tradition, I think his treatmentof Mandeville is accurate.


Read in Context. The Grumbling Hive received almost universal criticism fromMandeville’s contemporaries, and it receives an equal amount of criticism frommodern traditionalists. The poem begins with the following:

Spacious Hive well stocked with Bees,That lived in Luxury and Ease;And yet has famed for Laws and Arms,As yielding large and early Swarms;Was counted the great NurseryOf Science and IndustryNo Bees had better Government,More Fickleness, or less Content:They were not Slaves to Tyranny,Nor ruled by wild DemocracyBut Kings, that could not wrong, becauseTheir Power was circumscribed by Laws.(Kaye 1924, I:17)

These first few lines give us an indication that the Hive is one that hasachieved great worldly success, although such success may not be whatMandeville supports, as he may not deem worldly success a worthy pursuit. Thebulk of the poem describes a society in which the Hive is motivated by pride andluxury and moves to achieve public benefit through private vice. However, atransformation occurs, as indicated by the title The Grumbling Hive: Or, KnavesTurn’d Honest, which occurs in the last part of the poem and is rarely mentionedby traditionalists. The Hive undergoes a change in which priorities switch andthe bees become concerned with virtue. The last eight lines of the poem completethe transformation.

They triumphed not without their Cost,For many Thousand Bees were Lost.Hardened with Toils and Exercise,They counted Ease itself a Vice;Which so improved their Temperance;That, to avoid Extravagance,They flew into a hollow Tree,Blessed with Content and Honesty.(Kaye 1924, I:35)

The moral, as there must be one in a fable, is clear. Private vice can be turnedinto public benefit when the standards of the individual and the society arelowered to allow vice to take the place of virtue. This lowering of the standardcomes about when a society becomes more concerned with its economicprosperity than it is with the moral well-being of its citizens. Moreover, the storymakes the point that a great commercial society cannot exist when the


individuals in that society maintain their virtue. Commercial success is the resultof individuals acting on vice. There must be a trade off; the same trade off madeby the bees in the Grumbling Hive. In the end, they gave up economic prosperityfor a chance at a moral existence. This choice is necessary, as one cannot haveboth a moral society built on individuals motivated by virtue and a thrivingcommercial society.

The Fable of the Bees was a follow up commentary on the GrumblingHive. When reading the Fable, the reader should begin at the beginning.Unfortunately, critics of Mandeville have failed to treat the title as source ofrelevant insight. Critics tend to ignore the most telling portion of the title.On the title page of the first edition the title of the book reads, The Fable ofthe Bees: Or, Private Vices Public Benefits. Containing Several Discourses, toDemonstrate, That Human Frailties, During the Degeneracy of Mankind, May beTurned to the Advantage of the Civil Society, and made to Supply the Place ofMoral Virtues. This should be, if not the most obvious indication of his purpose,an indication that what one is about to read is an analysis of the interplay ofprivate vices in modern society and the lack of moral virtues in that interplay.Moreover, he states, as straightforward as one could hope for, that it is duringthe degeneracy of mankind that vice may be turned into the advantage of civilsociety, thus indicating to the astute reader that any society that turns vice intopublic benefit is operating in a degenerate time.15

One of the most confounding aspects of the traditionalists’ work is themanner in which Mandeville’s statements, contrary to their position, are pushedaside rather than confronted.16 Any study that this author has read that treatsMandeville according to the traditional view ignores the statements that hemakes refuting such a reading. Thus, if we take all of his comments in context,and partake in a universal confrontation with the text,17 then we are left with nochoice but to read Mandeville as a satirist who holds most of society in moralindignation and wishes it to recognize its shortcomings that are brought aboutby a single-minded pursuit of economic prosperity.

For instance, the following passage is often used as support for the claimthat Mandeville writes in favor of the paradox.

Whoever argues thus shows himself a better man than he is a Politician.Frugality is like Honesty, a mean starving Virtue, that is only fit for smallSocieties of good peaceable Men, who are contented to be poor so they may

15 While an argument cannot turn on a single phrase, I think it is important to point out thisoversight and discuss the implications of the phrase and the oversight. Refer to the earlierfootnote in which I discuss the effort Mandeville expends in creating the titles to his works.16 Those who take him as a satirist have a similar problem as well. This essay attempts to show howwe can distinguish between those statements that are literal and those that are satirical inMandeville’s writing.17 I borrow this phrase from Kendall (1941).


be easy; but in a large stirring Nation you may have soon enough of it. ‘Tisan idle dreaming Virtue that employs no Hands, and therefore very uselessin a trading Country. (Kaye 1924, I:104)

However, if one were to read only two sentences earlier, he or she would findjust the contrary.

Abundance of moderate Men I know that are Enemies to Extremes will tellme, that Frugality might happily supply the Place of the two Vices I speakof, that if Men had not so many profuse ways of spending wealth, theywould not be tempted to so many evil Practices to scrape it together, andconsequently that the same Number of Men by equally avoiding extremes,might render themselves more happy, and be less vicious without than theycould. with them. (Kaye 1924, I:104)18

Thus, when we read in context, it becomes clear what message Mandeville isseeking to convey. It is not that virtue is useless; it is that it is useless in doingthose things that vice is required to do. Virtue can be used to balance vice at theextremes, but virtue will not lead to commercial—perhaps we should read

18 It is also interesting to note what happens when the reader attributes those statements toMandeville in which he uses singular first person. For instance, in the preface to the second editionof the Fable of the Bees, Mandeville writes:

[w]hen I assert, that Vices are inseparable from great and potent Societies, and that it isimpossible their Wealth and Grandeur should subsist without, I do not say that theparticular Members of them who are guilty of any should not be continually reprov’d, ornot punish’d for them when they grown into Crimes . . . If laying aside all worldlyGreatness and Vain-Glory, I should be asked where I thought it was most probable thatMen might enjoy true Happiness, I would prefer a small peaceable Society, in which Man,neither envied nor esteemed by Neighbours, should be contented to live upon the NaturalProduct of the Spot they inhabit, to a vast Multitude abounding in Wealth and Power, thatshould always be conquering others by their Arms Abroad, and debauching themselves inForeign Luxury at Home. (Kaye 1924, I:10, 12-3)

Look at what happens when we compare statements with first person references to thosewithout, and, more importantly, look at what happens when the two citations are placed incontext.

In his discussion of the gin trade, Mandeville criticizes the spokesman who makes the pointthat a few men who benefit from the gin trade make it worth the suffering they may cause (Kaye1924, I:93). However, only when he speaks in the singular first person does his critique of the gintrade become clear.

He would demonstrate to me, that it was impossible to give a fuller Evidence of Self-denialin a grateful Mind, than to see at the expense of his Quiet and hazard of his Life and Limbs,be always harassing, and even for Trifles persecuting that very Class of Men to whom heowes his Fortune, from no other Motive than his Aversion to Idleness, and great Concernfor Religion and the Public Welfare. (1924, I:93)

His discussion of gin proves that the private vice/public benefit paradox fails to resolve theissue that is most complicating—that being how to create a just society. Edwards (1964, 199)states, with regard to Mandeville’s discussion of the gin trade, ‘[t]he life of the prose is ironic; thefocus is not the formula . . . but Mandeville’s disgusted perception of the real state of society.”


worldly—success. More importantly, I demonstrated earlier that he applaudsthe individual who recognizes this tension, and criticizes the politician whomanufactures public benefit from private vice.

Reading beyond the Text. In many places, but most directly in the“Vindication,” Mandeville tells us who he is writing to and why he is writing.The comments he makes in “Vindication” have been discussed above, but thatis not the only place we can go for such insight. In the introduction to AnEnquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue, Mandeville writes,

[o]ne of the greatest Reasons why so few People understand themselves, is,that most Writers are always teaching Men what they should be, andhardly ever trouble their Heads with telling them what they really are. Asfor my Part, without any Compliment to the Courteous Reader, or my self,I believe Man . . . to be a compound of various Passions, that all of them,as they are provoked and come uppermost, govern him by turns, whetherhe will or no. (Kaye 1924, I:39)

This introduces the reader to the idea that Mandeville will not be telling thereader what he wants to hear, but instead will be telling the reader what he is,and from that exposition, the attentive reader will be expected to draw out ateaching of morality.

In his often criticized Charity Schools, Mandeville writes against educationfor the poor, a quite objectionable stance according to his contemporaries andobservers in modern times. However, even in this writing, Mandeville is not soeasily understood, as he again challenges the reader to think beyond the wordson the page and asks the reader to think about the implications.

When Obsequiousness and mean Services are required, we shall alwaysobserve that they are never so cheerfully nor so heartily performed as fromInferiors to Superiors; I mean Inferiors not only in Riches and Quality, butlikewise in Knowledge and Understanding. A Servant can have nounfeign’d Respect for his Master, as soon as he has Sense enough to findout that he serves a Fool. (Kaye 1924, I:289)

This statement suggests that social order, or at least education, rests ondelusion. The master in the Charity Schools denies his servants a true education,and Mandeville seems to applaud this, but when education is denied, the folly ofthe master is compounded. Mandeville is not denying that teaching the poor canbe harmful to society, but he is suggesting that a society that can be harmed byeducation is contemptible. A society that props up fools as masters will be torndown as soon as the servants learn that their masters are fools, and they willcome to know this through education. So, Mandeville suggests that if we wish tomaintain this society, we will not educate the poor, but, Mandeville does not


support this course of action; instead he is condemning the society that isfashioned in this manner. It is a subtle irony to be sure. As Thomas Edwards(1964, 203) states so clearly, “his irony, like Swift’s, is based on a remarkabletalent for parody, for giving dramatic embodiment to attitudes that are not, inany easy sense, his own.”

When we read his statements suggesting how we ought to read his texts, webecome more sensitive to his sense of irony and satire. When Mandeville is readin context and in the manner he suggests to his readers, it becomes difficult totake the traditionalist’s view.

Mandeville’s Audience and His Teaching

The above sections argue that to understand Mandeville, the reader mustunderstand the fabular tradition, read him in context, and take seriously thosestatements in which he tells us why he is writing. Here I discuss his audience, andthe role it played in his choice to write satirically. Yet establishing a template forhow to read Mandeville is not enough. It is important to apply that template tohis writings in order to offer some suggestions concerning Mandeville’s purpose.Those who support a satiric reading of Mandeville intimate that it is an idlequestion to ask what Mandeville really believed (Colman 1972; Harth 1969;Rogers 1925), although I take the position that unless we uncover his teaching,there is little reason to understand his writing style. That is, unless Mandevillehas something to teach us about politics and human nature, discussing what hewrote and how it should be read would be a rather pointless enterprise forpolitical scientists. I will briefly explore the possibility that Mandeville is arguingfor a more rigorous form of piety than what was being practiced.19 Herecognized a contradiction between the message of Christianity and its practiceby the corrupt priests of his time. Moreover, he suggests that the manner inwhich contemporary governments are ordered serves as an obstacle to piety.20

While a complete explanation of Mandeville’s philosophy is not provided in thisessay, I write here not to exhaust the topic, but to introduce a new reading ofMandeville.

When referring to the public benefits created by private vice, Mandevillebluntly writes in A Letter to Dion,

[s]ince this worldly Greatness is not to be attain’d to with the Vices of Man,I will have nothing to do with it; since it is impossible to serve God and

19 While obviously influenced by Christianity, I do not make the argument that Mandeville was aChristian or was promoting Christianity. He was promoting certain ideals that are linked toChristianity while critiquing the contemporary practice. However, I am not arguing that he wasnot a Christian either. The question is left open for consideration at another time.20 Moreover, I am aware that this section is not a complete defense of the position I take; such adefense will be taken up more fully in a later work. The point here is that if we read Mandevillecorrectly, we will be surprised that he is not who we typically accuse him of being.


Mammon, my choice shall soon be made: No temporal Pleasure is worthrunning the Risque of being eternally miserable; and, let who will labour toaggrandize the Nation, I will aim at higher Ends, and take Care of my ownSoul. (1954, 22)

God is to be chosen in all instances where there is a choice; moreover,worldly greatness is not the greatness that should be sought. This passageparaphrases Matthew 6:24, in which Jesus, in his Sermon on the Mount, statesthat one cannot serve two masters. A Letter to Dion was written againstBerkeley, who accused Mandeville of encouraging vice and the paradox heuncovers in the Fable. Mandeville does not hold the same position as hiscritics—if he did, it would have been much easier to write a treatise thattrumpeted the views they did; instead, he is offering a critique of society and thewriters in the accepted canon.

Mandeville is not dogmatic in his choice between mammon and God. Whilehe obviously prefers one follow virtue, he leaves it to his readers to choosewhich they would like to follow, thus giving us some evidence of Mandeville’sattachment to toleration. Mandeville does not consider it his duty to condemnothers for their actions, but instead tries to educate through his writings(Colman 1972).21 Toleration is not the acceptance of vice or a resignation tovice’s utility as Goldsmith has suggested.

There never was yet, and it is impossible to conceive, an opulent Nation,without great Vices: This is a Truth, and I am not accessory to its being so,for divulging it. When I have shown the Necessity of Vice, to render aSociety great and potent, I have exposed that Greatness, and left it to them,the Members of it, whether it is worth buying at that price. (Mandeville1954, 34)

And, if the point was not clear enough what choice Mandeville would likehis readers to make, Mandeville (1954, 18) writes, in A Letter to Dion, “that theKingdom of Christ is not of this world; and that the last-named is the very Thinga true Christian ought to renounce.”

It is apparent at this point that Mandeville does argue for something similarto Christian virtue, but it is not yet clear why he does not position himselfalongside the accepted authorities on Christian morality or why he intentionallyseparates himself from the accepted authorities.22 The latter question has been

21 Colman (1972, 128) writes, “[h]e was a sincere advocate of toleration, and he saw in the clergyhis main—or even sole—opponents”—although I disagree entirely with Colman’s assessment thattoleration and rigorous piety are exclusive.22 I do not make the argument that Mandeville is a devout Christian, only that he supports somevalues in Christianity and criticizes the practice of priests who exploit others in the name ofreligion.


partially answered in the above discussion of the intention of fabular writing,but a complete answer to both questions is not possible until we understand thepoint that society, as well as the accepted Christian leaders, were the subject ofhis criticisms. Mandeville (1981, 75) writes, in an often overlooked text, “themore man knows of the world, either from reading or experience, the more heshall be convinc’d, that not only reveal’d as well as natural religion, but likewisehumanity, reason, the interest of mankind, their peace and felicity, and almostevery thing in nature pleads for toleration, except the national clergy in everycountry.” In other instances, he is less direct, but in turning his satiric pen on theclergy, he suggests that all riches in a nation be turned over to the clergy, and hemoves on to suggest that the clergy would welcome such an arrangement, asthey too are motivated by wealth (Kaye 1924, I:231). When we read this alongside his reference to the Sermon on the Mount, we can truly understand thebiting satire. However, it is not the coveting of wealth and luxury that is themost damnable offense committed by the clergy, according to Mandeville, buttheir pride.23

Mandeville cannot place himself alongside those in the existing canon, orthe national clergy, as they are the subjects of his criticisms. Mandeville is aftera more rigorous form of piety that would force the national clergy to revise theirteachings. John Colman (1972, 128) suggests that Mandeville “was in a positionto satirize the clerical regard for worldly goods, and to suggest that the virtuesof the clergy were more likely than not manifestations of the theologicallydeadly vice of pride.” Moreover, Mandeville cannot appeal to the commonpublic, because as he sees it, they are ill-equipped to deal with the requirementsof rigorous piety (Kaye 1924, I:402, 404-5, 407). Mandeville may be usingrigorous piety as a model for his choice of virtue rather than vice, even thoughhe may not have been a devout Christian. One can adopt the position of honorthy father and follow it more strictly than the church leaders without being aChristian oneself.24

Mandeville cannot appeal to the masses any more than he can appeal to theclergy. The rigor he is suggesting will lead to undesirable worldly conclusions.Moreover, he is trying to tell the reader that the way most people live their livesis wrong; to make such a statement openly would only lead to more publicbacklash against his writings, as few people like to be told they are a bad personor that the values they hold are damnable offenses.25 Virtue for Mandevillebegins with self-denial, a point made most explicitly in the opening pages of An

23 At another point, when referencing the clergy, Mandeville (1742, 73) writes, “[a]ll is not Goldthat glitters; many things are done daily; for which people are extoll’d to the Skies, that at thesame time, tho’ the Actions are Good, would he blamed as highly; if the Principle from which theyacted, and the Motive that first edg’d them on, were thoroughly known.”24 From the Christian perspective, obviously, this would still not offer one salvation.25 Possibly more important to Mandeville than the backlash is the possibility of shutting off, oralienating, those who required a more subtle approach to be persuaded.


Enquiry into the Origin of Honour.26 For Mandeville, an action is virtuous if itinvolves self-denial with the ambition of being good.

[T]o call every thing, which without Regard to the Publick, Man shouldcommit to gratify any of his appetites, VICE; if in that Action there couldbe observed the least prospect, that it might be either injurious to any ofthe society, or even render himself less serviceable to others; And to give theName of VIRTUE to every Performance, by which Man, contrary to theimpulse of Nature, should endeavor the Benefit of others, or the Conquestof his own Passions out of a Rational Ambition of being good. (Kaye 1924,I:48-9)

We may conclude from this statement that motives are an important toolfor differentiating vice from virtue. Other virtue, sometimes called counterfeitvirtue, can achieve the same social ends as true virtue, although Mandeville wasunwilling to accept counterfeit virtue, even though the clergy were willing toaccept it. “This Definition every body will say is too rigorous; I am of the sameOpinion; but if we are to abate one Inch of this Severity, I am afraid we shan’tknow where to stop” (Kaye 1924, I:107). The first obstacle to virtue is self-denial, an act must be intrinsically good, or at least we must not do it for thepotential benefits it could bring to us, but he suggests that most people, and theclergy, act—to the extent they do—virtuously because of the potential rewardsit will bring them either in the after life or the admiration it brings them on earth.

Thomas Edwards (1964, 209) states, “[r]eal virtue is a stern ideal to his[Mandeville’s] Calvinist mind, and to complain . . . that he makes it too sternis only to confirm his charge that we are morally compromised before westart . . . If virtue is achievable, it can only be under conditions of physical andcultural primitivism that is almost as hard to imagine as to endure.” This lastpoint is another reason why Mandeville could not write explicitly to the generalreading public.27 To achieve true virtue, we must, for Mandeville, be willing toreturn to a primitive state in which we give up even the arts and sciences, andlive a life according to the cardinal virtues that will not be able to provideanything more than the bare necessities, if even those (Kaye 1924, I:183-4). And

26 In An Enquiry into the Origin of Honour, Mandeville (1732, vi, xi) writes, “no Practice, no Actionor good Quality, how useful or beneficial soever they may be in themselves, can ever deserve theName of Virtue, strictly speaking, where there is not a palpable Self-denial to be seen . . . Thereis no Virtue that has a Name, but it curbs, regulates, or subdues some Passion that is peculiar toHuman Nature.” This point is well understood by Mandevillean scholars on both sides of thedebate, even by those who think there is no morality in Mandeville, as their argument rests on theidea that Mandeville’s virtue rests on self-denial, no one is capable of self-denial, and thereforevirtue is improbable, which leads them to the conclusion that since it is impossible (or at leastimprobable), Mandeville cannot be in support of its value. Just because it is hard does not meanit cannot be a worthwhile pursuit.27 The reader must now remember the selections in which Mandeville explicitly states hisintentions for writing satirically and who his intended audience is, specifically in the passages Ihave referenced earlier in “A Vindication of the Book.”


even though true virtue is rare, and he does not even grant it to himself, hestands by his definition. “Should it be objected, that I was not in earnest, whenI recommended those mortifying Maxims, I would answer that those, who thinkso, would have said the same of St. Paul, or Jesus Christ himself, if he had bidthem sell their Estates and give their Money to the Poor” (Mandeville 1954, 31;see also Kaye 1924, I:107).

It is clear that Mandeville sees humans as fallen creatures. It is reasonableto conclude that Mandeville does not think salvation—either religious orotherwise—will come through the means made available by the society in whichhe lives. Furthermore, Mandeville does not think this teaching is revolutionary,but instead thinks that those who argue virtue is grounded in somethingother than self-denial, and therefore think a person can come to his or her ownsalvation, are the revolutionary ones. He opens A Search into the Nature ofSociety with a critique of Shaftesbury and his position that self-denial is not thebasis for virtue. Thus, Mandeville cannot seek a place next to those in theaccepted canon, nor among the general public, because he does not approve ofwhat they stand for; moreover, he does not write—at least initially—in morestandard prose because that would have violated his stated intentions forwriting in fabular form.28 He could only offer his teaching by writing in amanner which was not literal or in treatise form, although he was eventuallyforced to do so because his critics misrepresented his position.29

Conclusion

Any commercial society needs to take Mandeville seriously. While politicaltheorists have a substantial amount to gain from reading Mandeville as he helpsus come to grips with questions posed by Nietzsche, Tocqueville, and Smith,Mandeville’s paradox should be of interest to more than just political theorists,as it has broad political implications. Must a commercial society promoteimmorality to be successful? Is it possible to be a good person and a good citizenin a commercial society? For the United States in particular, these questions areimportant if we consider what was written by Publius in Federalist Nos. 10 and51, “we know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on foradequate control” (Hamilton, Madison, and Jay [1788] 2001, 45-6), and it isnecessary that, “[a]mbition be made to counteract ambition” ([1788] 2001, 468).In a system designed to reduce the reliance on morals, and make vice combatvice, can a virtuous leader come to be, or can the citizens be, virtuous?

28 Remember, as shown in earlier sections, he intended to be understood only by those who canthink for themselves and to show that mere rationality is not enough to uncover the plight of man,or to correct society’s ills.29 It is still unclear as to why did he cared that he was being misrepresented. Perhaps he fell intothe same trap many do, which was, he was concerned with his legacy, or perhaps he was moreconcerned with the salvation of his society than he was with his commitment to a particularwriting style.


I will consider it a success if the reader of this article becomes interestedenough in the argument to read Mandeville again, perhaps have his or herstudents read Mandeville, or take up his or her own study of Mandeville. Thisarticle does not position itself as the death knell in the traditionalists’ coffin, nordoes it pretend to be the definitive word in Mandevillean scholarship. This essaytries to be a reintroduction of Mandeville’s lessons. Mandeville wanted to helpus understand the difficulty of resolving the most permanent questions inhuman interaction, questions that have dominated the writings of Plato,Rousseau, Smith, Tocqueville, and others. He was a satirist who was disgustedwith how his society functioned, and tried to write so that people wouldunderstand the deleterious effects of resting a society on private vice.

About the Author

Kyle Scott is an assistant professor of Political Science at the Universityof North Florida. His first book, Dismantling American Common Law, waspublished in 2007 and his second book, The Unity of Rights, will be out later thisyear. He can be reached at [email protected].

References

Alpers, Paul J. 1958. “Pope’s to Bathurst and the Mandevillian State.” ELH25 (1): 23-42.

Colman, John. 1972. “Bernard Mandeville and the Reality of Virtue.”Philosophy 47 (1): 125-139.

Daniel, Stephen H. 1990. Myth and Modern Philosophy. Philadelphia, PA:Temple University Press.

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. 1993. The Grand Inquisitor, edited by Charles Guignonand translated by Constance Garnett. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

Edwards, Thomas R., Jr. 1964. “Mandeville’s Moral Prose.” ELH 31 (2):195-212.

Force, Pierre. 1997. “Self-Love, Identification, and the Origin of PoliticalEconomy.” Yale French Studies 92 (1): 46-64.

Goldsmith, Maurice M. 1976. “Public Virtue and Private Vices: BernardMandeville and English Political Ideologies in the Early Eighteenth Century.”Eighteenth-Century Studies 9 (4): 477-510.

___. 1988. “Regulating Anew the Moral and Political Sentiments of Mankind:Bernard Mandeville and the Scottish Enlightenment.” Journal of the History ofIdeas 49 (4): 587-606.


mailto:[email protected]

Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. [1788] 2001. TheFederalist, edited by George Carey and James McClellan. Indianapolis, IN:Liberty Fund, Inc.

Harth, Phillip. 1969. “The Satiric Purpose of the Fable of the Bees.”Eighteenth-Century Studies 2 (4): 321-340.

Hjort, Anne Mette. 1991. “Mandeville’s Ambivalent Modernity.” ModernLanguage Notes 106 (5): 951-966.

Horne, Thomas A. 1981. “Envy and Commercial Society: Mandeville andSmith on ‘Private Vices, Public Benefits.’” Political Theory 9 (4): 551-569.

Hundert, Edward J. 1995. “Bernard Mandeville and the Enlightenment’sMaxims of Modernity.” Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (4): 577-593.

Jack, Malcolm. 1978. “One State of Nature: Mandeville and Rousseau.”Journal of the History of Ideas 39 (1): 119-124.

Kaye, Frederick B., ed. 1924. The Fable of the Bees by Bernard Mandeville.Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Kendall, Willmoore. 1941. “John Locke and the Doctrine of Majority-Rule.”Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press.

Kwass, Michael. 2003. “Ordering the World of Goods: Consumer Revolutionand the Classification of Objects in Eighteenth-Century France.”Representations 82 (2): 87-116.

Lamprecht, Sterling P. 1926. “The Fable of the Bees.” The Journal ofPhilosophy 23 (21): 561-579.

Lynch, Tony, and Adrian Walsh. 2003. “The Mandevillean Conceit and theProfit Motive.” Philosophy 78 (1): 43-63.

Mandell, Laura. 1992. “Bawds and Merchants: Engendering CapitalistDesires.” ELH 59 (1): 107-123.

Mandeville, Bernard De. 1732. An Enquiry into the Origin of Honour, andthe Usefulness of Christianity in War. By the Author of the Fable of the Bees.London: John Brotherton.

___. 1742. The Virgin Unmask’d: Or, Female Dialogues, Betwixt and ElderlyMaiden Lady, and her Niece, on Several Diverting Discourses on Love, Marriage,Memoirs, Morals, &c. of the Times. fourth edition. London: T. Cooper.

___. 1954. A Letter to Dion, edited by Bonamy Dobree. Liverpool: UniversityPress of Liverpool.

___. 1981. Free Thoughts on Religion, the Church, and National Happiness,edited by Stephen H. Good. Delmar, NY: Scholar’s Facsimiles and Reprints.


Montesquieu. 1989. The Spirit of the Laws, edited and translated byAnne M. Cohler, Basia C. Miller, and Harold S. Stone. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Rogers, A. K. 1925. “The Ethics of Mandeville.” International Journal of Ethics36 (1): 1-17.

Scott, Kyle. 2007. Dismantling American Common Law. Lanham, MD:Lexington Books.

Scott-Taggart, M. J. 1966. “Mandeville: Cynic or Fool?” The PhilosophicalQuarterly 16 (64): 221-232.

Young, James Dean. 1959. “Mandeville: A Popularizer of Hobbes.” ModernLanguage Notes 74 (1): 10-13.


Mandeville's Paradox as Satire: The Moral Consequences of Being a Good Citizen in a Commercial...

Documents

Transcript of Mandeville's Paradox as Satire: The Moral Consequences of Being a Good Citizen in a Commercial...