This is a modern-English version of The Fable of the Bees; Or, Private Vices, Public Benefits, originally written by Mandeville, Bernard. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.


[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Newly Designed Front Cover.
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Original Title Page.
THE
FABLE OF THE BEES;
OR,
PRIVATE VICES PUBLIC BENEFITS:
WITH AN ESSAY ON
CHARITY AND CHARITY SCHOOLS,
AND A SEARCH INTO
THE NATURE OF SOCIETY:
ALSO,
A VINDICATION OF THE BOOK FROM THE ASPERSIONS CONTAINED IN A PRESENTMENT OF THE GRAND JURY OF MIDDLESEX, AND AN ABUSIVE LETTER TO LORD C——.
LONDON:
PUBLISHED BY T. OSTELL, AVE-MARIA LANE, LONDON, AND MUNDELL AND SON, EDINBURGH.
1806.
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Edinburgh, printed by Mundell and Son.

Edinburgh, printed by Mundell and Son.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

PREFACE.

Laws and government are to the political bodies of civil societies, what the vital spirits and life itself are to the natural bodies of animated creatures; and as those that study the anatomy of dead carcases may see, that the chief organs and nicest springs more immediately required to continue the motion of our machine, are not hard bones, strong muscles and nerves, nor the smooth white skin, that so beautifully covers them, but small trifling films, and little pipes, that are either overlooked or else seem inconsiderable to vulgar eyes; so they that examine into the nature of man, abstract from art and education, may observe, that what renders him a sociable animal, consists not in his desire of company, good nature, pity, affability, and other graces of a fair outside; but that his vilest and most hateful qualities are the most necessary accomplishments to fit him for the largest, and, according to the world, the happiest and most flourishing societies.

Laws and government are to the political bodies of civil societies what vital spirits and life are to the natural bodies of living creatures. And just as those who study the anatomy of dead bodies can see that the primary organs and essential components needed to keep our bodies moving aren't the hard bones, strong muscles, and nerves, or the smooth white skin that beautifully covers them, but rather small, seemingly insignificant membranes and tiny tubes that are often overlooked or appear unimportant to the average person; those who examine human nature, regardless of art and education, will find that what makes us social beings isn’t just our desire for company, kindness, empathy, friendliness, and other charming traits. Instead, our most unpleasant and detestable qualities are often the most crucial traits that prepare us for the largest, and what society deems the happiest and most prosperous communities.

The following Fable, in which what I have said is set forth at large, was printed above eight years ago1, in a six penny pamphlet, called, The Grumbling Hive, or Knaves turn’d Honest; and being soon after pirated, cried about the streets in a halfpenny sheet. Since the first publishing of it, I have met with several that, either wilfully or ignorantly mistaking the design, would have it, that the scope of it was a satire upon virtue and morality, and the whole wrote for the encouragement of vice. This made me resolve, whenever it should be reprinted, some way or other to inform the reader of the real intent this little poem was wrote with. I do not dignify these few loose lines with the name of Poem, that I would have the reader expect any poetry in them, but barely because they are rhyme, and I am in reality puzzled what name to give them; for they are neither heroic nor pastoral, satire, burlesque, nor heroi-comic; to be a tale they want probability, and the whole is rather too long for a fable. All I can say of them is, that they are a story told in doggerel, which, without the least design of being witty, I have endeavoured to do in as easy and familiar a manner as I was able: the reader shall be welcome to call them what he pleases. It [vi]was said of Montaigne, that he was pretty well versed in the defects of mankind, but unacquainted with the excellencies of human nature: if I fare no worse, I shall think myself well used.

The following fable, which I have elaborated on, was published over eight years ago in a six-penny pamphlet called The Grumbling Hive, or Knaves Turned Honest. Soon after, it was pirated and sold in the streets as a halfpenny sheet. Since it was first published, I've encountered several people who, either deliberately or out of ignorance, misunderstood the purpose of the piece, believing it to be a satire against virtue and morality, written to promote vice. This led me to decide that whenever it was reprinted, I would find a way to clarify the true intent behind this little poem. I don't really consider these loose lines worthy of the title "poem" that would lead the reader to expect any true poetry from them; it's just because they rhyme, and I'm honestly unsure what to call them. They aren't heroic or pastoral, satirical, burlesque, or heroi-comic; as a tale, they lack plausibility, and they’re a bit too long for a fable. All I can say is that they are a story told in simple verse, which, without any intention of being witty, I have tried to present in a straightforward and approachable way. The reader is welcome to call them whatever he likes. It [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]was said of Montaigne that he was quite aware of the flaws of humanity but not familiar with its virtues; if I fare no worse, I'll consider myself fortunate.

What country soever in the universe is to be understood by the Bee-Hive represented here, it is evident, from what is said of the laws and constitution of it, the glory, wealth, power, and industry of its inhabitants, that it must be a large, rich and warlike nation, that is happily governed by a limited monarchy. The satire, therefore, to be met with in the following lines, upon the several professions and callings, and almost every degree and station of people, was not made to injure and point to particular persons, but only to show the vileness of the ingredients that altogether compose the wholesome mixture of a well-ordered society; in order to extol the wonderful power of political wisdom, by the help of which so beautiful a machine is raised from the most contemptible branches. For the main design of the Fable (as it is briefly explained in the Moral), is to show the impossibility of enjoying all the most elegant comforts of life, that are to be met with in an industrious, wealthy and powerful nation, and at the same time, be blessed with all the virtue and innocence that can be wished for in a golden age; from thence to expose the unreasonableness and folly of those, that desirous of being an opulent and flourishing people, and wonderfully greedy after all the benefits they can receive as such, are yet always murmuring at and exclaiming against those vices and inconveniences, that from the beginning of the world to this present day, have been inseparable from all kingdoms and states, that ever were famed, for strength, riches, and politeness, at the same time.

No matter what country in the world the Bee-Hive represents here, it's clear from the discussion about its laws and constitution, the glory, wealth, power, and industry of its people that it must be a large, wealthy, and military nation that is well-governed by a limited monarchy. Therefore, the satire found in the following lines regarding various professions and callings, and nearly every level and station of people, was not intended to hurt or single out specific individuals but rather to highlight the ugliness of the elements that collectively make up the healthy mixture of a well-ordered society; to celebrate the amazing power of political wisdom that builds such a beautiful machine from the most despicable parts. The primary purpose of the Fable (as briefly explained in the Moral) is to demonstrate the impossibility of enjoying all the finer comforts of life found in a hardworking, wealthy, and powerful nation while simultaneously being blessed with all the virtue and innocence one could desire from a golden age; from this, it reveals the irrationality and foolishness of those who, eager to be a rich and thriving people and extremely eager for all the benefits they can get as such, still constantly grumble about and complain against those vices and inconveniences that have been unavoidable in every kingdom and state known for strength, wealth, and culture from the beginning of time to the present day.

To do this, I first slightly touch upon some of the faults and corruptions the several professions and callings are generally charged with. After that I show that those very vices, of every particular person, by skilful management, were made subservient to the grandeur and worldly happiness of the whole. Lastly, by setting forth what of necessity must be the consequence of general honesty and virtue, and national temperance, innocence and content, I demonstrate that if mankind could be cured of the failings they are naturally guilty of, they would cease to be capable of being raised into such vast potent and polite societies, as they have [vii]been under the several great commonwealths and monarchies that have flourished since the creation.

To do this, I first touch on some of the faults and corruption that different professions and jobs are usually accused of. Then I show how those same vices, found in every individual, could be skillfully managed to benefit the overall greatness and happiness of society. Lastly, by explaining the inevitable outcomes of overall honesty and virtue, along with national temperance, innocence, and contentment, I demonstrate that if humanity could overcome its natural failings, they would no longer be capable of forming the vast, powerful, and refined societies that have existed throughout the history of great republics and monarchies since the beginning of time. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

If you ask me, why I have done all this, cui bono? and what good these notions will produce? truly, besides the reader’s diversion, I believe none at all; but if I was asked what naturally ought to be expected from them, I would answer, that, in the first place, the people who continually find fault with others, by reading them, would be taught to look at home, and examining their own consciences, be made ashamed of always railing at what they are more or less guilty of themselves; and that, in the next, those who are so fond of the ease and comforts, and reap all the benefits that are the consequence of a great and flourishing nation, would learn more patiently to submit to those inconveniences, which no government upon earth can remedy, when they should see the impossibility of enjoying any great share of the first, without partaking likewise of the latter.

If you ask me why I’ve done all this, cui bono? and what good these ideas will actually bring? Honestly, apart from entertaining the reader, I don’t believe they’ll bring any benefits at all; but if you wanted to know what should be naturally expected from them, I’d say that, first of all, people who constantly criticize others would be encouraged to reflect on themselves, and by looking at their own consciences, they might feel ashamed for always complaining about things they’re also somewhat guilty of. Secondly, those who enjoy the comforts and benefits that come from being part of a great and prosperous nation would learn to more patiently accept the annoyances that no government can fix, once they realize that it’s impossible to enjoy a significant portion of the good without also experiencing some of the bad.

This, I say, ought naturally to be expected from the publishing of these notions, if people were to be made better by any thing that could be said to them; but mankind having for so many ages remained still the same, notwithstanding the many instructive and elaborate writings, by which their amendment has been endeavoured, I am not so vain as to hope for better success from so inconsiderable a trifle.

This is, I believe, something we should naturally expect from the publication of these ideas, if people could truly be improved by anything said to them. However, since humanity has remained unchanged for so many ages, despite numerous thoughtful and detailed writings aimed at bringing about change, I’m not so naive as to hope for greater success from such a trivial matter.

Having allowed the small advantage this little whim is likely to produce, I think myself obliged to show that it cannot be prejudicial to any; for what is published, if it does no good, ought at least to do no harm: in order to this, I have made some explanatory notes, to which the reader will find himself referred in those passages that seem to be most liable to exceptions.

Having recognized the slight benefit this small indulgence might bring, I feel it's necessary to clarify that it won't harm anyone; after all, anything shared should at least not cause any damage if it offers no benefit. To ensure this, I've included some explanatory notes, which the reader will find referenced in the sections that might be most prone to exceptions.

The censorious, that never saw the Grumbling Hive, will tell me, that whatever I may talk of the Fable, it not taking up a tenth part of the book, was only contrived to introduce the Remarks; that instead of clearing up the doubtful or obscure places, I have only pitched upon such as I had a mind to expatiate upon; and that far from striving to extenuate the errors committed before, I have made bad worse, and shown myself a more barefaced champion for vice, in the rambling digressions, than I had done in the Fable itself.

The critics, who have never seen the Grumbling Hive, will tell me that no matter what I say about the Fable, since it takes up only a small part of the book, it was just designed to introduce the Comments. They’ll argue that instead of clarifying the unclear or confusing parts, I've only chosen the ones I wanted to elaborate on; and rather than trying to downplay the mistakes made earlier, I’ve made things worse and shown myself to be an even more blatant supporter of wrongdoing in my wandering digressions than I was in the Fable itself.

I shall spend no time in answering these accusations: where men are prejudiced, the best apologies are lost; and I know that those who think it criminal to suppose a necessity of [viii]vice in any case whatever, will never be reconciled to any part of the performance; but if this be thoroughly examined, all the offence it can give must result from the wrong inferences that may perhaps be drawn from it, and which I desire nobody to make. When I assert that vices are inseparable from great and potent societies, and that it is impossible their wealth and grandeur should subsist without, I do not say that the particular members of them who are guilty of any should not be continually reproved, or not be punished for them when they grow into crimes.

I won’t waste time responding to these accusations: when people are biased, even the best explanations fall flat; and I know those who believe it’s wrong to suggest a necessity of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]vice in any situation will never accept any part of what I'm saying. However, if this is looked at closely, any offense it might cause will stem from misunderstandings that I hope no one makes. When I say that vices are inherent in large and powerful societies, and that it's impossible for their wealth and status to exist without them, I’m not suggesting that the individuals within those societies who are guilty shouldn’t be constantly criticized or punished when their actions escalate into crimes.

There are, I believe, few people in London, of those that are at any time forced to go a-foot, but what could wish the streets of it much cleaner than generally they are; while they regard nothing but their own clothes and private conveniency; but when once they come to consider, that what offends them, is the result of the plenty, great traffic, and opulency of that mighty city, if they have any concern in its welfare, they will hardly ever wish to see the streets of it less dirty. For if we mind the materials of all sorts that must supply such an infinite number of trades and handicrafts, as are always going forward; the vast quantity of victuals, drink, and fuel, that are daily consumed in it; the waste and superfluities that must be produced from them; the multitudes of horses, and other cattle, that are always dawbing the streets; the carts, coaches, and more heavy carriages that are perpetually wearing and breaking the pavement of them; and, above all, the numberless swarms of people that are continually harassing and trampling through every part of them: If, I say, we mind all these, we shall find, that every moment must produce new filth; and, considering how far distant the great streets are from the river side, what cost and care soever be bestowed to remove the nastiness almost as fast as it is made, it is impossible London should be more cleanly before it is less flourishing. Now would I ask, if a good citizen, in consideration of what has been said, might not assert, that dirty streets are a necessary evil, inseparable from the felicity of London, without being the least hinderance to the cleaning of shoes, or sweeping of streets, and consequently without any prejudice either to the blackguard or the scavingers.

I think there are few people in London who, when they have to walk anywhere, wouldn’t want the streets to be much cleaner than they usually are. They focus only on their own clothes and convenience, but once they realize that the dirt they complain about comes from the abundance, heavy traffic, and wealth of this great city, if they care about its well-being at all, they won’t really wish for less dirt in the streets. If we consider all the materials needed to support the countless trades and crafts constantly happening, the vast quantities of food, drinks, and fuel consumed every day, the waste and leftovers generated, the many horses and other animals that are always muddying the streets, the carts, coaches, and heavier vehicles that constantly wear down and damage the pavement, and above all, the countless crowds of people walking and trampling everywhere: when we think about all this, it’s clear that new mess is created constantly. And taking into account how far the major streets are from the river, no matter how much effort and expense goes into cleaning up the mess almost as quickly as it’s made, it’s impossible for London to be cleaner without being less prosperous. So, I would ask if a good citizen, considering all this, couldn’t argue that dirty streets are a necessary evil that comes with the happiness of London, without being any barrier to cleaning shoes or sweeping the streets, and without causing any harm to either the working class or the street cleaners.

But if, without any regard to the interest or happiness of the city, the question was put, What place I thought most pleasant to walk in? Nobody can doubt, but before the [ix]stinking streets of London, I would esteem a fragrant garden, or a shady grove in the country. In the same manner, if laying aside all worldly greatness and vain glory, I should be asked where I thought it was most probable that men might enjoy true happiness, I would prefer a small peaceable society, in which men, neither envied nor esteemed by neighbours, should be contented to live upon the natural product of the spot they inhabit, to a vast multitude abounding in wealth and power, that should always be conquering others by their arms abroad, and debauching themselves by foreign luxury at home.

But if, without considering the interests or happiness of the city, I were asked where I thought was the nicest place to walk, there’s no doubt that I would prefer a fragrant garden or a shady grove in the countryside over the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]stinking streets of London. Similarly, if I set aside all worldly greatness and vanity and were asked where I thought people could find true happiness, I would choose a small, peaceful community where people, not envied or admired by their neighbors, are happy living off the natural resources of their land, rather than a large population full of wealth and power that constantly conquers others abroad and indulges in foreign luxuries at home.

Thus much I had said to the reader in the first edition; and have added nothing by way of preface in the second. But since that, a violent outcry has been made against the book, exactly answering the expectation I always had of the justice, the wisdom, the charity, and fair-dealing of those whose good will I despaired of. It has been presented by the Grand Jury, and condemned by thousands who never saw a word of it. It has been preached against before my Lord Mayor; and an utter refutation of it is daily expected from a reverend divine, who has called me names in the advertisements, and threatened to answer me in two months time for above five months together. What I have to say for myself, the reader will see in my Vindication at the end of the book, where he will likewise find the Grand Jury’s Presentment, and a letter to the Right Honourable Lord C. which is very rhetorical beyond argument or connection. The author shows a fine talent for invectives, and great sagacity in discovering atheism, where others can find none. He is zealous against wicked books, points at the Fable of the Bees, and is very angry with the author: He bestows four strong epithets on the enormity of his guilt, and by several elegant innuendos to the multitude, as the danger there is in suffering such authors to live, and the vengeance of Heaven upon a whole nation, very charitably recommends him to their care.

I said all of this to the reader in the first edition, and I haven’t added anything new in the second. However, since then, there has been a loud outcry against the book, just as I expected from the justice, wisdom, charity, and fair-dealing of those whose goodwill I lost hope in. It has been presented by the Grand Jury and condemned by thousands who have never read a single word of it. It has been preached against before my Lord Mayor, and a complete rebuttal is eagerly anticipated from a reverend who has insulted me in the advertisements and has promised to respond for over five months. What I have to say for myself can be found in my Vindication at the end of the book, where the reader will also find the Grand Jury’s Presentment and a letter to the Right Honourable Lord C., which is very eloquent but lacks logical connection. The author shows a talent for insults and a keen eye for spotting atheism where others find none. He is passionate about attacking wicked books, takes issue with the Fable of the Bees, and is furious with its author. He uses four strong terms to describe the severity of the author’s guilt and, through several clever innuendos to the public, warns about the dangers of allowing such authors to exist and the wrath of Heaven upon a whole nation, while very charitably recommending him to their concern.

Considering the length of this epistle, and that it is not wholly levelled at me only, I thought at first to have made some extracts from it of what related to myself; but finding, on a nearer inquiry, that what concerned me was so blended and interwoven with what did not, I was obliged to trouble the reader with it entire, not without hopes that, prolix as it is, the extravagancy of it will be entertaining to those who have perused the treatise it condemns with so much horror. [1]

Considering how long this letter is and that it isn't just aimed at me, I initially thought about pulling out some quotes that were relevant to my situation. However, after looking closer, I realized that what relates to me is so mixed up with other topics that I had to show the whole thing to the reader. I hope that even though it's lengthy, the absurdity of it will be entertaining to those who have read the treatise it criticizes so intensely. to [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]


1 This was wrote in 1714. 

1 This was written in 1714. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE
GRUMBLING HIVE:
OR,
KNAVES TURN’D HONEST.

A spacious hive well stock’d with bees,

A large hive well stocked with bees,

That liv’d in luxury and ease;

That lived in luxury and comfort;

And yet as fam’d for laws and arms,

And yet known for laws and military might,

As yielding large and early swarms;

As producing large and early swarms;

Was counted the great nursery 5

Was counted the great nursery

Of sciences and industry.

Of science and industry.

No bees had better government,

No bees had better leadership,

More fickleness, or less content:

More indecision, or less satisfaction:

They were not slaves to tyranny.

They weren't oppressed.

Nor rul’d by wild democracy; 10

Nor ruled by chaotic democracy;

But kings, that could not wrong, because

But kings, who couldn't do wrong, because

Their power was circumscrib’d by laws.

Their power was limited by laws.

These insects liv’d like men, and all

These insects lived like humans, and all

Our actions they performed in small:

Our actions were done in small ways:

They did whatever’s done in town, 15

They did whatever people do in town, 15

And what belongs to sword or gown:

And what belongs to sword or gown:

Though th’ artful works, by nimble slight

Though the skillful creations, through quick skill

Of minute limbs, ’scap’d human sight;

Of tiny limbs, escaped human sight;

Yet we’ve no engines, labourers,

Yet we have no engines, workers,

Ships, castles, arms, artificers, 20

Ships, castles, weapons, craftsmen, 20

Craft, science, shop, or instrument,

Craft, science, workshop, or tool,

But they had an equivalent:

But they had a counterpart:

Which, since their language is unknown,

Which, since their language is unknown,

Must be call’d, as we do our own.

Must be called, just like we call our own.

As grant, that among other things, 25

As grant, that among other things, 25

They wanted dice, yet they had kings;

They wanted dice, but they had kings;

And those had guards; from whence we may

And those had guards; from where we may

Justly conclude, they had some play; [2]

Justly conclude, they had some fun; [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Unless a regiment be shown

Unless a regiment is shown

Of soldiers, that make use of none. 30

Of soldiers, who rely on nothing. 30

Vast numbers throng’d the fruitful hive;

Vast numbers crowded the fruitful hive;

Yet those vast numbers made ’em thrive;

Yet those huge numbers helped them thrive;

Millions endeavouring to supply

Millions trying to supply

Each other’s lust and vanity;

Each other's desire and ego;

While other millions were employ’d, 35

While millions were employed, 35

To see their handy-works destroy’d;

To see their handiwork destroyed;

They furnish’d half the universe;

They furnished half the universe;

Yet had more work than labourers.

Yet had more work than workers.

Some with vast flocks, and little pains,

Some with large flocks, and minimal effort,

Jump’d into business of great gains; 40

Started a profitable business; 40

And some were damn’d to scythes and spades,

And some were doomed to scythes and shovels,

And all those hard laborious trades;

And all those tough, demanding jobs;

Where willing wretches daily sweat,

Where struggling people work hard,

And wear out strength and limbs to eat:

And exhaust strength and limbs to eat:

While others follow’d mysteries, 45

While others pursued mysteries, 45

To which few folks binds ’prentices;

To which few people take on apprentices;

That want no stock, but that of brass,

That want no stock, but that of brass,

And may set up without a cross;

And can be set up without a cross;

As sharpers, parasites, pimps, players,

As hustlers, freeloaders, pimps, players,

Pickpockets, coiners, quacks, soothsayers, 50

Pickpockets, counterfeiters, frauds, soothsayers, 50

And all those, that in enmity,

And all those who are in conflict,

With downright working, cunningly

With downright working, cleverly

Convert to their own use the labour

Convert the labor for their own use.

Of their good-natur’d heedless neighbour.

Of their kind, carefree neighbor.

These were call’d Knaves, but bar the name, 55

These were called losers, but forget the name, 55

The grave industrious were the same:

The diligent were the same:

All trades and places knew some cheat,

All trades and places had their share of con artists,

No calling was without deceit.

No call was without deception.

The lawyers, of whose art the basis

The lawyers, whose skills are the foundation

Was raising feuds and splitting cases, 60

Was raising feuds and splitting cases, 60

Oppos’d all registers, that cheats

Opposed all records, that cheats

Might make more work with dipt estates;

Might create more issues with divided estates;

As were’t unlawful, that one’s own,

As if it were illegal to have one's own,

Without a law-suit, should be known.

Without a lawsuit, it should be known.

They kept off hearings wilfully, 65

They intentionally skipped hearings, 65

To finger the refreshing fee;

To touch the refreshing fee;

And to defend a wicked cause,

And to defend an evil cause,

Examin’d and survey’d the laws,

Examined and surveyed the laws,

As burglar’s shops and houses do,

As thieves break into shops and houses,

To find out where they’d best break through. 70 [3]

To figure out the best place to break through. 70 [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Physicians valu’d fame and wealth

Doctors valued fame and wealth

Above the drooping patient’s health,

Above the patient's declining health,

Or their own skill: the greatest part

Or their own skill: the biggest part

Study’d, instead of rules of art,

Study instead of rules of art,

Grave pensive looks and dull behaviour, 75

Grave, thoughtful expressions and bland behavior, 75

To gain th’ apothecary’s favour;

To win the apothecary’s favor;

The praise of midwives, priests, and all

The praise of midwives, priests, and all

That serv’d at birth or funeral.

That served at birth or at a funeral.

To bear with th’ ever-talking tribe,

To put up with the constantly chattering crowd,

And hear my lady’s aunt prescribe; 80

And listen to my lady's aunt give her advice; 80

With formal smile, and kind how d’ye,

With a polite smile and a friendly "how are you,"

To fawn on all the family;

To flatter everyone in the family;

And, which of all the greatest curse is,

And which of all the greatest curses is,

T’ endure th’ impertinence of nurses.

To endure the rudeness of nurses.

Among the many priests of Jove, 85

Among the many priests of Jove, 85

Hir’d to draw blessings from above,

Hired to bring blessings from above,

Some few were learn’d and eloquent,

Some were knowledgeable and clear,

But thousands hot and ignorant:

But thousands are hot and clueless:

Yet all pass’d muster that could hide

Yet everything that could conceal passed inspection

Their sloth, lust, avarice and pride; 90

Their laziness, desire, greed, and arrogance; 90

For which they were as fam’d as tailors

For which they were as famous as tailors.

For cabbage, or for brandy sailors,

For cabbage, or for brandy sailors,

Some, meagre-look’d, and meanly clad,

Some, poorly dressed and shabby,

Would mystically pray for bread,

Would pray for bread magically,

Meaning by that an ample store, 95

Meaning by that an ample store, 95

Yet lit’rally received no more;

Yet literally received no more;

And, while these holy drudges starv’d,

And, while these devoted servants suffered from hunger,

The lazy ones, for which they serv’d,

The lazy ones, for whom they served,

Indulg’d their ease, with all the graces

Indulged in their comfort, with all the charms

Of health and plenty in their faces. 100

Of health and abundance in their faces. 100

The soldiers, that were forc’d to fight,

The soldiers who were forced to fight,

If they surviv’d, got honour by’t;

If they survived, they gained honor from it;

Though some, that shunn’d the bloody fray,

Though some who avoided the bloody battle,

Had limbs shot off, that ran away:

Had limbs shot off, that ran away:

Some valiant gen’rals fought the foe; 105

Some brave generals fought the enemy; 105

Others took bribes to let them go:

Others accepted bribes to let them go:

Some ventur’d always where ’twas warm,

Some ventured always where it was warm,

Lost now a leg, and then an arm;

Lost a leg, and then an arm;

Till quite disabled, and put by,

Till quite disabled, and set aside,

They liv’d on half their salary; 110

They lived on half of their salary; 110

While others never came in play,

While others stayed uninvolved,

And staid at home for double pay. [4]

And stayed at home for double the pay. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Their kings were serv’d, but knavishly,

Their kings were served, but in a sneaky way,

Cheated by their own ministry;

Betrayed by their own ministry;

Many, that for their welfare slaved, 115

Many, who worked hard for their own good, 115

Robbing the very crown they saved:

Stealing from the crown they protected:

Pensions were small, and they liv’d high,

Pensions were low, yet they lived large,

Yet boasted of their honesty.

Yet bragged about their honesty.

Calling, whene’er they strain’d their right,

Calling, whenever they stretched their rights,

The slipp’ry trick a perquisite; 120

The slippery trick is a perk; 120

And when folks understood their cant,

And when people understood their slang,

They chang’d that for emolument;

They changed that for money;

Unwilling to be short or plain,

Unwilling to be small or ordinary,

In any thing concerning gain;

In anything related to gain;

For there was not a bee but would 125

For there wasn't a single bee that would

Get more, I won’t say, than he should;

Get more, I won’t say, than he should;

But than he dar’d to let them know,

But then he dared to let them know,

That pay’d for’t; as your gamesters do,

That paid for it, just like your players do,

That, though at fair play, ne’er will own

That, even in a fair game, will never admit

Before the losers that they’ve won. 130

Before the losers that they've won. 130

But who can all their frauds repeat?

But who can list all their lies?

The very stuff which in the street

The very stuff that’s out in the street

They sold for dirt t’ enrich the ground,

They sold for cheap to enrich the soil,

Was often by the buyers found

Was often found by the buyers

Sophisticated with a quarter 135

Sophisticated with a quarter

Of good-for-nothing stones and mortar;

Of worthless stones and mortar;

Though Flail had little cause to mutter.

Though Flail had little reason to complain.

Who sold the other salt for butter.

Who traded the other salt for butter?

Justice herself, fam’d for fair dealing,

Justice herself, famous for fair dealing,

By blindness had not lost her feeling; 140

By blindness had not lost her feeling; 140

Her left hand, which the scales should hold,

Her left hand, which the scales should hold,

Had often dropt ’em, brib’d with gold;

Had often dropped them, bribed with gold;

And, though she seem’d impartial,

And, though she seemed neutral,

Where punishment was corporal,

Where punishment was physical,

Pretended to a reg’lar course, 145

Pretended to a regular course, 145

In murder, and all crimes of force;

In murder and all violent crimes;

Though some first pillory’d for cheating,

Though some were initially punished for cheating,

Were hang’d in hemp of their own beating;

Were hanged in hemp of their own making;

Yet, it was thought, the sword she bore

Yet, it was believed, the sword she carried

Check’d but the desp’rate and the poor; 150

Check'd but the desperate and the poor; 150

That, urg’d by mere necessity,

That, driven by necessity,

Were ty’d up to the wretched tree

Were tied up to the miserable tree

For crimes, which not deserv’d that fate,

For crimes that didn't deserve that fate,

But to secure the rich and great. [5]

But to secure the wealthy and powerful. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Thus every part was full of vice, 155

Thus every part was full of wrongdoing, 155

Yet the whole mass a paradise;

Yet the entire mass is a paradise;

Flatter’d in peace, and fear’d in wars

Flattered in peace and feared in war.

They were th’ esteem of foreigners,

They were the pride of foreigners,

And lavish of their wealth and lives,

And generous with their wealth and lives,

The balance of all other hives. 160

The balance of all other hives. 160

Such were the blessings of that state;

Such were the benefits of that situation;

Their crimes conspir’d to make them great:

Their crimes came together to make them powerful:

And virtue, who from politics

And virtue, who from politics

Has learn’d a thousand cunning tricks,

Has learned a thousand clever tricks,

Was, by their happy influence, 165

Was, by their positive influence,

Made friends with vice: And ever since,

Made friends with vice: And ever since,

The worst of all the multitude

The worst of all the crowd

Did something for the common good.

Did something for the greater good.

This was the state’s craft, that maintain’d

This was the state's skill, that maintained

The whole of which each part complain’d: 170

The whole of which each part complained: 170

This, as in music harmony

This, as in music harmony

Made jarrings in the main agree,

Made jarring noises in the main agree,

Parties directly opposite,

Opposite parties,

Assist each other, as ’twere for spite;

Assist each other, as if it were out of spite;

And temp’rance with sobriety, 175

And moderation with sobriety, 175

Serve drunkenness and gluttony.

Promote drinking and overeating.

The root of evil, avarice,

The root of evil, greed,

That damn’d ill-natur’d baneful vice,

That damned, bad, harmful vice,

Was slave to prodigality,

Was addicted to excess,

That noble sin; whilst luxury 180

That noble sin; while luxury

Employ’d a million of the poor,

Employing a million of the poor,

And odious pride a million more:

And hateful pride a million more:

Envy itself, and vanity,

Envy and vanity,

Were ministers of industry;

Were industry ministers;

Their darling folly, fickleness, 185

Their darling mistake, fickleness, 185

In diet, furniture, and dress,

In food, furniture, and style,

That strange ridic’lous vice, was made

That strange ridiculous vice was created

The very wheel that turn’d the trade.

The very wheel that turned the trade.

Their laws and clothes were equally

Their laws and clothes were equally

Objects of mutability! 190

Objects of change! 190

For, what was well done for a time,

For what was done well for a while,

In half a year became a crime;

In six months, it became a crime;

Yet while they altered thus their laws,

Yet while they changed their laws,

Still finding and correcting flaws,

Still identifying and fixing issues,

They mended by inconstancy 195

They repaired through unpredictability 195

Faults, which no prudence could foresee. [6]

Faults that no amount of caution could predict. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Thus vice nurs’d ingenuity,

Thus, vice nurtured ingenuity,

Which join’d the time and industry,

Which merged time and effort,

Had carry’d life’s conveniences,

Had brought life’s conveniences,

Its real pleasures, comforts, ease, 200

Its true pleasures, comforts, ease, 200

To such a height, the very poor }

To such a height, the very poor }

Liv’d better than the rich before.

Lived better than the wealthy before.

And nothing could be added more.

And nothing more could be added.

How vain is mortal happiness!

How fleeting is human happiness!

Had they but known the bounds of bliss; 205

Had they only known the limits of happiness; 205

And that perfection here below

And that perfection down here

Is more than gods can well bestow;

Is more than what gods can fully give;

The grumbling brutes had been content

The grumbling brutes had been content

With ministers and government.

With ministers and the government.

But they, at every ill success, 210

But they, with every setback, 210

Like creatures lost without redress,

Like creatures lost without help,

Curs’d politicians, armies, fleets;

Cursed politicians, armies, fleets;

While every one cry’d, damn the cheats,

While everyone shouted, "Damn the cheats,"

And would, though conscious of his own,

And would, even though aware of his own,

In others barb’rously bear none. 215

In others, brutally bear none.

One, that had got a princely store,

One that had accumulated a royal fortune,

By cheating master, king, and poor,

By deceiving the master, the king, and the poor,

Dar’d cry aloud, the land must sink

Dar’d cry aloud, the land must sink

For all its fraud; and whom d’ye think

For all its deception; and who do you think

The sermonizing rascal chid? 220

The preaching troublemaker scolded? 220

A glover that sold lamb for kid.

A glove maker who sold lamb for a goat.

The least thing was not done amiss,

The least thing was not done wrong,

Or cross’d the public business;

Or crossed the public business;

But all the rogues cry’d brazenly,

But all the scoundrels shouted boldly,

Good gods, had we but honesty! 225

Goodness, if only we had honesty! 225

Merc’ry smil’d at th’ impudence,

Mercury smiled at the impudence,

And others call’d it want of sense,

And others called it a lack of common sense,

Always to rail at what they lov’d:

Always to criticize what they loved:

But Jove with indignation mov’d,

But Jove was moved with anger,

At last in anger swore, he’d rid 230

At last, in anger, he swore he would get rid of 230

The bawling hive of fraud; and did.

The loud, chaotic hub of deception; and did.

The very moment it departs,

As soon as it leaves,

And honesty fills all their hearts;

And honesty fills their hearts completely;

There shows ’em, like th’ instructive tree,

There shows them, like the instructive tree,

Those crimes which they’re asham’d to see; 235

Those crimes they’re embarrassed to see; 235

Which now in silence they confess,

Which they now admit in silence,

By blushing at their ugliness: [7]

By blushing at their flaws: [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Like children, that would hide their faults,

Like kids who try to hide their mistakes,

And by their colour own their thoughts:

And by their color, they reveal their thoughts:

Imag’ning, when they’re look’d upon, 240

Imagining, when they’re looked upon,

That others see what they have done.

That others notice what they've done.

But, O ye gods! what consternation,

But, oh you gods! What a panic,

How vast and sudden was th’ alteration!

How huge and sudden was the change!

In half an hour, the nation round,

In thirty minutes, the entire country,

Meat fell a penny in the pound. 245

Meat dropped to a penny per pound. 245

The mask hypocrisy’s sitting down,

The mask hypocrisy is sitting down,

From the great statesman to the clown:

From the great politician to the joker:

And in some borrow’d looks well known,

And in some borrowed looks well-known,

Appear’d like strangers in their own.

Looked like strangers in their own home.

The bar was silent from that day; 250

The bar was quiet from that day; 250

For now the willing debtors pay,

For now, the eager borrowers pay,

Ev’n what’s by creditors forgot;

Even what creditors have forgotten;

Who quitted them that had it not.

Who left them that didn't have it?

Those that were in the wrong, stood mute,

Those who were at fault stood silent,

And dropt the patch’d vexatious suit: 255

And dropped the annoying patched-up lawsuit: 255

On which since nothing else can thrive,

On which nothing else can grow,

Than lawyers in an honest hive,

Than lawyers in an honest hive,

All, except those that got enough,

All, except for those who have enough,

With inkhorns by their sides troop’d off.

With inkhorns by their sides, they trooped off.

Justice hang’d some, set others free; 260

Justice hanged some, set others free; 260

And after gaol delivery,

And after jail delivery,

Her presence being no more requir’d,

Her presence is no longer needed,

With all her train and pomp retir’d.

With all her entourage and grandeur gone.

First march’d some smiths with locks and grates,

First marched some smiths with locks and grates,

Fetters, and doors with iron plates: 265

Fetters, and doors with iron plates: 265

Next gaolers, turnkeys and assistants:

Next guards, attendants, and assistants:

Before the goddess, at some distance,

Before the goddess, a little way off,

Her chief and faithful minister,

Her main and loyal minister,

’Squire Catch, the law’s great finisher,

’Squire Catch, the law's great finisher,

Bore not th’ imaginary sword, 270

Don't draw the imaginary sword, 270

But his own tools, an ax and cord:

But his own tools, an axe and rope:

Then on a cloud the hood-wink’d fair,

Then on a cloud, the unsuspecting beauty,

Justice herself was push’d by air:

Justice herself was pushed by air:

About her chariot, and behind,

About her ride, and behind,

Were serjeants, bums of every kind, 275

Were sergeants, bums of every kind, 275

Tip-staffs, and all those officers,

Tip staff and all those officers,

That squeeze a living out of tears.

That wring a living out of tears.

Though physic liv’d, while folks were ill,

Though physic lived while people were ill,

None would prescribe, but bees of skill, [8]

None would prescribe, but skilled bees, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Which through the hive dispers’d so wide, 280

Which spread so widely through the hive, 280

That none of them had need to ride;

That none of them needed to ride;

Wav’d vain disputes, and strove to free

Waved pointless arguments away and tried to break free

The patients of their misery;

The patients of their suffering;

Left drugs in cheating countries grown,

Left drugs in cheating countries grown,

And us’d the product of their own; 285

And used the product of their own; 285

Knowing the gods sent no disease,

Knowing the gods sent no illness,

To nations without remedies.

To countries without solutions.

Their clergy rous’d from laziness,

Their clergy roused from apathy,

Laid not their charge on journey-bees;

Laid not their burden on journey-bees;

But serv’d themselves, exempt from vice, 290

But served themselves, free from wrongdoing, 290

The gods with pray’r and sacrifice;

The gods with prayer and sacrifice;

All those, that were unfit, or knew,

All those who were unfit or aware,

Their service might be spar’d, withdrew:

Their service might be spared, withdrawn:

Nor was their business for so many,

Nor was their business for so many,

(If th’ honest stand in need of any,) 295

(If the honest stand in need of any,) 295

Few only with the high-priest staid,

Few remained with the high priest.

To whom the rest obedience paid:

To whom everyone else listened:

Himself employ’d in holy cares;

Engaged in sacred duties;

Resign’d to others state-affairs.

Resigned to others' politics.

He chas’d no starv’ling from his door, 300

He chased away no starving person from his door, 300

Nor pinch’d the wages of the poor:

Nor did they exploit the pay of the poor:

But at his house the hungry’s fed, }

But at his house, the hungry are fed, }

The hireling finds unmeasur’d bread,

The worker finds endless bread,

The needy trav’ller board and bed.

The needy traveler seeks a place to stay and rest.

Among the king’s great ministers, 305

Among the king’s top advisors,

And all th’ inferior officers,

And all the lower-ranking officers,

The change was great; for frugally

The change was significant; for frugally

They now liv’d on their salary:

They now lived on their salary:

That a poor bee should ten times come

That a poor bee should come ten times

To ask his due, a trifling sum, 310

To request what he's owed, a small amount, 310

And by some well-hir’d clerk be made

And by some well-paid clerk be created

To give a crown, or ne’er be paid,

To give a crown, or never be paid,

Would now be call’d a downright cheat,

Would now be called a complete cheat,

Though formerly a perquisite.

Though previously a perk.

All places manag’d first by three, 315

All places managed first by three, 315

Who watch’d each other’s knavery

Who watched each other's deceit

And often for a fellow-feeling,

And often for empathy,

Promoted one another’s stealing,

Encouraged each other's stealing,

Are happily supply’d by one,

Are happily supplied by one,

By which some thousands more are gone. 320

By which thousands more have disappeared. 320

No honour now could be content,

No honor now could be satisfying,

To live and owe for what was spent; [9]

To live and be responsible for what was spent; [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Liv’ries in brokers shops are hung,

Liv’ries in brokers' shops are displayed,

They part with coaches for a song;

They leave with coaches for very little.

Sell stately horses by whole sets; 325

Sell impressive horses in complete sets; 325

And country-houses, to pay debts.

And country houses, to pay debts.

Vain cost is shunn’d as much as fraud;

Vain expenses are avoided just as much as deceit;

They have no forces kept abroad;

They don't have any troops stationed overseas;

Laugh at th’ esteem of foreigners,

Laugh at the opinion of outsiders,

And empty glory got by wars; 330

And the empty glory gained from wars; 330

They fight but for their country’s sake,

They fight only for their country's sake,

When right or liberty’s at stake.

When rights or freedoms are at stake.

Now mind the glorious hive, and see

Now pay attention to the glorious hive, and see

How honesty and trade agree.

How honesty and commerce align.

The show is gone, it thins apace; 335

The show is over, it's fading fast; 335

And looks with quite another face.

And looks with a completely different expression.

For ’twas not only that they went,

For it wasn't just that they went,

By whom vast sums were yearly spent;

By whom large amounts of money were spent every year;

But multitudes that liv’d on them,

But many people who lived on them,

Were daily forc’d to do the same. 340

Were forced to do the same every day. 340

In vain to other trades they’d fly;

In vain they would turn to other trades;

All were o’er-stock’d accordingly.

All were overstocked accordingly.

The price of land and houses falls;

The prices of land and houses drop;

Mirac’lous palaces, whose walls,

Miraculous palaces, whose walls,

Like those of Thebes, were rais’d by play, 345

Like those of Thebes, were raised by play, 345

Are to be let; while the once gay,

Are available for rent; while the once lively,

Well-seated household gods would be

Well-established household gods would be

More pleas’d to expire in flames, than see

More pleased to burn in flames than to see

The mean inscription on the door

The mean inscription on the door

Smile at the lofty ones they bore. 350

Smile at the ones who hold themselves high. 350

The building trade is quite destroy’d,

The construction industry is pretty much destroyed,

Artificers are not employ’d;

Artisans are not employed;

No limner for his art is fam’d,

No artist for his craft is famous,

Stone-cutters, carvers are not nam’d.

Stonecutters and carvers aren't named.

Those, that remain’d, grown temp’rate, strive, 355

Those who remained, grew moderate, strive, 355

Not how to spend, but how to live;

Not how to spend, but how to live;

And, when they paid their tavern score,

And, when they settled their tab,

Resolv’d to enter it no more:

Resigned to never go back in again:

No vintner’s jilt in all the hive

No winemaker’s rejection in all the bee colony

Could wear now cloth of gold, and thrive; 360

Could wear cloth of gold now and prosper; 360

Nor Torcol such vast sums advance,

Nor does Torcol advance such large sums,

For Burgundy and Ortolans;

For Burgundy and Ortolans;

The courtier’s gone that with his miss

The courtier's gone with his lady.

Supp’d at his house on Christmas peas; [10]

Supped at his house on Christmas peas; [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Spending as much in two hours stay, 365

Spending as much in a two-hour stay, 365 days

As keeps a troop of horse a day.

As keeps a group of cavalry for a day.

The haughty Chloe, to live great,

The arrogant Chloe, to live grand,

Had made her husband rob the state:

Had made her husband steal from the government:

But now she sells her furniture,

But now she is selling her furniture,

Which th’ Indies had been ransack’d for; 370

Which the Indies had been looted for; 370

Contracts the expensive bill of fare,

Contracts the expensive bill of fare,

And wears her strong suit a whole year:

And wears her strong suit for a whole year:

The slight and fickle age is past;

The era of being weak and unpredictable is over;

And clothes, as well as fashions, last.

And clothes, just like trends, stick around.

Weavers, that join’d rich silk with plate, 375

Weavers who combined rich silk with metal, 375

And all the trades subordinate,

And all the trades below,

Are gone; still peace and plenty reign,

Are gone; still peace and abundance prevail,

And every thing is cheap, though plain:

And everything is affordable, even if it's simple:

Kind nature, free from gard’ners force,

Kind nature, free from gardeners' control,

Allows all fruits in her own course; 380

Allows all fruits in her own course; 380

But rarities cannot be had,

But you can't get rarities,

Where pains to get them are not paid.

Where the effort to obtain them goes unpaid.

As pride and luxury decrease,

As pride and luxury fade,

So by degrees they leave the seas.

So gradually, they leave the oceans.

Not merchants now, but companies 385

Not merchants now, but corporations

Remove whole manufactories.

Eliminate entire factories.

All arts and crafts neglected lie;

All arts and crafts that are ignored fade away;

Content, the bane of industry,

Content, the curse of industry,

Makes ’em admire their homely store,

Makes them admire their simple store,

And neither seek nor covet more. 390

And don't look for or desire more. 390

So few in the vast hive remain,

So few are left in the huge hive,

The hundredth part they can’t maintain

The hundredth part they can’t maintain

Against th’ insults of numerous foes;

Against the insults of many enemies;

Whom yet they valiantly oppose:

Who they still bravely oppose:

’Till some well fenc’d retreat is found, 395

’Till some well-fenced retreat is found, 395

And here they die or stand their ground.

And here they either die or hold their position.

No hireling in their army’s known;

No hired soldier is known in their army;

But bravely fighting for their own,

But courageously standing up for themselves,

Their courage and integrity

Their bravery and honesty

At last were crown’d with victory. 400

At last, we were crowned with victory. 400

They triumph’d not without their cost,

They triumphed not without their cost,

For many thousand bees were lost.

For many thousands of bees were lost.

Harden’d with toils and exercise,

Hardened by work and exercise,

They counted ease itself a vice;

They considered ease itself a flaw;

Which so improv’d their temperance; 405

Which improved their self-control; 405

That, to avoid extravagance, [11]

That, to avoid excess, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

They flew into a hollow tree,

They flew into an empty tree,

Blest with content and honesty.

Blessed with contentment and honesty.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE MORAL.

Then leave complaints: fools only strive

Then stop complaining: only fools struggle

To make a great an honest hive. 410

To create a truly honest hive. 410

T’ enjoy the world’s conveniences,

To enjoy the world's conveniences,

Be fam’d in war, yet live in ease,

Be famous in battle, yet live in comfort,

Without great vices, is a vain

Without major flaws, it's a waste.

Eutopia seated in the brain.

Utopia is in the mind.

Fraud, luxury, and pride must live, 415

Fraud, luxury, and pride must exist, 415

While we the benefits receive:

While we receive the benefits:

Hunger’s a dreadful plague, no doubt,

Hunger is a terrible plague, no question about it,

Yet who digests or thrives without?

Yet who can really thrive without it?

Do we not owe the growth of wine

Do we not owe the growth of wine

To the dry shabby crooked vine? 420

To the dry, shabby, crooked vine? 420

Which, while its shoots neglected stood,

Which, while its shoots were left unattended,

Chok’d other plants, and ran to wood;

Choked other plants and ran into the woods;

But blest us with its noble fruit,

But blessed us with its noble fruit,

As soon as it was ty’d and cut:

As soon as it was tied and cut:

So vice is beneficial found, 425

So vice is found to be beneficial, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__

When it’s by justice lopp’d and bound;

When it's stopped and tied by justice;

Nay, where the people would be great, }

Nay, where the people would be great, }

As necessary to the state,

As needed for the state,

As hunger is to make ’em eat.

As hunger is to make them eat.

Bare virtue can’t make nations live 430

Bare virtue can’t make nations thrive 430

In splendor; they, that would revive

In splendor; they, who would bring back

A golden age, must be as free,

A golden age must be free,

For acorns as for honesty. 433

For acorns and honesty. 433

[12]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE
INTRODUCTION.

One of the greatest reasons why so few people understand themselves, is, that most writers are always teaching men what they should be, and hardly ever trouble their heads with telling them what they really are. As for my part, without any compliment to the courteous reader, or myself, I believe man (besides skin, flesh, bones, &c. that are obvious to the eye) to be a compound of various passions; that all of them, as they are provoked and come uppermost, govern him by turns, whether he will or no. To show that these qualifications, which we all pretend to be ashamed of, are the great support of a flourishing society, has been the subject of the foregoing poem. But there being some passages in it seemingly paradoxical, I have in the preface promised some explanatory remarks on it; which, to render more useful, I have thought fit to inquire, how man, no better qualified, might yet by his own imperfections be taught to distinguish between virtue and vice: and here I must desire the reader once for all to take notice, that when I say men, I mean neither Jews nor Christians; but mere man, in the state of nature and ignorance of the true Deity. [13]

One of the main reasons so few people understand themselves is that most writers are always telling people what they should be, and rarely focus on what they actually are. As for me, without flattering either the polite reader or myself, I believe that besides skin, flesh, bones, etc., which are obvious, a person is made up of various passions; that all these passions, as they are stirred up and come to the forefront, control him by turns, whether he likes it or not. Demonstrating that these qualities, which we all pretend to be ashamed of, actually support a thriving society has been the theme of the previous poem. However, since some parts of it may seem contradictory, I promised in the preface to provide some clarifying comments; to make this more useful, I thought it would be worthwhile to explore how a person, despite not being well qualified, could learn to differentiate between virtue and vice through his own flaws: and here I would like the reader to keep in mind that when I refer to men, I mean neither Jews nor Christians, but simply humans in their natural state, unaware of the true Deity. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

AN
INQUIRY
INTO THE
ORIGIN OF MORAL VIRTUE.

All untaught animals are only solicitous of pleasing themselves, and naturally follow the bent of their own inclinations, without considering the good or harm that, from their being pleased, will accrue to others. This is the reason that, in the wild state of nature, those creatures are fittest to live peaceably together in great numbers, that discover the least of understanding, and have the fewest appetites to gratify; and consequently no species of animals is, without the curb of government, less capable of agreeing long together in multitudes, than that of man; yet such are his qualities, whether good or bad I shall not determine, that no creature besides himself can ever be made sociable: but being an extraordinary selfish and headstrong, as well as cunning animal, however he may be subdued by superior strength, it is impossible by force alone to make him tractable, and receive the improvements he is capable of.

All untrained animals only care about satisfying themselves and naturally follow their own instincts, without thinking about the good or harm their pleasure may bring to others. This is why, in the wild state of nature, the creatures that best live together in large numbers are those with the least understanding and the fewest desires to satisfy. Consequently, no species of animals, without the control of government, is less capable of living peacefully in large groups than humans. However, humans possess qualities—good or bad I won’t judge—that no other creature can be made to become social. Although they can be subdued by greater strength, it’s impossible to make them docile and open to improvement through force alone.

The chief thing, therefore, which lawgivers, and other wise men that have laboured for the establishment of society, have endeavoured, has been to make the people they were to govern, believe, that it was more beneficial for every body to conquer than indulge his appetites, and much better to mind the public than what seemed his private interest. As this has always been a very difficult task, so no wit or eloquence has been left untried to compass it; and the moralists and philosophers of all ages employed their utmost skill to prove the truth of so useful an assertion. But whether mankind would have ever believed it or not, it is not likely that any body could have persuaded them to disapprove of their natural inclinations, or prefer the good of others to their own, if, at the same time, he had not showed them an equivalent to be enjoyed as a reward for the violence, which, by so doing, they of necessity must commit upon themselves. Those that have undertaken to civilize mankind, were not ignorant of this; but being unable to give so many real rewards [14]as would satisfy all persons for every individual action, they were forced to contrive an imaginary one, that, as a general equivalent for the trouble of self-denial, should serve on all occasions, and without costing any thing either to themselves or others, be yet a most acceptable recompence to the receivers.

The main goal of lawmakers and other wise individuals who have worked to establish society has been to make the people they govern believe that it’s better for everyone to conquer their desires rather than give in to them, and much more beneficial to consider the public good rather than what seems to be their private interest. This has always been a tough challenge, so every form of wit and eloquence has been tried to achieve it; moralists and philosophers throughout history have used all their skills to prove the truth of this important idea. However, whether humanity would have ever accepted this or not, it seems unlikely that anyone could have convinced them to reject their natural instincts or prioritize the well-being of others over their own, without also presenting them with a reward that they could enjoy in return for the self-restraint they would have to exercise. Those who have sought to civilize mankind were aware of this; but since they couldn't offer enough real rewards [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] to satisfy everyone for every single action, they had to come up with an imaginary one that could serve as a general compensation for the effort of self-denial, be applicable in all situations, and, at no cost to themselves or others, still be a highly valued reward for those who received it.

They thoroughly examined all the strength and frailties of our nature, and observing that none were either so savage as not to be charmed with praise, or so despicable as patiently to bear contempt, justly concluded, that flattery must be the most powerful argument that could be used to human creatures. Making use of this bewitching engine, they extolled the excellency of our nature above other animals, and setting forth with unbounded praises the wonders of our sagacity and vastness of understanding, bestowed a thousand encomiums on the rationality of our souls, by the help of which we were capable of performing the most noble achievements. Having, by this artful way of flattery, insinuated themselves into the hearts of men, they began to instruct them in the notions of honour and shame; representing the one as the worst of all evils, and the other as the highest good to which mortals could aspire: which being done, they laid before them how unbecoming it was the dignity of such sublime creatures to be solicitous about gratifying those appetites, which they had in common with brutes, and at the same time unmindful of those higher qualities that gave them the pre-eminence over all visible beings. They indeed confessed, that those impulses of nature were very pressing; that it was troublesome to resist, and very difficult wholly to subdue them. But this they only used as an argument to demonstrate, how glorious the conquest of them was on the one hand, and how scandalous on the other not to attempt it.

They closely examined all the strengths and weaknesses of our nature and noticed that no one was so cruel they wouldn't appreciate praise, or so low that they could quietly accept contempt. They rightly concluded that flattery must be the most powerful tool when dealing with humans. Using this enchanting method, they praised our nature above other animals and celebrated the wonders of our intelligence and the vastness of our understanding, showering us with thousands of compliments on the rationality of our souls, which allows us to achieve the most noble deeds. By this clever means of flattery, they won over the hearts of people and began to teach them about honor and shame; painting honor as the worst of evils and shame as the highest good that mortals could strive for. Once this was established, they laid out how inappropriate it was for such elevated beings to care about satisfying desires they shared with animals while ignoring the higher qualities that give them superiority over all visible creatures. They acknowledged that these natural impulses were very strong; that it was a hassle to resist them and quite difficult to completely suppress them. But they used this only to show how glorious it was to conquer them on one hand, and how disgraceful it was not to even try on the other.

To introduce, moreover, an emulation amongst men, they divided the whole species into two classes, vastly differing from one another: the one consisted of abject, low-minded people, that always hunting after immediate enjoyment, were wholly incapable of self-denial, and without regard to the good of others, had no higher aim than their private advantage; such as being enslaved by voluptuousness, yielded without resistance to every gross desire, and make no use of their rational faculties but to heighten their sensual pleasure. These wild grovelling wretches, they said, were the dross of their kind, and having only the shape of men, differed from [15]brutes in nothing but their outward figure. But the other class was made up of lofty high-spirited creatures, that, free from sordid selfishness, esteemed the improvements of the mind to be their fairest possessions; and, setting a true value upon themselves, took no delight but in embellishing that part in which their excellency consisted; such as despising whatever they had in common with irrational creatures, opposed by the help of reason their most violent inclinations; and making a continual war with themselves, to promote the peace of others, aimed at no less than the public welfare, and the conquest of their own passion.

To kick things off, they created a competition among people by splitting the entire species into two very different groups: one group included miserable, low-minded individuals who were always chasing immediate pleasure, completely unable to practice self-control. They only cared about their own benefit, being enslaved by indulgence, giving in to every crude desire, and using their reasoning only to enhance their physical enjoyment. These pathetic individuals, they argued, were the scum of humanity; apart from their human shape, they were no different from [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]animals in any significant way. On the other hand, the second group was made up of noble, spirited beings who, free from greedy selfishness, valued intellectual growth as their greatest asset. Recognizing their true worth, they found joy only in cultivating their excellence, despising everything they shared with irrational beings. Using their reason, they resisted their strongest impulses and engaged in a constant inner battle to promote peace for others, striving for nothing less than the common good and mastery over their own desires.

Fortior est qui se quàm qui fortissima Vincit

Fortior is he who conquers himself than he who conquers the strongest.

Mœnia —— ——

Mœnia

These they called the true representatives of their sublime species, exceeding in worth the first class by more degrees, than that itself was superior to the beasts of the field.

They referred to these as the true representatives of their exceptional kind, surpassing the first class by more of a margin than that group was better than the animals of the field.

As in all animals that are not too imperfect to discover pride, we find, that the finest, and such as are the most beautiful and valuable of their kind, have generally the greatest share of it; so in man, the most perfect of animals, it is so inseparable from his very essence (how cunningly soever some may learn to hide or disguise it), that without it the compound he is made of would want one of the chiefest ingredients: which, if we consider, it is hardly to be doubted but lessons and remonstrances, so skilfully adapted to the good opinion man has of himself, as those I have mentioned, must, if scattered amongst a multitude, not only gain the assent of most of them, as to the speculative part, but likewise induce several, especially the fiercest, most resolute, and best among them, to endure a thousand inconveniences, and undergo as many hardships, that they may have the pleasure of counting themselves men of the second class, and consequently appropriating to themselves all the excellencies they have heard of it.

Just like in all animals that are not too flawed to feel pride, we see that the finest and most beautiful and valuable ones usually have the most of it; in humans, the most perfect of animals, pride is so tied to our very essence (no matter how cleverly some may learn to hide or mask it) that without it, the very makeup of who we are would be missing one of the most important parts: which, when we think about it, makes it hard to doubt that lessons and reminders, crafted to align with the good opinion people have of themselves, as I've mentioned, must, if shared among many, not only gain the agreement of most regarding the theoretical aspect but also encourage many, especially the toughest, most determined, and best among them, to put up with countless difficulties and endure many hardships just to have the satisfaction of considering themselves among the second class of men, thereby claiming all the qualities they've heard about it.

From what has been said, we ought to expect, in the first place, that the heroes who took such extraordinary pains to master some of their natural appetites, and preferred the good of others to any visible interest of their own, would not recede an inch from the fine notions they had received concerning the dignity of rational creatures; and having ever the authority of the government on their side, with all imaginable vigour assert the esteem that was due to those of the [16]second class, as well as their superiority over the rest of their kind. In the second, that those who wanted a sufficient stock of either pride or resolution, to buoy them up in mortifying of what was dearest to them, followed the sensual dictates of nature, would yet be ashamed of confessing themselves to be those despicable wretches that belonged to the inferior class, and were generally reckoned to be so little removed from brutes; and that therefore, in their own defence, they would say, as others did, and hiding their own imperfections as well as they could, cry up self-denial and public spiritedness as much as any: for it is highly probable, that some of them, convinced by the real proofs of fortitude and self-conquest they had seen, would admire in others what they found wanting in themselves; others be afraid of the resolution and prowess of those of the second class, and that all of them were kept in awe by the power of their rulers; wherefore is it reasonable to think, that none of them (whatever they thought in themselves) would dare openly contradict, what by every body else was thought criminal to doubt of.

From what we've discussed, we should expect, first of all, that the heroes who went to great lengths to control their natural desires and put others' well-being above their own interests wouldn’t sway from the strong beliefs they held about the dignity of rational beings. With the backing of the government, they would vigorously uphold the respect that was owed to those of the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] second class, as well as acknowledge their superiority over others. Secondly, those who lacked enough pride or determination to resist giving in to their most cherished desires would still feel embarrassed to admit that they were part of the lowly class, often considered only slightly above animals. Therefore, to defend themselves, they would echo the sentiments of others, trying to hide their flaws as best as they could, and praise self-denial and public spirit just as enthusiastically. It’s quite likely that some of them, inspired by the true examples of bravery and self-control they had witnessed, would admire traits in others that were missing in themselves. Others might feel intimidated by the resolve and strength of those in the second class, and all of them would be kept in check by their rulers’ power. Thus, it’s reasonable to think that none of them (regardless of their private thoughts) would dare to openly challenge what everyone else considered wrong to question.

This was (or at least might have been) the manner after which savage man was broke; from whence it is evident, that the first rudiments of morality, broached by skilful politicians, to render men useful to each other, as well as tractable, were chiefly contrived, that the ambitious might reap the more benefit from, and govern vast numbers of them with the greater ease and security. This foundation of politics being once laid, it is impossible that man should long remain uncivilized: for even those who only strove to gratify their appetites, being continually crossed by others of the same stamp, could not but observe, that whenever they checked their inclinations or but followed them with more circumspection, they avoided a world of troubles, and often escaped many of the calamities that generally attended the too eager pursuit after pleasure.

This was (or at least might have been) how primitive humans were shaped; it's clear that the basic ideas of morality, introduced by clever politicians to make people more useful to one another and easier to control, were mainly designed for the ambitious to gain more advantage and to manage large groups of people more effectively and securely. Once this political foundation was established, it was inevitable that humans would not stay uncivilized for long: even those who simply tried to fulfill their desires, being constantly thwarted by others with the same inclinations, had to notice that whenever they restrained their impulses or approached them more thoughtfully, they avoided a lot of problems and often escaped many of the misfortunes that usually came with the reckless chase for pleasure.

First, they received, as well as others, the benefit of those actions that were done for the good of the whole society, and consequently could not forbear wishing well to those of the superior class that performed them. Secondly, the more intent they were in seeking their own advantage, without regard to others, the more they were hourly convinced, that none stood so much in their way as those that were most like themselves. [17]

First, they benefited, like others, from the actions taken for the good of society as a whole, and so they couldn't help but wish well to those in the higher class who carried them out. Second, the more focused they were on pursuing their own advantage without considering others, the more they were daily reminded that no one got in their way as much as those who were most similar to them. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

It being the interest then of the very worst of them, more than any, to preach up public-spiritedness, that they might reap the fruits of the labour and self-denial of others, and at the same time indulge their own appetites with less disturbance, they agreed with the rest, to call every thing, which, without regard to the public, man should commit to gratify any of his appetites, vice; if in that action there could be observed the least prospect, that it might either be injurious to any of the society, or ever render himself less serviceable to others: and to give the name of virtue to every performance, by which man, contrary to the impulse of nature, should endeavour the benefit of others, or the conquest of his own passions, out of a rational ambition of being good.

It was in the interest of the worst among them, more than anyone else, to promote public-spiritedness so they could benefit from the hard work and self-denial of others while also satisfying their own desires with less trouble. They agreed with everyone else to label anything a person did to satisfy their own appetites, without considering the public, as vice; especially if that action had even the slightest chance of harming anyone in society or making them less helpful to others. They decided to call virtue any action in which a person, against their natural inclinations, worked for the benefit of others or managed to control their own desires, motivated by a rational desire to be good.

It shall be objected, that no society was ever any ways civilized before the major part had agreed upon some worship or other of an over-ruling power, and consequently that the notions of good and evil, and the distinction between virtue and vice, were never the contrivance of politicians, but the pure effect of religion. Before I answer this objection, I must repeat what I have said already, that in this inquiry into the origin of moral virtue, I speak neither of Jews or Christians, but man in his state of nature and ignorance of the true Deity; and then I affirm, that the idolatrous superstitions of all other nations, and the pitiful notions they had of the Supreme Being, were incapable of exciting man to virtue, and good for nothing but to awe and amuse a rude and unthinking multitude. It is evident from history, that in all considerable societies, how stupid or ridiculous soever people’s received notions have been, as to the deities they worshipped, human nature has ever exerted itself in all its branches, and that there is no earthly wisdom or moral virtue, but at one time or other men have excelled in it in all monarchies and commonwealths, that for riches and power have been any ways remarkable.

It might be argued that no society was ever truly civilized until the majority agreed on some form of worship of a higher power. Therefore, the concepts of good and evil, as well as the difference between virtue and vice, were never just the creation of politicians, but rather the direct result of religion. Before addressing this argument, I need to reiterate what I have already stated: in this exploration of the origins of moral virtue, I am not referring to Jews or Christians, but to humanity in its natural state, unaware of the true God. I assert that the idolatrous beliefs of other nations, along with their misguided ideas about the Supreme Being, were incapable of inspiring people toward virtue and served only to intimidate and entertain an uncivilized and unthinking crowd. History clearly shows that in all significant societies, no matter how foolish or absurd people's beliefs about their gods may have been, human nature has always expressed itself in diverse ways. There is no practical wisdom or moral virtue that hasn't been achieved by people at various times in all kinds of monarchies and republics that stood out for wealth and power.

The Egyptians, not satisfied with having deified all the ugly monsters they could think on, were so silly as to adore the onions of their own sowing; yet at the same time their country was the most famous nursery of arts and sciences in the world, and themselves more eminently skilled in the deepest mysteries of nature than any nation has been since.

The Egyptians, not content with having worshipped all the grotesque creatures they could imagine, were foolish enough to venerate the onions they grew themselves; yet at the same time, their land was the most renowned center of arts and sciences in the world, and they were more remarkably knowledgeable in the profound mysteries of nature than any nation has been since.

No states or kingdoms under heaven have yielded more or greater patterns in all sorts of moral virtues, than the Greek [18]and Roman empires, more especially the latter; and yet how loose, absurd and ridiculous were their sentiments as to sacred matters? For without reflecting on the extravagant number of their deities, if we only consider the infamous stories they fathered upon them, it is not to be denied but that their religion, far from teaching men the conquest of their passions, and the way to virtue, seemed rather contrived to justify their appetites, and encourage their vices. But if we would know what made them excel in fortitude, courage, and magnanimity, we must cast our eyes on the pomp of their triumphs, the magnificence of their monuments and arches; their trophies, statues, and inscriptions; the variety of their military crowns, their honours decreed to the dead, public encomiums on the living, and other imaginary rewards they bestowed on men of merit; and we shall find, that what carried so many of them to the utmost pitch of self-denial, was nothing but their policy in making use of the most effectual means that human pride could be flattered with.

No states or kingdoms have shown more or better examples of various moral virtues than the Greek [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] and Roman empires, especially the latter. Yet, their beliefs about sacred matters were incredibly loose, absurd, and ridiculous. Without even considering the outrageous number of their gods, if we look at the infamous stories they created about them, it’s clear that their religion, rather than teaching people how to control their passions and achieve virtue, seemed more designed to justify their desires and encourage their vices. However, if we want to understand what made them excel in bravery, courage, and nobility, we need to look at the grandeur of their victories, the splendor of their monuments and arches, their trophies, statues, and inscriptions; the variety of their military crowns, the honors awarded to the dead, public praise for the living, and other imaginary rewards given to deserving individuals. We’ll see that what drove so many of them to extreme self-denial was really just their strategy to appeal to the most effective means of flattery for human pride.

It is visible, then, that it was not any heathen religion, or other idolatrous superstition, that first put man upon crossing his appetites and subduing his dearest inclinations, but the skilful management of wary politicians; and the nearer we search into human nature, the more we shall be convinced, that the moral virtues are the political offspring which flattery begot upon pride.

It's clear, then, that it wasn't any pagan religion or other idolatrous belief that first led people to control their desires and suppress their strongest inclinations, but rather the clever manipulation by cautious politicians; and the more we examine human nature, the more we'll realize that moral virtues are the political children that flattery created with pride.

There is no man, of what capacity or penetration soever, that is wholly proof against the witchcraft of flattery, if artfully performed, and suited to his abilities. Children and fools will swallow personal praise, but those that are more cunning, must be managed with much greater circumspection; and the more general the flattery is, the less it is suspected by those it is levelled at. What you say in commendation of a whole town is received with pleasure by all the inhabitants: speak in commendation of letters in general, and every man of learning will think himself in particular obliged to you. You may safely praise the employment a man is of, or the country he was born in; because you give him an opportunity of screening the joy he feels upon his own account, under the esteem which he pretends to have for others.

No man, no matter his intelligence or insight, is completely immune to the charm of flattering words, especially when delivered skillfully and tailored to his strengths. Children and fools will readily accept personal praise, but those who are more clever require much more careful handling; and the broader the flattery, the less suspicion it raises in those it targets. What you say in praise of an entire town is welcomed with pleasure by all its residents: compliment letters in general, and every educated person will feel personally appreciated. You can safely praise a man's occupation or the place he comes from because it allows him to mask the joy he feels on his own behalf under the admiration he pretends to have for others.

It is common among cunning men, that understand the power which flattery has upon pride, when they are afraid they shall be imposed upon, to enlarge, though much against [19]their conscience, upon the honour, fair dealing, and integrity of the family, country, or sometimes the profession of him they suspect; because they know that men often will change their resolution, and act against their inclination, that they may have the pleasure of continuing to appear in the opinion of some, what they are conscious not to be in reality. Thus sagacious moralists draw men like angels, in hopes that the pride at least of some will put them upon copying after the beautiful originals which they are represented to be.

It’s common for sly individuals, who understand the influence that flattery has on pride, to exaggerate—often against their own better judgment—about the honor, fairness, and integrity of the family, country, or sometimes the profession of someone they suspect. They know that people often change their minds and act against their true feelings just to maintain the appearance of being what others believe them to be. This way, clever moralists depict people as angels, hoping that the pride of at least some will motivate them to try to emulate the admirable figures they are portrayed to be.

When the incomparable Sir Richard Steele, in the usual elegance of his easy style, dwells on the praises of his sublime species, and with all the embellishments of rhetoric, sets forth the excellency of human nature, it is impossible not to be charmed with his happy turns of thought, and the politeness of his expressions. But though I have been often moved by the force of his eloquence, and ready to swallow the ingenious sophistry with pleasure, yet I could, never be so serious, but, reflecting on his artful encomiums, I thought on the tricks made use of by the women that would teach children to be mannerly. When an awkward girl before she can either speak or go, begins after many entreaties to make the first rude essays of curtseying, the nurse falls in an ecstacy of praise; “There is a delicate curtsey! O fine Miss! there is a pretty lady! Mamma! Miss can make a better curtsey than her sister Molly!” The same is echoed over by the maids, whilst Mamma almost hugs the child to pieces; only Miss Molly, who being four years older, knows how to make a very handsome curtsey, wonders at the perverseness of their judgment, and swelling with indignation, is ready to cry at the injustice that is done her, till, being whispered in the ear that it is only to please the baby, and that she is a woman, she grows proud at being let into the secret, and rejoicing at the superiority of her understanding, repeats what has been said with large additions, and insults over the weakness of her sister, whom all this while she fancies to be the only bubble among them. These extravagant praises would by any one, above the capacity of an infant, be called fulsome flatteries, and, if you will, abominable lies; yet experience teaches us, that by the help of such gross encomiums, young misses will be brought to make pretty curtesies, and behave themselves womanly much sooner, and with less trouble, than they would without them. It is the same with boys, whom they will strive to persuade, that all fine gentlemen do as they are [20]bid, and that none but beggar boys are rude, or dirty their clothes; nay, as soon as the wild brat with his untaught fist begins to fumble for his hat, the mother, to make him pull it off, tells him before he is two years old, that he is a man; and if he repeats that action when she desires him, he is presently a captain, a lord mayor, a king, or something higher if she can think of it, till edged on by the force of praise, the little urchin endeavours to imitate man as well as he can, and strains all his faculties to appear what his shallow noddle imagines he is believed to be.

When the amazing Sir Richard Steele, in his usual elegant style, talks about the greatness of his remarkable kind and skillfully praises human nature, it's impossible not to be captivated by his clever ideas and polished expressions. Although I've often been moved by the power of his words and tempted to enjoy his clever arguments, I can't help but think about the tricks used by women to teach children to behave. When an awkward girl, before she can even walk or talk, starts to awkwardly curtsy after lots of encouragement, her caregiver bursts into praise: “What a lovely curtsey! Oh, what a pretty girl! Mom! She can curtsey better than her sister Molly!” The maids echo this while Mom nearly squeezes the child with affection; only Miss Molly, who is four years older and knows how to curtsey properly, wonders at their silly judgments and, feeling indignant, is ready to cry over the unfairness shown to her. But when someone whispers that it's just to make the baby happy and that she’s a girl too, she feels proud to be in on the secret, and with a sense of superiority, she adds her own comments, teasing her sister whom she believes is the only fool in this situation. These over-the-top praises would be considered ridiculous flattery by anyone who can think for themselves, and, if you want, simply lies; yet experience shows us that with such excessive compliments, little girls will learn to curtsey nicely and behave like ladies much faster and with less effort than they would without them. The same goes for boys, whom they will try to convince that all fine gentlemen do as they are told, and that only poor boys are rude or dirty in their clothes. As soon as the mischievous child starts to fumble for his hat, the mother, to get him to take it off, tells him before he’s even two that he’s a man; and if he does it when she asks, he’s instantly a captain, a lord mayor, a king, or something even greater if she can think of it, until spurred on by the power of praise, the little rascal tries to mimic man as best he can, pushing all his abilities to seem like what he thinks he’s believed to be.

The meanest wretch puts an inestimable value upon himself, and the highest wish of the ambitious man is to have all the world, as to that particular, of his opinion: so that the most insatiable thirst after fame that ever heroe was inspired with, was never more than an ungovernable greediness to engross the esteem and admiration of others in future ages as well as his own; and (what mortification soever this truth might be to the second thoughts of an Alexander or a Cæsar) the great recompense in view, for which the most exalted minds have with so much alacrity sacrificed their quiet, health, sensual pleasures, and every inch of themselves, has never been any thing else but the breath of man, the aerial coin of praise. Who can forbear laughing when he thinks on all the great men that have been so serious on the subject of that Macedonian madman, his capacious soul, that mighty heart, in one corner of which, according to Lorenzo Gratian, the world was so commodiously lodged, that in the whole there was room for six more? Who can forbear laughing, I say, when he compares the fine things that have been said of Alexander, with the end he proposed to himself from his vast exploits, to be proved from his own mouth; when the vast pains he took to pass the Hydaspes forced him to cry out? Oh ye Athenians, could you believe what dangers I expose myself to, to be praised by you! To define then, the reward of glory in the amplest manner, the most that can be said of it, is, that it consists in a superlative felicity which a man, who is conscious of having performed a noble action, enjoys in self-love, whilst he is thinking on the applause he expects of others.

The meanest person places an immeasurable value on themselves, and the biggest aspiration of an ambitious individual is to have the whole world share their opinion: so that the most insatiable desire for fame that any hero has ever felt was really just an uncontrollable craving to capture the respect and admiration of others not just in their time, but also in the future; and (whatever disappointment this truth might bring to the reflections of an Alexander or a Cæsar) the great reward these extraordinary minds have energetically sacrificed their peace, health, sensual pleasures, and every part of themselves for, has only ever been the fleeting praise of others, the ephemeral currency of admiration. Who can help but laugh when they think of all the great figures who have taken so seriously the topic of that Macedonian madman, his vast spirit, that mighty heart, in which, according to Lorenzo Gratian, the world fit so conveniently, leaving room for six more? Who can help but laugh, I say, when comparing the grand things that have been said about Alexander with the outcome he intended from his enormous feats, as evidenced by his own words; when the tremendous effort it took for him to cross the Hydaspes made him cry out? Oh ye Athenians, could you fathom the dangers I face just to earn your praise! To summarize, the reward of glory in the broadest sense is nothing more than a supreme happiness that a person, aware of having done a noble deed, experiences in self-love while anticipating the applause from others.

But here I shall be told, that besides the noisy toils of war and public bustle of the ambitious, there are noble and generous actions that are performed in silence; that virtue being its own reward, those who are really good, have a satisfaction [21]in their consciousness of being so, which is all the recompence they expect from the most worthy performances; that among the heathens there have been men, who, when they did good to others, were so far from coveting thanks and applause, that they took all imaginable care to be for ever concealed from those on whom they bestowed their benefits, and consequently that pride has no hand in spurring man on to the highest pitch of self-denial.

But here I’ll be told that in addition to the loud struggles of war and the public hustle of the ambitious, there are noble and generous actions that happen quietly. Virtue is its own reward, and those who are truly good find satisfaction in knowing they are good, which is all the recognition they seek from their most worthy deeds. Among the non-believers, there have been individuals who, when they helped others, were so far from wanting thanks or praise that they went to great lengths to remain hidden from those they helped. As a result, pride doesn’t motivate people to achieve the highest form of self-denial. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

In answer to this, I say, that it is impossible to judge of a man’s performance, unless we are thoroughly acquainted with the principle and motive from which he acts. Pity, though it is the most gentle and the least mischievous of all our passions, is yet as much a frailty of our nature, as anger, pride, or fear. The weakest minds have generally the greatest share of it, for which reason none are more compassionate than women and children. It must be owned, that of all our weaknesses, it is the most amiable, and bears the greatest resemblance to virtue; nay, without a considerable mixture of it, the society could hardly subsist: but as it is an impulse of nature, that consults neither the public interest nor our own reason, it may produce evil as well as good. It has helped to destroy the honour of virgins, and corrupted the integrity of judges; and whoever acts from it as a principle, what good soever he may bring to the society, has nothing to boast of, but that he has indulged a passion that has happened to be beneficial to the public. There is no merit in saving an innocent babe ready to drop into the fire: the action is neither good nor bad, and what benefit soever the infant received, we only obliged ourselves; for to have seen it fall, and not strove to hinder it, would have caused a pain, which self preservation compelled us to prevent: Nor has a rich prodigal, that happens to be of a commiserating temper, and loves to gratify his passions, greater virtue to boast of, when he relieves an object of compassion with what to himself is a trifle.

In response to this, I would say that it's impossible to judge someone's actions unless we fully understand the principles and motivations behind them. While pity is the softest and least harmful of all our feelings, it's just as much a weakness of our nature as anger, pride, or fear. Typically, those with the weakest minds have the most pity—this is why women and children tend to be the most compassionate. It's true that among our weaknesses, pity is the most admirable and closely resembles virtue. In fact, without a significant dose of it, society could hardly survive. However, since it’s a natural impulse that doesn’t consider the public good or our own reasoning, it can lead to harm as well as good. It has led to the ruin of innocent women and has corrupted the integrity of judges; anyone who acts based on it, regardless of the good they may do for society, can't claim much glory other than indulging in a feeling that happened to benefit the public. There’s no merit in saving an innocent child about to fall into a fire; the action itself isn’t good or bad, and whatever benefit the child receives is just a way we fulfill our own obligation, since witnessing the fall and doing nothing would cause pain that our instinct for self-preservation drives us to avoid. Similarly, a wealthy spendthrift who has a compassionate temperament and enjoys indulging his feelings has no greater virtue to brag about when he helps someone in need with what is essentially pocket change to him.

But such men, as without complying with any weakness of their own, can part from what they value themselves, and, from no other motive but there love to goodness, perform a worthy action in silence: such men, I confess, have acquired more refined notions of virtue than those I have hitherto spoke of; yet even in these (with which the world has yet never swarmed) we may discover no small symptoms of pride, and the humblest man alive must confess, that the reward of a virtuous action, which is the satisfaction that ensues upon it, [22]consists in a certain pleasure he procures to himself by contemplating on his own worth: which pleasure, together with the occasion of it, are as certain signs of pride, as looking pale and trembling at any imminent danger, are the symptoms of fear.

But such individuals, who can separate themselves from what they value without showing any weakness, and who perform a worthy action in silence simply out of their love for goodness, do, I admit, possess a more refined understanding of virtue than those I've mentioned before. However, even in these individuals (of whom the world has not yet seen many), we can find signs of pride. The humblest person alive must acknowledge that the reward of a virtuous action— the satisfaction that follows— comes from a certain pleasure he gains by reflecting on his own worth. This pleasure, along with its cause, serves as clear indicators of pride, just as looking pale and shaking in the face of danger are signs of fear. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

If the too scrupulous reader should at first view condemn these notions concerning the origin of moral virtue, and think them perhaps offensive to Christianity, I hope he will forbear his censures, when he shall consider, that nothing can render the unsearchable depth of the Divine Wisdom more conspicuous, than that man, whom Providence had designed for society, should not only by his own frailties and imperfections, be led into the road to temporal happiness, but likewise receive, from a seeming necessity of natural causes, a tincture of that knowledge, in which he was afterwards to be made perfect by the true religion, to his eternal welfare. [23]

If a very careful reader initially judges these ideas about the origin of moral virtue and finds them potentially disrespectful to Christianity, I hope they will hold off on their criticism. When they consider that nothing highlights the immense depth of Divine Wisdom more than the fact that man, who was meant for society by Providence, is guided not only by his own weaknesses and imperfections toward temporary happiness but also receives, from what seems like a necessity of natural causes, a hint of that knowledge in which he will later be perfected by true religion for his eternal good. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

REMARKS.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 45. Whilst others follow’d mysteries,

Line 45. While others pursued mysteries,

To which few folks bind ’prentices.

To which few people take on apprentices.

In the education of youth, in order to their getting of a livelihood when they shall be arrived at maturity, most people look out for some warrantable employment or other, of which there are whole bodies or companies, in every large society of men. By this means, all arts and sciences, as well as trades and handicrafts, are perpetuated in the commonwealth, as long as they are found useful; the young ones that are daily brought up to them, continually supplying the loss of the old ones that die. But some of these employments being vastly more creditable than others, according to the great difference of the charges required to set up in each of them, all prudent parents, in the choice of them, chiefly consult their own abilities, and the circumstances they are in. A man that gives three or four hundred pounds with his son to a great merchant, and has not two or three thousand pounds to spare against he is out of his time to begin business with, is much to blame not to have brought his child up to something that might be followed with less money.

In educating young people so they can earn a living when they grow up, most people look for some reliable job or another, which exist in various groups within every large society. This way, all arts, sciences, trades, and crafts continue to thrive in the community as long as they remain useful; the younger generation being trained in these areas constantly replaces the older generation that passes away. However, some jobs are seen as much more respectable than others, largely due to the significant differences in the startup costs for each. Therefore, sensible parents, when choosing a profession, mainly consider their own financial situation and resources. A person who gives three or four hundred pounds to their son to work for a prominent merchant, but doesn't have two or three thousand pounds to spare for their son to start his own business once his apprenticeship ends, is seriously mistaken for not having prepared their child for a career that requires less money to pursue.

There are abundance of men of a genteel education, that have but very small revenues, and yet are forced, by their reputable callings, to make a greater figure than ordinary people of twice their income. If these have any children, it often happens, that as their indigence renders them incapable of bringing them up to creditable occupations, so their pride makes them unwilling to put them out to any of the mean laborious trades, and then, in hopes either of an alteration in their fortune, or that some friends, or favourable opportunity shall offer, they from time to time put off the disposing of them, until insensibly they come to be of age, and are at last brought up to nothing. Whether this neglect be more barbarous to the children, or prejudicial to the society, I shall not determine. At Athens all children were forced to assist their parents, if they came to want: But Solon made a law, that no son should be obliged to relieve his father, who had not bred him up to any calling.

There are a lot of well-educated men who have very little income, yet are pressured by their respectable jobs to maintain a lifestyle that seems grander than that of ordinary people earning twice as much. If they have children, it often happens that their financial struggles prevent them from raising their kids for respectable careers, while their pride stops them from putting them into any low-paying, labor-intensive jobs. So, in the hope that their situation will change or that help will come from friends or a good opportunity, they keep delaying making plans for their kids until, without realizing it, the children grow up and end up with no direction. I won’t say whether this neglect is worse for the children or harmful to society. In Athens, all children had to help their parents when they were in need. But Solon created a law stating that no son should have to support his father if the father had not raised him for any profession.

Some parents put out their sons to good trades very suitable [24]to their then present abilities, but happen to die, or fail in the world, before their children have finished their apprenticeships, or are made fit for the business they are to follow: A great many young men again, on the other hand, are handsomely provided for and set up for themselves, that yet (some for want of industry, or else a sufficient knowledge in their callings, others by indulging their pleasures, and some few by misfortunes) are reduced to poverty, and altogether unable to maintain themselves by the business they were brought up to. It is impossible but that the neglects, mismanagements, and misfortunes I named, must very frequently happen in populous places, and consequently great numbers of people be daily flung unprovided for into the wide world, how rich and potent a commonwealth may be, or what care soever a government may take to hinder it. How must these people be disposed of? The sea, I know, and armies, which the world is seldom without, will take off some. Those that are honest drudges, and of a laborious temper, will become journeymen to the trades they are of, or enter into some other service: such of them as studied and were sent to the university, may become schoolmasters, tutors, and some few of them get into some office or other: But what must become of the lazy, that care for no manner of working, and the fickle, that hate to be confined to any thing?

Some parents help their sons find good trades that match their skills at the time, but may die or fail in life before their kids complete their apprenticeships or are ready for the jobs they are meant to do. On the other hand, many young men are well-supported and set up for themselves, yet some fall into poverty due to lack of hard work or adequate knowledge in their fields, while others indulge in pleasures, and a few encounter misfortunes. It's inevitable that neglect, mismanagement, and misfortune will frequently occur in busy places, leading to a significant number of people being left unprepared for the world, no matter how wealthy or powerful a society is, or how much a government tries to prevent it. What will happen to these people? The sea, I know, along with armies, which are usually around, will take some away. Those who are honest workers and have a strong work ethic will become journeymen in their trades or join other jobs: those who studied and went to university might become schoolmasters, tutors, and a few may secure some positions. But what will happen to the lazy ones who don’t want to work at all, and those who can't stand being tied down to anything?

Those that ever took delight in plays and romances, and have a spice of gentility, will, in all probability, throw their eyes upon the stage, and if they have a good elocution, with tolerable mien, turn actors. Some that love their bellies above any thing else, if they have a good palate, and a little knack at cookery, will strive to get in with gluttons and epicures, learn to cringe and bear all manner of usage, and so turn parasites, ever flattering the master, and making mischief among the rest of the family. Others, who by their own and companions lewdness, judge of people’s incontinence, will naturally fall to intriguing, and endeavour to live by pimping for such as either want leisure or address to speak for themselves. Those of the most abandoned principles of all, if they are sly and dexterous, turn sharpers, pick-pockets, or coiners, if their skill and ingenuity give them leave. Others again, that have observed the credulity of simple women, and other foolish people, if they have impudence and a little cunning, either set up for doctors, or else pretend to [25]tell fortunes; and every one turning the vices and frailties of others to his own advantage, endeavours to pick up a living the easiest and shortest way his talents and abilities will let him.

Those who enjoy plays and stories and have a bit of class will likely look toward the stage, and if they can speak well and have a decent presence, they might become actors. Some who care more about food than anything else, if they have a good taste and a knack for cooking, will try to associate with foodies and gourmets, learn to flatter, and tolerate all kinds of treatment, becoming sycophants who constantly praise the boss and cause trouble among the rest of the group. Others, who judge people's promiscuity based on their own and their friends' behavior, will naturally get into scheming and try to make a living by pimping for those who either lack the time or skill to speak for themselves. Those with the lowest morals, if they are sneaky and skilled, may become con artists, pickpockets, or counterfeiters if their talents allow it. Others, who notice how gullible naive women and other foolish people can be, if they have the audacity and a bit of cunning, might either pose as doctors or pretend to tell fortunes; and everyone, exploiting the vices and weaknesses of others, tries to make a living in the easiest and quickest way their skills and abilities will allow.

These are certainly the bane of civil society; but they are fools, who, not considering what has been said, storm at the remissness of the laws that suffer them to live, while wise men content themselves with taking all imaginable care not to be circumvented by them, without quarrelling at what no human prudence can prevent.

These are definitely the downfall of society; but they are foolish people who, not thinking about what has been said, complain about the failures of the laws that allow them to exist, while wise individuals focus on doing everything they can to avoid being tricked by them, without arguing about what no amount of careful planning can stop.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 55. These we call’d Knaves, but bar the name,

Line 55. We called them knaves, but aside from the name,

The grave industrious were the same.

The diligent were the same.

This, I confess, is but a very indifferent compliment to all the trading part of the people. But if the word Knave may be understood in its full latitude, and comprehend every body that is not sincerely honest, and does to others what he would dislike to have done to himself, I do not question but I shall make good the charge. To pass by the innumerable artifices, by which buyers and sellers outwit one another, that are daily allowed of and practised among the fairest of dealers, show me the tradesmen that has always discovered the defects of his goods to those that cheapened them; nay, where will you find one that has not at one time or other industriously concealed them, to the detriment of the buyer? Where is the merchant that has never, against his conscience, extolled his wares beyond their worth, to make them go off the better.

This, I admit, isn’t a very flattering compliment to everyone in trade. But if we understand the term "knave" in its broadest sense, encompassing anyone who isn’t truly honest and treats others the way they wouldn’t want to be treated, I have no doubt I can back up this claim. Setting aside the countless tricks that buyers and sellers use to outsmart each other, which are routinely accepted and practiced even by the most reputable dealers, show me a tradesperson who has always pointed out the flaws in their goods to potential buyers. In fact, where can you find anyone who hasn’t, at some point, actively hidden those flaws, to the buyer's disadvantage? Where’s the merchant who has never, against their better judgment, exaggerated the value of their goods to make a sale?

Decio, a man of great figure, that had large commissions for sugar from several parts beyond sea, treats about a considerable parcel of that commodity with Alcander, an eminent West India merchant; both understood the market very well, but could not agree: Decio was a man of substance, and thought no body ought to buy cheaper than himself; Alcander was the same, and not wanting money, stood for his price. While they were driving their bargain at a tavern near the exchange, Alcander’s man brought his master a letter from the West Indies, that informed him of a much greater quantity of sugars coming for England than was expected. Alcander now wished for nothing more than to sell at Decio’s price, before the news was public; but being a cunning fox, that he might not seem too precipitant, [26]nor yet lose his customer, he drops the discourse they were upon, and putting on a jovial humour, commends the agreeableness of the weather, from whence falling upon the delight he took in his gardens, invites Decio to go along with him to his country house, that was not above twelve miles from London. It was in the month of May, and, as it happened, upon a Saturday in the afternoon: Decio, who was a single man, and would have no business in town before Tuesday, accepts of the other’s civility, and away they go in Alcander’s coach. Decio was splendidly entertained that night and the day following; the Monday morning, to get himself an appetite, he goes to take the air upon a pad of Alcander’s, and coming back meets with a gentleman of his acquaintance, who tells him news was come the night before that the Barbadoes fleet was destroyed by a storm, and adds, that before he came out it had been confirmed at Lloyd’s coffee house, where it was thought sugars would rise 25 per cent, by change-time. Decio returns to his friend, and immediately resumes the discourse they had broke off at the tavern: Alcander, who thinking himself sure of his chap, did not design to have moved it till after dinner, was very glad to see himself so happily prevented; but how desirous soever he was to sell, the other was yet more eager to buy; yet both of them afraid of one another, for a considerable time counterfeited all the indifference imaginable; until at last, Decio fired with what he had heard, thought delays might prove dangerous, and throwing a guinea upon the table, struck the bargain at Alcander’s price. The next day they went to London; the news proved true, and Decio got five hundred pounds by his sugars, Alcander, whilst he had strove to over-reach the other, was paid in his own coin: yet all this is called fair dealing; but I am sure neither of them would have desired to be done by, as they did to each other.

Decio, a well-built man who secured large sugar orders from various overseas locations, was negotiating a significant deal on that commodity with Alcander, a prominent West India merchant. Both understood the market well, but they couldn't agree: Decio was wealthy and believed nobody should buy for less than he would; Alcander felt the same and, not needing money, insisted on his price. While they were haggling in a tavern near the exchange, Alcander's servant delivered a letter from the West Indies, informing him of a much larger sugar shipment heading to England than anticipated. Alcander now wanted nothing more than to sell at Decio's price before the news became public. Being clever, he didn't want to seem too eager or lose Decio as a customer, so he shifted the topic, mentioning the pleasant weather, which led him to talk about his gardens. He invited Decio to his country house, located just twelve miles from London. It was May, and it happened to be a Saturday afternoon. Decio, who was single and had no business in town until Tuesday, accepted the invitation, and off they went in Alcander's coach. Decio was lavishly entertained that night and the next day. On Monday morning, to work up an appetite, he took a stroll on one of Alcander's horses. On his way back, he ran into an acquaintance who informed him that news had arrived the previous night that the Barbadoes fleet had been destroyed by a storm. The acquaintance added that before he left, it was confirmed at Lloyd's coffee house, where it was believed sugar prices would spike by 25% by the time trading resumed. Decio returned to Alcander and immediately picked up their earlier conversation from the tavern. Alcander, thinking he had secured the deal and not planning to bring it up until after dinner, was pleased to see this topic come up sooner. But despite Alcander’s eagerness to sell, Decio was even more eager to buy. Both, however, were wary of showing their intentions, pretending to be indifferent for a considerable time. Finally, fueled by the news he had heard, Decio realized that delays could be risky and tossed a guinea onto the table, sealing the deal at Alcander's price. The next day, they returned to London; the news turned out to be true, and Decio profited five hundred pounds from his sugars. Meanwhile, Alcander, who had tried to outsmart Decio, was met with his own tactics. Still, all this was considered fair play, though I’m sure neither of them would have wanted to be treated as they treated each other.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 101. The soldiers that were forc’d to fight,

Line 101. The soldiers who were forced to fight,

If they surviv’d got honour by’t.

If they survived, they gained honor from it.

So unaccountable is the desire to be thought well of in men, that though they are dragged into the war against their will, and some of them for their crimes, and are compelled to fight with threats, and often blows, yet they would be esteemed for what they would have avoided, if it had been in their [27]power: whereas, if reason in man was of equal weight with his pride, he could never be pleased with praises, which he is conscious he does not deserve.

The desire to be seen positively by others is so strong in people that even when they are forced into war against their will—sometimes due to their own wrongdoings—and are made to fight with threats and violence, they still wish to be respected for things they would have chosen to avoid if they could. If a person’s reason carried as much weight as their pride, they wouldn't take pleasure in praise that they know they don’t deserve.

By honour, in its proper and genuine signification, we mean nothing else but the good opinion of others, which is counted more or less substantial, the more or less noise or bustle there is made about the demonstration of it; and when we say the sovereign is the fountain of honour, it signifies that he has the power, by titles or ceremonies, or both together, to stamp a mark upon whom he pleases, that shall be as current as his coin, and procure the owner the good opinion of every body, whether he deserves it or not.

By honor, in its true and real meaning, we mean nothing other than the good opinion of others, which is considered more or less significant depending on how much attention or fuss is made about it; and when we say that the sovereign is the source of honor, it means that he has the power, through titles or ceremonies, or both, to place a mark on anyone he chooses, which will be as accepted as his currency, and gain the owner the good opinion of everyone, regardless of whether they actually deserve it or not.

The reverse of honour is dishonour, or ignominy, which consists in the bad opinion and contempt of others; and as the first is counted a reward for good actions, so this is esteemed a punishment for bad ones; and the more or less public or heinous the manner is in which this contempt of others is shown, the more or less the person so suffering is degraded by it. This ignominy is likewise called shame, from the effect it produces; for though the good and evil of honour and dishonour are imaginary, yet there is a reality in shame, as it signifies a passion, that has its proper symptoms, over-rules our reason, and requires as much labour and self-denial to be subdued, as any of the rest; and since the most important actions of life often are regulated according to the influence this passion has upon us, a thorough understanding of it must help to illustrate the notions the world has of honour and ignominy. I shall therefore describe it at large.

The opposite of honor is dishonor, or shame, which is based on others' negative opinions and scorn. Just as honor is seen as a reward for good deeds, dishonor is viewed as a punishment for bad ones. The more public or serious the display of this scorn, the more the person experiencing it feels degraded. This shame is also referred to as ignominy, due to the effects it creates; even though the concepts of honor and dishonor are somewhat subjective, shame is very real. It represents a deep emotion with specific symptoms, overrides our rational thinking, and requires just as much effort and self-control to overcome as any other strong feeling. Because many significant actions in life are influenced by how this emotion affects us, understanding it well can clarify how the world perceives honor and dishonor. Therefore, I will explain it in detail.

First, to define the passion of shame, I think it may be called a sorrowful reflection on our own unworthiness, proceeding from an apprehension that others either do, or might, if they knew all, deservedly despise us. The only objection of weight that can be raised against this definition is, that innocent virgins are often ashamed, and blush when they are guilty of no crime, and can give no manner of reason for this frailty: and that men are often ashamed for others, for, or with whom, they have neither friendship or affinity, and consequently that there may be a thousand instances of shame given, to which the words of the definition are not applicable. To answer this, I would have it first considered, that the modesty of women is the result of custom and education, by [28]which all unfashionable denudations and filthy expressions are rendered frightful and abominable to them, and that notwithstanding this, the most virtuous young woman alive will often, in spite of her teeth, have thoughts and confused ideas of things arise in her imagination, which she would not reveal to some people for a thousand worlds. Then, I say, that when obscene words are spoken in the presence of an unexperienced virgin, she is afraid that some body will reckon her to understand what they mean, and consequently that she understands this, and that, and several things, which she desires to be thought ignorant of. The reflecting on this, and that thoughts are forming to her disadvantage, brings upon her that passion which we call shame; and whatever can sting her, though never so remote from lewdness, upon that set of thoughts I hinted, and which she thinks criminal, will have the same effect, especially before men, as long as her modesty lasts.

First, to define the feeling of shame, I think it can be described as a sad awareness of our own unworthiness, stemming from the fear that others either do, or might, if they knew everything, justifiably look down on us. The main objection to this definition is that innocent young women often feel ashamed and blush even when they haven't done anything wrong, and they can't explain this weakness; similarly, men often feel ashamed for others they don't even know well or share any bond with, making it clear that there are countless situations where shame occurs which don't fit this definition. In response, I want to point out that the modesty of women comes from societal norms and upbringing, by which all unacceptable exposure and vulgar expressions become frightening and disgusting to them. Despite this, the most virtuous young woman can still, against her will, have thoughts and unclear ideas pop into her mind that she wouldn't want to share with anyone, no matter the cost. So, when inappropriate words are spoken in front of an inexperienced young woman, she fears that people will assume she understands what they mean, leading her to worry that she understands things she wishes to be considered ignorant of. Reflecting on this, and the realization that harmful thoughts are forming about her, creates that feeling we call shame; and anything that can hurt her, even if it’s not directly related to immorality, connected to those thoughts she believes are wrong, will have the same effect, especially in front of men, as long as her modesty remains intact.

To try the truth of this, let them talk as much bawdy as they please in the room next to the same virtuous young woman, where she is sure that she is undiscovered, and she will hear, if not hearken to it, without blushing at all, because then she looks upon herself as no party concerned; and if the discourse should stain her cheeks with red, whatever her innocence may imagine, it is certain that what occasions her colour, is a passion not half so mortifying as that of shame; but if, in the same place, she hears something said of herself that must tend to her disgrace, or any thing is named, of which she is secretly guilty, then it is ten to one but she will be ashamed and blush, though nobody sees her; because she has room to fear, that she is, or, if all was known, should be thought of contemptibly.

To test this idea, let them talk as openly as they want in the room next to the virtuous young woman, where she believes she is unnoticed, and she’ll listen, if not pay attention to it, without blushing at all, because she sees herself as not involved. If the conversation makes her cheeks flush, no matter what her innocence might think, it’s clear that the reason for her color is a feeling much less embarrassing than shame; but if she hears something about herself that could lead to her disgrace, or anything is mentioned that she secretly feels guilty about, then there’s a good chance she will feel ashamed and blush, even if no one sees her, because she fears that, if everything were known, she would be thought of in a contemptible way.

That we are often ashamed, and blush for others, which was the second part of the objection, is nothing else but that sometimes we make the case of others too nearly our own; so people shriek out when they see others in danger: Whilst we are reflecting with too much earnest on the effect which such a blameable action, if it was ours, would produce in us, the spirits, and consequently the blood, are insensibly moved, after the same manner as if the action was our own, and so the same symptoms must appear.

That we're often embarrassed and feel for others, which was the second part of the objection, is simply that we sometimes relate to others too closely; it’s why people scream when they see someone else in danger. While we're seriously thinking about how a shameful action, if it were ours, would affect us, our emotions and, as a result, our blood, are subtly stirred in the same way as if the action were ours, and thus the same reactions show up.

The shame that raw, ignorant, and ill-bred people, though seemingly without a cause, discover before their betters, is always accompanied with, and proceeds from a consciousness [29]of their weakness and inabilities; and the most modest man, how virtuous, knowing, and accomplished soever he might be, was never yet ashamed without some guilt or diffidence. Such as out of rusticity, and want of education are unreasonably subject to, and at every turn overcome by this passion, we call bashful; and those who out of disrespect to others, and a false opinion of their own sufficiency, have learned not to be affected with it, when they should be, are called impudent or shameless. What strange contradictions man is made of! The reverse of shame is pride, (see Remark on l. 182) yet no body can be touched with the first, that never felt any thing of the latter; for that we have such an extraordinary concern in what others think of us, can proceed from nothing but the vast esteem we have of ourselves.

The shame that rude, ignorant, and poorly raised people feel in front of those who are better than them, even if it seems unjustified, always comes from an awareness of their own weaknesses and shortcomings. The most modest person, no matter how virtuous, knowledgeable, or accomplished they are, has never felt shame without some sense of guilt or insecurity. Those who are awkward due to their lack of experience and education are often overly affected by this emotion; we call them bashful. Conversely, those who disrespect others and mistakenly believe in their own superiority learn to be unaffected by shame when they should actually feel it, and we label them impudent or shameless. What strange contradictions make up humanity! The opposite of shame is pride, yet no one can feel the former unless they have experienced something of the latter; our keen concern for what others think of us can only stem from the high regard we have for ourselves.

That these two passions, in which the seeds of most virtues are contained, are realities in our frame, and not imaginary qualities, is demonstrable from the plain and different effects, that, in spite of our reason, are produced in us as soon as we are affected with either.

That these two passions, which contain the seeds of most virtues, are real aspects of our nature and not just imagined traits is evident from the clear and distinct effects they have on us, regardless of our reasoning, as soon as we are influenced by either one.

When a man is overwhelmed with shame, he observes a sinking of the spirits! the heart feels cold and condensed, and the blood flies from it to the circumference of the body; the face glows, the neck and part of the breast partake of the fire: he is heavy as lead; the head is hung down, and the eyes through a mist of confusion are fixed on the ground: no injuries can move him; he is weary of his being, and heartily wishes he could make himself invisible: but when, gratifying his vanity, he exults in his pride, he discovers quite contrary symptoms; his spirits swell and fan the arterial blood; a more than ordinary warmth strengthens and dilates the heart; the extremities are cool; he feels light to himself, and imagines he could tread on air; his head is held up, his eyes rolled about with sprightliness; he rejoices at his being, is prone to anger, and would be glad that all the world could take notice of him.

When a man is overwhelmed with shame, he feels his spirits drop! His heart turns cold and heavy, and the blood rushes away from it to the outer parts of his body; his face flushes, and his neck and part of his chest feel heated. He feels as heavy as lead; his head hangs low, and through a haze of confusion, his eyes are fixed on the ground: no offense can rouse him; he's exhausted by his existence and wishes he could disappear. But when, indulging his vanity, he revels in his pride, he experiences completely different feelings; his spirits rise and pump the blood through his veins; an unusual warmth fills and expands his heart; his limbs feel cool; he feels light and thinks he could float; he holds his head high, his eyes move around with energy; he takes pleasure in being alive, is quick to anger, and wishes everyone would notice him.

It is incredible how necessary an ingredient shame is to make us sociable; it is a frailty in our nature; all the world, whenever it affects them, submit to it with regret, and would prevent it if they could; yet the happiness of conversation depends upon it, and no society could be polished, if the generality of mankind were not subject to it. As, therefore, the sense of shame is troublesome, and all creatures are ever labouring for their own defence, it is probable, that man [30]striving to avoid this uneasiness, would, in a great measure, conquer his shame by that he was grown up; but this would be detrimental to the society, and therefore from his infancy, throughout his education, we endeavour to increase, instead of lessening or destroying this sense of shame; and the only remedy prescribed, is a strict observance of certain rules, to avoid those things that might bring this troublesome sense of shame upon him. But as to rid or cure him of it, the politician would sooner take away his life.

It's amazing how essential shame is for us to be social; it's a weakness in our nature. Everyone, when it affects them, accepts it with regret and would stop it if they could. Yet, the joy of conversation relies on it, and no society could be refined if most people weren't affected by it. Therefore, since the feeling of shame is bothersome, and all creatures are constantly working to defend themselves, it's likely that as a person grows up, they would largely overcome their shame to escape this discomfort. However, this would harm society, so from childhood through education, we try to strengthen, rather than lessen or eliminate, this sense of shame. The only solution offered is to strictly follow certain rules to avoid actions that could trigger this uncomfortable feeling of shame. As for eliminating or curing it, a politician would sooner take away one's life.

The rules I speak of, consist in a dextrous management of ourselves, a stifling of our appetites, and hiding the real sentiments of our hearts before others. Those who are not instructed in these rules long before they come to years of maturity, seldom make any progress in them afterwards. To acquire and bring to perfection the accomplishment I hint at, nothing is more assisting than pride and good sense. The greediness we have after the esteem of others, and the raptures we enjoy in the thoughts of being liked, and perhaps admired, are equivalents that over-pay the conquest of the strongest passions, and consequently keep us at a great distance from all such words or actions that can bring shame upon us. The passions we chiefly ought to hide, for the happiness and embellishment of the society, are lust, pride, and selfishness; therefore the word modesty has three different acceptations, that vary with the passions it conceals.

The rules I'm talking about involve skillfully managing ourselves, controlling our desires, and hiding our true feelings from others. Those who haven’t learned these rules by the time they reach adulthood rarely make any significant progress with them later on. To master this skill I’m referring to, nothing helps more than pride and common sense. Our eagerness to be valued by others, and the joy we feel when we think about being liked or even admired, compensate for overcoming our strongest desires and keep us far away from any words or actions that could bring us shame. The emotions we should primarily conceal for the sake of happiness and enhancing society are lust, pride, and selfishness; therefore, the term modesty has three different meanings that change depending on the passions it hides.

As to the first, I mean the branch of modesty, that has a general pretension to chastity for its object, it consists in a sincere and painful endeavour, with all our faculties, to stifle and conceal before others, that inclination which nature has given us to propagate our species. The lessons of it, like those of grammar, are taught us long before we have occasion for, or understand the usefulness of them; for this reason children often are ashamed, and blush out of modesty, before the impulse of nature I hint at makes any impression upon them. A girl who is modestly educated, may, before she is two years old, begin to observe how careful the women she converses with, are of covering themselves before men; and the same caution being inculcated to her by precept, as well as example, it is very probable that at six she will be ashamed of showing her leg, without knowing any reason why such an act is blameable, or what the tendency of it is.

Regarding the first point, which is modesty, with its overall focus on chastity, it involves a genuine and often painful effort to suppress and hide from others that natural inclination we have to reproduce. The lessons about it, much like those of grammar, are learned long before we actually need them or understand their value; for this reason, children often feel ashamed and blush out of modesty, even before they are influenced by natural impulses. A girl who is raised with modesty may start to notice, even before she turns two, how careful the women around her are about covering up in front of men. With both instruction and example reinforcing this behavior, it’s quite likely that by the time she’s six, she will feel embarrassed about showing her leg, without really understanding why such behavior is considered wrong or what the implications of it are.

To be modest, we ought, in the first place, to avoid all unfashionable denudations: a woman is not to be found fault [31]with for going with her neck bare, if the custom of the country allows of it; and when the mode orders the stays to be cut very low, a blooming virgin may, without fear of rational censure, show all the world:

To be modest, we should first avoid any outdated exposure: a woman shouldn't be criticized for having her neck bare if it's the custom in her country; and when fashion dictates that bodices are cut very low, a young lady can, without fear of reasonable judgment, show off to everyone: [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

How firm her pouting breasts, that white as snow,

How firm her pouting breasts, that white as snow,

On th’ ample chest at mighty distance grow.

On the wide chest far in the distance grow.

But to suffer her ancle to be seen, where it is the fashion for women to hide their very feet, is a breach of modesty; and she is impudent, who shows half her face in a country where decency bids her to be veiled. In the second, our language must be chaste, and not only free, but remote from obscenities, that is, whatever belongs to the multiplication of our species is not to be spoke of, and the least word or expression, that, though at a great distance, has any relation to that performance, ought never to come from our lips. Thirdly, all postures and motions that can any ways sully the imagination, that is, put us in mind of what I have called obscenities, are to be forbore with great caution.

But allowing her ankle to be seen, when it's common for women to cover their feet, is a violation of modesty; and it's inappropriate for her to show half her face in a place where decency requires her to be veiled. Secondly, our language must be pure, not just free but also far removed from obscenities; that is, anything related to reproduction shouldn’t be discussed, and even the slightest word or phrase with any connection to that topic should never come from our mouths. Thirdly, we should avoid any postures or movements that could tarnish the imagination, meaning they remind us of what I've referred to as obscenities, with great care.

A young woman, moreover, that would be thought well-bred, ought to be circumspect before men in all her behaviour, and never known to receive from, much less to bestow favours upon them, unless the great age of the man, near consanguinity, or a vast superiority on either side, plead her excuse. A young lady of refined education keeps a strict guard over her looks, as well as actions, and in her eyes we may read a consciousness that she has a treasure about her, not out of danger of being lost, and which yet she is resolved not to part with at any terms. Thousand satires have been made against prudes, and as many encomiums to extol the careless graces, and negligent air of virtuous beauty. But the wiser sort of mankind are well assured, that the free and open countenance of the smiling fair, is more inviting, and yields greater hopes to the seducer, than the ever-watchful look of a forbidding eye.

A young woman who wants to be seen as well-mannered should be cautious in her behavior around men and should never be seen accepting or giving favors to them, unless the man is much older, they are related, or there's a significant difference in status. A lady with a good education carefully controls her appearance and actions, and her expression shows that she possesses something valuable that she is determined to keep safe. Many have criticized overly prim women and praised those who are effortlessly graceful and laid-back. However, the more sensible people realize that the cheerful and open face of a smiling woman is more appealing and offers greater chances for seduction than the constant vigilance of a cold, uninviting glance.

This strict reservedness is to be complied with by all young women, especially virgins, if they value the esteem of the polite and knowing world; men may take greater liberty, because in them the appetite is more violent and ungovernable. Had equal harshness of discipline been imposed upon both, neither of them could have made the first advances, and propagation must have stood still among all the fashionable people: which being far from the politician’s aim, it was advisable [32]to ease and indulge the sex that suffered most by the severity, and make the rules abate of their rigour, where the passion was the strongest, and the burden of a strict restraint would have been the most intolerable.

This strict reserve should be followed by all young women, especially virgins, if they want to maintain their reputation in polite society; men can be more liberal because their desires are stronger and harder to control. If both genders faced the same strict discipline, neither could take the initiative, and procreation would come to a halt among the fashionable elite. Since this is not the goal of politicians, it makes sense to ease the restrictions on the sex that is most affected by this severity and to relax the rules where desire is strongest, as that strict control would be the most unbearable. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

For this reason, the man is allowed openly to profess the veneration and great esteem he has for women, and show greater satisfaction, more mirth and gaiety in their company, than he is used to do out of it. He may not only be complaisant and serviceable to them on all occasions, but it is reckoned his duty to protect and defend them. He may praise the good qualities they are possessed of, and extol their merit with as many exaggerations as his invention will let him, and are consistent with good sense. He may talk of love, he may sigh and complain of the rigours of the fair, and what his tongue must not utter he has the privilege to speak with his eyes, and in that language to say what he pleases; so it be done with decency, and short abrupted glances: but too closely to pursue a woman, and fasten upon her with ones eyes, is counted very unmannerly; the reason is plain, it makes her uneasy, and, if she be not sufficiently fortified by art and dissimulation, often throws her into visible disorders. As the eyes are the windows of the soul, so this staring impudence flings a raw, unexperienced woman, into panic fears, that she may be seen through; and that the man will discover, or has already betrayed, what passes within her: it keeps her on a perpetual rack, that commands her to reveal her secret wishes, and seems designed to extort from her the grand truth, which modesty bids her with all her faculties to deny.

For this reason, a man is allowed to openly express his admiration and high regard for women, and to show more happiness, laughter, and joy in their company than he typically does elsewhere. He shouldn’t just be polite and helpful to them in every situation, but it’s considered his duty to protect and defend them. He can praise their good qualities and celebrate their achievements with as much enthusiasm as his imagination allows, as long as it makes sense. He can talk about love, sigh, and express his frustrations about the harshness of women, and what he can't say with words, he has the privilege to convey with his eyes, using that language to say whatever he likes—as long as it’s done respectfully and with brief, interrupted glances. However, to pursue a woman too closely and fixate on her with his gaze is seen as very rude; the reason is simple: it makes her uncomfortable, and if she isn't well-prepared with charm and pretense, it often causes her visible distress. Since the eyes are the windows to the soul, this staring impertinence can terrify an inexperienced woman with the fear that she might be seen through; it makes her worry that the man will uncover or has already exposed what she's feeling inside. It puts her in a constant state of discomfort, compelling her to reveal her hidden desires, which her modesty tells her to deny with all her efforts.

The multitude will hardly believe the excessive force of education, and in the difference of modesty between men and women, ascribe that to nature which is altogether owing to early instruction: Miss is scarce three years old, but she is spoke to every day to hide her leg, and rebuked in good earnest if she shows it; while little Master at the same age is bid to take up his coats, and piss like a man. It is shame and education that contains the seeds of all politeness, and he that has neither, and offers to speak the truth of his heart, and what he feels within, is the most contemptible creature upon earth, though he committed no other fault. If a man should tell a woman, that he could like no body so well to propagate his species upon, as herself, and that he found a violent desire that moment to go about it, and accordingly offered to lay hold of her for that purpose; the consequence [33]would be, that he would be called a brute, the woman would run away, and himself be never admitted in any civil company. There is no body that has any sense of shame, but would conquer the strongest passion rather than be so served. But a man need not conquer his passions, it is sufficient that he conceals them. Virtue bids us subdue, but good breeding only requires we should hide our appetites. A fashionable gentleman may have as violent an inclination to a woman as the brutish fellow; but then he behaves himself quite otherwise; he first addresses the lady’s father, and demonstrates his ability splendidly to maintain his daughter; upon this he is admitted into her company, where, by flattery, submission, presents, and assiduity, he endeavours to procure her liking to his person, which if he can compass, the lady in a little while resigns herself to him before witnesses in a most solemn manner; at night they go to bed together, where the most reserved virgin very tamely suffers him to do what he pleases, and the upshot is, that he obtains what he wanted without ever having asked for it.

The majority of people will hardly grasp the overwhelming influence of education, and when it comes to the differences in modesty between men and women, they attribute that to nature, which is actually due to early teaching. A girl is barely three years old, but she’s told every day to keep her legs hidden, and she’s scolded seriously if she shows them; meanwhile, little boys the same age are encouraged to roll up their pants and urinate like men. It is shame and upbringing that plant the seeds of all politeness, and anyone who lacks both and dares to express the truth of their feelings is the most despicable person on earth, even if they haven't committed any other offense. If a man were to tell a woman that he couldn't think of anyone better to have children with than her and that he felt a strong urge to pursue that, and then he tried to take hold of her for that reason, the result would be that he'd be called a brute, the woman would run away, and he’d be shunned from any respectable company. Anyone with a sense of shame would rather suppress their strongest desires than face such a scenario. But a man doesn't need to suppress his desires; it's enough that he hides them. Virtue tells us to control ourselves, but good manners just require us to disguise our wants. A well-to-do gentleman might have as intense a desire for a woman as a boor; however, he acts very differently. He first approaches the lady’s father and shows that he can financially provide for his daughter; with that, he gains access to her company, where, through flattery, respect, gifts, and attentiveness, he tries to win her affection. If he succeeds, she eventually gives herself to him in a very formal way before witnesses; later, they go to bed together, where even the most modest virgin allows him to do what he wants, and the outcome is that he gets what he wanted without ever directly asking for it.

The next day they receive visits, and no body laughs at them, or speaks a word of what they have been doing. As to the young couple themselves, they take no more notice of one another, I speak of well-bred people, than they did the day before; they eat and drink, divert themselves as usually, and having done nothing to be ashamed of, are looked upon as, what in reality they may be, the most modest people upon earth. What I mean by this, is to demonstrate, that by being well-bred, we suffer no abridgement in our sensual pleasures, but only labour for our mutual happiness, and assist each other in the luxurious enjoyment of all worldly comforts. The fine gentleman I spoke of need not practise any greater self-denial than the savage, and the latter acted more according to the laws of nature and sincerity than the first. The man that gratifies his appetites after the manner the custom of the country allows of, has no censure to fear. If he is hotter than goats or bulls, as soon as the ceremony is over, let him sate and fatigue himself with joy and ecstacies of pleasure, raise and indulge his appetites by turns, as extravagantly as his strength and manhood will give him leave, he may with safety laugh at the wise men that should reprove him: all the women, and above nine in ten of the men are of his side; nay, he has the liberty of valuing himself upon the fury of his unbridled passion, and the more he wallows [34]in lust, and strains every faculty to be abandonedly voluptuous, the sooner he shall have the good-will and gain the affection of the women, not the young, vain, and lascivious only, but the prudent, grave, and most sober matrons.

The next day, they get visitors, and nobody laughs at them or brings up what they've been doing. As for the young couple themselves, they pay no more attention to each other—speaking of well-mannered people—than they did the day before; they eat and drink, enjoy themselves as usual, and since they have nothing to be ashamed of, they're seen as, what they may really be, the most modest people on earth. What I mean by this is to show that being well-mannered doesn't cut down on our pleasures; it just means we work for each other's happiness and help each other enjoy all the comforts of life. The fine gentleman I mentioned doesn't need to practice more self-denial than a savage, and the latter acts more in line with nature and honesty than the former. A man who fulfills his desires in a way that's acceptable in his culture has nothing to fear in terms of judgment. If he is hotter than goats or bulls, once the ceremony is over, he can indulge and exhaust himself in joy and pleasure, raising and satisfying his desires as wildly as his strength allows; he can safely laugh at those wise men who try to criticize him: all the women and more than nine out of ten of the men are on his side; in fact, he has the freedom to take pride in the intensity of his uncontrollable passion, and the more he immerses himself in lust and pushes every boundary to be extravagantly indulgent, the quicker he'll earn the goodwill and affection of women, not just the young, vain, and lascivious ones, but also the wise, serious, and most respectable matrons.

Because impudence is a vice, it does not follow that modesty is a virtue; it is built upon shame, a passion in our nature, and may be either good or bad according to the actions performed from that motive. Shame may hinder a prostitute from yielding to a man before company, and the same shame may cause a bashful good-natured creature, that has been overcome by frailty, to make away with her infant. Passions may do good by chance, but there can be no merit but in the conquest of them.

Because arrogance is a bad trait, it doesn't mean that modesty is a good one; it's based on shame, which is a natural feeling, and can be either positive or negative depending on the actions taken because of it. Shame might stop a sex worker from being intimate with someone in front of others, while the same feeling may lead a shy but kind person, who has given in to weakness, to harm her baby. Emotions can sometimes lead to good outcomes, but true worth comes from overcoming them.

Was there virtue in modesty, it would be of the same force in the dark as it is in the light, which it is not. This the men of pleasure know very well, who never trouble their heads with a woman’s virtue, so they can but conquer her modesty; seducers, therefore, do not make their attacks at noon-day, but cut their trenches at night.

Was there virtue in modesty, it would be just as strong in the dark as it is in the light, but it’s not. The pleasure-seekers know this very well; they don’t think about a woman’s virtue as long as they can overcome her modesty. That's why seducers don’t make their moves during the day, but instead set their traps at night.

Illa verecundis lux est præbenda puellis,

Illa virtuous lux est for the girls,

Qua timidus latebras sperat habere pudor.

Qua timidus latebras sperat habere pudor.

People of substance may sin without being exposed for their stolen pleasure; but servants, and the poorer sort of women, have seldom the opportunity of concealing a big belly, or at least the consequences of it. It is impossible that an unfortunate girl of good parentage may be left destitute, and know no shift for a livelihood than to become a nursery, or a chambermaid: she may be diligent, faithful, and obliging, have abundance of modesty, and if you will, be religious: she may resist temptations, and preserve her chastity for years together, and yet at last meet with an unhappy moment in which she gives up her honour to a powerful deceiver, who afterwards neglects her. If she proves with child, her sorrows are unspeakable, and she cannot be reconciled with the wretchedness of her condition; the fear of shame attacks her so lively, that every thought distracts her. All the family she lives in have a great opinion of her virtue, and her last mistress took her for a saint. How will her enemies, that envied her character, rejoice! How will her relations detest her! The more modest she is now, and the more violently the dread of coming to shame hurries her away, the more wicked and more cruel her resolutions will be, either against herself or what she bears. [35]

People of privilege can sin without facing consequences for their secret pleasures; however, servants and poorer women rarely have the chance to hide a big belly, or at least the results of it. It’s unlikely that an unfortunate girl from a good family will be left without support and only see options like becoming a nanny or a maid: she might be hardworking, loyal, helpful, and possess plenty of modesty, and if you insist, be religious too. She might resist temptations and keep her chastity for years, yet still find herself in an unfortunate moment where she sacrifices her honor to a powerful deceiver who later abandons her. If she ends up pregnant, her anguish is beyond words, and she can’t come to terms with her miserable situation; the fear of shame overwhelms her to the point that she can’t think straight. The family she lives with has a high opinion of her virtue, and her last employer thought she was a saint. How will her enemies, who envied her reputation, celebrate! How will her relatives scorn her! The more modest she is now, and the more urgently the fear of shame drives her, the more desperate and ruthless her actions will become, whether against herself or her situation. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

It is commonly imagined, that she who can destroy her child, her own flesh and blood, must have a vast stock of barbarity, and be a savage monster, different from other women; but this is likewise a mistake, which we commit for the want of understanding nature and the force of passions. The same woman that murders her bastard in the most execrable manner, if she is married afterwards, may take care of, cherish, and feel all the tenderness for her infant that the fondest mother can be capable of. All mothers naturally love their children: but as this is a passion, and all passions centre in self-love, so it may be subdued by any superior passion, to sooth that same self-love, which if nothing had intervened, would have bid her fondle her offspring. Common whores, whom all the world knows to be such, hardly ever destroy their children; nay, even those who assist in robberies and murders seldom are guilty of this crime; not because they are less cruel or more virtuous, but because they have lost their modesty to a greater degree, and the fear of shame makes hardly any impression upon them.

It's often thought that a woman who can harm her child, her own flesh and blood, must possess a huge amount of cruelty and be a savage monster, different from other women; but this is also a misconception stemming from our lack of understanding of human nature and the power of emotions. The same woman who kills her illegitimate child in the most horrible way, if she later gets married, may care for, nurture, and feel all the love for her baby that the most dedicated mother can experience. All mothers naturally love their children: but since this is an emotion, and all emotions are linked to self-love, it can be overpowered by any stronger emotion that pleases that same self-love, which, if nothing else had happened, would have driven her to cherish her offspring. Common prostitutes, whom everyone knows to be such, rarely harm their children; in fact, even those who participate in robberies and murders seldom commit this crime; not because they are less cruel or more virtuous, but because they have lost their sense of shame to a greater extent, and the fear of disgrace hardly affects them.

Our love to what never was within the reach of our senses is but poor and inconsiderable, and therefore women have no natural love to what they bear; their affection begins after the birth: what they feel before is the result of reason, education, and the thoughts of duty. Even when children first are born, the mother’s love is but weak, and increases with the sensibility of the child, and grows up to a prodigious height, when by signs it begins to express his sorrows and joys, makes his wants known, and discovers his love to novelty and the multiplicity of his desires. What labours and hazards have not women undergone to maintain and save their children, what force and fortitude beyond their sex have they not shown in their behalf! but the vilest women have exerted themselves on this head as violently as the best. All are prompted to it by a natural drift and inclination, without any consideration of the injury or benefit the society receives from it. There is no merit in pleasing ourselves, and the very offspring is often irreparably ruined by the excessive fondness of parents: for though infants, for two or three years, may be the better for this indulging care of mothers, yet afterwards, if not moderated, it may totally spoil them, and many it has brought to the gallows.

Our love for things that we can't experience with our senses is weak and insignificant, and that's why women don't naturally love what they give birth to; their affection starts after the baby is born. What they feel beforehand is influenced by reason, education, and a sense of duty. Even when children are first born, a mother’s love is initially weak and grows stronger as the child becomes more aware and expressive of their feelings. The love intensifies immensely when the child starts to show signs of their happiness, sadness, needs, and new desires. Women have gone through incredible struggles and risks to protect their children, showing strength that goes beyond what’s expected of their gender. Even the least admirable women have shown this same intensity in caring for their children. Everyone is driven by a natural instinct, without considering how it affects society as a whole. There’s no real credit in seeking our own pleasure, and often excessive love from parents can harm their children irreparably: while infants may benefit from their mothers' indulgent care for the first two or three years, if that care isn't balanced, it can ruin them completely, and many have ended up facing severe consequences because of it.

If the reader thinks I have been too tedious on that branch of modesty, by the help of which we endeavour to appear [36]chaste, I shall make him amends in the brevity with which I design to treat of the remaining part, by which we would make others believe, that the esteem we have for them exceeds the value we have for ourselves, and that we have no disregard so great to any interest as we have to our own. This laudable quality is commonly known by the name of Manners and Good-breeding, and consists in a fashionable habit, acquired by precept and example, of flattering the pride and selfishness of others, and concealing our own with judgment and dexterity. This must be only understood of our commerce with our equals and superiors, and whilst we are in peace and amity with them; for our complaisance must never interfere with the rules of honour, nor the homage that is due to us from servants and others that depend upon us.

If the reader thinks I've been too tedious discussing modesty, which helps us appear [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]chaste, I’ll make it up to them with a brief treatment of the rest, which aims to convince others that we value them more than we value ourselves and that we don’t disregard any interest as much as we disregard our own. This admirable quality is commonly referred to as Manners and Good-breeding, and it involves a social skill developed through teaching and example, where we flatter the pride and selfishness of others while skillfully concealing our own. This should only be understood in our interactions with peers and superiors while we maintain peace and goodwill with them; our politeness must never compromise our sense of honor or the respect that is owed to us by subordinates and others who depend on us.

With this caution, I believe, that the definition will quadrate with every thing that can be alleged as a piece, or an example of either good-breeding or ill manners; and it will be very difficult throughout the various accidents of human life and conversation, to find out an instance of modesty or impudence that is not comprehended in, and illustrated by it, in all countries and in all ages. A man that asks considerable favours of one who is a stranger to him, without consideration, is called impudent, because he shows openly his selfishness, without having any regard to the selfishness of the other. We may see in it, likewise, the reason why a man ought to speak of his wife and children, and every thing that is dear to him, as sparing as is possible, and hardly ever of himself, especially in commendation of them. A well-bred man may be desirous, and even greedy after praise and the esteem of others, but to be praised to his face offends his modesty: the reason is this; all human creatures, before they are yet polished, receive an extraordinary pleasure in hearing themselves praised: this we are all conscious of, and therefore when we see a man openly enjoy and feast on this delight, in which we have no share, it rouses our selfishness, and immediately we begin to envy and hate him. For this reason, the well-bred man conceals his joy, and utterly denies that he feels any, and by this means consulting and soothing our selfishness, he averts that envy and hatred, which otherwise he would have justly to fear. When from our childhood we observe how those are ridiculed who calmly can hear their own praises, it is possible that we may strenuously endeavour [37]to avoid that pleasure, that in tract of time we grow uneasy at the approach of it: but this is not following the dictates of nature, but warping her by education and custom; for if the generality of mankind took no delight in being praised, there could be no modesty in refusing to hear it.

With this caution, I believe the definition will fit everything that can be mentioned as a case or example of either good manners or bad manners; and it will be very hard throughout the various situations of human life and conversation to find an example of modesty or brazenness that isn’t included in, and explained by, it across all countries and ages. A man who asks for significant favors from someone he doesn’t know without any consideration is called rude because he openly shows his selfishness, not caring about the selfishness of the other person. We can also see why a man should talk about his wife and children, and everything he cherishes, as little as possible, and hardly ever about himself, especially when praising them. A well-mannered man may want and even crave praise and the regard of others, but being praised in front of him offends his modesty: the reason is this: all human beings, before they are refined, take great pleasure in hearing themselves praised: we all know this, and so when we see someone openly enjoying this pleasure, which we aren’t part of, it sparks our selfishness, and we start to envy and resent him. For this reason, the well-mannered man hides his joy and completely denies feeling any, and by doing this, he caters to and calms our selfishness, preventing that envy and hatred which he would otherwise justifiably fear. As we grow up, when we observe how those who can calmly accept their own praises are mocked, it’s possible we might strongly strive [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] to avoid that pleasure, so much that over time we become uneasy at the thought of it: but this doesn’t follow the dictates of nature; it distorts it through education and custom; because if most people took no pleasure in being praised, there wouldn’t be any modesty in refusing to hear it.

The man of manners picks not the best, but rather takes the worst out of the dish, and gets of every thing, unless it be forced upon him, always the most indifferent share. By this civility the best remains for others, which being a compliment to all that are present, every body is pleased with it: the more they love themselves, the more they are forced to approve of his behaviour, and gratitude stepping in, they are obliged almost, whether they will or not, to think favourably of him. After this manner, it is the well-bred man insinuates himself in the esteem of all the companies he comes in, and if he gets nothing else by it, the pleasure he receives in reflecting on the applause which he knows is secretly given him, is to a proud man more than an equivalent for his former self-denial, and overpays to self-love with interest, the loss it sustained in his complaisance to others.

The polite person doesn’t take the best from the dish but chooses the least appealing instead, ensuring that they get the most mediocre portion unless something is forced upon them. This kind of civility allows the best to be left for others, which acts as a compliment to everyone present, making them all feel good about it. The more they appreciate themselves, the more they can't help but approve of his behavior, and with gratitude coming into play, they almost have to think positively of him, whether they want to or not. In this way, the well-mannered person earns the respect of every group he joins, and even if he gains nothing else, the joy he feels from reflecting on the praise he knows he secretly receives is, for a proud individual, more than enough to make up for his earlier self-restraint, effectively rewarding his kindness to others with interest.

If there are seven or eight apples or peaches among six people of ceremony, that are pretty near equal, he who is prevailed upon to choose first, will take that, which, if there be any considerable difference, a child would know to be the worst: this he does to insinuate, that he looks upon those he is with to be of superior merit, and that there is not one whom he wishes not better to than he does to himself. It is custom and a general practice that makes this modish deceit familiar to us, without being shocked at the absurdity of it; for if people had been used to speak from the sincerity of their hearts, and act according to the natural sentiments they felt within, until they were three or four and twenty, it would be impossible for them to assist at this comedy of manners, without either loud laughter or indignation; and yet it is certain, that such behaviour makes us more tolerable to one another, than we could be otherwise.

If there are seven or eight apples or peaches among six people at a gathering, which are pretty much equal, the person who is chosen to pick first will take the one that, if there is any significant difference, even a child would recognize as the worst. They do this to suggest that they see everyone around them as better than themselves and that they wish well for everyone more than they do for themselves. It's custom and common practice that make this trendy deception familiar to us, without us being shocked by its absurdity; because if people had grown up expressing their true feelings and acting according to their genuine sentiments until they were in their early twenties, it would be impossible for them to engage in this social performance without either laughing loudly or feeling outraged. Yet, it’s certain that such behavior makes us more tolerable of one another than we would be otherwise.

It is very advantageous to the knowledge of ourselves, to be able well to distinguish between good qualities and virtues. The bond of society exacts from every member a certain regard for others, which the highest is not exempt from in the presence of the meanest even in an empire: but when we are by ourselves, and so far removed from company, as to be beyond the reach of their senses, the words modesty and impudence [38]lose their meaning; a person may be wicked, but he cannot be immodest while he is alone, and no thought can be impudent that never was communicated to another. A man of exalted pride may so hide it, that no body shall be able to discover that he has any; and yet receive greater satisfaction from that passion than another, who indulges himself in the declaration of it before all the world. Good manners having nothing to do with virtue or religion; instead of extinguishing, they rather inflame the passions. The man of sense and education never exults more in his pride than when he hides it with the greatest dexterity; and in feasting on the applause, which he is sure all good judges will pay to his behaviour, he enjoys a pleasure altogether unknown to the short-sighted surly alderman, that shows his haughtiness glaringly in his face, pulls off his hat to nobody, and hardly deigns to speak to an inferior.

It's really helpful for understanding ourselves to clearly distinguish between good traits and virtues. Society demands that each member shows some consideration for others, and this applies even to the highest-ranking individuals when they interact with those of lower status, even in an empire. However, when we are alone, away from others and their perceptions, the terms modesty and impudence lose their meaning. A person may be wicked, but they can't be immodest on their own, and any thought can’t be impudent if it hasn’t been shared with anyone else. A person with great pride might conceal it so well that no one can tell he has any, yet he may derive more satisfaction from that pride than someone who openly boasts about it. Good manners aren't tied to virtue or religion; instead of diminishing them, they actually intensify our passions. A sensible and educated person finds the greatest thrill in subtly hiding their pride. As they relish the praise they know discerning people will give for their behavior, they experience a joy completely unknown to the short-sighted, sullen politician who wears his arrogance on his sleeve, doesn’t tip his hat to anyone, and barely acknowledges those he considers beneath him.

A man may carefully avoid every thing that in the eye of the world, is esteemed to be the result of pride, without mortifying himself, or making the least conquest of his passion. It is possible that he only sacrifices the insipid outward part of his pride, which none but silly ignorant people take delight in, to that part we all feel within, and which the men of the highest spirit and most exalted genius feed on with so much ecstacy in silence. The pride of great and polite men is no where more conspicuous than in the debates about ceremony and precedency, where they have an opportunity of giving their vices the appearance of virtues, and can make the world believe that it is their care, their tenderness for the dignity of their office, or the honour of their masters, what is the result of their own personal pride and vanity. This is most manifest in all negotiations of ambassadors and plenipotentiaries, and must be known by all that observe what is transacted at public treaties; and it will ever be true, that men of the best taste have no relish in their pride, as long as any mortal can find out that they are proud.

A man can carefully avoid anything that the world sees as prideful, without humiliating himself or controlling his feelings. It's possible that he only gives up the bland outer layer of his pride, which only foolish, ignorant people take pleasure in, for the deeper part we all experience, and which those with great spirit and exceptional talent nourish in silent ecstasy. The pride of distinguished and refined individuals is most evident in debates about ceremony and hierarchy, where they can make their faults seem like virtues, convincing others that their concerns are about the dignity of their role or the honor of their superiors, rather than their own personal pride and vanity. This is especially clear in the dealings of ambassadors and representatives, and anyone observing public negotiations will see this. It will always be true that people of good taste find no enjoyment in their pride as long as anyone can notice that they are proud.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 125. For there was not a bee but would

Line 125. For there was not a bee that would

Get more, I won’t say, than he should;

Get more, I won’t say, than he should;

But than, &c.

But then, etc.

The vast esteem we have of ourselves, and the small value we have for others, make us all very unfair judges in our own [39]cases. Few men can be persuaded that they get too much by those they sell to, how extraordinary soever their gains are, when, at the same time, there is hardly a profit so inconsiderable, but they will grudge it to those they buy from; for this reason the smallest of the seller’s advantage being the greatest persuasive to the buyer; tradesmen are generally forced to tell lies in their own defence, and invent a thousand improbable stories, rather than discover what they really get by their commodities. Some old standers, indeed, that pretend to more honesty (or what is more likely, have more pride), than their neighbours, are used to make but few words with their customers, and refuse to sell at a lower price than what they ask at first. But these are commonly cunning foxes that are above the world, and know that those who have money, get often more by being surly, than others by being obliging. The vulgar imagine they can find more sincerity in the sour looks of a grave old fellow, than there appears in the submissive air and inviting complacency of a young beginner. But this is a grand mistake; and if they are mercers, drapers, or others, that have many sorts of the same commodity, you may soon be satisfied; look upon their goods and you will find each of them have their private marks, which is a certain sign that both are equally careful in concealing the prime cost of what they sell.

The high regard we have for ourselves and the low regard we have for others make us all pretty unfair judges in our own cases. Few people can be convinced that they’re getting too much from those they sell to, no matter how incredible their profits are. At the same time, there’s hardly any profit so small that they won’t resent giving it to those they buy from. For this reason, even the smallest advantage for the seller becomes the biggest reason for the buyer to push back; traders often end up lying to protect themselves, making up all sorts of unlikely stories instead of revealing what they really earn from their goods. Some long-established sellers, who claim to be more honest (or more likely, are just prouder) than their neighbors, tend to say little to their customers and refuse to sell for less than their initial asking price. But these are usually clever individuals who understand that those with money often gain more by being standoffish than others do by being accommodating. Common folks mistakenly believe they can find more sincerity in the stern demeanor of a serious older person than in the friendly and welcoming attitude of a younger seller. But this is a major misconception; if they’re selling fabrics, clothing, or similar items, you’ll soon be able to tell. Look at their goods, and you’ll see that each has its own private marks, which clearly indicates that both are equally careful about hiding the actual cost of what they sell.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 128. ————As your gamesters do,

As your players do,

That, though at fair play ne’er will own

That, even though in a fair game, will never admit

Before the losers what they’ve won.

Before the losers see what they’ve won.

This being a general practice, which no body can be ignorant of, that has ever seen any play, there must be something in the make of man that is the occasion of it: but as the searching into this will seem very trifling to many, I desire the reader to skip this remark, unless he be in perfect good humour, and has nothing at all to do.

This is a common practice that anyone who has seen a play would recognize, so there must be something about human nature that causes it. However, since digging into this might seem trivial to many, I suggest that the reader skip this comment unless they are in a really good mood and have nothing else to occupy their time.

That gamesters generally endeavour to conceal their gains before the losers, seems to me to proceed from a mixture of gratitude, pity, and self-preservation. All men are naturally grateful while they receive a benefit, and what they say or do, while it affects and feels warm about them, is real, and comes from the heart; but when that is over, the returns we make generally proceed from virtue, good manners, reason, [40]and the thoughts of duty, but not from gratitude, which is a motive of the inclination. If we consider, how tyrannically the immoderate love we bear to ourselves, obliges us to esteem every body that with or without design acts in our favour, and how often we extend our affection to things inanimate, when we imagine them to contribute to our present advantage: if, I say, we consider this, it will not be difficult to find out which way our being pleased with those whose money we win is owing to a principle of gratitude. The next motive is our pity, which proceeds from our consciousness of the vexation there is in losing; and as we love the esteem of every body, we are afraid of forfeiting theirs by being the cause of their loss. Lastly, we apprehend their envy, and so self-preservation makes that we strive to extenuate first the obligation, then the reason why we ought to pity, in hopes that we shall have less of their ill-will and envy. When the passions show themselves in their full strength, they are known by every body: When a man in power gives a great place to one that did him a small kindness in his youth, we call it gratitude: When a woman howls and wrings her hands at the loss of her child, the prevalent passion is grief; and the uneasiness we feel at the sight of great misfortunes, as a man’s breaking his legs, or dashing his brains out, is every where called pity. But the gentle strokes, the slight touches of the passions, are generally overlooked or mistaken.

Gamblers usually try to hide their winnings from the losers, which I think comes from a mix of gratitude, pity, and self-preservation. Everyone feels thankful when they receive a benefit, and what they say or do in those moments is genuine and heartfelt; but once that moment passes, our responses often come from virtue, good manners, reason, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] and a sense of duty, rather than from actual gratitude, which is more about desire. If we consider how our intense self-love makes us value everyone who acts in our favor, whether intentionally or not, and how we sometimes even develop affection for inanimate things when we think they benefit us, it becomes clear why we feel pleased with those we win money from—it’s a form of gratitude. The next reason is our pity, which arises from knowing how painful losing can be; since we want to maintain everyone's respect, we worry about losing it by being responsible for their losses. Lastly, we fear their envy, so we try to downplay our obligation to them and the reason we should feel pity, in hopes of attracting less of their resentment and jealousy. When emotions are fully expressed, they’re obvious to everyone: When a powerful person gives a significant position to someone who did a small favor for them in the past, we see it as gratitude. When a woman cries and wrings her hands at the loss of her child, the dominant emotion is grief; and the discomfort we feel when witnessing severe misfortunes, like a man breaking his legs or injuring his head, is universally recognized as pity. However, the subtler expressions of emotion are often overlooked or misunderstood.

To prove my assertion, we have but to observe what generally passes between the winner and the loser. The first is always complaisant, and if the other will but keep his temper, more than ordinary obliging; he is ever ready to humour the loser, and willing to rectify his mistakes with precaution, and the height of good manners. The loser is uneasy, captious, morose, and perhaps swears and storms; yet as long as he says or does nothing designedly affronting, the winner takes all in good part, without offending, disturbing, or contradicting him. Losers, says the proverb, must have leave to rail: All which shows that the loser is thought in the right to complain, and for that very reason pitied. That we are afraid of the loser’s ill-will, is plain from our being conscious that we are displeased with those we lose to, and envy we always dread when we think ourselves happier than others: From whence it follows, that when the winner endeavours to conceal his gains, his design is to avert the mischiefs he apprehends, and this is self-preservation; the cares [41]of which continue to affect us as long as the motives that first produced them remain.

To prove my point, we just need to look at what usually happens between the winner and the loser. The winner is always polite, and if the loser can keep their cool, the winner becomes even more accommodating; they are always ready to indulge the loser, eager to correct their mistakes carefully and with the utmost courtesy. The loser, on the other hand, is uncomfortable, irritable, and gloomy, and they might even lash out or throw a tantrum; however, as long as they don’t act intentionally disrespectful, the winner takes it all in stride, without being offended, disturbed, or contradictory. There's a saying that losers are allowed to complain: this shows that people believe the loser has the right to voice their grievances and for that reason, they are often pitied. Our fear of the loser’s resentment is clear since we know we feel annoyed with those we lose to, and we tend to fear envy when we think we’re better off than others. Thus, when the winner tries to hide their successes, it’s to avoid the troubles they anticipate, which is a form of self-preservation; those concerns [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] continue to affect us as long as the reasons behind them still exist.

But a month, a week, or perhaps a much shorter time after, when the thoughts of the obligation, and consequently the winner’s gratitude, are worn off, when the loser has recovered his temper, laughs at his loss, and the reason of the winner’s pity ceases; when the winner’s apprehension of drawing upon him the ill-will and envy of the loser is gone; that is to say, as soon as all the passions are over, and the cares of self-preservation employ the winner’s thoughts no longer, he will not only make no scruple of owning what he has won, but will, if his vanity steps in, likewise, with pleasure, brag off, if not exaggerate his gains.

But a month, a week, or maybe even a much shorter time later, when the obligation and the winner's gratitude fade away, when the loser has calmed down, laughs off their loss, and the reason for the winner's pity is gone; when the winner no longer worries about gaining the loser’s ill will and envy; in other words, as soon as all the emotions have settled, and the winner isn’t preoccupied with self-preservation anymore, they won’t hesitate to acknowledge what they’ve won. If their vanity kicks in, they might also happily brag about, if not exaggerate, their winnings.

It is possible, that when people play together who are at enmity, and perhaps desirous of picking a quarrel, or where men playing for trifles contend for superiority of skill, and aim chiefly at the glory of conquest, nothing shall happen of what I have been talking of. Different passions oblige us to take different measures; what I have said I would have understood of ordinary play for money, at which men endeavour to get, and venture to lose what they value: And even here I know it will be objected by many, that though they have been guilty of concealing their gains, yet they never observed those passions which I allege as the causes of that frailty; which is no wonder, because few men will give themselves leisure, and fewer yet take the right method of examining themselves as they should do. It is with the passions in men, as it is with colours in cloth: It is easy to know a red, a green, a blue, a yellow, a black, &c. in as many different places; but it must be an artist that can unravel all the various colours and their proportions, that make up the compound of a well-mixed cloth. In the same manner, may the passions be discovered by every body whilst they are distinct, and a single one employs the whole man; but it is very difficult to trace every motive of those actions that are the result of a mixture of passions.

It's possible that when people who don't get along play together, and might even be looking for a fight, or when people compete for small stakes just to show off their skills, nothing I've mentioned will happen. Different emotions lead us to take different actions; I meant what I said about regular games for money, where people try to win and risk losing what they care about. Even here, I know many will argue that although they've hidden their winnings, they've never noticed the emotions I believe lead to that weakness. It's not surprising, because few people take the time to reflect on themselves, and even fewer know how to examine themselves properly. Human emotions are like colors in fabric: it's easy to identify red, green, blue, yellow, black, etc., in various places, but only an artist can decipher all the different colors and their proportions that create a well-mixed fabric. Similarly, people can spot emotions when they're clear and one feeling dominates a person, but pinpointing every motive behind actions that stem from a mix of emotions is quite difficult.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 163. And virtue, who from politics

Line 163. And virtue, who from politics

Has learn’d a thousand cunning tricks,

Has learned a thousand clever tricks,

Was, by their happy influence,

Was, by their positive influence,

Made friends with vice.——

Befriended vice.

It may be said, that virtue is made friends with vice, when industrious good people, who maintain their families, and [42]bring up their children handsomely, pay taxes, and are several ways useful members of the society, get a livelihood by something that chiefly depends on, or is very much influenced by the vices of others, without being themselves guilty of, or accessary to them, any otherwise than by way of trade, as a druggist may be to poisoning, or a sword-cutler to blood-shed.

It could be said that virtue aligns itself with vice when hardworking, good people who support their families and raise their children well, pay taxes, and contribute to society in various ways, earn a living through activities that largely rely on, or are significantly affected by the vices of others, without being personally guilty of or complicit in them, except in a professional capacity, like a pharmacist dealing with poison or a sword maker connected to violence.

Thus the merchant, that sends corn or cloth into foreign parts to purchase wines and brandies, encourages the growth or manufactory of his own country; he is a benefactor to navigation, increases the customs, and is many ways beneficial to the public; yet it is not to be denied, but that his greatest dependence is lavishness and drunkenness: For, if none were to drink wine but such only as stand in need of it, nor any body more than his health required, that multitude of wine-merchants, vintners, coopers, &c. that make such a considerable show in this flourishing city, would be in a miserable condition. The same may be said not only of card and dice-makers, that are the immediate ministers to a legion of vices; but that of mercers, upholsterers, tailors, and many others, that would be starved in half a year’s time, if pride and luxury were at once to be banished the nation.

So the merchant who sends grain or fabric to other countries to buy wine and brandy supports the growth of his own country's economy; he contributes to trade, boosts customs revenue, and helps the public in many ways. However, it's undeniable that his biggest reliance is on extravagance and excessive drinking. If only those who genuinely needed wine were to drink it, and nobody drank more than was good for them, then the many wine merchants, vintners, coopers, and others who thrive in this prosperous city would be in dire straits. The same can be said not just for makers of cards and dice, who directly feed into a range of vices, but also for mercers, upholsterers, tailors, and many others who would struggle to survive within just six months if pride and luxury were suddenly eliminated from the nation.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 167. The worst of all the multitude

Line 167. The worst of all the crowd

Did something for the common good.

Did something for the greater good.

This, I know, will seem to be a strange paradox to many; and I shall be asked what benefit the public receives from thieves and house-breakers. They are, I own, very pernicious to human society, and every government ought to take all imaginable care to root out and destroy them; yet if all people were strictly honest, and nobody would meddle with, or pry into any thing but his own, half the smiths of the nation would want employment; and abundance of workmanship (which now serves for ornament as well as defence) is to be seen every where both in town and country, that would never have been thought of, but to secure us against the attempts of pilferers and robbers.

This may seem like a strange contradiction to many, and people will ask what benefit society gains from thieves and burglars. I admit they are very harmful to society, and every government should do everything possible to eliminate them; however, if everyone were completely honest and nobody meddled with or pried into anything but their own belongings, half the blacksmiths in the country would be out of work. There’s a lot of craftsmanship, which now serves both decorative and protective purposes, visible everywhere in towns and countryside that would never have been created if not for the need to protect ourselves from thieves and robbers.

If what I have said be thought far fetched, and my assertion seems still a paradox, I desire the reader to look upon the consumption of things, and he will find that the laziest and most unactive, the profligate and most mischievous, are all forced to do something for the common good, and [43]whilst their mouths are not sowed up, and they continue to wear and otherwise destroy what the industrious are daily employed about to make, fetch and procure, in spite of their teeth obliged to help, maintain the poor and the public charges. The labour of millions would soon be at an end, if there were not other millions, as I say, in the fable.

If what I’ve said seems far-fetched and my claim sounds like a paradox, I urge the reader to consider the consumption of goods. They’ll see that even the laziest, most inactive, reckless, and harmful people are still compelled to contribute something for the greater good. As long as their mouths aren’t shut and they keep using and destroying what hardworking people are constantly making, fetching, and procuring, they are, despite their objections, forced to help support the poor and public expenses. The labor of millions would quickly come to an end if there weren’t other millions, as I mentioned in the fable. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

————Employ’d,

Employed,

To see their handy-works destroy’d.

To see their handiwork destroyed.

But men are not to be judged by the consequences that may succeed their actions, but the facts themselves, and the motives which it shall appear they acted from. If an ill-natured miser, who is almost a plumb, and spends but fifty pounds a-year, though he has no relation to inherit his wealth, should be robbed of five hundred or a thousand guineas, it is certain, that as soon as this money should come to circulate, the nation would be the better for the robbery, and receive the same, and as real a benefit from it, as if an archbishop had left the same sum to the public; yet justice, and the peace of society, require that he or they who robbed the miser should be hanged, though there were half a dozen of them concerned.

But men shouldn't be judged by the outcomes of their actions, but by the actions themselves and the motives that drove them. If a stingy miser, who is nearly wealthy, spends only fifty pounds a year, and has no relatives to inherit his wealth, gets robbed of five hundred or a thousand guineas, it’s clear that as soon as that money starts circulating, the nation benefits from the theft, gaining just as much from it as if an archbishop had donated the same amount to the public. However, justice and social order demand that the person or people who robbed the miser should be hanged, even if there were half a dozen involved.

Thieves and pick-pockets steal for a livelihood, and either what they can get honestly is not sufficient to keep them, or else they have an aversion to constant working: they want to gratify their senses, have victuals, strong drink, lewd women, and to be idle when they please. The victualler, who entertains them, and takes their money, knowing which way they come at it, is very near as great a villain as his guests. But if he fleeces them well, minds his business, and is a prudent man, he may get money, and be punctual with them he deals with: The trusty out-clerk, whose chief aim is his master’s profit, sends him in what beer he wants, and takes care not to lose his custom; while the man’s money is good, he thinks it no business of his to examine whom he gets it by. In the mean time, the wealthy brewer, who leaves all the management to his servants, knows nothing of the matter, but keeps his coach, treats his friends, and enjoys his pleasure with ease and a good conscience; he gets an estate; builds houses, and educates his children in plenty, without ever thinking on the labour which wretches perform, the shifts fools make, and the tricks knaves play to come at the commodity, by the vast sale of which he amasses his great riches.

Thieves and pickpockets steal to make a living, either because what they can earn honestly isn’t enough to support them, or because they dislike working all the time: they want to indulge their senses, have food, strong drink, promiscuous partners, and be lazy when they want. The vendor who serves them and takes their money, knowing where it comes from, is almost as much of a villain as his customers. But if he takes good care of them, runs his business well, and is smart about it, he can make money and be reliable in his dealings. The trustworthy clerk, whose main goal is to benefit his boss, sends him the beer he needs and makes sure not to lose his clients; as long as the man’s money is good, he doesn’t think it’s his job to question how it’s made. Meanwhile, the wealthy brewer, who leaves all the management to his employees, knows nothing about it, but drives around in his coach, treats his friends, and enjoys life comfortably with a clear conscience; he makes a fortune, builds houses, and provides for his children without ever considering the hard labor that the desperate endure, the tricks that fools use, and the schemes that rogues employ to get the goods that allow him to amass his great wealth.

A highwayman having met with a considerable booty, [44]gives a poor common harlot, he fancies, ten pounds to new-rig her from top to toe; is there a spruce mercer so conscientious that he will refuse to sell her a thread sattin, though he knew who she was? She must have shoes and stockings, gloves, the stay and mantua maker, the sempstress, the linen-draper, all must get something by her, and a hundred different tradesmen dependent on those she laid her money out with, may touch part of it before a month is at an end. The generous gentleman, in the mean time, his money being near spent, ventured again on the road, but the second day having committed a robbery near Highgate, he was taken with one of his accomplices, and the next sessions both were condemned, and suffered the law. The money due on their conviction fell to three country fellows, on whom it was admirably well bestowed. One was an honest farmer, a sober pains-taking man, but reduced by misfortunes: The summer before, by the mortality among the cattle, he had lost six cows out of ten, and now his landlord, to whom he owed thirty pounds, had seized on all his stock. The other was a day-labourer, who struggled hard with the world, had a sick wife at home, and several small children to provide for. The third was a gentleman’s gardener, who maintained his father in prison, where, being bound for a neighbour, he had lain for twelve pounds almost a year and a half; this act of filial duty was the more meritorious, because he had for some time been engaged to a young woman, whose parents lived in good circumstances, but would not give their consent before our gardener had fifty guineas of his own to show. They received above fourscore pounds each, which extricated every one of them out of the difficulties they laboured under, and made them, in their opinion, the happiest people in the world.

A highwayman, after scoring a decent haul, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]gives a poor common woman of the night, whom he fancies, ten pounds to get herself a complete makeover; is there a stylish merchant so principled that he would refuse to sell her a piece of satin, even if he knew who she was? She needs shoes and stockings, gloves, a corset and dressmaker, and everyone else involved in getting her ready will want their cut too, with a hundred different tradespeople getting a slice of her spending before the month is over. Meanwhile, the generous guy, with his cash nearly gone, took another risk on the road, but on the second day, after robbing near Highgate, he was caught along with one of his accomplices, and both were sentenced and faced the consequences. The money from their conviction was awarded to three country men, and it was put to excellent use. One was a decent farmer, a hardworking man brought low by bad luck: the summer before, due to cattle disease, he lost six out of ten cows, and now his landlord, owed thirty pounds, had seized all his livestock. The second was a laborer, battling hard against life, with a sick wife at home and several young children to support. The third was a gardener for a gentleman, who was supporting his father in prison, where he had been stuck for a year and a half after signing bail for a neighbor. This act of devotion was even more commendable because he was engaged to a young woman whose wealthy parents wouldn’t agree to the marriage until he had fifty guineas of his own. They each received over eighty pounds, which freed them from their struggles and made them feel like the happiest people in the world.

Nothing is more destructive, either in regard to the health or the vigilance and industry of the poor, than the infamous liquor, the name of which, derived from Juniper in Dutch, is now, by frequent use, and the laconic spirit of the nation, from a word of middling length, shrunk into a monosyllable, intoxicating gin, that charms the unactive, the desperate and crazy of either sex, and makes the starving sot behold his rags and nakedness with stupid indolence, or banter both in senseless laughter, and more insipid jests! It is a fiery lake that sets the brain in flame, burns up the entrails, and scorches every part within; and, at the same time, a Lethe of oblivion, in which the wretch immersed drowns his most pinching [45]cares, and with his reason, all anxious reflection on brats that cry for food, hard winters frosts, and horrid empty home.

Nothing is more destructive, both to the health and to the vigilance and hard work of the poor, than the infamous liquor, which in Dutch is named after Juniper and has, through frequent use and the straightforward nature of the nation, shrunk from a word of middling length into a monosyllable: intoxicating gin. It captivates the lazy, the desperate, and the crazy, regardless of gender, making the starving drinker stare at their rags and nakedness with numb indifference or mock both in meaningless laughter and dull jokes! It’s like a fiery lake that sets the brain ablaze, burns up the insides, and scorches every part within; at the same time, it's a river of forgetfulness, where the miserable drown their most pressing troubles and, along with their reason, all anxious thoughts about hungry children, harsh winter frosts, and their dreadful empty homes.

In hot and adust tempers it makes men quarrelsome, renders them brutes and savages, sets them on to fight for nothing, and has often been the cause of murder. It has broke and destroyed the strongest constitutions, thrown them into consumptions, and been the fatal and immediate occasion of apoplexies, phrenzies, and sudden death. But, as these latter mischiefs happen but seldom, they might be overlooked and connived at: but this cannot be said of the many diseases that are familiar to the liquor, and which are daily and hourly produced by it; such as loss of appetite, fevers, black and yellow jaundice, convulsions, stone and gravel, dropsies, and leucophlegmacies.

In hot and dry conditions, it makes people argumentative, turns them into brutes and savages, and pushes them to fight over nothing, often leading to murder. It has broken and ruined the strongest bodies, caused illnesses like tuberculosis, and been the direct cause of strokes, madness, and sudden death. While these severe outcomes don't happen often, they might be ignored: however, this can’t be said for the many diseases commonly associated with alcohol, which occur daily and hourly. These include loss of appetite, fevers, black and yellow jaundice, convulsions, kidney stones, edema, and fluid retention.

Among the doting admirers of this liquid poison, many of the meanest rank, from a sincere affection to the commodity itself, become dealers in it, and take delight to help others to what they love themselves, as whores commence bawds to make the profits of one trade subservient to the pleasures of the other. But as these starvelings commonly drink more than their gains, they seldom, by selling, mend the wretchedness of condition they laboured under while they were only buyers. In the fag-end and outskirts of the town, and all places of the vilest resort, it is sold in some part or other of almost every house, frequently in cellars, and sometimes in the garret. The petty traders in this Stygian comfort, are supplied by others in somewhat higher station, that keep professed brandy shops, and are as little to be envied as the former; and among the middling people, I know not a more miserable shift for a livelihood than their calling; whoever would thrive in it must, in the first place, be of a watchful and suspicious, as well as a bold and resolute temper, that he may not be imposed upon by cheats and sharpers, nor out-bullied by the oaths and imprecations of hackney coachmen and foot soldiers: in the second, he ought to be a dabster at gross jokes and loud laughter, and have all the winning ways to allure customers and draw out their money, and be well versed in the low jests and raileries the mob make use of to banter prudence and frugality. He must be affable and obsequious to the most despicable; always ready and officious to help a porter down with his load, shake hands with a basket woman, pull off his hat to an oyster wench, and be familiar with a beggar; with patience and good humour he [46]must be able to endure the filthy actions and viler language of nasty drabs, and the lewdest rakehells, and without a frown, or the least aversion, bear with all the stench and squalor, noise and impertinence, that the utmost indigence, laziness, and ebriety, can produce in the most shameless and abandoned vulgar.

Among the devoted fans of this toxic drink, many of the lowest-ranked, driven by a genuine love for it, become sellers and enjoy helping others get what they love just as much, similar to how sex workers become madams to profit from one trade while enjoying the other. But since these starving individuals often drink more than they earn, selling rarely improves their miserable conditions compared to when they were just buyers. In the rundown parts and the worst areas of town, it’s sold in nearly every home, often in basements and sometimes in attics. The small-time sellers of this dark comfort are supplied by those in slightly better positions, who run dedicated liquor shops and are just as unfortunate as the former; among the middle class, I can’t think of a more miserable way to make a living than this job. Anyone wanting to succeed in it must first have a watchful and suspicious nature, as well as a bold and determined spirit, so they aren’t taken advantage of by con artists or overpowered by the swearing and threats of cab drivers and foot soldiers. Secondly, they should be good at telling crude jokes and laughing loudly, possessing charm to attract customers and get their money, and be familiar with the crude humor and banter that the crowd uses to mock caution and thrift. They must be friendly and servile to the most contemptible, always ready to help a porter with his load, shake hands with a market woman, tip their hat to an oyster seller, and be on familiar terms with a beggar; with patience and a sense of humor, they must be able to tolerate the disgusting behavior and foul language of filthy women and the most debased rakes, enduring all the stench and squalor, noise and rudeness that the extremes of poverty, laziness, and drunkenness can produce in the most shameless and degenerate crowd.

The vast number of the shops I speak of throughout the city and suburbs, are an astonishing evidence of the many seducers, that, in a lawful occupation, are accessary to the introduction and increase of all the sloth, sottishness, want, and misery, which the abuse of strong waters is the immediate cause of, to lift above mediocrity perhaps half a score men that deal in the same commodity by wholesale, while, among the retailers, though qualified as I required, a much greater number are broke and ruined, for not abstaining from the Circean cup they hold out to others, and the more fortunate are their whole lifetime obliged to take the uncommon pains, endure the hardships, and swallow all the ungrateful and shocking things I named, for little or nothing beyond a bare sustenance, and their daily bread.

The many shops I mention throughout the city and suburbs are a shocking reminder of the numerous seducers who, while engaging in a legal business, contribute to the spread of laziness, ignorance, poverty, and misery caused by the abuse of strong drinks. This situation only raises a handful of individuals who deal in the same product at a wholesale level above the average. Among the retailers, despite meeting the qualifications I specified, many more end up broken and ruined for not resisting the tempting drinks they offer to others. The luckier ones must endure a lifetime of hard work, facing challenges and putting up with all the unpleasant and shocking experiences I previously described, just to scrape by and earn their daily bread.

The short-sighted vulgar in the chain of causes seldom can see further than one link; but those who can enlarge their view, and will give themselves the leisure of gazing on the prospect of concatenated events, may, in a hundred places, see good spring up and pullulate from evil, as naturally as chickens do from eggs. The money that arises from the duties upon malt is a considerable part of the national revenue, and should no spirits be distilled from it, the public treasure would prodigiously suffer on that head. But if we would set in a true light the many advantages, and large catalogue of solid blessings that accrue from, and are owing to the evil I treat of, we are to consider the rents that are received, the ground that is tilled, the tools that are made, the cattle that are employed, and above all, the multitude of poor that are maintained, by the variety of labour, requited in husbandry, in malting, in carriage and distillation, before we can have the product of malt, which we call low wines, and is but the beginning from which the various spirits are afterwards to be made.

People who only focus on one part of a situation often miss the bigger picture. However, those who take the time to look at the broader context of interconnected events can often see that good can emerge from bad, just like chicks hatching from eggs. The money generated from malt duties is a significant portion of the national revenue, and if spirits were not distilled from it, the public funds would suffer greatly as a result. To truly understand the numerous benefits and the long list of solid advantages that come from the issue I’m discussing, we need to consider the rental income received, the land that is farmed, the tools that are produced, the livestock that is used, and most importantly, the many poor people supported by the variety of labor involved in agriculture, malting, transportation, and distillation, all of which lead to the malt product we refer to as low wines, which is just the starting point for producing different spirits.

Besides this, a sharp-sighted good-humoured man might pick up abundance of good from the rubbish, which I have all flung away for evil. He would tell me, that whatever sloth and sottishness might be occasioned by the abuse of [47]malt-spirits, the moderate use of it was of inestimable benefit to the poor, who could purchase no cordials of higher prices, that it was an universal comfort, not only in cold and weariness, but most of the afflictions that are peculiar to the necessitous, and had often to the most destitute supplied the places of meat, drink, clothes, and lodging. That the stupid indolence in the most wretched condition occasioned by those composing draughts, which I complained of, was a blessing to thousands, for that certainly those were the happiest, who felt the least pain. As to diseases, he would say, that, as it caused some, so it cured others, and that if the excess in those liquors had been sudden death to some few, the habit of drinking them daily prolonged the lives of many, whom once it agreed with; that for the loss sustained from the insignificant quarrels it created at home, we were overpaid in the advantage we received from it abroad, by upholding the courage of soldiers, and animating the sailors to the combat; and that in the two last wars no considerable victory had been obtained without.

Besides this, a sharp-eyed and good-natured person might find a lot of good in the junk I've thrown away as evil. They would tell me that while laziness and foolishness might come from abusing [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] malt spirits, using it moderately was incredibly beneficial for the poor, who couldn't afford higher priced drinks. It was a universal comfort, not just in the cold and fatigue, but in many struggles unique to those in need, and often provided what was lacking in food, drink, clothing, and shelter for the most destitute. They would argue that the stupid laziness caused by those composed drinks, which I complained about, was a blessing for thousands since those who felt the least pain were certainly the happiest. Regarding illnesses, they would say that while it caused some, it cured others, and if excessive drinking led to sudden death for a few, the daily habit of it extended the lives of many who once found it agreeable. As for the losses incurred from minor disputes it caused at home, we were more than compensated by the advantages it provided abroad, like boosting soldier morale and energizing sailors for battle; in fact, there hadn't been any significant victories in the last two wars without it.

To the dismal account I have given of the retailers, and what they are forced to submit to, he would answer, that not many acquired more than middling riches in any trade, and that what I had counted so offensive and intolerable in the calling, was trifling to those who were used to it; that what seemed irksome and calamitous to some, was delightful and often ravishing to others; as men differed in circumstances and education. He would put me in mind, that the profit of an employment ever made amends for the toil and labour that belonged to it, nor forget, Dulcis odor lucri e re qualibet; or to tell me, that the smell of gain was fragrant even to night-workers.

In response to my bleak description of retailers and what they endure, he would say that not many people become wealthier than average in any profession, and that what I found so upsetting and unbearable about the job was trivial to those who were accustomed to it. What seemed burdensome and disastrous to some was enjoyable and often exhilarating to others, as people vary in their situations and upbringing. He would remind me that the rewards of a job always made up for the hard work and effort involved, not to mention, Dulcis odor lucri e re qualibet; or to say that the smell of profit was appealing even to those who worked through the night.

If I should ever urge to him, that to have here and there one great and eminent distiller, was a poor equivalent for the vile means, the certain want, and lasting misery of so many thousand wretches, as were necessary to raise them, he would answer, that of this I could be no judge, because I do not know what vast benefit they might afterwards be of to the commonwealth. Perhaps, would he say, the man thus raised will exert himself in the commission of the peace, or other station, with vigilance and zeal against the dissolute and disaffected, and retaining his stirring temper, be as industrious in spreading loyalty, and the reformation of manners, throughout every cranny of the wide populous town, as [48]once he was in filling it with spirits; till he becomes at last the scourge of whores, of vagabonds and beggars, the terror of rioters and discontented rabbles, and constant plague to sabbath-breaking butchers. Here my good-humoured antagonist would exult and triumph over me, especially if he could instance to me such a bright example, what an uncommon blessing, would he cry out, is this man to his country! how shining and illustrious his virtue!

If I ever told him that having a few great distillers around was a weak trade-off for the terrible suffering, ongoing poverty, and lasting misery of so many people needed to support them, he would reply that I couldn’t judge this situation because I didn’t understand the huge benefits they might bring to society later on. Maybe he would say that the person raised up would actively engage in maintaining peace or another role, working diligently and passionately against the unruly and disloyal, and keeping his energetic nature, would be just as driven in promoting loyalty and reforming behavior across every corner of the bustling town, as [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] once was in flooding it with alcohol. Eventually, he would become the scourge of prostitutes, vagrants, and beggars, the fear of rioters and unhappy crowds, and a constant headache for sabbath-breaking butchers. In this moment, my good-natured opponent would revel in his victory over me, especially if he could point out a shining example, exclaiming what an incredible blessing this person is to his country! How remarkable and illustrious his character is!

To justify his exclamation, he would demonstrate to me, that it was impossible to give a fuller evidence of self-denial in a grateful mind, than to see him at the expence 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 he owes his fortune, from no other motive than his aversion to idleness, and great concern for religion and the public welfare.

To back up his claim, he would show me that there was no clearer example of selflessness in a grateful person than watching him constantly troubling and even going after that very group of people who helped him succeed—risking his peace, life, and health—only out of his dislike for laziness and his strong concern for religion and the well-being of the community.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 173. Parties directly opposite,

Opposing parties

Assist each other, as ’twere for spite.

Assist each other, as if it were for spite.

Nothing was more instrumental in forwarding the Reformation, than the sloth and stupidity of the Roman clergy; yet the same reformation has roused them from the laziness and ignorance they then laboured under; and the followers of Luther, Calvin, and others, may be said to have reformed not only those whom they drew into their sentiment, but likewise those who remained their greatest opposers. The clergy of England, by being severe upon the Schismatics, and upbraiding them with want of learning, have raised themselves such formidable enemies as are not easily answered; and again, the Dissenters by prying into the lives, and diligently watching all the actions of their powerful antagonists, render those of the Established Church more cautious of giving offence, than in all probability they would, if they had no malicious over-lookers to fear. It is very much owing to the great number of Huguenots that have always been in France, since the late utter extirpation of them, that that kingdom has a less dissolute and more learned clergy to boast of than any other Roman Catholic country. The clergy of that church are no where more sovereign than in Italy, and therefore no where more debauched; nor any where more ignorant than they are in Spain, because their doctrine is nowhere less opposed. [49]

Nothing played a bigger role in advancing the Reformation than the laziness and ignorance of the Roman clergy. However, this same Reformation woke them up from the sloth and ignorance they were stuck in. The followers of Luther, Calvin, and others can be said to have reformed not only those who embraced their ideas but also those who remained their strongest opponents. The clergy of England, by being harsh on the Schismatics and criticizing them for their lack of knowledge, have created powerful enemies that are not easily silenced. On the other hand, the Dissenters, by scrutinizing the lives and closely monitoring the actions of their strong adversaries, make those in the Established Church more careful about offending others than they probably would be if they didn’t have such vigilant critics to worry about. It is largely due to the large number of French Protestants that have always been in France that, following their recent complete eradication, that country has a less corrupt and more educated clergy to boast of than any other Roman Catholic nation. The clergy of that church are nowhere more powerful than in Italy, and thus nowhere more indulgent; nor are they anywhere more ignorant than in Spain, where their doctrine faces the least opposition. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Who would imagine, that virtuous women, unknowingly, should be instrumental in promoting the advantage of prostitutes? Or (what still seems the greater paradox) that incontinence should be made serviceable to the preservation of chastity? and yet nothing is more true. A vicious young fellow, after having been an hour or two at church, a ball, or any other assembly, where there is a great parcel of handsome women dressed to the best advantage, will have his imagination more fired, than if he had the same time been poling at Guildhall, or walking in the country among a flock of sheep. The consequence of this is, that he will strive to satisfy the appetite that is raised in him; and when he finds honest women obstinate and uncomatable, it is very natural to think, that he will hasten to others that are more compliable. Who would so much as surmise, that this is the fault of the virtuous women? They have no thoughts of men in dressing themselves, poor souls, and endeavour only to appear clean and decent, every one according to her quality.

Who would have thought that virtuous women, unknowingly, play a role in benefiting prostitutes? Or (which seems even more paradoxical) that promiscuity could actually help uphold chastity? Yet, it's true. A reckless young man, after spending an hour or two at church, a ball, or any other gathering filled with beautiful women dressed to impress, will have his imagination ignited more than if he had spent that time wandering around Guildhall or strolling through the countryside among sheep. The result is that he'll try to satisfy the desire stirred within him; and when he finds honest women unyielding and hard to please, it’s only natural for him to turn to those who are more accommodating. Who would even suspect that this is the fault of virtuous women? They don't think about men while getting dressed, poor things, and they only strive to look clean and decent, each in her own way according to her status.

I am far from encouraging vice, and think it would be an unspeakable felicity to a state, if the sin of uncleanness could be utterly banished from it; but I am afraid it is impossible: The passions of some people are too violent to be curbed by any law or precept; and it is wisdom in all governments to bear with lesser inconveniencies to prevent greater. If courtezans and strumpets were to be prosecuted with as much rigour as some silly people would have it, what locks or bars would be sufficient to preserve the honour of our wives and daughters? For it is not only that the women in general would meet with far greater temptations, and the attempts to ensnare the innocence of virgins would seem more excusable, even to the sober part of mankind, than they do now: but some men would grow outrageous, and ravishing would become a common crime. Where six or seven thousand sailors arrive at once, as it often happens, at Amsterdam, that have seen none but their own sex for many months together, how is it to be supposed that honest women should walk the streets unmolested, if there were no harlots to be had at reasonable prices? for which reason, the wise rulers of that well-ordered city always tolerate an uncertain number of houses, in which women are hired as publicly as horses at a livery stable; and there being in this toleration a great deal of prudence and economy to be seen, a short account of it will be no tiresome digression. [50]

I certainly do not support vice, and I believe it would be an incredible blessing for a society if the sin of immorality could be completely eliminated. However, I fear that it is impossible: Some people's passions are too intense to be restrained by any law or rule. It is wise for governments to tolerate smaller issues to prevent larger ones. If sex workers were to be punished as harshly as some naive individuals would suggest, what locks or barriers could possibly protect the honor of our wives and daughters? It's not just that women in general would face far greater temptations, and the efforts to lure innocent young women would seem more justifiable, even to the more sensible people, but some men would become uncontrollably aggressive, and sexual assault would become a widespread crime. When six or seven thousand sailors arrive at once, as often happens in Amsterdam, having seen only men for months on end, how can we expect decent women to walk the streets safely if there are no prostitutes available at reasonable prices? For this reason, the wise leaders of that well-organized city always allow a certain number of establishments where women can be hired as publicly as horses at a livery stable. This tolerance reflects significant wisdom and practicality, and a brief explanation of it will not be a tiresome aside. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

In the first place, the houses I speak of are allowed to be no where but in the most slovenly and unpolished part of the town, where seamen and strangers of no repute chiefly lodge and resort. The street in which most of them stand is counted scandalous, and the infamy is extended to all the neighbourhood round it. In the second, they are only places to meet and bargain in, to make appointments in order to promote interviews of greater secrecy, and no manner of lewdness is ever suffered to be transacted in them: which order is so strictly observed, that bar the ill manners and noise of the company that frequent them, you will meet with no more indecency, and generally less lasciviousness there, than with us are to be seen at a playhouse.

First of all, the houses I’m talking about are only found in the most run-down and shabby part of the town, where sailors and disreputable strangers mainly stay and hang out. The street where most of them are located is considered scandalous, and this bad reputation extends to the entire surrounding area. Secondly, these places are just spots to meet and negotiate, to set up appointments for more private meetings, and no kind of immorality is allowed to happen there: this rule is followed so strictly that aside from the rude behavior and noise of the people who visit, you would encounter no more indecency, and generally less lewdness there, than what we see at a theater.

Thirdly, the female traders that come to these evening exchanges are always the scum of the people, and generally such as in the day time carry fruit and other eatables about in wheel-barrows. The habits, indeed, they appear in at night are very different from their ordinary ones; yet they are commonly so ridiculously gay, that they look more like the Roman dresses of strolling actresses than gentlewomen’s clothes: if to this you add the awkwardness, the hard hands, and coarse breeding of the damsels that wear them, there is no great reason to fear, that many of the better sort of people will be tempted by them.

Thirdly, the female traders who come to these evening markets are usually the lowest class of people, typically those who sell fruit and other food during the day in wheelbarrows. Their behavior at night is quite different from their usual one; however, they often dress so ridiculously flashy that they resemble the costumes of traveling performers rather than ladies’ clothing. If you also consider their awkwardness, rough hands, and lack of refinement, it's unlikely that many respectable people will be tempted by them.

The music in these temples of Venus is performed by organs, not out of respect to the deity that is worshipped in them, but the frugality of the owners, whose business it is to procure as much sound for as little money as they can, and the policy of the government, who endeavour, as little as is possible to encourage the breed of pipers and scrapers. All seafaring men, especially the Dutch, are like the element they belong to, much given to loudness and roaring, and the noise of half-a-dozen of them, when they call themselves merry, is sufficient to drown twice the number of flutes or violins; whereas, with one pair of organs, they can make the whole house ring, and are at no other charge than the keeping of one scurvy musician, which can cost them but little: yet notwithstanding the good rules and strict discipline that are observed in these markets of love, the schout and his officers are always vexing, mulcting, and, upon the least complaint, removing the miserable keepers of them: which policy is of two great uses; first, it gives an opportunity to a large parcel of officers, the magistrates make use of [51]on many occasions, and which they could not be without, to squeeze a living out of the immoderate gains accruing from the worst of employments, and, at the same time, punish those necessary profligates, the bawds and panders, which, though they abominate, they desire yet not wholly to destroy. Secondly, as on several accounts it might be dangerous to let the multitude into the secret, that those houses and the trade that is drove in them are connived at, so by this means appearing unblameable, the wary magistrates preserve themselves in the good opinion of the weaker sort of people, who imagine that the government is always endeavouring, though unable, to suppress what it actually tolerates: whereas, if they had a mind to root them out, their power in the administration of justice is so sovereign and extensive, and they know so well how to have it executed, that one week, nay, one night might send them all a packing.

The music in these places dedicated to Venus is played on organs, not out of reverence for the deity worshipped there, but due to the thriftiness of the owners. They aim to get as much sound as possible for as little money as they can, while the government tries to minimize support for musicians. All seafaring folks, especially the Dutch, are loud and boisterous, and the noise from just a few of them having a good time can easily overpower twice as many flutes or violins. In contrast, with just one set of organs, they can fill the entire space with sound, and it only costs them to employ a single scruffy musician, which is not expensive at all. Yet, despite the good rules and strict discipline upheld in these markets of love, the local law enforcement are always annoying, fining, and removing the unfortunate operators of these places at the slightest complaint. This approach serves two important purposes: first, it allows a sizable number of officers, whom the magistrates rely on often, to earn a living from the excessive profits generated by the most disreputable jobs, while also punishing the unsavory individuals, the bawds and panders, whom they detest but don’t truly want to eliminate. Secondly, for several reasons, it could be dangerous to reveal to the public that these establishments and the business conducted within them are tolerated. By maintaining an appearance of strictness, the cautious magistrates protect their reputation among the weaker members of society, who believe the government is always trying, albeit unsuccessfully, to crush what it actually permits. If they really wanted to eliminate these establishments, their authority in law enforcement is so absolute and far-reaching that they know exactly how to enforce it; in one week, or even one night, they could shut them all down.

In Italy, the toleration of strumpets is yet more barefaced, as is evident from their public stews. At Venice and Naples, impurity is a kind of merchandise and traffic; the courtezans at Rome, and the cantoneras in Spain, compose a body in the state, and are under a legal tax and impost. It is well known, that the reason why so many good politicians as these tolerate lewd houses, is not their irreligion, but to prevent a worse evil, an impurity of a more execrable kind, and to provide for the safety of women of honour. “About two hundred and fifty years ago,” says Monsieur de St. Didier, Venice being in want of courtezans, the republic was obliged to procure a great number from foreign parts.” Doglioni, who has written the memorable affairs of Venice, highly extols the wisdom of the republic in this point, which secured the chastity of women of honour, daily exposed to public violences, the churches and consecrated places not being a sufficient asylum for their chastity.

In Italy, the acceptance of sex workers is even more blatant, as shown by their public brothels. In Venice and Naples, sexual services are practically a business. The courtesans in Rome and the cantoneras in Spain form a recognized group within society and are subject to legal taxes. It's well understood that the reason many decent politicians allow brothels to exist isn't due to a lack of morals, but rather to prevent worse issues—like more severe types of immorality—and to protect respectable women. “About two hundred and fifty years ago,” says Mr. de St. Didier, when Venice needed courtesans, the republic had to bring many in from abroad.” Doglioni, who documented the notable events of Venice, praises the republic’s cleverness in this regard, as it helped safeguard the honor of women who were often vulnerable to public assaults, with churches and sacred spaces not providing enough protection for their dignity.

Our universities in England are much belied, if in some colleges there was not a monthly allowance ad expurgandos renes: and time was when monks and priests in Germany were allowed concubines on paying a certain yearly duty to their prelate. “It is generally believed” says Monsieur Bayle, (to whom I owe the last paragraph) “that avarice was the cause of this shameful indulgence; but it is more probable their design was to prevent their tempting modest women, and to quiet the uneasiness of husbands, whose resentments the clergy do well to avoid. From [52]what has been said, it is manifest that there is a necessity of sacrificing one part of womankind to preserve the other, and prevent a filthiness of a more heinous nature. From whence I think I may justly conclude (what was the seeming paradox I went about to prove) that chastity may be supported by incontinence, and the best of virtues want the assistance of the worst of vices.

Our universities in England are often misunderstood, especially considering that some colleges provided a monthly allowance ad expurgandos renes: There was a time when monks and priests in Germany were permitted to have concubines by paying a specific annual fee to their bishop. “It is generally believed,” says Monsieur Bayle (to whom I owe the last paragraph), “that greed was the reason for this disgraceful allowance; however, it is more likely that their intent was to prevent them from tempting modest women and to ease the worries of husbands, whose anger the clergy should avoid."” From [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] what has been stated, it is clear that some women need to be sacrificed to protect others and prevent a more severe immorality. Therefore, I think I can justly conclude (which was the apparent paradox I intended to prove) that chastity can be upheld by immorality, and the greatest of virtues may require the support of the worst of vices.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 177. The root of evil, avarice,

Line 177. The source of evil, greed,

That damn’d ill-natur’d baneful vice,

That cursed, cruel harmful vice,

Was slave to prodigality.

Was addicted to excess.

I have joined so many odious epithets to the word avarice, in compliance to the vogue of mankind, who generally bestow more ill language upon this than upon any other vice, and indeed not undeservedly; for there is hardly a mischief to be named which it has not produced at one time or other: but the true reason why every body exclaims so much against it, is, that almost every body suffers by it; for the more the money is hoarded up by some, the scarcer it must grow among the rest, and therefore when men rail very much at misers, there is generally self-interest at bottom.

I’ve attached so many negative labels to the word greed because it’s what people do; they usually use harsher words for this vice than for any other, and honestly, it’s not undeserved. Almost every problem you can think of has come from it at some point. But the real reason everyone complains about greed is that almost everyone suffers because of it. The more money some people save, the less there is for everyone else. So, when people criticize misers, there’s usually some self-interest behind it.

As there is no living without money, so those that are unprovided, and have nobody to give them any, are obliged to do some service or other to the society, before they can come at it; but every body esteeming his labour as he does himself, which is generally not under the value, most people that want money only to spend it again presently, imagine they do more for it than it is worth. Men cannot forbear looking upon the necessaries of life as their due, whether they work or not; because they find that nature, without consulting whether they have victuals or not, bids them eat whenever they are hungry; for which reason, every body endeavours to get what he wants with as much ease as he can; and therefore when men find that the trouble they are put to in getting money is either more or less, according as those they would have it from are more or less tenacious, it is very natural for them to be angry at covetousness in general; for it obliges them either to go without what they have occasion for, or else to take greater pains for it than they are willing.

Since you can't live without money, those who don't have any and can't get it from others have to provide some service to society before they can obtain it. However, everyone values their labor as highly as they value themselves, which is usually not undervalued. Many people who only need money to spend it right away believe they deserve more for it than it's actually worth. People often see the necessities of life as something they’re entitled to, whether they’re working or not, because nature compels them to eat when they're hungry, regardless of their food supply. As a result, everyone tries to get what they want as easily as possible. When people realize that the effort they need to put into earning money varies depending on how stingy those they’re asking are, it's only natural for them to feel frustrated by greed in general. This greed forces them to either do without what they need or expend more effort than they’re willing to.

Avarice, notwithstanding it is the occasion of so many evils, is yet very necessary to the society, to glean and gather what [53]has been dropt and scattered by the contrary vice. Was it not for avarice, spendthrifts would soon want materials; and if none would lay up and get faster than they spend, very few could spend faster than they get. That it is a slave to prodigality, as I have called it, is evident from so many misers as we daily see toil and labour, pinch and starve themselves, to enrich a lavish heir. Though these two vices appear very opposite, yet they often assist each other. Florio is an extravagant young blade, of a very profuse temper; as he is the only son of a very rich father, he wants to live high, keep horses and dogs, and throw his money about, as he sees some of his companions do; but the old hunks will part with no money, and hardly allows him necessaries. Florio would have borrowed money upon his own credit long ago; but as all would be lost, if he died before his father, no prudent man would lend him any. At last he has met with the greedy Cornaro, who lets him have money at thirty per cent. and now Florio thinks himself happy, and spends a thousand a-year. Where would Cornaro ever have got such a prodigious interest, if it was not for such a fool as Florio, who will give so great a price for money to fling it away? And how would Florio get it to spend, if he had not lit of such a greedy usurer as Cornaro, whose excessive covetousness makes him overlook the great risk he runs in venturing such great sums upon the life of a wild debauchee.

Avarice, even though it causes so many problems, is still very important to society because it collects and gathers what has been dropped and scattered by the opposite vice. If it weren't for greed, spendthrifts would soon run out of resources; and if no one saved and earned money faster than they spent it, very few could spend faster than they earned. That greed serves as a slave to extravagance, as I have called it, is evident from the many misers we see every day who toil and starve themselves to enrich a wasteful heir. Although these two vices seem very opposite, they often work together. Florio is an extravagant young guy with a very lavish nature; as the only son of a very rich father, he wants to live large, keep horses and dogs, and throw his money around, like some of his friends do. But his old miserly father won’t part with any money and barely provides him with necessities. Florio would have borrowed money on his own credit long ago, but since everything would be lost if he died before his father, no sensible person would lend him any. Finally, he has come across the greedy Cornaro, who lends him money at thirty percent. Now Florio thinks he’s lucky and spends a thousand a year. Where would Cornaro have gotten such a huge interest rate if it weren't for a fool like Florio, who is willing to pay so much to waste money? And how would Florio get money to spend if he hadn’t met such a greedy usurer like Cornaro, whose excessive greed makes him ignore the great risks he takes by lending large sums to a reckless spendthrift?

Avarice is no longer the reverse of profuseness, than while it signifies that sordid love of money, and narrowness of soul that hinders misers from parting with what they have, and makes them covet it only to hoard up. But there is a sort of avarice which consists in a greedy desire of riches, in order to spend them, and this often meets with prodigality in the same persons, as is evident in most courtiers and great officers, both civil and military. In their buildings and furniture, equipages and entertainments, their gallantry is displayed with the greatest profusion; while the base actions they submit to for lucre, and the many frauds and impositions they are guilty of, discover the utmost avarice. This mixture of contrary vices, comes up exactly to the character of Catiline, of whom it is said, that he was appetens alieni & sui profusus, greedy after the goods of others, and lavish of his own. [54]

Avarice isn’t just the opposite of being generous; it’s that greedy love of money and a narrow-mindedness that stops misers from sharing what they have, making them hoard it instead. But there’s also a type of avarice driven by a strong desire for wealth just to spend it, which often coincides with extravagance in the same people, as seen in many courtiers and high-ranking officials, both in government and the military. Their extravagant homes, fancy furniture, lavish parties, and showy lifestyles reveal their wastefulness, while the shady things they do for money and the countless scams they pull show their deep avarice. This mix of opposing vices perfectly matches the character of Catiline, of whom it's said that he was appetens alieni & sui profusus, greedy for others' goods and spendthrift with his own. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 180. That noble sin——

That noble sin—

The prodigality, I call a noble sin, is not that which has avarice for its companion, and makes men unreasonably profuse to some of what they unjustly extort from others, but that agreeable good-natured vice that makes the chimney smoke, and all the tradesmen smile; I mean the unmixed prodigality of heedless and voluptuous men, that being educated in plenty, abhor the vile thoughts of lucre, and lavish away only what others took pains to scrape together; such as indulge their inclinations at their own expence, that have the continual satisfaction of bartering old gold for new pleasures, and from the excessive largeness of a diffusive soul, are made guilty of despising too much what most people overvalue.

Being wasteful, which I consider a noble flaw, isn’t about being greedy and unreasonably generous with what you’ve unfairly taken from others; rather, it’s that delightful, good-natured vice that makes the chimney smoke and brings smiles to all the tradespeople. I’m talking about the genuine wastefulness of carefree and indulgent people who, raised in abundance, disdain the dirty thoughts of profit and spend lavishly only what others have worked hard to accumulate. They satisfy their desires at their own expense, enjoying the constant pleasure of trading old riches for new joys, and because of their generous nature, they are often guilty of undervaluing things that most people overly cherish.

When I speak thus honourably of this vice, and treat it with so much tenderness and good manners as I do, I have the same thing at heart that made me give so many ill names to the reverse of it, viz. the interest of the public; for as the avaricious does no good to himself, and is injurious to all the world besides, except his heir, so the prodigal is a blessing to the whole society, and injures no body but himself. It is true, that as most of the first are knaves, so the latter are all fools; yet they are delicious morsels for the public to feast on, and may with as much justice, as the French call the monks the patridges of the women, be styled the woodcocks of the society. Was it not for prodigality, nothing could make us amends for the rapine and extortion of avarice in power. When a covetous statesman is gone, who spent his whole life in fattening himself with the spoils of the nation, and had by pinching and plundering heaped up an immense treasure, it ought to fill every good member of the society with joy, to behold the uncommon profuseness of his son. This is refunding to the public what was robbed from it. Resuming of grants is a barbarous way of stripping, and it is ignoble to ruin a man faster than he does it himself, when he sets about it in such good earnest. Does he not feed an infinite number of dogs of all sorts and sizes, though he never hunts; keep more horses than any nobleman in the kingdom, though he never rides them; and give as large an allowance to an ill-favoured whore as would keep a dutchess, though he never lies with her? Is he not still more extravagant in those things he makes use of? Therefore let him alone, or praise him, call him public-spirited [55]lord, nobly bountiful and magnificently generous, and in a few years he will suffer himself to be stript his own way. As long as the nation has its own back again, we ought not to quarrel with the manner in which the plunder is repaid.

When I speak positively about this vice and treat it with so much kindness and respect, I'm motivated by the same concern that made me criticize its opposite—public interest. The greedy do no good for themselves and harm everyone else except their heirs, while the spendthrifts are a blessing to society and only hurt themselves. It's true that many greedy people are dishonest, and all spendthrifts are fools; yet they provide enjoyable opportunities for the public, and can justly be called society's foolish indulgences, like how the French refer to monks as the women’s partridges. Without extravagance, there would be no way to compensate for the theft and exploitation caused by greedy people in power. When a miserly politician passes away, having filled his life with the nation's spoils and amassed a huge fortune through his stinginess, it should bring joy to every good citizen to see his son's unusual generosity. This is a way of giving back to the public what was taken from it. Taking back gifts is a cruel way of stripping a man of his wealth, and it’s dishonorable to ruin someone faster than they can do it themselves when they are already working diligently at it. Doesn’t he feed countless dogs of all types, even though he never hunts? Doesn't he keep more horses than any noble in the kingdom, even if he never rides them? And doesn't he give a large allowance to an unattractive mistress, even if he never sleeps with her? Is he not even more extravagant in the things he actually uses? So let him be, or praise him and call him a public-spirited lord, nobly generous, and magnificently giving, and in a few years, he will strip himself of his own wealth in his own way. As long as the nation reclaims its own, we shouldn't argue about how the looting is repaid.

Abundance of moderate men, I know, that are enemies to extremes, will tell me, that frugality might happily supply the place of the two vices I speak of, that if men had not so many profuse ways of spending wealth, they would not be tempted to so many evil practices to scrape it together, and consequently that the same number of men, by equally avoiding both extremes, might render themselves more happy, and be less vicious without, than they could with them. 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 small societies of good peaceable men, who are contented to be poor, so they may be easy; but, in a large stirring nation, you may have soon enough of it. It is an idle dreaming virtue that employs no hands, and therefore very useless in a trading country, where there are vast numbers that one way or other must be all set to work. Prodigality has a thousand inventions to keep people from sitting still, that frugality would never think of; and as this must consume a prodigious wealth, so avarice again knows innumerable tricks to raise it together, which frugality would scorn to make use of.

I know there are plenty of moderate people who oppose extremes, and they will say that being frugal could easily replace the two vices I mentioned. They believe that if people didn't have so many lavish ways to spend their money, they wouldn't be tempted to engage in so many harmful behaviors to accumulate it. Therefore, they argue that by avoiding both extremes, the same number of people could make themselves happier and be less immoral than they might be with those extremes. But anyone who makes that argument shows they're a better person than they are a politician. Frugality is like honesty—a narrow, restrictive virtue that's only suitable for small, peaceful communities of folks who are okay with being poor as long as they're comfortable. However, in a large, dynamic society, you can have too much of it. It's a useless, dreamy virtue that doesn't engage anyone in work, making it very impractical in a trading nation, where many people need to be kept busy. Extravagance has countless ways to prevent people from being idle that frugality would never consider; and while extravagance may lead to massive consumption of wealth, greed has numerous tricks to accumulate it that frugality would never resort to.

Authors are always allowed to compare small things to great ones, especially if they ask leave first. Si licit exemplis, &c. but to compare great things to mean trivial ones, is unsufferable, unless it be in burlesque; otherwise I would compare the body politic (I confess the simile is very low) to a bowl of punch. Avarice should be the souring, and prodigality the sweetening of it. The water I would call the ignorance, folly, and credulity of the floating insipid multitude; while wisdom, honour, fortitude, and the rest of the sublime qualities of men, which separated by art from the dregs of nature, the fire of glory has exalted and refined into a spiritual essence, should be an equivalent to brandy. I do not doubt but a Westphalian, Laplander, or any other dull stranger that is unacquainted with the wholesome composition, if he was to sell the several ingredients apart, would think it impossible they should make any tolerable liquor. The lemons would be too sour, the sugar too luscious, the brandy he will say is too strong ever to be drank in any quantity, and the water he [56]will call a tasteless liquor, only fit for cows and horses: yet experience teaches us, that the ingredients I named, judiciously mixed, will make an excellent liquor, liked of, and admired by men of exquisite palates.

Authors can always compare small things to big ones, especially if they ask for permission first. Si licit exemplis, &c. However, comparing great things to trivial ones is unacceptable, unless it's done in jest. Otherwise, I might compare the body politic (I admit the comparison is quite low) to a bowl of punch. Avarice should be the sour part, and extravagance the sweetener. The water represents the ignorance, foolishness, and gullibility of the uninformed masses; while wisdom, honor, courage, and other noble qualities of people, refined from the dregs of nature through the fire of glory into a spiritual essence, are like the brandy. I have no doubt that a Westphalian, Laplander, or any other dull stranger unfamiliar with this harmonious mix would think it impossible for the separate ingredients to create a decent drink. The lemons would seem too sour, the sugar too sweet, the brandy he’d say is too strong to drink in any amount, and the water he would call a tasteless liquid, only fit for cows and horses. Yet experience shows us that the ingredients I mentioned, when mixed wisely, create an excellent drink that is enjoyed and appreciated by people with refined tastes.

As to our vices in particular, I could compare avarice, that causes so much mischief, and is complained of by every body who is not a miser, to a griping acid that sets our teeth on edge, and is unpleasant to every palate that is not debauched: I could compare the gaudy trimming and splendid equipage of a profuse beau, to the glistening brightness of the finest loaf sugar; for as the one, by correcting the sharpness, prevent the injuries which a gnawing sour might do to the bowels, so the other is a pleasing balsam that heals and makes amends for the smart, which the multitude always suffers from the gripes of the avaricious; while the substances of both melt away alike, and they consume themselves by being beneficial to the several compositions they belong to. I could carry on the simile as to proportions, and the exact nicety to be observed in them, which would make it appear how little any of the ingredients could be spared in either of the mixtures; but I will not tire my reader by pursuing too far a ludicrous comparison, when I have other matters to entertain him with of greater importance; and to sum up what I have said in this and the foregoing remark, shall only add, that I look upon avarice and prodigality in the society, as I do upon two contrary poisons in physic, of which it is certain that the noxious qualities being by mutual mischief corrected in both, they may assist each other, and often make a good medicine between them.

When it comes to our faults, I could compare greed, which causes so much trouble and is criticized by everyone who isn’t a miser, to a bitter acid that makes our teeth hurt and tastes bad to anyone with a refined palate: I could liken the flashy clothes and extravagant lifestyle of a wealthy dandy to the shiny appearance of the best loaf sugar; because just as the sugar can offset the sourness that could damage our insides, the dandy’s flair provides a pleasing remedy for the discomfort the masses feel from the pain caused by greedy people. Both essentially dissolve away, and they burn out by being helpful to the various mixtures they are part of. I could continue with this analogy regarding proportions and the precise balance needed in both mixtures, showing how none of the components can be spared in either. However, I won’t bore my reader by going too far with this humorous comparison when I have more significant topics to engage them with; to sum up what I’ve said here and previously, I would simply add that I view greed and extravagance in society like two opposing poisons in medicine, which, due to their harmful traits being mutually adjusted, can often complement each other and together provide a useful remedy.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 180. ————Whilst luxury

While luxury

Employ’d a million of the poor, &c.

Employing a million of the poor, &c.

If every thing is to be luxury (as in strictness it ought) that is not immediately necessary to make man subsist as he is a living creature, there is nothing else to be found in the world, no not even among the naked savages; of which it is not probable that there are any but what by this time have made some improvements upon their former manner of living; and either in the preparation of their eatables, the ordering of their huts, or otherwise, added something to what once sufficed them. This definition every body will say is too rigorous: [57]I am of the same opinion; but if we are to abate one inch of this severity, I am afraid we shall not know where to stop. When people tell us they only desire to keep themselves sweet and clean, there is no understanding what they would be at: if they made use of these words in their genuine proper literal sense, they might be soon satisfied without much cost or trouble, if they did not want water: but these two little adjectives are so comprehensive, especially in the dialect of some ladies, that nobody can guess how far they may be stretched. The comforts of life are likewise so various and extensive, that nobody can tell what people mean by them, except he knows what sort of life they lead. The same obscurity I observe in the words decency and conveniency, and I never understand them, unless I am acquainted with the quality of the persons that make use of them. People may go to church together, and be all of one mind as much as they please, I am apt to believe that when they pray for their daily bread, the bishop includes several things in that petition which the sexton does not think on.

If everything is going to be considered luxury (as it strictly should) that isn’t absolutely necessary for survival, there’s nothing left in the world, not even among the most basic savages; it’s likely that even they have improved their way of living by now. Whether it’s how they prepare food, arrange their shelters, or something else, they’ve added to what once was enough for them. I think most people would say this definition is too strict: [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] I agree, but if we relax this standard even a little, I’m worried we won’t know where to stop. When people say they just want to stay clean and fresh, it’s unclear what they really mean: if they used those words literally, they could achieve that easily and without much effort, assuming they had water. But those two simple adjectives are so broad, especially in the way some women use them, that it’s hard to know how far they extend. The comforts of life are also so varied and extensive that no one can truly understand what people mean by them unless they know what kind of life those people live. I notice the same lack of clarity in the terms decency and convenience, and I can’t comprehend them unless I’m familiar with the backgrounds of those using them. People might go to church together and agree completely, but I suspect that when they pray for their daily bread, the bishop includes many things in that request that the sexton doesn’t even think about.

By what I have said hitherto I would only show, that if once we depart from calling every thing luxury that is not absolutely necessary to keep a man alive, that then there is no luxury at all; for if the wants of men are innumerable, then what ought to supply them has no bounds; what is called superfluous, to some degree of people, will be thought requisite to those of higher quality; and neither the world, nor the skill of man can produce any thing so curious or extravagant, but some most gracious sovereign or other, if it either eases or diverts him, will reckon it among the necessaries of life; not meaning every body’s life, but that of his sacred person.

By what I’ve said so far, I just want to point out that if we stop defining luxury as anything that isn’t absolutely necessary for survival, then luxury doesn’t really exist. Since people have countless desires, there’s no limit to what can satisfy them. What one group sees as unnecessary may be considered essential by those of higher status. And neither the world nor human ingenuity can create something so unique or extravagant that some benevolent ruler won’t deem it necessary for their own life, not everyone’s life, but specifically for their own esteemed existence.

It is a received notion, that luxury is as destructive to the wealth of the whole body politic, as it is to that of every individual person who is guilty of it, and that a national frugality enriches a country in the same manner, as that which is less general increases the estates of private families. I confess, that though I have found men of much better understanding than myself of this opinion, I cannot help dissenting from them in this point. They argue thus: We send, say they, for example, to Turkey of woollen manufactury, and other things of our own growth, a million’s worth every year; for this we bring back silk, mohair, drugs, &c. to the value of twelve hundred thousand pounds, that are all spent in our own country. By this, say they, we get nothing; but if most [58]of us would be content with our own growth, and so consume but half the quantity of those foreign commodities, then those in Turkey, who would still want the same quantity of our manufactures, would be forced to pay ready money for the rest, and so by the balance of that trade only, the nation should get six hundred thousand pounds per annum.

It’s a common belief that luxury harms the wealth of the entire community just as much as it harms the wealth of any individual indulging in it. Conversely, national frugality enriches a country in the same way that individual thrift increases the wealth of private families. I must admit, despite having encountered people much wiser than I who hold this view, I can’t agree with them on this matter. They argue this way: For example, we send a million worth of our woolen goods and other products to Turkey each year; in return, we import silk, mohair, drugs, etc., worth twelve hundred thousand pounds, which are all spent in our own country. They claim we gain nothing from this. However, if most of us would be satisfied with what we produce ourselves and consume only half the amount of those foreign goods, then those in Turkey, still needing the same amount of our products, would be forced to pay cash for the rest. Thus, just from the balance of that trade alone, the nation would gain six hundred thousand pounds per year.

To examine the force of this argument, we will suppose (what they would have) that but half the silk, &c. shall be consumed in England of what there is now; we will suppose likewise, that those in Turkey, though we refuse to buy above half as much of their commodities as we used to do, either can or will not be without the same quantity of our manufactures they had before, and that they will pay the balance in money; that is to say, that they shall give us as much gold or silver, as the value of what they buy from us, exceeds the value of what we buy from them. Though what we suppose might perhaps be done for one year, it is impossible it should last: Buying is bartering; and no nation can buy goods of others, that has none of her own to purchase them with. Spain and Portugal, that are yearly supplied with new gold and silver from their mines, may for ever buy for ready money, as long as their yearly increase of gold or silver continues; but then money is their growth, and the commodity of the country. We know that we could not continue long to purchase the goods of other nations, if they would not take our manufactures in payment for them; and why should we judge otherwise of other nations? If those in Turkey, then, had no more money fall from the skies than we, let us see what would be the consequence of what we supposed. The six hundred thousand pounds in silk, mohair, &c. that are left upon their hands the first year, must make those commodities fall considerably: Of this the Dutch and French will reap the benefit as much as ourselves; and if we continue to refuse taking their commodities in payment for our manufactures, they can trade no longer with us, but must content themselves with buying what they want of such nations as are willing to take what we refuse, though their goods are much worse than ours; and thus our commerce with Turkey must in few years be infallibly lost.

To assess the strength of this argument, let's assume (as they would) that only half the silk, etc., will be consumed in England compared to what it is now; we will also assume that those in Turkey, even though we choose not to buy as much of their goods as we used to, either can or won't live without the same amount of our products they had before, and that they will pay the difference in cash; in other words, they will give us enough gold or silver to cover the value of what they buy from us over and above the value of what we buy from them. While this scenario might be possible for one year, it can't last: Buying involves trade; and no country can purchase goods from others if it has nothing of its own to spend. Spain and Portugal, which are annually supplied with new gold and silver from their mines, can keep purchasing for cash as long as their annual supply of gold or silver continues; but money is their product and the commodity of their land. We know that we couldn't continue buying goods from other nations if they wouldn't accept our products as payment; so why would we think differently about other countries? If those in Turkey had no more money falling from the skies than we do, let's see what would happen under our assumption. The six hundred thousand pounds worth of silk, mohair, etc., that they can't sell in the first year must cause the prices of those goods to drop significantly: The Dutch and French will benefit just as much as we do; and if we keep refusing to accept their goods as payment for our products, they won't be able to trade with us anymore but will have to settle for buying what they need from nations willing to take what we reject, even if those goods are much lower quality than ours; and so our trade with Turkey will inevitably be lost in just a few years.

But they will say, perhaps, that to prevent the ill consequence I have showed, we shall take the Turkish merchandise as formerly, and only be so frugal as to consume but half the quantity of them ourselves, and send the rest abroad [59]to be sold to others. Let us see what this will do, and whether it will enrich the nation by the balance of that trade with six hundred thousand pounds. In the first place, I will grant them that our people at home making use of so much more of our own manufactures, those who were employed in silk, mohair, &c. will get a living by the various preparations of woollen goods. But, in the second, I cannot allow that the goods can be sold as formerly; for suppose the half that is wore at home to be sold at the same rate as before, certainly the other half that is sent abroad will want very much of it: For we must send those goods to markets already supplied; and besides that, there must be freight, insurance, provision, and all other charges deducted, and the merchants in general must lose much more by this half that is reshipped, than they got by the half that is consumed here. For, though the woollen manufactures are our own product, yet they stand the merchant that ships them off to foreign countries, in as much as they do the shopkeeper here that retails them: so that if the returns for what he sends abroad repay him not what his goods cost him here, with all other charges, till he has the money and a good interest for it in cash, the merchant must run out, and the upshot would be, that the merchants in general, finding they lost by the Turkish commodities they sent abroad, would ship no more of our manufactures, than what would pay for as much silk, mohair, &c. as would be consumed here. Other nations would soon find ways to supply them with as much as we should send short, and some where or other to dispose of the goods we should refuse: So that all we should get by this frugality, would be, that those in Turkey would take but half the quantity of our manufactures of what they do now, while we encourage and wear their merchandises, without which they are not able to purchase ours.

But they might say that to avoid the negative consequences I've pointed out, we should continue buying Turkish goods as before, and just be careful to only use half of them ourselves, sending the rest abroad [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] to be sold to others. Let's see what this would do and if it would enrich the nation by balancing that trade with six hundred thousand pounds. First, I'll agree that if our people at home use more of our own products, those involved in silk, mohair, etc., will make a living by producing woolen goods. However, I can't agree that the goods can be sold as before; if the half that's worn here is sold at the same price as before, the other half sent abroad will struggle to sell. We have to send those goods to markets that are already supplied, and on top of that, we need to account for freight, insurance, other expenses, and merchants will generally lose a lot more on the half that is reshipped compared to what they gain from the half consumed here. Even though woolen products are our own, they cost the merchant who ships them to foreign countries as much as they cost the shopkeeper here who sells them. If the returns from what he sends abroad don't cover what his goods cost here along with all additional expenses, until he gets the money and a decent profit from it, the merchant will be at a loss, and the result would be that merchants, realizing they are losing from the Turkish goods they send out, would only ship as much of our products as would pay for the silk, mohair, etc., needed to meet local consumption. Other countries would soon figure out how to provide as much as we fall short, and somewhere they would find a way to sell the goods we refuse to take. So ultimately, all we would gain from this frugality is that those in Turkey would only take half the amount of our products compared to what they do now, while we support and use their goods, without which they wouldn't be able to buy ours.

As I have had the mortification, for several years, to meet with abundance of sensible people against this opinion, and who always thought me wrong in this calculation, so I had the pleasure at last to see the wisdom of the nation fall into the same sentiments, as is so manifest from an act of parliament made in the year 1721, where the legislature disobliges a powerful and valuable company, and overlooks very weighty inconveniences at home, to promote the interest of the Turkey trade, and not only encourages the consumption [60]of silk and mohair, but forces the subjects, on penalties, to make use of them whether they will or not.

As I've faced the embarrassment for several years of encountering many reasonable people who disagreed with this viewpoint and thought I was mistaken in my calculations, I finally took pleasure in seeing the wisdom of the nation align with these sentiments, as clearly shown by a law passed in 1721. In this law, the government chose to alienate a powerful and valuable company and ignored significant local issues to support the interests of the Turkey trade. They didn't just encourage the use of silk and mohair; they mandated that people use them under the threat of penalties, regardless of their preferences. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

What is laid to the charge of luxury besides, is, that it increases avarice and rapine: And where they are reigning vices, offices of the greatest trust are bought and sold; the ministers that should serve the public, both great and small, corrupted, and the countries every moment in danger of being betrayed to the highest bidders: And, lastly, that it effeminates and enervates the people, by which the nations become an easy prey to the first invaders. These are indeed terrible things; but what is put to the account of luxury belongs to male-administration, and is the fault of bad politics. Every government ought to be thoroughly acquainted with, and stedfastly to pursue the interest of the country. Good politicians, by dexterous management, laying heavy impositions on some goods, or totally prohibiting them, and lowering the duties on others, may always turn and divert the course of trade which way they please; and as they will ever prefer, if it be equally considerable, the commerce with such countries as can pay with money as well as goods, to those that can make no returns for what they buy, but in the commodities of their own growth and manufactures, so they will always carefully prevent the traffic with such nations as refuse the goods of others, and will take nothing but money for their own. But, above all, they will keep a watchful eye over the balance of trade in general, and never suffer that all the foreign commodities together, that are imported in one year, shall exceed in value what of their own growth or manufacture is in the same imported to others. Note, That I speak now of the interest of those nations that have no gold or silver of their own growth, otherwise this maxim need not to be so much insisted on.

What is often blamed on luxury, aside from its increase in greed and theft, is that it leads to rampant corruption where high offices are bought and sold. The public servants, both high and low, become corrupt, putting the country at constant risk of betrayal to the highest bidders. Additionally, it weakens and feminizes the population, making nations vulnerable to invasion. These are indeed serious issues; however, the blame for luxury actually lies with poor governance and bad politics. Every government should have a thorough understanding of and steadfastly pursue the country's interests. Skilled politicians can effectively manage trade by imposing heavy taxes on certain goods, banning others entirely, and reducing duties on different items, allowing them to steer trade in any direction they choose. They will always prefer to trade with countries that can pay with both money and goods rather than those that can only offer their own products as payment. Furthermore, they will take care to avoid trading with nations that only accept cash for their goods. Overall, they will closely monitor the balance of trade, ensuring that the total value of foreign goods imported in a year does not exceed the value of their own products exported. Note that I am discussing the interests of nations that do not produce their own gold or silver; otherwise, this principle does not need as much emphasis.

If what I urged last, be but diligently looked after, and the imports are never allowed to be superior to the exports, no nation can ever be impoverished by foreign luxury; and they may improve it as much as they please, if they can but in proportion raise the fund of their own that is to purchase it.

If the last thing I suggested is taken seriously and we ensure that imports are never greater than exports, no country can be made poor by foreign luxury; they can enhance it as much as they want, as long as they can also increase their own funds to buy it.

Trade is the principal, but not the only requisite to aggrandize a nation: there are other things to be taken care of besides. The meum and tuum must be secured, crimes punished, and all other laws concerning the administration of justice, wisely contrived, and strictly executed. Foreign affairs [61]must be likewise prudently managed, and the ministry of every nation ought to have a good intelligence abroad, and be well acquainted with the public transactions of all those countries, that either by their neighbourhood, strength, or interest, may be hurtful or beneficial to them, to take the necessary measures accordingly, of crossing some, and assisting others, as policy, and the balance of power direct. The multitude must be awed, no man’s conscience forced, and the clergy allowed no greater share in state affairs, than our Saviour has bequeathed in his testament. These are the arts that lead to worldly greatness: What sovereign power soever makes a good use of them, that has any considerable nation to govern, whether it be a monarchy, a commonwealth, or a mixture of both, can never fail of making it flourish in spite of all the other powers upon earth, and no luxury, or other vice, is ever able to shake their constitution.——But here I expect a full-mouthed cry against me; What! has God never punished and destroyed great nations for their sins? Yes, but not without means, by infatuating their governors, and suffering them to depart from either all or some of those general maxims I have mentioned; and of all the famous states and empires the world has had to boast of hitherto, none ever came to ruin, whose destruction was not principally owing to the bad politics, neglects, or mismanagements of the rulers.

Trade is the main, but not the only requirement for a nation’s growth: there are other things that need attention, too. The rights of individuals must be protected, crimes must be punished, and all laws related to justice must be wisely designed and strictly enforced. Foreign affairs must also be managed carefully, and the government of every nation should have good intelligence abroad and be well-informed about the public happenings in all countries that could either pose a threat or offer benefits, so they can adjust their actions accordingly, either opposing some or supporting others, as dictated by strategy and the balance of power. The general public must be kept in check, no one’s conscience should be forced, and the clergy should have no more influence in political matters than what our Savior granted in his teachings. These are the practices that lead to worldly greatness: any sovereign power that uses them well and governs a significant nation, whether it's a monarchy, a republic, or a blend of both, will surely prosper despite the influence of other powers on earth, and no luxury or vice can undermine their foundation.——But here, I expect a loud outcry against me; What! Has God never punished and destroyed great nations for their sins? Yes, but not without reason, by misleading their leaders and allowing them to stray from all or some of the general principles I’ve mentioned; and of all the notable states and empires the world has celebrated so far, none ever fell into ruin primarily due to anything other than the poor politics, neglect, or mismanagement of their rulers.

There is no doubt, but more health and vigour is expected among the people, and their offspring, from temperance and sobriety, than there is from gluttony and drunkenness; yet I confess, that as to luxury’s effeminating and enervating a nation, I have not such frightful notions now, as I have had formerly. When we hear or read of things which we are altogether strangers to, they commonly bring to our imagination such ideas of what we have seen, as (according to our apprehension) must come the nearest to them: And I remember, that when I have read of the luxury of Persia, Egypt, and other countries where it has been a reigning vice, and that were effeminated and enervated by it, it has sometimes put me in mind of the cramming and swilling of ordinary tradesmen at a city feast, and the beastliness their overgorging themselves is often attended with; at other times, it has made me think on the distraction of dissolute sailors, as I had seen them in company of half a dozen lewd women, roaring along with fiddles before them; and was I [62]to have been carried into any of their great cities, I would have expected to have found one third of the people sick a-bed with surfeits; another laid up with the gout, or crippled by a more ignominious distemper; and the rest, that could go without leading, walk along the streets in petticoats.

There's no doubt that people and their children are expected to be healthier and more energetic from being moderate and sober, rather than from excess and drunkenness. However, I admit that I don’t view luxury as such a terrifying threat to a nation's strength as I once did. When we hear or read about things we're completely unfamiliar with, we often imagine them based on what we already know, trying to find the closest comparison. I recall that when I read about the excesses of Persia, Egypt, and other places where indulgence has been prevalent and has weakened them, it sometimes reminded me of how ordinary tradesmen gorge themselves at a city feast, with the disgusting aftermath that often follows. Other times, it brought to mind the chaos of debauched sailors I had seen with a few rowdy women, belting out tunes while fiddles played. If I had been taken to any of those grand cities, I would have expected to find a third of the people bedridden with overeating, another group struggling with gout or some other shameful illness, while the rest who could still walk would be parading around in petticoats.

It is happy for us to have fear for a keeper, as long as our reason is not strong enough to govern our appetites: And I believe, that the great dread I had more particularly against the word, to enervate, and some consequent thoughts on the etymology of it, did me abundance of good when I was a school boy: But since I have seen something in the world, the consequences of luxury to a nation seem not so dreadful to me as they did. As long as men have the same appetites, the same vices will remain. In all large societies, some will love whoring, and others drinking. The lustful that can get no handsome clean women, will content themselves with dirty drabs: and those that cannot purchase true Hermitage or Pontack, will be glad of more ordinary French claret. Those that cannot reach wine, take up with most liquors, and a foot soldier or a beggar may make himself as drunk with stale beer or malt spirits, as a lord with Burgundy, Champaign, or Tockay. The cheapest and most slovenly way of indulging our passions, does as much mischief to a man’s constitution, as the most elegant and expensive.

It’s okay for us to have fear of a guardian, as long as our reasoning isn’t strong enough to control our desires. I think that the intense fear I had particularly about the word “enervate,” and some related thoughts on its origin, really benefited me when I was a schoolboy. But now that I’ve seen more of the world, the effects of luxury on a nation don’t seem as terrifying as they once did. As long as people have the same desires, the same vices will persist. In any large society, some will indulge in sex, and others in drinking. Those who can’t find attractive, clean women will settle for unattractive ones, and those who can’t afford top-shelf wine will be happy with lower-quality French claret. Those who can’t get wine will drink whatever they can find, and both a soldier and a beggar can get just as drunk on cheap beer or low-quality spirits as a lord can on Burgundy, Champagne, or Tokaji. The cheapest and messiest ways of giving in to our desires can harm a person’s health just as much as the most refined and expensive options.

The greatest excesses of luxury are shown in buildings, furniture, equipages, and clothes: Clean linen weakens a man no more than flannel; tapestry, fine painting, or good wainscot, are no more unwholesome than bare walls; and a rich couch, or a gilt chariot, are no more enervating than the cold floor, or a country cart. The refined pleasures of men of sense are seldom injurious to their constitution, and there are many great epicures that will refuse to eat or drink more than their heads or stomachs can bear. Sensual people may take as great care of themselves as any: and the errors of the most viciously luxurious, do not so much consist in the frequent repetitions of their lewdness, and their eating and drinking too much (which are the things which would most enervate them), as they do in the operose contrivances, the profuseness and nicety they are served with, and the vast expence they are at in their tables and amours.

The biggest displays of luxury are found in buildings, furniture, vehicles, and clothing: Clean linen doesn't weaken a person any more than flannel does; tapestries, fine paintings, or quality woodwork aren't any less healthy than bare walls; and an ornate couch or a gilded carriage aren't any more draining than a cold floor or a country cart. The refined pleasures of discerning individuals are rarely harmful to their health, and there are many great food lovers who will only eat or drink as much as they can handle. Even indulgent people can take good care of themselves; the mistakes of the most excessively luxurious individuals don't come from indulging in their vices often or overindulging in food and drink (the things that would most drain them), but rather from the elaborate arrangements, extravagance, and care with which they are served, and the enormous amounts they spend on their meals and romances.

But let us once suppose, that the ease and pleasures, the grandees, and the rich people of every nation live in, render them unfit to endure hardships, and undergo the toils of [63]war. I will allow that most of the common council of the city would make but very indifferent foot soldiers; and I believe heartily, that if your horse was to be composed of aldermen, and such as most of them are, a small artillery of squibs would be sufficient to route them. But what have the aldermen, the common council, or indeed all people of any substance to do with the war, but to pay taxes? The hardships and fatigues of war that are personally suffered, fall upon them that bear the brunt of every thing, the meanest indigent part of the nation, the working slaving people: For how excessive soever the plenty and luxury of a nation may be, some body must do the work, houses and ships must be built, merchandises must be removed, and the ground tilled. Such a variety of labours in every great nation, require a vast multitude, in which there are always loose, idle, extravagant fellows enough to spare for an army; and those that are robust enough to hedge and ditch, plow and thrash, or else not too much enervated to be smiths, carpenters, sawyers, cloth-workers, porters or carmen, will always be strong and hardy enough in a campaign or two to make good soldiers, who, where good orders are kept, have seldom so much plenty and superfluity come to their share, as to do them any hurt.

But let’s suppose that the comfort and luxuries enjoyed by the wealthy and powerful people of every nation make them unfit to face hardships and endure the struggles of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]war. I’d admit that most members of the city council wouldn't make very good foot soldiers, and I truly believe that if your cavalry were made up of aldermen and others like them, a few small fireworks would be enough to send them running. But what do the aldermen, the city council, or even all the wealthy people really have to do with the war, besides paying taxes? The actual hardships and burdens of war fall on those who bear the weight of everything: the poorest, most disadvantaged members of society, the hardworking laborers. Regardless of how abundant and luxurious a nation might be, someone has to do the work; houses and ships need to be built, goods need to be transported, and the land must be cultivated. Such a variety of labor in any large nation requires a huge workforce, which always includes enough lazy, idle, and extravagant individuals to spare for an army. Those who are strong enough to build fences and ditches, plow fields, or work as blacksmiths, carpenters, sawyers, textile workers, porters, or carmen will always be tough enough after a couple of campaigns to become good soldiers; and where discipline is maintained, they rarely get so much abundance and excess that it harms them.

The mischief, then, to be feared from luxury among the people of war, cannot extend itself beyond the officers. The greatest of them are either men of a very high birth and princely education, or else extraordinary parts, and no less experience; and whoever is made choice of by a wise government to command an army en chef, should have a consummate knowledge in martial affairs, intrepidity to keep him calm in the midst of danger, and many other qualifications that must be the work of time and application, on men of a quick penetration, a distinguished genius, and a world of honour. Strong sinews and supple joints are trifling advantages, not regarded in persons of their reach and grandeur, that can destroy cities a-bed, and ruin whole countries while they are at dinner. As they are most commonly men of great age, it would be ridiculous to expect a hale constitution and agility of limbs from them: So their heads be but active and well furnished, it is no great matter what the rest of their bodies are. If they cannot bear the fatigue of being on horseback, they may ride in coaches, or be carried in litters. Mens conduct and sagacity are never the less for their being [64]cripples, and the best general the king of France has now, can hardly crawl along. Those that are immediately under the chief commanders must be very nigh of the same abilities, and are generally men that have raised themselves to those posts by their merit. The other officers are all of them in their several stations obliged to lay out so large a share of their pay in fine clothes, accoutrements, and other things, by the luxury of the times called necessary, that they can spare but little money for debauches; for, as they are advanced, and their salaries raised, so they are likewise forced to increase their expences and their equipages, which, as well as every thing else, must still be proportionable to their quality: by which means, the greatest part of them are in a manner hindered from those excesses that might be destructive to health; while their luxury thus turned another way, serves, moreover, to heighten their pride and vanity, the greatest motives to make them behave themselves like what they would be thought to be (See Remark on l. 321).

The trouble to fear from luxury among the military mostly falls on the officers. The highest-ranking ones usually come from noble backgrounds with royal education, or they have exceptional skills and significant experience. Anyone chosen by a wise government to lead an army should have a thorough understanding of military matters, the courage to stay composed in dangerous situations, and many other qualities that take time and effort to develop, especially for those with sharp insights, remarkable talent, and great honor. Physical strength and flexibility are minor advantages that don't really matter for people of their rank and stature, who can take down cities from their beds and devastate entire nations while enjoying dinner. Since they are typically older, it would be foolish to expect them to have robust health and nimble bodies; as long as their minds are sharp and well-informed, their physical state doesn’t matter much. If they can't handle the strain of horseback riding, they can use carriages or be carried in litters. A person's leadership skills and wisdom aren't diminished by being disabled, and the best general France has at the moment can barely crawl. Those directly under the main commanders should be close to the same level of ability and are usually individuals who have risen to their positions through merit. Other officers, each in their roles, are required to spend a large portion of their salaries on fine clothes, gear, and other things that the luxury of the times deems necessary, leaving them with little to spend on excessive indulgences. As they advance and their salaries increase, they are also forced to raise their expenses and their lifestyles, which need to match their rank. This way, most of them are somewhat prevented from excesses that could harm their health; while their luxury is redirected, it also serves to boost their pride and vanity, which are major motivators for them to act like the individuals they aspire to be. (See Remark on l. 321)

There is nothing refines mankind more than love and honour. Those two passions are equivalent to many virtues, and therefore the greatest schools of breeding and good manners, are courts and armies; the first to accomplish the women, the other to polish the men. What the generality of officers among civilized nations affect, is a perfect knowledge of the world and the rules of honour; an air of frankness, and humanity peculiar to military men of experience, and such a mixture of modesty and undauntedness, as may bespeak them both courteous and valiant. Where good sense is fashionable, and a genteel behaviour is in esteem, gluttony and drunkenness can be no reigning vices. What officers of distinction chiefly aim at, is not a beastly, but a splendid way of living, and the wishes of the most luxurious, in their several degrees of quality, are to appear handsomely, and excel each other in finery of equipage, politeness of entertainments, and the reputation of a judicious fancy in every thing about them.

Nothing refines humanity more than love and honor. These two passions are equivalent to many virtues, and so the best places for developing good manners and breeding are courts and armies; the former to impress women, and the latter to polish men. What most officers in civilized nations strive for is a deep understanding of the world and the principles of honor; a sense of openness and humanity unique to experienced military men, along with a blend of modesty and bravery that makes them both courteous and courageous. Where good sense is valued and genteel behavior is admired, gluttony and drunkenness cannot be dominant vices. Officers of distinction primarily aim for a luxurious, rather than a debauched, lifestyle, with the desires of the most affluent in various ranks being to appear fashionable, and to outdo each other in elegance of appearance, hospitality, and the reputation for having good taste in everything around them.

But if there should be more dissolute reprobates among officers, than there are among men of other professions, which is not true, yet the most debauched of them may be very serviceable, if they have but a great share of honour. It is this that covers and makes up for a multitude of defects in them, and it is this that none (how abandoned soever they are to pleasure) dare pretend to be without. But as there is no argument [65]so convincing as matter of fact, let us look back on what so lately happened in our two last wars with France. How many puny young striplings have we had in our armies, tenderly educated, nice in their dress, and curious in their diet, that underwent all manner of duties with gallantry and cheerfulness?

But if there are more reckless people among officers than there are in other professions, which isn’t true, the most debauched of them can still be very useful if they have a strong sense of honor. It’s this honor that covers and makes up for many of their flaws, and it’s something that none (no matter how given to pleasure they are) would dare claim to lack. But since there’s no argument as convincing as reality, let’s look back at what just happened in our last two wars with France. How many young recruits have we had in our armies, delicately raised, particular about their clothes, and picky about their food, who handled all kinds of duties with bravery and enthusiasm?

Those that have such dismal apprehensions of luxury’s enervating and effeminating people, might, in Flanders and Spain have seen embroidered beaux with fine laced shirts and powdered wigs stand as much fire, and lead up to the mouth of a cannon, with as little concern as it was possible for the most stinking slovens to have done in their own hair, though it had not been combed in a month, and met with abundance of wild rakes, who had actually impaired their healths, and broke their constitutions with excesses of wine and women, that yet behaved themselves with conduct and bravery against their enemies. Robustness is the least thing required in an officer, and if sometimes strength is of use, a firm resolution of mind, which the hopes of preferment, emulation, and the love of glory inspire them with, will at a push supply the place of bodily force.

Those who have a bleak view of how luxury weakens and feminizes people might have seen, in Flanders and Spain, stylish men wearing fancy lace shirts and powdered wigs standing as bravely as any untidy slouch with uncombed hair, standing at the mouth of a cannon without a hint of fear. They could also have encountered wild drinkers who had actually damaged their health and ruined their constitutions with excesses of alcohol and women, yet still fought courageously against their enemies. Strength is the least important quality in an officer; and while physical strength can be useful at times, a strong resolve, driven by hopes of advancement, ambition, and a desire for glory, can often compensate for a lack of brute force.

Those that understand their business, and have a sufficient sense of honour, as soon as they are used to danger will always be capable officers: and their luxury, as long as they spend nobody’s money but their own, will never be prejudicial to a nation.

Those who know their business and have a solid sense of honor, once they get accustomed to danger, will always be effective leaders. Their luxury, as long as they’re only spending their own money, will never harm a nation.

By all which, I think, I have proved what I designed in this remark on luxury. First, that in one sense every thing may be called so, and in another there is no such thing. Secondly, that with a wise administration all people may swim in as much foreign luxury as their product can purchase, without being impoverished by it. And, lastly, that where military affairs are taken care of as they ought, and the soldiers well paid and kept in good discipline, a wealthy nation may live in all the ease and plenty imaginable; and in many parts of it, show as much pomp and delicacy, as human wit can invent, and at the same time be formidable to their neighbours, and come up to the character of the bees in the fable, of which I said, that

By all of this, I believe I've shown what I intended with my comments on luxury. First, that in one sense, everything can be considered luxury, and in another, there's no such thing. Second, that with good management, everyone can enjoy as much foreign luxury as their resources allow, without becoming poor because of it. Lastly, where military matters are handled properly, and soldiers are paid well and kept disciplined, a wealthy nation can enjoy all the comfort and abundance imaginable; and in many parts of it, display as much extravagance and refinement as human creativity can devise, while also being a formidable presence to their neighbors, embodying the characteristics of the bees in the fable, of which I said, that

Flatter’d in peace, and fear’d in wars,

Flattered in peace and feared in war,

They were th’ esteem of foreigners;

They were highly regarded by foreigners;

And lavish of their wealth and lives,

And generous with their wealth and lives,

The balance of all other hives.

The status of all the other hives.

[66]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

(See what is farther said concerning luxury in the Remarks on line 182 and 307.)

(See what is mentioned about luxury in the Remarks on lines 182 and 307.)

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 182. And odious pride a million more.

Line 182. And disgusting pride a million more.

Pride is that natural faculty by which every mortal that has any understanding over-values, and imagines better things of himself than any impartial judge, thoroughly acquainted with all his qualities and circumstances, could allow him. We are possessed of no other quality so beneficial to society, and so necessary to render it wealthy and flourishing as this, yet it is that which is most generally detested. What is very peculiar to this faculty of ours, is, that those who are the fullest of it, are the least willing to connive at it in others; whereas the heinousness of other vices is the most extenuated by those who are guilty of them themselves. The chaste man hates fornication, and drunkenness is most abhorred by the temperate; but none are so much offended at their neighbour’s pride, as the proudest of all; and if any one can pardon it, it is the most humble: from which, I think, we may justly infer, that it being odious to all the world, is a certain sign that all the world is troubled with it. This all men of sense are ready to confess, and nobody denies but that he has pride in general. But, if you come to particulars, you will meet with few that will own any action you can name of theirs to have proceeded from that principle. There are likewise many who will allow, that among the sinful nations of the times, pride and luxury are the great promoters of trade, but they refuse to own the necessity there is, that in a more virtuous age (such a one as should be free from pride), trade would in a great measure decay.

Pride is that natural trait that makes everyone who has any understanding overestimate themselves and believe they're better than any fair judge, who knows all their qualities and circumstances, would agree. We don’t have any other quality that is as beneficial to society or as essential for making it wealthy and thriving as this, yet it’s the one that people generally despise the most. What’s really interesting about this trait is that those who are the most prideful are the least forgiving of it in others; on the other hand, the seriousness of other vices is often downplayed by those who commit them. The chaste man detests fornication, and the temperate person abhors drunkenness; but no one is more offended by a neighbor's pride than the proudest person of all. If anyone is willing to forgive it, it’s the most humble. From this, I think we can rightly conclude that since it’s disliked by everyone, it’s a strong indication that everyone struggles with it. Most sensible people readily admit this, and no one denies they have pride in general. However, when it comes to specifics, you’ll find few who will acknowledge any specific action of theirs as stemming from that principle. There are also many who will agree that in the sinful times we live in, pride and luxury are significant drivers of trade, but they refuse to acknowledge the necessity that in a more virtuous age (one free from pride), trade would largely decline.

The Almighty, they say, has endowed us with the dominion over all things which the earth and sea produce or contain; there is nothing to be found in either, but what was made for the use of man; and his skill and industry above other animals were given him, that he might render both them and every thing else within the reach of his senses, more serviceable to him. Upon this consideration they think it impious to imagine, that humility, temperance, and other virtues should debar people from the enjoyment of those comforts of life, which are not denied to the most wicked nations; and so conclude, that without pride or luxury, the same things might be eat, wore, and consumed; the [67]same number of handicrafts and artificers employed, and a nation be every way as flourishing as where those vices are the most predominant.

They say that the Almighty has given us control over everything that the earth and sea produce or hold; nothing can be found in either that wasn’t made for human use. Our skill and hard work, which set us apart from other animals, were given to us so we could make both nature and everything else within our senses more useful. Because of this, they believe it’s wrong to think that humility, moderation, and other virtues should prevent people from enjoying the comforts of life that even the most wicked nations have access to. They conclude that without pride or excess, the same things could be eaten, worn, and consumed; the same number of craftsmen and workers could be engaged, and a nation could thrive just as much as one where these vices are most common. The [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] same number of handicrafts and artificers employed, and a nation be every way as flourishing as where those vices are the most predominant.

As to wearing apparel in particular, they will tell you, that pride, which sticks much nearer to us than our clothes, is only lodged in the heart, and that rags often conceal a greater portion of it than the most pompous attire; and that as it cannot be denied but that there have always been virtuous princes, who, with humble hearts, have wore their splendid diadems, and swayed their envied sceptres, void of ambition, for the good of others; so it is very probable, that silver and gold brocades, and the richest embroideries may, without a thought of pride, be wore by many whose quality and fortune are suitable to them. May not (say they) a good man of extraordinary revenues, make every year a greater variety of suits than it is possible he should wear out, and yet have no other ends than to set the poor at work, to encourage trade, and by employing many, to promote the welfare of his country? And considering food and raiment to be necessaries, and the two chief articles to which all our worldly cares are extended, why may not all mankind set aside a considerable part of their income for the one as well as the other, without the least tincture of pride? Nay, is not every member of the society in a manner obliged, according to his ability, to contribute toward the maintenance of that branch of trade on which the whole has so great a dependence? Besides that, to appear decently is a civility, and often a duty, which, without any regard to ourselves, we owe to those we converse with.

When it comes to clothing specifically, people will say that pride, which is much closer to us than our clothes, really resides in the heart. Sometimes, rags can hide more pride than the most extravagant outfits. Just as it’s undeniable that there have always been virtuous rulers who, with humble hearts, wore their grand crowns and held their coveted scepters without any ambition except to help others, it’s also likely that those who can wear silver and gold fabrics and the richest embroideries do so without any thought of pride. Can't a good person with substantial wealth have a greater variety of outfits each year than they could ever wear out, all with the intentions of providing work for the poor, encouraging trade, and helping the welfare of their community? Considering that food and clothing are necessities and the two main concerns we have in life, why can’t everyone set aside a significant part of their income for both, without any hint of pride? Plus, isn’t every member of society somewhat obligated, according to their means, to support the livelihood of that sector of trade on which everyone depends? Moreover, appearing appropriately is a matter of politeness and often a responsibility we owe to the people we interact with, regardless of ourselves.

These are the objections generally made use of by haughty moralists, who cannot endure to hear the dignity of their species arraigned; but if we look narrowly into them, they may soon be answered.

These are the arguments typically used by arrogant moralists who can't stand to hear their kind criticized; however, if we examine them closely, we can quickly counter them.

If we had vices, I cannot see why any man should ever make more suits than he has occasion for, though he was never so desirous of promoting the good of the nation: for, though in the wearing of a well-wrought silk, rather than a slight stuff, and the preferring curious fine cloth to coarse, he had no other view but the setting of more people to work, and consequently the public welfare, yet he could consider clothes no otherwise than lovers of their country do taxes now; they may pay them with alacrity, but nobody gives more than his due; especially where all are justly rated according [68]to their abilities, as it could no otherwise be expected in a very virtuous age. Besides, that in such golden times nobody would dress above his condition, nobody pinch his family, cheat or over reach his neighbour to purchase finery, and consequently there would not be half the consumption, nor a third part of the people employed as now there are. But, to make this more plain, and demonstrate, that for the support of trade there can be nothing equivalent to pride, I shall examine the several views men have in outward apparel, and set forth what daily experience may teach every body as to dress.

If we had flaws, I can’t understand why anyone would ever buy more clothes than they actually need, even if they genuinely want to benefit the country. Because even if wearing a nice silk instead of cheap fabric, or choosing fancy cloth over rough material, was just about getting more people employed and ultimately helping the public, people would see clothing the same way today’s patriots see taxes: they might pay them willingly, but no one gives more than what’s fair, especially when everyone pays their fair share based on their means, which is what you’d expect in a truly virtuous society. Moreover, in such ideal times, nobody would dress above their means, no one would shortchange their family, deceive others, or go into debt just to buy luxury items, and as a result, there wouldn’t be nearly as much spending or as many people working as there are now. To clarify this further and show that nothing supports trade like pride, I’ll look into the different reasons people have for their clothing choices and highlight what daily experience teaches us about fashion.

Clothes were originally made for two ends, to hide our nakedness, and to fence our bodies against the weather, and other outward injuries: to these our boundless pride has added a third, which is ornament; for what else but an excess of stupid vanity, could have prevailed upon our reason to fancy that ornamental, which must continually put us in mind of our wants and misery, beyond all other animals that are ready clothed by nature herself? It is indeed to be admired how so sensible a creature as man, that pretends to so many fine qualities of his own, should condescend to value himself upon what is robbed from so innocent and defenceless an animal as a sheep, or what he is beholden for to the most insignificant thing upon earth, a dying worm; yet while he is proud of such trifling depredations, he has the folly to laugh at the Hottentots on the furthest promontory of Afric, who adorn themselves with the guts of their dead enemies, without considering that they are the ensigns of their valour those barbarians are fine with, the true spolia opima, and that if their pride be more savage than ours, it is certainly less ridiculous, because they wear the spoils of the more noble animal.

Clothes were originally made for two reasons: to cover our nakedness and to protect our bodies from the weather and other external harm. To these purposes, our endless pride has added a third: ornamentation. What else but sheer vanity could convince us that decoration, which constantly reminds us of our needs and suffering, is necessary, especially when other animals are naturally clothed? It’s truly remarkable how a sensible creature like man, who claims to possess so many admirable qualities, can take pride in what he has taken from innocent and defenseless animals like sheep, or what he owes to the most insignificant being on earth, a dying worm. Yet, while he boasts about such trivial plunders, he foolishly mocks the Hottentots on the farthest edge of Africa, who decorate themselves with the entrails of their slain enemies, without realizing that these ornaments symbolize their courage. Those so-called barbarians are proud of what they wear, the true spolia opima, and while their pride may be more savage than ours, it is certainly less ridiculous since they adorn themselves with the remains of a more noble animal.

But whatever reflections may be made on this head, the world has long since decided the matter; handsome apparel is a main point, fine feathers make fine birds, and people, where they are not known, are generally honoured according to their clothes and other accoutrements they have about them; from the richness of them we judge of their wealth, and by their ordering of them we guess at their understanding. It is this which encourages every body, who is conscious of his little merit, if he is any ways able to wear clothes above his rank, especially in large and populous cities, where obscure men may hourly meet with fifty strangers [69]to one acquaintance, and consequently have the pleasure of being esteemed by a vast majority, not as what they are, but what they appear to be: which is a greater temptation than most people want to be vain.

But whatever thoughts might be expressed on this topic, the world has already made its decision; stylish clothes are essential, fancy feathers make beautiful birds, and in places where people aren't familiar with each other, they are typically judged by their clothing and other accessories. We assess their wealth based on how luxurious these items are, and we infer their intelligence from how well they present themselves. This is what drives everyone, who is aware of their limited worth, to wear clothes beyond their status, especially in large cities where ordinary individuals might encounter fifty strangers for every one person they know, thus getting the satisfaction of being valued by a large crowd, not for who they truly are, but for how they appear. This is a stronger temptation than most people can resist being vain.

Whoever takes delight in viewing the various scenes of low life, may, on Easter, Whitsun, and other great holidays, meet with scores of people, especially women, of almost the lowest rank, that wear good and fashionable clothes: if coming to talk with them, you treat them more courteously and with greater respect than what they are conscious they deserve, they will commonly be ashamed of owning what they are; and often you may, if you are a little inquisitive, discover in them a most anxious care to conceal the business they follow, and the place they live in. The reason is plain; while they receive those civilities that are not usually paid them, and which they think only due to their betters, they have the satisfaction to imagine, that they appear what they would be, which, to weak minds, is a pleasure almost as substantial as they could reap from the very accomplishments of their wishes: this golden dream they are unwilling to be disturbed in, and being sure that the meanness of their condition, if it is known, must sink them very low in your opinion, they hug themselves in their disguise, and take all imaginable precaution not to forfeit, by a useless discovery, the esteem which they flatter themselves that their good clothes have drawn from you.

Whoever enjoys watching the various scenes of low life can, on Easter, Whitsun, and other major holidays, encounter many people, especially women, of nearly the lowest status, who wear nice and trendy clothes. If you approach them and treat them more politely and with more respect than they believe they deserve, they will often feel ashamed of what they are. If you’re a bit curious, you might notice that they are very anxious to hide the jobs they do and where they live. The reason is simple: when they receive courtesies that aren’t usually extended to them—and which they believe should only be given to those of higher status—they find joy in imagining that they appear to be what they wish to be. For fragile minds, this pleasure is almost as fulfilling as achieving their actual desires. They don’t want this comforting fantasy to be disrupted, and knowing that the poor state of their condition, if revealed, would lower your opinion of them, they take great care to maintain their disguise and do everything possible to avoid losing the respect they believe their nice clothes have earned them.

Though every body allows, that as to apparel and manner of living, we ought to behave ourselves suitable to our conditions, and follow the examples of the most sensible, and prudent among our equals in rank and fortune: yet how few, that are not either miserably covetous, or else proud of singularity, have this discretion to boast of? We all look above ourselves, and, as fast as we can, strive to imitate those that some way or other are superior to us.

Though everyone agrees that in terms of clothing and lifestyle, we should conduct ourselves appropriately for our social status and follow the examples of the most sensible and prudent among our peers in rank and wealth, how few can actually claim this kind of discretion without being miserably greedy or proud of their uniqueness? We all look up to those above us and, as quickly as we can, try to imitate those who are somehow superior to us.

The poorest labourer’s wife in the parish, who scorns to wear a strong wholesome frize, as she might, will half starve herself and her husband to purchase a second-hand gown and petticoat, that cannot do her half the service; because, forsooth, it is more genteel. The weaver, the shoemaker, the tailor, the barber, and every mean working fellow, that can set up with little, has the impudence, with the first money he gets, to dress himself like a tradesman of substance: the ordinary retailer in the clothing of his wife, takes pattern from [70]his neighbour, that deals in the same commodity by wholesale, and the reason he gives for it is, that twelve years ago the other had not a bigger shop than himself. The druggist, mercer, draper, and other creditable shopkeepers, can find no difference between themselves and merchants, and therefore dress and live like them. The merchant’s lady, who cannot bear the assurance of those mechanics, flies for refuge to the other end of the town, and scorns to follow any fashion but what she takes from thence; this haughtiness alarms the court, the women of quality are frightened to see merchants wives and daughters dressed like themselves: this impudence of the city, they cry, is intolerable; mantua-makers are sent for, and the contrivance of fashions becomes all their study, that they may have always new modes ready to take up, as soon as those saucy cits shall begin to imitate those in being. The same emulation is continued through the several degrees of quality, to an incredible expence, till at last the prince’s great favourites and those of the first rank of all, having nothing left to outstrip some of their inferiors, are forced to lay out vast estates in pompous equipages, magnificent furniture, sumptuous gardens, and princely palaces.

The poorest laborer's wife in the parish, who refuses to wear a strong, durable fabric, as she could, will nearly starve herself and her husband to buy a second-hand dress and petticoat that won't serve her half as well; because, of course, it's more fashionable. The weaver, the shoemaker, the tailor, the barber, and every lowly worker who manages to get by with little, have the nerve to dress like wealthy tradesmen as soon as they earn some money. The typical retailer providing clothing for his wife takes cues from his neighbor, who sells the same items wholesale, and he justifies it by saying that twelve years ago, the other had no larger shop than him. The druggist, mercer, draper, and other respectable shopkeepers see no difference between themselves and merchants, and therefore dress and live like them. The merchant’s wife, who can't stand the boldness of these tradespeople, retreats to the other end of town and refuses to follow any fashion except what she picks up from there; this arrogance alarms the court, and the ladies of high society are dismayed to see the wives and daughters of merchants dressed like them. They cry out that this boldness from the city is unacceptable; mantua-makers are called in, and creating new fashions becomes their sole focus, so they always have fresh styles ready to adopt as soon as those audacious City folk start copying the latest trends. The same rivalry continues through various levels of society, leading to incredible expenditures, until finally, the prince’s top favorites and those of the highest rank, having nothing left to surpass some of their lessers, are forced to spend vast fortunes on extravagant carriages, luxurious furnishings, splendid gardens, and grand palaces.

To this emulation and continual striving to out-do one another it is owing, that after so many various shiftings and changes of modes, in trumping up new ones, and renewing of old ones, there is still a plus ultra left for the ingenious; it is this, or at least the consequence of it, that sets the poor to work, adds spurs to industry, and encourages the skilful artificer to search after further improvements.

The ongoing competition and constant drive to outdo each other is why, despite so many different trends and styles emerging—both new ones being created and old ones being revived—there's still a plus ultra for the creative minds. This, or its effects, motivates the less fortunate to work, pushes people to be more industrious, and inspires skilled craftsmen to seek further advancements.

It may be objected, that many people of good fashion, who have been used to be well dressed, out of custom, wear rich clothes with all the indifferency imaginable, and that the benefit to trade accruing from them cannot be ascribed to emulation or pride. To this I answer, that it is impossible, that those who trouble their heads so little with their dress, could ever have wore those rich clothes, if both the stuffs and fashions had not been first invented to gratify the vanity of others, who took greater delight in fine apparel, than they; besides that every body is not without pride that appears to be so; all the symptoms of that vice are not easily discovered; they are manifold, and vary according to the age, humour, circumstances, and often constitution of the people.

Some might argue that many well-off people, who are used to dressing nicely, wear luxurious clothes without much thought, and that the benefit to business from this can't be attributed to competition or pride. In response, I say that it's impossible for those who care so little about their appearance to have worn such fine clothes unless the fabrics and styles were created first to satisfy the vanity of others, who take more pleasure in stylish clothing than they do. Furthermore, just because someone doesn't seem proud doesn't mean they're without pride; the signs of that vice aren't always easy to spot. They are varied and depend on factors like age, personality, circumstances, and often the makeup of the people involved.

The choleric city captain seems impatient to come to action, and expressing his warlike genius by the firmness of his [71]steps, makes his pike, for want of enemies, tremble at the valour of his arm: his martial finery, as he marches along, inspires him with an unusual elevation of mind, by which, endeavouring to forget his shop as well as himself, he looks up at the balconies with the fierceness of a Saracen conqueror: while the phlegmatic alderman, now become venerable both for his age and his authority, contents himself with being thought a considerable man; and knowing no easier way to express his vanity, looks big in his coach, where being known by his paultry livery, he receives, in sullen state, the homage that is paid him by the meaner sort of people.

The hot-tempered city captain seems eager for action, showcasing his warrior spirit with the confidence of his [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]steps. His pike shakes with the strength of his arm, despite the lack of enemies to challenge him. As he struts along in his military finery, he feels a boost in his self-esteem, trying to forget his everyday life and look up at the balconies with the ferocity of a Saracen conqueror. Meanwhile, the calm alderman, now respected for both his age and authority, is satisfied with being seen as an important figure. Not knowing a simpler way to show off his pride, he sits imposingly in his coach, where his shabby uniform gives him away, receiving the respect of lower-class people with a gloomy demeanor.

The beardless ensign counterfeits a gravity above his years, and with ridiculous assurance strives to imitate the stern countenance of his colonel, flattering himself, all the while, that by his daring mien you will judge of his prowess. The youthful fair, in a vast concern of being overlooked, by the continual changing of her posture, betrays a violent desire of being observed, and catching, as it were, at every body’s eyes, courts with obliging looks the admiration of her beholders. The conceited coxcomb, on the contrary, displaying an air of sufficiency, is wholly taken up with the contemplation of his own perfections, and in public places discovers such a disregard to others, that the ignorant must imagine, he thinks himself to be alone.

The beardless officer pretends to have a seriousness beyond his years, and with ridiculous confidence tries to mimic the stern expression of his colonel, convincing himself that his bold appearance will make you think he’s capable. The young woman, worried about being ignored, keeps changing her position, revealing a strong desire to be noticed, and, as if trying to catch everyone’s attention, she seeks admiration from those around her with friendly looks. On the other hand, the arrogant fool, showing an air of self-importance, is completely engrossed in admiring his own qualities, and in public places, he shows such disregard for others that anyone uninformed might think he believes he’s the only one there.

These, and such like, are all manifest, though different tokens of pride, that are obvious to all the world; but man’s vanity is not always so soon found out. When we perceive an air of humanity, and men seem not to be employed in admiring themselves, nor altogether unmindful of others, we are apt to pronounce them void of pride, when, perhaps, they are only fatigued with gratifying their vanity, and become languid from a satiety of enjoyments. That outward show of peace within, and drowsy composure of careless negligence, with which a great man is often seen in his plain chariot to loll at ease, are not always so free from art, as they may seem to be. Nothing is more ravishing to the proud, than to be thought happy.

These and similar things are all clear, though different signs of pride that everyone can see; however, a person’s vanity isn’t always as easily recognized. When we notice a sense of humanity, and people don’t seem to be busy admiring themselves or entirely indifferent to others, we tend to assume they lack pride. In reality, they may just be worn out from feeding their vanity and feeling drained from too much pleasure. That outward appearance of inner peace and the relaxed demeanor of careless indifference that a powerful person often shows while lounging comfortably in a simple carriage aren’t always as genuine as they seem. Nothing pleases the proud more than being perceived as happy.

The well-bred gentleman places his greatest pride in the skill he has of covering it with dexterity, and some are so expert in concealing this frailty, that when they are the most guilty of it, the vulgar think them the most exempt from it. Thus the dissembling courtier, when he appears in state, assumes an air of modesty and good humour; and while he is [72]ready to burst with vanity, seems to be wholly ignorant of his greatness; well knowing, that those lovely qualities must heighten him in the esteem of others, and be an addition to that grandeur, which the coronets about his coach and harnesses, with the rest of his equipage, cannot fail to proclaim without his assistance.

The well-mannered gentleman takes great pride in his ability to hide his flaws with skill. Some are so good at concealing this weakness that when they're most guilty of it, the common people believe they’re the least affected. So, the deceitful courtier, when he presents himself in public, puts on an air of modesty and cheerfulness; and while he’s about to burst with pride, he pretends to be completely unaware of his own greatness. He knows well that those appealing traits will elevate his standing in the eyes of others and add to the prestige that the crowns around his carriage and the rest of his fancy gear can't help but announce without his help.

And as in these, pride is overlooked, because industriously concealed, so in others again, it is denied that they have any, when they show (or at least seem to show) it in the most public manner. The wealthy parson being, as well as the rest of his profession, debarred from the gaiety of laymen, makes it his business to look out for an admirable black, and the finest cloth that money can purchase, and distinguishes himself by the fullness of his noble and spotless garment; his wigs are as fashionable as that form he is forced to comply with will admit of; but as he is only stinted in their shape, so he takes care that for goodness of hair, and colour, few noblemen shall be able to match him; his body is ever clean, as well as his clothes, his sleek face is kept constantly shaved, and his handsome nails are diligently pared; his smooth white hand, and a brilliant of the first water, mutually becoming, honour each other with double graces; what linen he discovers is transparently curious, and he scorns ever to be seen abroad with a worse beaver than what a rich banker would be proud of on his wedding-day; to all these niceties in dress he adds a majestic gait, and expresses a commanding loftiness in his carriage; yet common civility, notwithstanding, the evidence of so many concurring symptoms, will not allow us to suspect any of his actions to be the result of pride: considering the dignity of his office, it is only decency in him, what would be vanity in others; and in good manners to his calling we ought to believe, that the worthy gentleman, without any regard to his reverend person, puts himself to all this trouble and expence, merely out of a respect which is due to the divine order he belongs to, and a religious zeal to preserve his holy function from the contempt of scoffers. With all my heart; nothing of all this shall be called pride, let me only be allowed to say, that to our human capacities it looks very like it.

And just like in these cases, pride is often overlooked because it's carefully hidden, while in other instances, people outright deny having any pride, even when they display it (or at least appear to) in the most obvious way. The wealthy clergyman, like others in his profession, is excluded from the joys of secular life, so he makes it his mission to find an impressive black outfit and the best fabric that money can buy. He stands out with his luxurious and immaculate attire; his wigs are as stylish as the shape he’s forced to wear allows; but since he’s limited in their style, he ensures that when it comes to quality and color, few noblemen can match him. His body is always clean, as are his clothes, his smooth face is consistently shaved, and his well-groomed nails are carefully trimmed. His smooth, white hand and a top-quality ring complement each other beautifully; the linen he wears is exquisitely transparent, and he refuses to be seen wearing anything less than what a wealthy banker would flaunt on his wedding day. To all these clothing details, he adds a regal walk and carries himself with a commanding presence; yet despite all the signs pointing to pride, common decency won’t let us suspect his actions stem from it: given the importance of his position, what might be seen as vanity in others is merely appropriate decorum for him. We should believe that this respectable gentleman, regardless of his reverend status, goes through all this effort and expense purely out of respect for his sacred office and a genuine desire to protect his holy role from being mocked. I fully agree; none of this should be called pride, but I must say, to us mere humans, it certainly looks a lot like it.

But if at last I should grant, that there are men who enjoy all the fineries of equipage and furniture, as well as clothes, and yet have no pride in them; it is certain, that if all should be such, that emulation I spoke of before must [73]cease, and consequently trade, which has so great a dependence upon it, suffer in every branch. For to say, that if all men were truly virtuous, they might, without any regard to themselves, consume as much out of zeal to serve their neighbours and promote the public good, as they do now out of self-love and emulation, is a miserable shift, and an unreasonable supposition. As there have been good people in all ages, so, without doubt, we are not destitute of them in this; but let us inquire of the periwig-makers and tailors, in what gentlemen, even of the greatest wealth and highest quality, they ever could discover such public-spirited views. Ask the lacemen, the mercers, and the linen-drapers, whether the richest, and if you will, the most virtuous ladies, if they buy with ready money, or intend to pay in any reasonable time, will not drive from shop to shop, to try the market, make as many words, and stand as hard with them to save a groat or sixpence in a yard, as the most necessitous jilts in town. If it be urged, that if there are not, it is possible there might be such people; I answer that it is as possible that cats, instead of killing rats and mice, should feed them, and go about the house to suckle and nurse their young ones; or that a kite should call the hens to their meat, as the cock does, and sit brooding over their chickens instead of devouring them; but if they should all do so, they would cease to be cats and kites; it is inconsistent with their natures, and the species of creatures which now we mean, when we name cats and kites, would be extinct as soon as that could come to pass.

But if I were to admit that there are people who enjoy all the nice things like vehicles, furniture, and clothing, and yet feel no pride in those things, it’s clear that if everyone were like that, the competition I mentioned earlier would [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]stop. This would inevitably harm trade, which heavily relies on that competition. To suggest that if everyone were genuinely virtuous, they could spend just as much in their desire to help others and support the common good as they currently do out of self-interest and competition, is a poor argument and an unreasonable idea. There have always been good people throughout history, and undoubtedly, we have them now; however, let’s ask the wig-makers and tailors if they’ve ever seen any gentlemen, even those with immense wealth and high status, show such selfless motives. Inquire with the lace-makers, mercers, and linen drapers if the wealthiest, and even the most virtuous ladies, when paying cash or planning to pay soon, don’t bargain just as hard and shop around for the best deal to save a penny or two, just like those in dire need do. If it’s argued that such individuals might exist, I respond that it’s just as likely that cats would not catch rats and mice but instead would feed and care for them, or that a hawk would call the hens to their food like a rooster does and sit protectively over them instead of eating them; but if they all behaved that way, they would stop being cats and hawks. It goes against their nature, and the species we refer to when we say cats and hawks would be gone as soon as that could happen.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 183. Envy itself, and vanity,

Envy and vanity,

Were ministers of industry.

Were industry ministers.

Envy is that baseness in our nature, which makes us grieve and pine at what we conceive to be a happiness in others. I do not believe there is a human creature in his senses arrived to maturity, that at one time or other has not been carried away by this passion in good earnest; and yet I never met with any one that dared own he was guilty of it, but in jest. That we are so generally ashamed of this vice, is owing to that strong habit of hypocrisy, by the help of which, we have learned from our cradle to hide even from ourselves the vast extent of self-love, and all its different branches. It is impossible man should wish better for another than he [74]does for himself, unless where he supposes an impossibility that himself should attain to those wishes; and from hence we may easily learn after what manner this passion is raised in us. In order to it, we are to consider first, that as well as we think of ourselves, so ill we think of our neighbour with equal injustice; and when we apprehend, that others do or will enjoy what we think they do not deserve, it afflicts and makes us angry with the cause of that disturbance. Secondly, That we are employed in wishing well for ourselves, every one according to his judgment and inclinations, and when we observe something we like, and yet are destitute of, in the possession of others; it occasions first sorrow in us for not having the thing we like. This sorrow is incurable, while we continue our esteem for the thing we want: but as self-defence is restless, and never suffers us to leave any means untried how to remove evil from us, as far and as well as we are able; experience teaches us, that nothing in nature more alleviates this sorrow, than our anger against those who are possessed of what we esteem and want. This latter passion, therefore, we cherish and cultivate to save or relieve ourselves, at least in part, from the uneasiness we felt from the first.

Envy is that low aspect of our nature that makes us feel sad and restless about what we see as happiness in others. I don’t think there’s anyone who has reached maturity and hasn’t, at some point, been genuinely swept away by this feeling; yet, I’ve never met anyone brave enough to admit it, except in a joking way. The reason we feel so ashamed of this vice is because of the deep-rooted hypocrisy that has taught us from childhood to hide the full extent of our self-love and its many forms, even from ourselves. It’s impossible for someone to wish better for another than they do for themselves, unless they believe it's impossible for them to achieve those wishes; and from this, we can easily understand how this passion grows within us. First, we need to recognize that just as we think highly of ourselves, we often think poorly of our neighbors with equal unfairness; when we think that others are enjoying what we believe they don't deserve, it frustrates us and makes us angry about that disturbance. Secondly, we are focused on wanting good things for ourselves, each according to their own judgment and preferences. When we see something we desire in the hands of others, it first causes us sorrow for not having what we want. This sorrow can’t be healed as long as we continue to value what we lack; but just as self-defense is relentless and not willing to leave any means untried to remove discomfort from our lives, experience shows us that nothing alleviates this sorrow more than our anger toward those who have what we desire. Therefore, we nurture and foster this latter feeling to help ourselves, at least partially, escape the discomfort brought on by the former.

Envy, then, is a compound of grief and anger; the degrees of this passion depend chiefly on the nearness or remoteness of the objects, as to circumstances. If one, who is forced to walk on foot envies a great man for keeping a coach and six, it will never be with that violence, or give him that disturbance which it may to a man, who keeps a coach himself, but can only afford to drive with four horses. The symptoms of envy are as various, and as hard to describe, as those of the plague; at some time it appears in one shape, at others in another quite different. Among the fair, the disease is very common, and the signs of it very conspicuous in their opinions and censures of one another. In beautiful young women, you may often discover this faculty to a high degree; they frequently will hate one another mortally at first sight, from no other principle than envy; and you may read this scorn, and unreasonable aversion, in their very countenances, if they have not a great deal of art, and well learned to dissemble.

Envy is a mix of sadness and anger; how intense this feeling is mostly depends on how close or far the objects of envy are in relation to one’s circumstances. If someone who has to walk is envious of a wealthy person with a fancy carriage, the intensity of that envy won’t be as strong or disturbing as it would be for someone who has a carriage themselves but can only afford to use four horses. The signs of envy can be various and just as hard to pin down as those of a disease; sometimes it shows up one way, and at other times in a completely different form. Among women, this feeling is quite common, and it’s very evident in how they judge and criticize each other. Beautiful young women often display this trait strongly; they can instantly dislike each other purely out of envy, and you can see this disdain and unwarranted dislike on their faces, unless they’ve mastered the art of hiding it.

In the rude and unpolished multitude, this passion is very bare-faced; especially when they envy others for the goods of fortune: They rail at their betters, rip up their faults, and [75]take pains to misconstrue their most commendable actions: They murmur at Providence, and loudly complain, that the good things of this world are chiefly enjoyed by those who do not deserve them. The grosser sort of them it often affects so violently, that if they were not withheld by the fear of the laws, they would go directly and beat those their envy is levelled at, from no other provocation than what that passion suggests to them.

In the rough and unrefined crowd, this passion is very obvious, especially when they envy others for their good fortune. They criticize those above them, point out their flaws, and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]make an effort to misinterpret their most admirable actions. They grumble about fate and loudly complain that the good things in life are mostly enjoyed by people who don't deserve them. The more coarse among them often feel this so intensely that if they weren't held back by fear of the law, they would go straight out and attack those they envy, with no other motive than what that passion inspires in them.

The men of letters, labouring under this distemper, discover quite different symptoms. When they envy a person for his parts and erudition, their chief care is industriously to conceal their frailty, which generally is attempted by denying and depreciating the good qualities they envy: They carefully peruse his works, and are displeased with every fine passage they meet with; they look for nothing but his errors, and wish for no greater feast than a gross mistake: In their censures they are captious, as well as severe, make mountains of mole-hills, and will not pardon the least shadow of a fault, but exaggerate the most trifling omission into a capital blunder.

The literary men, suffering from this problem, show very different signs. When they envy someone for their talent and knowledge, their main focus is on hiding their own weaknesses, which they do by denying and belittling the admirable qualities they envy: They study that person's works closely and feel frustrated with every excellent passage they find; they look only for mistakes and hope for nothing more than a major error: In their judgments, they are both nitpicking and harsh, turning small issues into huge problems, and they refuse to overlook even the slightest imperfection, blowing minor oversights up into major blunders.

Envy is visible in brute-beasts; horses show it in their endeavours of outstripping one another; and the best spirited will run themselves to death, before they will suffer another before them. In dogs, this passion is likewise plainly to be seen, those who are used to be caressed will never tamely bear that felicity in others. I have seen a lap-dog that would choke himself with victuals, rather than leave any thing for a competitor of his own kind; and we may often observe the same behaviour in those creatures which we daily see in infants that are froward, and by being over-fondled made humoursome. If out of caprice they at any time refuse to eat what they have asked for, and we can but make them believe that some body else, nay, even the cat or the dog is going to take it from them, they will make an end of their oughts with pleasure, and feed even against their appetite.

Envy is obvious in animals; horses show it in their efforts to outpace each other, and the most spirited ones will run themselves to exhaustion rather than let another take the lead. In dogs, this emotion is also clearly visible; those who are used to being pampered will never accept that happiness in others quietly. I've seen a lapdog who would choke on its food rather than leave anything for a rival of its own kind; and we often notice the same behavior in infants who are spoiled and become temperamental. If, on a whim, they refuse to eat what they've asked for, and we can make them think that someone else, even the cat or the dog, will take it from them, they will happily finish their meal, eating even against their desire.

If envy was not rivetted in human nature, it would not be so common in children, and youth would not be so generally spurred on by emulation. Those who would derive every thing that is beneficial to the society from a good principle, ascribe the effects of emulation in school-boys to a virtue of the mind; as it requires labour and pains, so it is evident, that they commit a self-denial, who act from that disposition; but if we look narrowly into it, we shall find, that this sacrifice [76]of ease and pleasure is only made to envy, and the love of glory. If there was not something very like this passion, mixed with that pretended virtue, it would be impossible to raise and increase it by the same means that create envy. The boy, who receives a reward for the superiority of his performance, is conscious of the vexation it would have been to him, if he should have fallen short of it: This reflection makes him exert himself, not to be outdone by those whom he looks upon as his inferiors, and the greater his pride is, the more self-denial he will practise to maintain his conquest. The other, who, in spite of the pains he took to do well, has missed of the prize, is sorry, and consequently angry with him whom he must look upon as the cause of his grief: But to show this anger, would be ridiculous, and of no service to him, so that he must either be contented to be less esteemed than the other boy; or, by renewing his endeavours, become a greater proficient: and it is ten to one, but the disinterested, good-humoured, and peaceable lad, will choose the first, and so become indolent and inactive, while the covetous, peevish, and quarrelsome rascal, shall take incredible pains, and make himself a conqueror in his turn.

If envy wasn't a part of human nature, it wouldn't be so common in kids, and young people wouldn't be driven by competition. Those who believe that everything beneficial for society comes from good principles attribute the effects of competition among schoolboys to a virtue of the mind. Since it requires effort and dedication, it’s clear that those who act on this impulse are making a sacrifice; but if we examine it closely, we’ll find that this sacrifice of comfort and pleasure is mainly for envy and the desire for recognition. If there wasn’t a strong connection to this passion mixed with that supposed virtue, it wouldn’t be possible to increase it by the same means that create envy. The boy who gets rewarded for doing better is aware of the frustration he would feel if he didn’t measure up: This thought drives him to push himself, so he won’t be outperformed by those he considers beneath him. The prouder he is, the more effort he’ll put in to maintain his success. On the other hand, the boy who, despite his hard work, fails to win the prize feels disappointed and, as a result, angry at the one he sees as the cause of his distress. But showing that anger would be absurd and won’t help him, so he has to either accept being regarded as less than the other boy or try again and become better. It’s likely that the disinterested, easy-going, and peaceful kid will choose the first option, becoming lazy and inactive, while the greedy, moody, and argumentative brat will work tirelessly to come out on top next time.

Envy, as it is very common among painters, so it is of great use for their improvement: I do not mean, that little dawbers envy great masters, but most of them are tainted with this vice against those immediately above them. If the pupil of a famous artist is of a bright genius, and uncommon application, he first adores his master; but as his own skill increases, he begins insensibly to envy what he admired before. To learn the nature of this passion, and that it consists in what I have named, we are but to observe, that, if a painter, by exerting himself, comes not only to equal, but to exceed the man he envied, his sorrow is gone, and all his anger disarmed; and if he hated him before, he is now glad to be friends with him, if the other will condescend to it.

Envy, which is quite common among painters, can actually be beneficial for their growth. I’m not referring to lesser artists envying great masters, but many of them do struggle with this feeling towards those just above them. When a student of a renowned artist is particularly talented and dedicated, they initially idolize their master; however, as their own skills develop, they subtly start to envy what they once admired. To understand this emotion, we just need to notice that if a painter works hard enough to not only match but surpass the person they envied, their sadness disappears and their anger fades away. If they previously disliked the person, they would now be happy to be on friendly terms, if the other is willing to reciprocate.

Married women, who are guilty of this vice, which few are not, are always endeavouring to raise the same passion in their spouses; and where they have prevailed, envy and emulation have kept more men in bounds, and reformed more ill husbands from sloth, from drinking, and other evil courses, than all the sermons that have been preached since the time of the Apostles.

Married women who are guilty of this vice, which few aren't, are always trying to stir up the same feelings in their husbands; and where they have succeeded, jealousy and competition have kept more men in line and reformed more bad husbands from laziness, drinking, and other bad habits than all the sermons that have been delivered since the time of the Apostles.

As every body would be happy, enjoy pleasure, and, [77]avoid pain, if he could, so self-love bids us look on every creature that seems satisfied, as a rival in happiness; and the satisfaction we have in seeing that felicity disturbed, without any advantage to ourselves, but what springs from the pleasure we have in beholding it, is called loving mischief for mischief’s sake; and the motive of which that frailty is the result, malice, another offspring derived from the same original; for if there was no envy, there could be no malice. When the passions lie dormant, we have no apprehension of them, and often people think they have not such a frailty in their nature, because that moment they are not affected with it.

As everyone would be happy, enjoy pleasure, and avoid pain if they could, self-love leads us to see every person who seems content as a rival in happiness. The satisfaction we feel when we see that happiness disrupted, without any benefit to ourselves except for the pleasure we get from watching it, is known as loving mischief for its own sake. The motivation for this frailty is malice, which is another product of the same source; because without envy, there would be no malice. When our emotions are dormant, we don't recognize them, and often people believe they lack such a flaw in their nature because they aren't feeling it at that moment.

A gentleman well dressed, who happens to be dirtied all over by a coach or a cart, is laughed at, and by his inferiors much more than his equals, because they envy him more: they know he is vexed at it, and, imagining him to be happier than themselves, they are glad to see him meet with displeasures in his turn! But a young lady, if she be in a serious mood, instead of laughing at, pities him, because a clean man is a sight she takes delight in, and there is no room for envy. At disasters, we either laugh, or pity those that befal them, according to the stock we are possessed of either malice or compassion. If a man falls or hurts himself so slightly, that it moves not the latter, we laugh, and here our pity and malice shake us alternately: Indeed, Sir, I am very sorry for it, I beg your pardon for laughing, I am the silliest creature in the world, then laugh again; and again, I am indeed very sorry, and so on. Some are so malicious, they would laugh if a man broke his leg, and others are so compassionate, that they can heartily pity a man for the least spot in his clothes; but nobody is so savage that no compassion can touch him, nor any man so good-natured, as never to be affected with any malicious pleasure. How strangely our passions govern us! We envy a man for being rich, and then perfectly hate him: But if we come to be his equals, we are calm, and the least condescension in him makes us friends; but if we become visibly superior to him, we can pity his misfortunes. The reason why men of true good sense envy less than others, is because they admire themselves with less hesitation than fools and silly people; for, though they do not show this to others, yet the solidity of their thinking gives them an assurance of their real worth, [78]which men of weak understanding can never feel within, though they often counterfeit it.

A well-dressed gentleman, who happens to be dirty from a coach or a cart, is laughed at, especially by those below him more than by his peers, because they envy him more: they know he’s annoyed by it, and believing he’s happier than they are, they take pleasure in seeing him go through some misfortunes! But a young lady, if she’s in a serious mood, instead of laughing, feels pity for him because a clean man is something she enjoys seeing, and there’s no sense of envy. In tough situations, we either laugh at or pity those who face them, depending on whether we’re feeling malicious or compassionate. If a man falls or hurts himself just enough that it doesn’t trigger our compassion, we laugh, and our pity and malice alternate: Indeed, Sir, I’m very sorry about it, I apologize for laughing, I’m the silliest person in the world, then laugh again; and again, I’m truly sorry, and it continues. Some people are so malicious they would laugh if a man broke his leg, while others are so compassionate they can genuinely pity someone for a small stain on their clothes; but no one is so cruel that they can’t be touched by compassion, nor is anyone so kind-hearted that they aren’t affected by some malicious pleasure. How strangely our emotions control us! We envy a man for being wealthy, and then utterly despise him: But when we become equals, we’re calm, and even the slightest act of humility from him makes us friends; yet if we become obviously superior to him, we can feel pity for his misfortunes. The reason why people of true good sense envy less than others is that they admire themselves with more confidence than fools and simple-minded people; for, although they don’t show this to others, their solid thinking gives them a sense of their own worth, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] which those with weak understanding can never truly feel within, even if they often pretend to.

The ostracism of the Greeks was a sacrifice of valuable men made to epidemic envy, and often applied as an infallible remedy to cure and prevent the mischiefs of popular spleen and rancour. A victim of state often appeases the murmurs of a whole nation, and after-ages frequently wonder at barbarities of this nature, which, under the same circumstances, they would have committed themselves. They are compliments to the people’s malice, which is never better gratified, than when they can see a great man humbled. We believe that we love justice, and to see merit rewarded; but if men continue long in the first posts of honour, half of us grow weary of them, look for their faults, and, if we can find none, we suppose they hide them, and it is much if the greatest part of us do not wish them discarded. This foul play, the best of men ought ever to apprehend from all who are not their immediate friends or acquaintance, because nothing is more tiresome to us, than the repetition of praises we have no manner of share in.

The ostracism of the Greeks was a sacrifice of valuable individuals driven by widespread envy, often used as a foolproof way to cure and prevent the problems of popular resentment and spite. The removal of a public figure often calms the complaints of an entire nation, and future generations frequently marvel at such brutal practices, which, under similar circumstances, they would themselves commit. It’s a nod to people's malice, which is most satisfied when they can witness a great person being brought low. We like to think we love justice and want to see merit rewarded, but if someone remains in a position of honor for too long, many of us grow tired of them, start looking for their faults, and if we can’t find any, we assume they are hiding them; it’s likely that most of us wish for their removal. This unfair treatment is something the best people should always be wary of from those who aren’t their close friends or acquaintances because nothing is more exhausting for us than hearing praises that we have no part in.

The more a passion is a compound of many others, the more difficult it is to define it; and the more it is tormenting to those that labour under it, the greater cruelty it is capable of inspiring them with against others: Therefore nothing is more whimsical or mischievous than jealousy, which is made up of love, hope, fear, and a great deal of envy: The last has been sufficiently treated of already; and what I have to say of fear, the reader will find under Remark on l. 321. So that the better to explain and illustrate this odd mixture, the ingredients I shall further speak of in this place, are hope and love.

The more a passion combines various feelings, the harder it is to pinpoint exactly what it is; and the more it torments those who experience it, the more cruelty it can motivate them to unleash on others. So, nothing is more unpredictable or harmful than jealousy, which is a mix of love, hope, fear, and a hefty dose of envy. I've already covered envy, and what I have to say about fear can be found in the Remark on l. 321. To better explain and illustrate this strange mix, I will now discuss hope and love.

Hoping is wishing with some degree of confidence, that the thing wished for will come to pass. The firmness and imbecility of our hope depend entirely on the greater or lesser degree of our confidence, and all hope includes doubt; for when our confidence is arrived to that height, as to exclude all doubts, it becomes a certainty, and we take for granted what we only hoped for before. A silver inkhorn may pass in speech, because every body knows what we mean by it, but a certain hope cannot: For a man who makes use of an epithet that destroys the essence of the substantive he joins it to, can have no meaning at all; and the more clearly we understand the force of the epithet, and the [79]nature of the substantive, the more palpable is the nonsense of the heterogeneous compound. The reason, therefore, why it is not so shocking to some to hear a man speak of certain hope, as if he should talk of hot ice, or liquid oak, is not because there is less nonsense contained in the first, than there is in either of the latter; but because the word hope, I mean the essence of it, is not so clearly understood by the generality of the people, as the words and essence of ice and oak are.

Hoping is wishing with some level of confidence that what we wish for will actually happen. The strength and silliness of our hope depend completely on how confident we are, and every hope carries some doubt; because when our confidence is high enough to eliminate all doubt, it turns into certainty, and we start to assume what we once only hoped for. A silver inkwell is easily understood in conversation because everyone knows what it means, but a certain hope is not: a person who uses a word that contradicts the core idea of what they are referring to has no real meaning; and the clearer we grasp the impact of the word and the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]essence of what it's describing, the more obvious the absurdity of that mixed expression becomes. The reason some people don’t find it so shocking to hear someone talk about certain hope, compared to discussing hot ice or liquid oak, isn’t because there’s less nonsense in the first than in the latter two; it’s because the general public doesn’t understand the true nature of hope as clearly as they do the meanings of ice and oak.

Love, in the first place, signifies affection, such as parents and nurses bear to children, and friends to one another; it consists in a liking and well-wishing to the person beloved. We give an easy construction to his words and actions, and feel a proneness to excuse and forgive his faults, if we see any; his interest we make on all accounts our own, even to our prejudice, and receive an inward satisfaction for sympathising with him in his sorrows, as well as joys. What I said last is not impossible, whatever it may seem to be; for, when we are sincere in sharing with one another in his misfortunes, self-love makes us believe, that the sufferings we feel must alleviate and lessen those of our friend; and while this fond reflection is soothing our pain, a secret pleasure arises from our grieving for the person we love.

Love, first and foremost, means affection, like the kind parents and caregivers have for children and friends share with each other; it’s about liking and wishing well for the person you love. We interpret their words and actions generously, and we tend to excuse and forgive their flaws if we notice any; their interests become our own, even to our detriment, and we feel a deep satisfaction from empathizing with them in both their sadness and happiness. What I just mentioned might sound unlikely, but it’s not impossible; when we truly share in someone else's misfortunes, our self-love convinces us that the pain we feel can ease our friend's suffering. While this comforting thought softens our hurt, a hidden pleasure emerges from our sorrow for the one we love.

Secondly, by love we understand a strong inclination, in its nature distinct from all other affections of friendship, gratitude, and consanguinity, that persons of different sexes, after liking, bear to one another: it is in this signification, that love enters into the compound of jealousy, and is the effect as well as happy disguise of that passion that prompts us to labour for the preservation of our species. This latter appetite is innate both in men and women, who are not defective in their formation, as much as hunger or thirst, though they are seldom affected with it before the years of puberty. Could we undress nature, and pry into her deepest recesses, we should discover the seeds of this passion before it exerts itself, as plainly as we see the teeth in an embryo, before the gums are formed. There are few healthy people of either sex, whom it has made no impression on before twenty: yet, as the peace and happiness of the civil society require that this should be kept a secret, never to be talked of in public; so, among well-bred people, it is counted highly criminal to mention, before company, any thing in plain words, that is, relating to this mystery of succession: by which means, [80]the very name of the appetite, though the most necessary for the continuance of mankind, is become odious, and the proper epithets commonly joined to lust, are filthy and abominable.

Secondly, love is understood as a strong attraction, distinct from other feelings like friendship, gratitude, and familial bonds, that people of different sexes develop after forming a liking for each other. In this sense, love is part of jealousy and serves both as a consequence and a pleasant disguise of that feeling, which drives us to work for the continuation of our species. This desire is innate in both men and women, who are not lacking in their development, comparable to hunger or thirst, although it usually doesn’t manifest until puberty. If we could strip away nature and examine its deepest layers, we would find the roots of this passion before it fully develops, just as we see teeth in an embryo before the gums form. There are few healthy individuals of either sex who haven't felt its influence by the time they turn twenty; however, for the peace and happiness of society, it's expected to be kept a secret and never openly discussed. In well-mannered circles, it is considered extremely inappropriate to speak about anything related to this topic openly, which means that the very mention of this desire, despite being essential for the continuation of humanity, has become reviled, and the usual words associated with lust are seen as vulgar and despicable.

This impulse of nature in people of strict morals, and rigid modesty, often disturbs the body for a considerable time before it is understood or known to be what it is, and it is remarkable, that the most polished, and best instructed, are generally the most ignorant as to this affair; and here I can but observe the difference between man in the wild state of nature, and the same creature in the civil society. In the first, men and women, if left rude and untaught in the sciences of modes and manners, would quickly find out the cause of that disturbance, and be at a loss no more than other animals for a present remedy: besides, that it is not probable they would want either precept or example from the more experienced. But, in the second, where the rules of religion, law, and decency, are to be followed, and obeyed, before any dictates of nature, the youth of both sexes are to be armed and fortified against this impulse, and from their infancy artfully frightened from the most remote approaches of it. The appetite itself, and all the symptoms of it, though they are plainly felt and understood, are to be stifled with care and severity, and, in women, flatly disowned, and if there be occasion, with obstinacy denied, even when themselves are affected by them. If it throws them into distempers, they must be cured by physic, or else patiently bear them in silence; and it is the interest of the society to preserve decency and politeness; that women should linger, waste, and die, rather than relieve themselves in an unlawful manner; and among the fashionable part of mankind, the people of birth and fortune, it is expected that matrimony should never be entered upon without a curious regard to family, estate, and reputation, and, in the making of matches, the call of nature be the very last consideration.

This natural impulse in people with strict morals and rigid modesty often troubles the body for quite some time before it is recognized for what it is. It’s interesting that the most refined and educated individuals are typically the most unaware of this issue. Here, I can only note the contrast between humans in their natural state and those in civilized society. In the former, if men and women are left unrefined and uneducated about social norms, they would quickly identify the cause of their discomfort and wouldn’t struggle with finding a remedy like other animals do. Additionally, it's unlikely they would lack guidance or examples from the more experienced. However, in the latter, where religious rules, laws, and social norms must be followed above natural instincts, young men and women are conditioned to resist these impulses and are subtly taught from a young age to fear any close approach to them. The desire itself and all its symptoms, although clearly felt and understood, are suppressed with care and strictness. In women, these feelings are outright denied and sometimes stubbornly rejected, even when they are personally affected by them. If such feelings lead to health issues, they must be treated with medicine or quietly endured; society has a vested interest in maintaining decency and politeness. It’s expected that women should suffer and even die rather than seek relief in inappropriate ways. Among the fashionable elite, individuals of status and wealth are expected to consider family ties, wealth, and reputation very carefully before entering marriage; in fact, the natural call of desire is the last thing to be considered when arranging matches.

Those, then, who would make love and lust synonymous, confound the effect with the cause of it: yet such is the force of education, and a habit of thinking, as we are taught, that sometimes persons of either sex are actually in love without feeling any carnal desires, or penetrating into the intentions of nature, the end proposed by her, without which they could never have been affected with that sort of passion. That there are such is certain, but many more whose pretences [81]to those refined notions are only upheld by art and dissimulation. Those, who are really such Platonic lovers, are commonly the pale-faced weakly people, of cold and phlegmatic constitutions in either sex; the hale and robust, of bilious temperament, and a sanguine complexion, never entertain any love so spiritual as to exclude all thoughts and wishes that relate to the body; but if the most seraphic lovers would know the original of their inclination, let them but suppose that another should have the corporal enjoyment of the person beloved, and by the tortures they will suffer from that reflection they will soon discover the nature of their passions: whereas, on the contrary, parents and friends receive a satisfaction in reflecting on the joys and comforts of a happy marriage, to be tasted by those they wish well to.

Those who equate love and lust confuse the result with the reason behind it. Yet, due to the strong influence of education and ingrained thinking, it sometimes happens that people of either gender can truly be in love without experiencing any physical desires, or understanding the intentions of nature, without which they would never have felt that kind of passion. It's certain that some individuals fit this description, but there are many more whose claims to these elevated notions are simply maintained through pretense and deceit. Those who are genuinely Platonic lovers tend to be the frail, pale individuals with cold and melancholic temperaments, regardless of gender. In contrast, healthy, robust people with a choleric temperament and a sanguine complexion never entertain a love so spiritual that it ignores all thoughts and desires related to the body. However, if the most angelic lovers want to understand the root of their feelings, they should just imagine that someone else is having physical intimacy with the person they love, and from the pain associated with that thought, they will quickly realize the true nature of their emotions. On the other hand, parents and friends find joy in reflecting on the happiness and comfort of a successful marriage that they wish for those they care about.

The curious, that are skilled in anatomizing the invisible part of man, will observe that the more sublime and exempt this love is from all thoughts of sensuality, the more spurious it is, and the more it degenerates from its honest original and primitive simplicity. The power and sagacity as well as labour and care of the politician in civilizing the society, has been no where more conspicuous, than in the happy contrivance of playing our passions against one another. By flattering our pride, and still increasing the good opinion we have of ourselves on the one hand, and inspiring us on the other with a superlative dread and mortal aversion against shame, the artful moralists have taught us cheerfully to encounter ourselves, and if not subdue, at least, so to conceal and disguise our darling passion, lust, that we scarce know it when we meet with it in our breasts: Oh! the mighty prize we have in view for all our self-denial! can any man be so serious as to abstain from laughter, when he considers, that for so much deceit and insincerity practiced upon ourselves as well as others, we have no other recompense than the vain satisfaction of making our species appear more exalted and remote from that of other animals, than it really is; and we, in our consciences, know it to be? yet this is fact, and in it we plainly perceive the reason why it was necessary to render odious every word or action by which we might discover the innate desire we feel to perpetuate our kind; and why tamely to submit to the violence of a furious appetite (which is painful to resist) and innocently to obey the most pressing demand of nature without guile or hypocrisy, [82]like other creatures, should be branded with the ignominious name of brutality.

The curious, who are good at examining the unseen aspects of humanity, will notice that the more elevated and free from any ideas of sensuality this love is, the more false it becomes, and the further it strays from its honest origins and simple beginnings. The skill and insight, as well as the effort and attention of politicians in civilizing society, have never been more evident than in the clever strategy of pitting our passions against each other. By flattering our pride and boosting the good opinion we have of ourselves on one side, and instilling in us a deep fear and strong aversion to shame on the other, the crafty moralists have taught us to face ourselves cheerfully, and if we can’t conquer our feelings, to at least hide and disguise our cherished passion, lust, so well that we barely recognize it when it arises within us: Oh! the immense reward we seek for all our self-restraint! Can anyone be so serious that they refrain from laughing at the fact that for all the deceit and insincerity we practice on ourselves and others, we receive no reward other than the empty satisfaction of making our species seem more noble and distant from other animals than it truly is; and we know in our hearts what it really is? Yet this is the truth, and in it, we clearly see why it was necessary to make every word or action that reveals our innate desire to procreate seem disgraceful; and why it should be labeled with the shameful term of brutality just to meekly submit to the force of a raging appetite (which is painful to resist) and innocently fulfill the most urgent demands of nature without deception or pretense, like other creatures. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

What we call love, then, is not a genuine, but an adulterated appetite, or rather a compound, a heap of several contradictory passions blended in one. As it is a product of nature warped by custom and education, so the true origin and first motive of it, as I have hinted already, is stifled in well-bred people, and concealed from themselves: all which is the reason, that, as those affected with it, vary in age, strength, resolution, temper, circumstances, and manners, the effects of it are so different, whimsical, surprising, and unaccountable.

What we call love is not authentic; it's a mixed feeling, a jumble of several conflicting emotions all combined into one. Since it’s shaped by social norms and upbringing, the true source and initial drive behind it, as I've already suggested, gets buried in well-mannered people and hidden from their own awareness. This is why, as those who experience it vary in age, strength, determination, temperament, situation, and behavior, the outcomes are so diverse, unpredictable, surprising, and hard to explain.

It is this passion that makes jealousy so troublesome, and the envy of it often so fatal: those who imagine that there may be jealousy without love, do not understand that passion. Men may not have the least affection for their wives, and yet be angry with them for their conduct, and suspicious of them either with or without a cause: but what in such cases affects them is their pride, the concern for their reputation. They feel a hatred against them without remorse; when they are outrageous, they can beat them and go to sleep contentedly: such husbands may watch their dames themselves, and have them observed by others; but their vigilance is not so intense; they are not so inquisitive or industrious in their searches, neither do they feel that anxiety of heart at the fear of a discovery, as when love is mixed with the passions.

It’s this intense feeling that makes jealousy such a problem, and the jealousy that comes with it can often be deadly. Those who think jealousy can exist without love don’t really get what that feeling is all about. Men might have no real affection for their wives but can still be angry at their behavior and suspicious of them, whether there’s a reason or not. In these cases, what drives them is their pride and their concern for their reputation. They can feel hatred toward their wives without any guilt; when they’re furious, they might hit them and then fall asleep without a care. These husbands might keep an eye on their wives themselves or have others watch them, but their vigilance isn’t as strong; they aren’t as curious or diligent in their searches, nor do they feel that same anxiety about being found out, like they would if love were mixed into the situation.

What confirms me in this opinion is, that we never observe this behaviour between a man and his mistress; for when his love is gone and he suspects her to be false, he leaves her, and troubles his head no more about her: whereas, it is the greatest difficulty imaginable, even to a man of sense, to part with his mistress as long as he loves her, whatever faults she may be guilty of. If in his anger he strikes her, he is uneasy after it; his love makes him reflect on the hurt he has done her, and he wants to be reconciled to her again. He may talk of hating her, and many times from his heart wish her hanged, but if he cannot get entirely rid of his frailty, he can never disentangle himself from her: though she is represented in the most monstrous guilt to his imagination, and he has resolved and swore a thousand times never to come near her again, there is no trusting him, even when he is fully convinced of her infidelity, if his love continues, [83]his despair is never so lasting, but between the blackest fits of it he relents, and finds lucid intervals of hope; he forms excuses for her, thinks of pardoning, and in order to it racks his invention for possibilities that may make her appear less criminal.

What confirms my belief in this is that we never see this behavior between a man and his mistress; when his love fades and he suspects her of being unfaithful, he leaves her and stops worrying about her. In contrast, it's incredibly difficult, even for a sensible man, to break up with his mistress as long as he loves her, no matter what faults she might have. If he strikes her in a fit of anger, he feels uneasy afterward; his love causes him to reflect on the harm he's caused her, and he wants to make up with her again. He might claim to hate her and many times genuinely wish she were out of the picture, but if he can’t completely shake off his feelings, he can never fully detach from her. Even if he envisions her as the worst kind of guilty in his mind, and resolves and swears a thousand times never to see her again, he can’t be trusted, even when he's fully convinced of her betrayal. If his love remains, his despair never lasts long; between the darkest moments, he softens and finds moments of hope. He makes excuses for her, contemplates forgiving her, and strains his imagination for possibilities that might make her seem less blameworthy. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 200. Real pleasures, comforts, ease.

Real pleasures, comforts, and ease.

That the highest good consisted in pleasure, was the doctrine of Epicurus, who yet led a life exemplary for continence, sobriety, and other virtues, which made people of the succeeding ages quarrel about the signification of pleasure. Those who argued from the temperance of the philosopher, said, That the delight Epicurus meant, was being virtuous; so Erasmus in his Colloquies tells us, that there are no greater Epicures than pious Christians. Others that reflected on the dissolute manners of the greatest part of his followers, would have it, that by pleasures he could have understood nothing but sensual ones, and the gratification of our passions. I shall not decide their quarrel, but am of opinion, that whether men be good or bad, what they take delight in is their pleasure; and not to look out for any further etymology from the learned languages, I believe an Englishman may justly call everything a pleasure that pleases him, and according to this definition, we ought to dispute no more about men’s pleasures than their tastes: Trahit sua quemque voluptas.

Epicurus believed that the highest good was pleasure, yet he lived a life that was exemplary for self-discipline, sobriety, and other virtues, which led people in later times to argue about the meaning of pleasure. Those who pointed to the philosopher's temperance argued that the joy Epicurus referred to was actually about being virtuous; for example, Erasmus mentioned in his Colloquies that there are no greater Epicures than devout Christians. Others, noting the extravagant behaviors of many of his followers, insisted that by pleasures he must have meant only sensual ones and the satisfaction of our desires. I won’t take sides in their debate, but I believe that whether people are good or bad, what they enjoy is their pleasure; and without looking for further definitions from scholarly languages, I think an Englishman can rightfully call anything that brings him joy a pleasure, and based on this definition, we shouldn’t argue about people’s pleasures any more than about their tastes: Trahit sua quemque voluptas.

The worldly-minded, voluptuous, and ambitious man, notwithstanding he is void of merit, covets precedence every where, and desires to be dignified above his betters: he aims at spacious palaces, and delicious gardens; his chief delight is in excelling others in stately horses, magnificent coaches, a numerous attendance, and dear-bought furniture. To gratify his lust, he wishes for genteel, young, beautiful women of different charms and complexions, that shall adore his greatness, and be really in love with his person: his cellars he would have stored with the flower of every country that produces excellent wines: his tables he desires may be served with many courses, and each of them contain a choice variety of dainties not easily purchased, and ample evidences of elaborate and judicious cookery; while harmonious music, and well-couched flattery, entertain his hearing by turns. He employs [84]even in the meanest trifles, none but the ablest and most ingenious workmen, that his judgment and fancy may as evidently appear in the least things that belong to him as his wealth and quality are manifested in those of greater value. He desires to have several sets of witty, facetious, and polite people to converse with, and among them he would have some famous for learning and universal knowledge: for his serious affairs, he wishes to find men of parts and experience, that should be diligent and faithful. Those that are to wait on him he would have handy, mannerly, and discreet, of comely aspect, and a graceful mien: what he requires in them besides, is a respectful care of every thing that is his, nimbleness without hurry, dispatch without noise, and an unlimited obedience to his orders: nothing he thinks more troublesome than speaking to servants; wherefore he will only be attended by such, as by observing his looks have learned to interpret his will from the slightest motions. He loves to see an elegant nicety in every thing that approaches him, and in what is to be employed about his person, he desires a superlative cleanliness to be religiously observed. The chief officers of his household he would have to be men of birth, honour and distinction, as well as order, contrivance, and economy; for though he loves to be honoured by every body, and receives the respects of the common people with joy, yet the homage that is paid him by persons of quality is ravishing to him in a more transcendent manner.

The worldly, pleasure-seeking, and ambitious man, even though he's lacking in real achievement, wants to be at the forefront everywhere and desires to be seen as superior to those who are better than him. He aims for grand palaces and lush gardens; his main joy comes from outshining others with impressive horses, luxurious carriages, a large entourage, and expensive furnishings. To satisfy his desires, he longs for elegant, young, beautiful women of various charms and skin tones who will adore his greatness and genuinely love him. He wants his cellars filled with the finest wines from every region known for excellent vintages. He wishes for his tables to overflow with multiple courses, each featuring a delightful variety of rare treats that are hard to come by, alongside clear signs of careful and skilled cooking; while harmonious music and flattering compliments entertain him in turns. He employs only the best and most skilled workers even for the simplest tasks, ensuring that his taste and judgment shine through in everything he owns, just as much as his wealth and status are evident in his more valuable possessions. He wants to have several groups of witty, amusing, and polite people to chat with, including some who are renowned for their knowledge and learning; for more serious matters, he seeks out capable and experienced individuals who are diligent and trustworthy. Those who attend to him must be competent, respectful, and discreet, with pleasing appearances and graceful demeanors. In addition, he expects them to take careful regard of everything that belongs to him, to be quick without being rushed, efficient without making noise, and completely obedient to his commands. He finds nothing more annoying than having to speak to servants; therefore, he will only be attended by those who, by observing his expressions, have learned to interpret his wishes from the slightest gestures. He enjoys seeing elegance in every detail that comes close to him, and he insists on an exceptional level of cleanliness to be maintained in everything that involves him. He wants the chief officers of his household to be individuals of birth, honor, and distinction, as well as being orderly, resourceful, and economical; for although he loves being honored by everyone and welcomes the respect of common people with pleasure, the homage paid to him by those of higher status is deeply gratifying to him in a more transcendent way.

While thus wallowing in a sea of lust and vanity, he is wholly employed in provoking and indulging his appetites, he desires the world should think him altogether free from pride and sensuality, and put a favourable construction upon his most glaring vices: nay, if his authority can purchase it, he covets to be thought wise, brave, generous, good-natured, and endued with the virtues he thinks worth having. He would have us believe that the pomp and luxury he is served with are as many tiresome plagues to him; and all the grandeur he appears in is an ungrateful burden, which, to his sorrow, is inseparable from the high sphere he moves in; that his noble mind, so much exalted above vulgar capacities, aims at higher ends, and cannot relish such worthless enjoyments; that the highest of his ambition is to promote the public welfare, and his greatest pleasure to see his country flourish, and every body in it made happy. These are called real pleasures by the vicious and earthly-minded, and whoever [85]is able, either by his skill or fortune, after this refined manner at once to enjoy the world, and the good opinion of it, is counted extremely happy by all the most fashionable part of the people.

While caught up in a sea of lust and vanity, he is completely focused on stirring up and satisfying his desires. He wants the world to see him as entirely free from pride and indulgence, and to have a positive view of his most obvious flaws. If he can get it through his influence, he longs to be seen as wise, brave, generous, kind-hearted, and possessing the virtues he believes are valuable. He wants us to think that the luxury and indulgence he experiences are mere burdens to him, and that all the status he enjoys is an unwanted weight that, sadly, comes with his high position. He portrays his elevated mind, so much greater than ordinary ones, as striving for loftier goals and unable to enjoy such trivial pleasures. He claims that his highest ambition is to promote the common good, and that his greatest happiness comes from seeing his country thrive and everyone in it find joy. These are considered true pleasures by those who are corrupt and focused on the material world, and anyone who can, through talent or luck, enjoy the world and its approval in such a sophisticated way is seen as incredibly fortunate by all the trendiest people.

But, on the other side, most of the ancient philosophers and grave moralists, especially the Stoics, would not allow any thing to be a real good that was liable to be taken from them by others. They wisely considered the instability of fortune, and the favour of princes; the vanity of honour, and popular applause; the precariousness of riches, and all earthly possessions; and therefore placed true happiness in the calm serenity of a contented mind, free from guilt and ambition; a mind that, having subdued every sensual appetite, despises the smiles as well as frowns of fortune, and taking no delight but in contemplation, desires nothing but what every body is able to give to himself: a mind that, armed with fortitude and resolution, has learned to sustain the greatest losses without concern, to endure pain without affliction, and to bear injuries without resentment. Many have owned themselves arrived to this height of self-denial, and then, if we may believe them, they were raised above common mortals, and their strength extended vastly beyond the pitch of their first nature: they could behold the anger of threatening tyrants and the most imminent dangers without terror, and preserved their tranquillity in the midst of torments: death itself they could meet with intrepidity, and left the world with no greater reluctance than they had showed fondness at their entrance into it.

But on the flip side, most ancient philosophers and serious moral thinkers, especially the Stoics, believed that nothing could be a true good if it could be taken away by others. They wisely recognized the unpredictability of fortune and the whims of rulers; the emptiness of honor and public praise; the instability of wealth and all material possessions. Therefore, they found true happiness in the calm peace of a content mind, free from guilt and ambition—a mind that has conquered every desire, disregards both the smiles and frowns of fortune, and finds joy only in contemplation, wanting nothing but what everyone can give themselves: a mind that, equipped with courage and determination, has learned to handle the greatest losses without worry, endure pain without suffering, and accept injuries without bitterness. Many have claimed to reach this level of self-denial, and if we are to believe them, they felt elevated above ordinary people, with their strength far exceeding their original nature: they could face the rage of threatening tyrants and the most imminent dangers without fear, maintaining their calmness even amid suffering; they could confront death fearlessly, departing from the world with no more reluctance than they had shown eagerness upon entering it.

These among the ancients have always bore the greatest sway; yet others that were no fools neither, have exploded those precepts as impracticable, called their notions romantic, and endeavoured to prove, that what these Stoics asserted of themselves, exceeded all human force and possibility; and that therefore the virtues they boasted of could be nothing but haughty pretence, full of arrogance and hypocrisy; yet notwithstanding these censures, the serious part of the world, and the generality of wise men that have lived ever since to this day, agree with the Stoics in the most material points; as that there can be no true felicity in what depends on things perishable; that peace within is the greatest blessing, and no conquest like that of our passions; that knowledge, temperance, fortitude, humility, and other embellishments of the mind are the most valuable acquisitions; that no man [86]can be happy but he that is good: and that the virtuous are only capable of enjoying real pleasures.

Those early thinkers had the most influence, yet others, who were also intelligent, dismissed their ideas as unrealistic, labeled their views as overly romantic, and tried to show that what the Stoics claimed about themselves was beyond human strength and possibility. Thus, they argued, the virtues they flaunted were just arrogant pretenses, full of hypocrisy. Despite these criticisms, the serious part of the world and most wise individuals who have lived since then agree with the Stoics on key points: that true happiness can't come from things that don't last; that inner peace is the greatest blessing, and that conquering our passions is the best victory; that knowledge, self-control, courage, humility, and other qualities of the mind are the most valuable assets; that no one [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] can be happy unless they are good; and that only the virtuous can enjoy real pleasures.

I expect to be asked, why in the fable I have called those pleasures real, that are directly opposite to those which I own the wise men of all ages have extolled as the most valuable? My answer is, because I do not call things pleasures which men say are best, but such as they seem to be most pleased with; how can I believe that a mans chief delight is in the embellishment of the mind, when I see him ever employed about, and daily pursue the pleasures that are contrary to them? John never cuts any pudding, but just enough that you cannot say he took none: this little bit, after much chomping and chewing, you see goes down with him like chopped hay; after that he falls upon the beef with a voracious appetite, and crams himself up to his throat. Is it not provoking, to hear John cry every day that pudding is all his delight, and that he does not value the beef of a farthing.

I expect I'll be asked why, in the fable, I called those pleasures real that are the exact opposite of what wise people throughout history have praised as the most valuable. My answer is that I don’t define pleasures based on what others say is best, but rather on what people seem genuinely pleased by. How can I believe that a person's main joy comes from nurturing the mind when they’re constantly focused on and actively pursuing pleasures that contradict that? John never cuts a piece of pudding, just enough for you to not say he didn’t have any at all: this tiny bit, after a lot of chomping and chewing, goes down for him like chopped hay; after that, he dives into the beef with an insatiable appetite and stuffs himself to the brim. Isn’t it irritating to hear John claim every day that pudding is all he cares about, and that he doesn’t value the beef at all?

I could swagger about fortitude and the contempt of riches as much as Seneca himself, and would undertake to write twice as much in behalf of poverty as ever he did; for the tenth part of his estate, I could teach the way to his summum bonum as exactly as I know my way home: I could tell people to extricate themselves from all worldly engagements, and to purify the mind, they must divest themselves of their passions, as men take out the furniture when they would clean a room thoroughly; and I am clearly of the opinion, that the malice and most severe strokes of fortune, can do no more injury to a mind thus stripped of all fears, wishes, and inclinations, than a blind horse can do in an empty barn. In the theory of all this I am very perfect, but the practice is very difficult; and if you went about picking my pocket, offered to take the victuals from before me when I am hungry, or made but the least motion of spitting in my face, I dare not promise how philosophically I should behave myself. But that I am forced to submit to every caprice of my unruly nature, you will say, is no argument, that others are as little masters of theirs, and therefore, I am willing to pay adoration to virtue wherever I can meet with it, with a proviso that I shall not be obliged to admit any as such, where I can see no self-denial, or to judge of mens sentiments from their words, where I have their lives before me.

I could talk about courage and the disdain for wealth just as much as Seneca did, and I could write twice as much in support of poverty as he ever did; with just a fraction of his fortune, I could show the way to his summum bonum as well as I know how to get home: I could tell people to free themselves from all worldly commitments, and to clear their minds, they need to let go of their passions, just like someone would remove furniture to thoroughly clean a room; and I truly believe that the malice and harsh blows of fate can't harm a mind stripped of all fears, desires, and inclinations any more than a blind horse could damage an empty barn. I'm very well-versed in the theory of this, but the practice is really tough; and if you tried to pick my pocket, took food away from me when I'm hungry, or even just spat in my face, I can't guarantee how philosophically I would react. Yet, just because I struggle with my own unruly nature doesn’t mean others do too, so I’m more than willing to admire virtue wherever I find it, with the understanding that I won't be forced to recognize anything as virtue if I don't see any self-denial, or to judge people's beliefs by their words when I can see their actions.

I have searched through every degree and station of men, and confess, that I have found no where more austerity of [87]manners, or greater contempt of earthly pleasures, than in some religious houses, where people freely resigning and retiring from the world to combat themselves, have no other business but subdue their appetites. What can be a greater evidence of perfect chastity, and a superlative love, to immaculate purity in men and women, than that in the prime of their age, when lust is most raging, they should actually seclude themselves from each others company, and by a voluntary renunciation debar themselves for life, not only from uncleanness, but even the most lawful embraces? those that abstain from flesh, and often all manner of food, one would think in the right way, to conquer all carnal desires; and I could almost swear, that he does not consult his ease, who daily mauls his bare back and shoulders with unconscionable stripes, and constantly roused at night from his sleep, leaves his bed for his devotion. Who can despise riches more, or show himself less avaricious than he, who will not so much as touch gold or silver, no not with his feet? Or can any mortal show himself less luxurious or more humble than the man, that making poverty his choice, contents himself with scraps and fragments, and refuses to eat any bread but what is bestowed upon him by the charity of others.

I have searched through every rank and status of people, and I admit that I’ve found no greater rigidity of manners, or stronger disdain for worldly pleasures, than in some religious communities. Here, individuals willingly withdraw from the world to challenge themselves, focusing solely on conquering their desires. What could demonstrate greater chastity and a deeper commitment to pure virtue than the fact that, in the prime of their lives—when desire is strongest—they choose to isolate themselves from each other and voluntarily give up any chance of intimacy for life, steering clear not only of uncleanliness but even of the most permissible kind of affection? Those who abstain from meat, and often all kinds of food, seem to be on the right path to overcoming all carnal cravings. I could almost swear that a person who daily beats their bare back and shoulders with harsh lashes, and who constantly gets up at night from their sleep to pray, is not really looking for comfort. Who can look down on wealth more, or appear less greedy than someone who won’t even touch gold or silver, not even with their feet? And can anyone show themselves to be less extravagant or more humble than a person who chooses poverty, who is satisfied with leftovers and refuses to eat any bread except what is given to them out of charity?

Such fair instances of self-denial, would make me bow down to virtue, if I was not deterred and warned from it by so many persons of eminence and learning, who unanimously tell me that I am mistaken, and all I have seen is farce and hypocrisy; that what seraphic love they may pretend to, there is nothing but discord among them; and that how penitential the nuns and friars may appear in their several convents, they none of them sacrifice their darling lusts: that among the women, they are not all virgins that pass for such, and that if I was to be let into their secrets, and examine some of their subterraneous privacies, I should soon be convinced by scenes of horror, that some of them must have been mothers. That among the men I should find calumny, envy, and ill nature, in the highest degree, or else gluttony, drunkenness, and impurities of a more execrable kind than adultery itself: and as for the mendicant orders, that they fer in nothing but their habits from other sturdy beggars, who deceive people with a pitiful tone, and an outward show of misery, and as soon as they are out of sight, lay by their cant, indulge their appetites, and enjoy one another.

Such clear examples of self-denial would make me admire virtue if I weren’t discouraged and warned against it by so many respected and knowledgeable people who all agree that I'm mistaken. They say everything I've witnessed is just farce and hypocrisy; that while they may pretend to have divine love, there's only discord among them. They say that no matter how penitent the nuns and friars seem in their convents, none of them truly sacrifice their cherished desires. Among the women, not all who claim to be virgins actually are, and if I were let in on their secrets and could see some of their hidden affairs, I'd quickly be convinced by horrifying scenes that some of them must have been mothers. Among the men, I’d find extreme slander, envy, and spite, or else gluttony, drunkenness, and even worse impurities than adultery itself. And regarding the mendicant orders, they differ from other sturdy beggars only by their habits; they deceive people with a pitiful voice and an outward appearance of suffering, but as soon as they’re out of sight, they drop the act, indulge their appetites, and enjoy each other’s company.

If the strict rules, and so many outward signs of devotion [88]observed among those religious orders, deserve such harsh censures, we may well despair of meeting with virtue any where else; for if we look into the actions of the antagonists and greatest accusers of those votaries, we shall not find so much as the appearance of self-denial. The reverend divines of all sects, even of the most reformed churches in all countries, take care with the Cyclops Evangeliphorus first; ut ventri bene sit, and afterwards, ne quid desit iis quæ sub ventre sunt. To these they will desire you to add convenient houses, handsome furniture, good fires in winter, pleasant gardens in summer, neat clothes, and money enough to bring up their children; precedency in all companies, respect from every body, and then as much religion as you please. The things I have named are the necessary comforts of life, which the most modest are not ashamed to claim, and which they are very uneasy without. They are, it is true, made of the same mould, and have the same corrupt nature with other men, born with the same infirmities, subject to the same passions, and liable to the same temptations, and therefore if they are diligent in their calling, and can but abstain from murder, adultery, swearing, drunkenness, and other heinous vices, their lives are all called unblemished, and their reputations unspotted; their function renders them holy, and the gratification of so many carnal appetites, and the enjoyment of so much luxurious ease notwithstanding, they may set upon themselves what value their pride and parts will allow them.

If the strict rules and many visible signs of devotion seen among those religious orders deserve such harsh criticism, we might as well lose hope of finding virtue anywhere else; because if we examine the actions of their opponents and the biggest critics, we won’t even see a hint of self-denial. The respected leaders of all faiths, even from the most reformed churches in all territories, first take care of their own needs, ensuring they’re well-fed, and after that, they want anything else that relates to their comfort. They will urge you to provide comfortable housing, nice furniture, warm fires in the winter, pleasant gardens in the summer, tidy clothing, and enough money to raise their kids; they seek priority in all gatherings, respect from everyone, and then as much religion as you like. The things I’ve mentioned are fundamental comforts of life that even the most modest people are not shy to ask for, and they feel very uncomfortable without them. It’s true that they are made of the same material and share the same flaws as other people, born with the same weaknesses, subject to the same emotions, and vulnerable to the same temptations. Therefore, if they work diligently in their roles and can avoid murder, adultery, swearing, drunkenness, and other serious vices, their lives are deemed flawless, and their reputations are seen as untarnished; their positions make them seem holy, and even with the fulfillment of many physical desires and the enjoyment of such luxurious comforts, they can attribute whatever value they wish to themselves based on their pride and abilities.

All this I have nothing against, but I see no self-denial, without which there can be no virtue. Is it such a mortification not to desire a greater share of worldly blessings, than what every reasonable man ought to be satisfied with? Or, is there any mighty merit in not being flagitious, and forbearing indecencies that are repugnant to good manners, and which no prudent man would be guilty of, though he had no religion at all?

I have no issue with any of this, but I don’t see any self-discipline, which is essential for virtue. Is it really a struggle to not want more worldly goods than what a reasonable person should be satisfied with? Or is there any real value in not being wicked and avoiding behaviors that are unacceptable in polite society, which any sensible person would avoid even without any religious beliefs?

I know I shall be told, that the reason why the clergy are so violent in their resentments, when at any time they are but in the least affronted, and show themselves so void of all patience when their rights are invaded, is their great care to preserve their calling, their profession from contempt, not for their own sakes, but to be more serviceable to others. It is the same reason that makes them solicitous about the comforts and conveniences of life; for should they suffer themselves to be insulted over, be content with a coarser diet, and [89]wear more ordinary clothes than other people, the multitude, who judge from outward appearances, would be apt to think that the clergy was no more the immediate care of Providence than other folks, and so not only undervalue their persons, but despise likewise all the reproofs and instructions that came from them. This is an admirable plea, and as it is much made use of, I will try the worth of it.

I know people will tell me that the reason the clergy react so strongly when they're even slightly insulted, and why they show so little patience when their rights are challenged, is because they care deeply about protecting their calling and profession from being looked down upon, not for their own sake, but to better serve others. This same reasoning makes them concerned about the comforts and conveniences of life; if they let themselves be disrespected, accepted a rougher lifestyle, and wore more ordinary clothes than everyone else, the public, who judge based on appearances, might think the clergy are just like everyone else without any special attention from Providence. This could lead to both a devaluation of their roles and a disrespect for the guidance and teaching they provide. This is a strong argument, and since it’s frequently used, I will assess its validity.

I am not of the learned Dr. Echard’s opinion, that poverty is one of those things that bring the clergy into contempt, any further than as it may be an occasion of discovering their blind side: for when men are always struggling with their low condition, and are unable to bear the burden of it without reluctancy, it is then they show how uneasy their poverty sits upon them, how glad they would be to have their circumstances meliorated, and what a real value they have for the good things of this world. He that harangues on the contempt of riches, and the vanity of earthly enjoyments, in a rusty threadbare gown, because he has no other, and would wear his old greasy hat no longer if any body would give him a better; that drinks small beer at home with a heavy countenance, but leaps at a glass of wine if he can catch it abroad; that with little appetite feeds upon his own coarse mess, but falls to greedily where he can please his palate, and expresses an uncommon joy at an invitation to a splendid dinner: it is he that is despised, not because he is poor, but because he knows not how to be so, with that content and resignation which he preaches to others, and so discovers his inclinations to be contrary to his doctrine. But, when a man from the greatness of his soul (or an obstinate vanity, which will do as well) resolving to subdue his appetites in good earnest, refuses all the offers of ease and luxury that can be made to him, and embracing a voluntary poverty with cheerfulness, rejects whatever may gratify the senses, and actually sacrifices all his passions to his pride, in acting this part, the vulgar, far from contemning, will be ready to deify and adore him. How famous have the Cynic philosophers made themselves, only by refusing to dissimulate and make use of superfluities? Did not the most ambitious monarch the world ever bore, condescend to visit Diogenes in his tub, and return to a studied incivility, the highest compliment a man of his pride was able to make?

I'm not in agreement with the learned Dr. Echard’s view that poverty brings contempt to the clergy, except in that it can reveal their weaknesses. When people are constantly struggling with their low status and can’t handle the weight of it without frustration, it shows how uncomfortable their poverty makes them. They wish for better circumstances and genuinely value the good things in life. The person who talks about disregarding wealth and the emptiness of worldly pleasures while wearing an old, tattered gown because he has no other, and would stop wearing his old, greasy hat if someone gave him a better one; the one who sips on cheap beer at home with a sour face, but jumps at the chance to enjoy a glass of wine elsewhere; the one who eats his plain food with little appetite but dives into a feast when the opportunity arises, showing great joy at an invitation to a fancy dinner: it’s this person who is looked down upon, not for being poor, but because he fails to be content with his poverty, which he preaches to others, revealing that his desires contradict his teachings. However, when a person, driven by a noble spirit (or stubborn pride, which works just as well), genuinely decides to control his desires and cheerfully embraces voluntary poverty, rejecting anything that could please the senses, and truly sacrifices his passions for his pride, that person will not be scorned but rather revered and admired. Look at how famous the Cynic philosophers became just by refusing to pretend and indulging in excess. Didn’t the most ambitious king ever to exist condescend to visit Diogenes in his tub and return to a studied rudeness, which was the highest compliment he could muster?

Mankind are very willing to take one another’s word, when they see some circumstances that corroborate what is told [90]them; but when our actions directly contradict what we say, it is counted impudence to desire belief. If a jolly hale fellow, with glowing cheeks and warm hands, newly returned from some smart exercise, or else the cold bath, tells us in frosty weather, that he cares not for the fire, we are easily induced to believe him, especially if he actually turns from it, and we know by his circumstances, that he wants neither fuel nor clothes: but if we should hear the same from the mouth of a poor starved wretch, with swelled hands, and a livid countenance, in a thin ragged garment, we should not believe a word of what he said, especially if we saw him shaking and shivering, creep toward the sunny bank; and we would conclude, let him say what he could, that warm clothes, and a good fire, would be very acceptable to him. The application is easy, and therefore if there be any clergy upon earth that would be thought not to care for the world, and to value the soul above the body, let them only forbear showing a greater concern for their sensual pleasures than they generally do for their spiritual ones, and they may rest satisfied, that no poverty, while they bear it with fortitude, will ever bring them into contempt, how mean soever their circumstances may be.

People are quick to believe each other when there are some circumstances that back up what's being said [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]; however, when our actions contradict our words, it’s considered rude to expect others to believe us. If a jolly, healthy person with rosy cheeks and warm hands comes back from some vigorous activity or a cold bath and tells us on a chilly day that they don’t care about the fire, we’re likely to believe them, especially if they actually turn away from it and we know they have no need for fuel or warm clothes. But if we heard the same claim from a poor, starving person with swollen hands, a pale face, and dressed in ragged clothes, we wouldn't believe a word they said, especially if we saw them shivering and crawling toward the sunny spot. We would assume, no matter what they said, that warm clothes and a good fire would be very welcome to them. The point is straightforward, so if there are any clergy who want to be seen as not caring about worldly things and valuing the soul above the body, they should stop showing more concern for their physical pleasures than for their spiritual ones. They can confidently expect that no amount of poverty, as long as they endure it with strength, will ever bring them shame, no matter how humble their circumstances might be.

Let us suppose a pastor that has a little flock intrusted to him, of which he is very careful: He preaches, visits, exhorts, reproves among his people with zeal and prudence, and does them all the kind offices that lie in his power to make them happy. There is no doubt but those under his care must be very much obliged to him. Now, we shall suppose once more, that this good man, by the help of a little self-denial, is contented to live upon half his income, accepting only of twenty pounds a-year instead of forty, which he could claim; and moreover, that he loves his parishioners so well, that he will never leave them for any preferment whatever, no not a bishoprick, though it be offered. I cannot see but all this might be an easy task to a man who professes mortification, and has no value for worldly pleasures; yet such a disinterested divine, I dare promise, notwithstanding the degeneracy of mankind, will be loved, esteemed, and have every body’s good word; nay, I would swear, that though he should yet further exert himself, give above half of his small revenue to the poor, live upon nothing but oatmeal and water, lie upon straw, and wear the coarsest cloth that could be made, his mean way of living [91]would never be reflected on, or be a disparagement either to himself or the order he belonged to; but that on the contrary his poverty would never be mentioned but to his glory, as long as his memory should last.

Let’s imagine a pastor who has a small congregation that he takes great care of. He preaches, visits, encourages, and corrects his people with enthusiasm and wisdom, doing everything he can to make them happy. There's no doubt that those he serves are truly grateful to him. Now, let’s also assume that this good man, through a bit of self-denial, is happy to live on half his income, taking only twenty pounds a year instead of the forty he could receive; in addition, he loves his parishioners so much that he would never leave them for a better position, not even for a bishopric if it were offered. I believe this should be an easy task for someone who practices self-discipline and doesn’t care for worldly pleasures; yet I can confidently say that, despite the decline of society, such a selfless clergyman will be loved, respected, and have everyone speak well of him. In fact, I would bet that even if he went further, giving more than half of his meager salary to the poor, living only on oatmeal and water, lying on straw, and wearing the coarsest fabric possible, his humble lifestyle [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] would never be criticized or bring any shame to himself or his profession. Instead, his poverty would only be mentioned with admiration for as long as he is remembered.

But (says a charitable young gentlewoman) though you have the heart to starve your parson, have you no bowels of compassion for his wife and children? pray what must remain of forty pounds a year, after it has been twice so unmercifully split? or would you have the poor woman and the innocent babes likewise live upon oatmeal and water, and lie upon straw, you unconscionable wretch, with all your suppositions and self-denials; nay, is it possible, though they should all live at your own murdering rate, that less than ten pounds a-year could maintain a family?——Do not be in a passion, good Mrs. Abigail, I have a greater regard for your sex than to prescribe such a lean diet to married men; but I confess I forgot the wives and children: The main reason was, because I thought poor priests could have no occasion for them. Who could imagine, that the parson who is to teach others by example as well as precept, was not able to withstand those desires which the wicked world itself calls unreasonable? What is the reason when an apprentice marries before he is out of his time, that unless he meets with a good fortune, all his relations are angry with him, and every body blames him? Nothing else, but because at that time he has no money at his disposal, and being bound to his master’s service, has no leisure, and perhaps little capacity to provide for a family. What must we say to a parson that has twenty, or, if you will, forty pounds a-year, that being bound more strictly to all the services a parish and his duty require, has little time, and generally much less ability to get any more? Is it not very reasonable he should marry? But why should a sober young man, who is guilty of no vice, be debarred from lawful enjoyments? Right; marriage is lawful, and so is a coach; but what is that to people that have not money enough to keep one? If he must have a wife, let him look out for money, or wait for a greater benefice, or something else to maintain her handsomely, and bear all incident charges. But nobody that has any thing herself will have him, and he cannot stay: He has a very good stomach, and all the symptoms of health; it is not every body that can live without a woman; it is better to marry than burn.——What a world of self-denial [92]is here? The sober young man is very willing to be virtuous, but you must not cross his inclinations; he promises never to be a deer-stealer, upon condition that he shall have venison of his own, and no body must doubt, but that if it come to the push, he is qualified to suffer martyrdom, though he owns that he has not strength enough, patiently to bear a scratched finger.

But (says a kind young lady) even though you’re willing to leave your parson broke, do you have no compassion for his wife and kids? What’s left of forty pounds a year after it’s been so cruelly divided twice? Do you want the poor woman and the innocent children to survive on just oatmeal and water, sleeping on straw, you heartless person, with all your judgments and denials; come on, can it really be that even if they lived at your pitiful expense, less than ten pounds a year could support a family?—Don’t get upset, dear Mrs. Abigail, I care too much about women to suggest such a meager lifestyle for married men; but I admit I forgot about the wives and children: The main reason was that I thought poor priests couldn’t really have them. Who would think the parson, who’s supposed to lead by both example and teaching, couldn’t resist those desires that the wicked world calls unreasonable? Why is it that when an apprentice marries before his time is up, unless he gets lucky, all his relatives get mad at him, and everyone criticizes him? It’s simply because at that moment, he has no money to spend and being tied to his master’s work, he has no time and maybe little ability to support a family. What should we say about a parson who has twenty, or even forty pounds a year, who, being bound to all the duties a parish demands, has little time, and generally even less ability to earn more? Isn’t it reasonable for him to marry? But why should a good young man, who isn’t guilty of any vice, be denied lawful pleasures? True; marriage is lawful, and so is owning a coach; but what does that mean for people who don’t have enough money to afford one? If he needs a wife, let him find some money, or wait for a better-paying position, or something else to support her well and cover all the extra costs. But no one with anything of their own will want him, and he can’t wait: He has a good appetite and all the signs of being healthy; not everyone can live without a woman; it’s better to marry than to burn with desire.—What a world of self-denial is here? The good young man really wants to be virtuous, but you can’t go against his desires; he vows he’ll never steal deer if he can have his own venison, and nobody should doubt that if it comes to it, he’s ready to endure martyrdom, even though he admits he doesn’t have the strength to patiently handle a scratch.

When we see so many of the clergy, to indulge their lust, a brutish appetite, run themselves after this manner upon an inevitable poverty, which, unless they could bear it with greater fortitude, than they discover in all their actions, must of necessity make them contemptible to all the world, what credit must we give them, when they pretend that they conform themselves to the world, not because they take delight in the several decencies, conveniences, and ornaments of it, but only to preserve their function from contempt, in order to be more useful to others? Have we not reason to believe, that what they say is full of hypocrisy and falsehood, and that concupiscence is not the only appetite they want to gratify; that the haughty airs and quick sense of injuries, the curious elegance in dress, and niceness of palate, to be observed in most of them that are able to show them, are the results of pride and luxury in them, as they are in other people, and that the clergy are not possessed of more intrinsic virtue than any other profession?

When we see so many members of the clergy chasing after their desires, driven by a base appetite, putting themselves into a situation of unavoidable poverty—which, unless they can handle it with more strength than they show in all their actions, will inevitably make them look pathetic to everyone—what trust can we place in them when they claim that they fit in with society not because they enjoy its various decencies, conveniences, and adornments, but just to avoid being looked down upon in their role and be more helpful to others? Don’t we have good reason to think that what they say is full of hypocrisy and lies, and that their desire isn’t just about lust? The pretentious attitude, the quick sensitivity to slights, the keen interest in fashion, and the finicky tastes seen in many of them who can afford it stem from pride and indulgence, just like in other people, and that the clergy aren’t any more virtuous than those in other professions?

I am afraid, by this time I have given many of my readers a real displeasure, by dwelling so long upon the reality of pleasure; but I cannot help it, there is one thing comes into my head to corroborate what I have urged already, which I cannot forbear mentioning: It is this: Those who govern others throughout the world, are at least as wise as the people that are governed by them, generally speaking: If, for this reason, we would take pattern from our superiors, we have but to cast our eyes on all the courts and governments in the universe, and we shall soon perceive from the actions of the great ones, which opinion they side with, and what pleasures those in the highest stations of all seem to be most fond of: For, if it be allowable at all to judge of people’s inclinations, from their manner of living, none can be less injured by it, than those who are the most at liberty to do as they please.

I'm afraid I've probably annoyed many of my readers by going on so long about the reality of pleasure, but I can’t help it; there’s one more thing that comes to mind to support what I've already said, and I can't resist mentioning it: This: Those who govern others around the world are generally at least as wise as the people they govern. If we want to learn from our superiors, all we have to do is look at the courts and governments in the world, and we’ll quickly see from the actions of the powerful which opinions they support and what pleasures those at the top seem to enjoy the most. After all, if it’s reasonable to judge people’s inclinations by their way of living, the ones least affected by this are those who have the most freedom to do as they wish.

If the great ones of the clergy, as well as the laity of any country whatever, had no value for earthly pleasures, and did not endeavour to gratify their appetites, why are envy [93]and revenge so raging among them, and all the other passions improved and refined upon in courts of princes more than any where else, and why are their repasts, their recreations, and whole manner of living always such as are approved of, coveted, and imitated by the most sensual people of that same country? If despising all visible decorations they were only in love with the embellishments of the mind, why should they borrow so many of the implements, and make use of the most darling toys of the luxurious? Why should a lord treasurer, or a bishop, or even the grand signior, or the pope of Rome, to be good and virtuous, and endeavour the conquest of his passions, have occasion for greater revenues, richer furniture, or a more numerous attention, as to personal service, than a private man? What virtue is it the exercise of which requires so much pomp and superfluity, as are to be seen by all men in power? A man has as much opportunity to practise temperance, that has but one dish at a meal, as he that is constantly served with three courses, and a dozen dishes in each: One may exercise as much patience, and be as full of self-denial on a few flocks, without curtains or tester, as in a velvet bed that is sixteen foot high. The virtuous possessions of the mind are neither charge nor burden: A man may bear misfortunes with fortitude in a garret, forgive injuries a-foot, and be chaste, though he has not a shirt to his back: and therefore I shall never believe, but that an indifferent sculler, if he was intrusted with it, might carry all the learning and religion that one man can contain, as well as a barge with six oars, especially if it was but to cross from Lambeth to Westminster; or that humility is so ponderous a virtue, that it requires six horses to draw it.

If the important figures in both the church and society of any country didn’t value earthly pleasures and didn't try to satisfy their desires, why is there so much envy and revenge among them? Why are their passions more developed and refined in royal courts than anywhere else? Why are their meals, leisure activities, and overall lifestyle always those that are approved, desired, and imitated by the most indulgent people in that same country? If they truly despised all visible luxuries and were only interested in mental enrichment, why do they borrow so many of the lavish things and indulge in the most cherished luxuries? Why would a lord treasurer, a bishop, the grand sultan, or even the pope of Rome need more wealth, finer furnishings, or more personal attendants to be considered good and virtuous than an ordinary person? What kind of virtue requires so much extravagance and excess that is visible to everyone in power? A person can practice self-control just as well with a single dish at a meal as someone who is served three courses with a dozen dishes each. One can show just as much patience and self-denial on a simple cot without curtains as in a lavish bed that’s sixteen feet tall. The virtues of the mind are neither a cost nor a burden: a person can bear hardships bravely in a small room, forgive wrongs while on foot, and remain chaste even without a shirt. Therefore, I will never believe that an average rower, if entrusted with it, couldn't carry all the knowledge and faith that one person can hold just as well as a boat with six oars, especially if it’s just to go from Lambeth to Westminster; or that humility is such a heavy virtue that it needs six horses to pull it.

To say that men not being so easily governed by their equals as by their superiors, it is necessary, that to keep the multitude in awe, those who rule over us should excel others in outward appearance, and consequently, that all in high stations should have badges of honour, and ensigns of power to be distinguished from the vulgar, is a frivolous objection. This, in the first place, can only be of use to poor princes, and weak and precarious governments, that being actually unable to maintain the public peace, are obliged with a pageant show to make up what they want in real power: so the governor of Batavia, in the East Indies, is forced to keep up a grandeur, and live in a magnificence above his quality, to strike a terror in the natives [94]of Java, who, if they had skill and conduct, are strong enough to destroy ten times the number of their masters; but great princes and states that keep large fleets at sea, and numerous armies in the field, have no occasion for such stratagems; for what makes them formidable abroad, will never fail to be their security at home. Secondly, what must protect the lives and wealth of people from the attempts of wicked men in all societies, is the severity of the laws, and diligent administration of impartial justice. Theft, house-breaking, and murder, are not to be prevented by the scarlet gowns of the aldermen, the gold chains of the sheriffs, the fine trappings of their horses, or any gaudy show whatever: Those pageant ornaments are beneficial another way; they are eloquent lectures to apprentices, and the use of them is to animate, not to deter: but men of abandoned principles must be awed by rugged officers, strong prisons, watchful jailors, the hangman, and the gallows. If London was to be one week destitute of constables and watchmen to guard the houses a-nights, half the bankers would be ruined in that time, and if my lord mayor had nothing to defend himself but his great two handed sword, the huge cap of maintenance, and his gilded mace, he would soon be stripped, in the very streets to the city, of all his finery in his stately coach.

To say that men are not as easily controlled by their peers as they are by their superiors is to ignore that, to keep the masses in check, those in power need to stand out. Therefore, all people in high positions should wear symbols of honor and authority to distinguish themselves from the common folk, which is a superficial argument. First, this is only useful for weak rulers and unstable governments that, unable to maintain public order, resort to ostentatious displays to compensate for their lack of real power. For instance, the governor of Batavia in the East Indies has to maintain a grand appearance and live in a way that exceeds his station to instill fear in the natives of Java, who, if they had the skills and strategy, could easily overpower their masters. However, powerful rulers and nations with large naval fleets and sizeable armies don't need such tactics; what makes them intimidating abroad will also ensure their security at home. Second, the safety of people's lives and wealth from the actions of criminals relies on strict laws and a fair administration of justice. Crimes like theft, burglary, and murder aren't deterred by the fancy robes of the city officials, the gold chains of sheriffs, or the flashy gear of their horses; those extravagant displays serve a different purpose. They are inspiring to apprentices and meant to motivate rather than discourage. In contrast, those with no moral compass must be kept in check by tough officers, solid prisons, vigilant jailers, the executioner, and the gallows. If London were to go a week without constables and watchmen guarding homes at night, half the bankers would likely be ruined in that time. And if the lord mayor had to rely solely on his large sword, his grand ceremonial hat, and his ornate mace for protection, he'd soon find himself stripped of all his finery right in the streets of the city.

But let us grant that the eyes of the mobility are to be dazzled with a gaudy outside; if virtue was the chief delight of great men, why should their extravagance be extended to things not understood by the mob, and wholly removed from public view, I mean their private diversions, the pomp and luxury of the dining-room and the bed-chamber, and the curiosities of the closet? few of the vulgar know that there is wine of a guinea the bottle, that birds, no bigger than larks, are often sold for half-a-guinea a-piece, or that a single picture may be worth several thousand pounds: besides, is it to be imagined, that unless it was to please their own appetites, men should put themselves to such vast expences for a political show, and be so solicitous to gain the esteem of those whom they so much despise in every thing else? if we allow that the splendor and all the elegancy of a court insipid, and only tiresome to the prince himself, and are altogether made use of to preserve royal majesty from contempt, can we say the same of half a dozen illegitimate children, most of them the offspring of adultery, by the same majesty, got, educated, and made princes at the expence of [95]the nation! therefore, it is evident, that this awing of the multitude, by a distinguished manner of living, is only a cloak and pretence, under which, great men would shelter their vanity, and indulge every appetite about them without reproach.

But let’s assume that the wealthy are dazzled by flashy appearances; if virtue were truly the main joy of great people, why should their extravagance extend to things that the average person doesn’t understand and are completely hidden from public view? I’m talking about their private pleasures, the grandness and opulence of their dining rooms and bedrooms, and the curiosities of their studies. Few common folks know that there’s wine costing a guinea a bottle, that birds no bigger than larks can sell for half a guinea each, or that a single painting might be worth thousands of pounds. Besides, can we really believe that men would spend such huge amounts just for political show, trying to win the admiration of those they look down on in every other aspect? If we consider that the splendor and elegance of a court might be dull and tiresome even for the prince, and are entirely used to protect royal dignity from scorn, can we say the same about a handful of illegitimate children—most of them the result of adultery—who are brought up and made princes at the nation’s expense? It’s clear, then, that this effort to impress the masses with a lavish lifestyle is just a cover for great men to indulge their vanity and satisfy their desires without facing criticism.

A burgomaster of Amsterdam, in his plain black suit, followed perhaps by one footman, is fully as much respected, and better obeyed, than a lord mayor of London, with all his splendid equipage, and great train of attendance. Where there is a real power, it is ridiculous to think that any temperance or austerity of life should ever render the person, in whom that power is lodged, contemptible in his office, from an emperor to the beadle of a parish. Cato, in his government of Spain, in which he acquitted himself with so much glory, had only three servants to attend him; do we hear that any of his orders were ever slighted for this, notwithstanding that he loved his bottle? and when that great man marched on foot through the scorching sands of Libya, and parched up with thirst, refused to touch the water that was brought him, before all his soldiers had drank, do we ever read that this heroic forbearance weakened his authority, or lessened him in the esteem of his army? but what need we go so far off? there has not, for these many ages, been a prince less inclined to pomp and luxury than the1 present king of Sweden, who, enamoured with the title of hero, has not only sacrificed the lives of his subjects, and welfare of his dominions, but (what is more uncommon in sovereigns) his own ease, and all the comforts of life, to an implacable spirit of revenge; yet he is obeyed to the ruin of his people, in obstinately maintaining a war that has almost utterly destroyed his kingdom.

A mayor of Amsterdam, dressed in a simple black suit and possibly followed by just one footman, is just as respected and even better obeyed than the lord mayor of London, with all his fancy trappings and large entourage. When there's real power, it's silly to think that any modesty or strictness in lifestyle could ever make the person holding that power seem unworthy in their role, whether they’re an emperor or a parish beadle. Cato, during his time governing Spain, where he performed with great honor, had only three servants attending him; have we ever heard that any of his commands were ignored because of this, even though he enjoyed his wine? And when that great leader marched on foot through the burning sands of Libya, parched with thirst, refusing to drink the water brought to him until all his soldiers had had their fill, do we ever read that this noble self-restraint weakened his authority or diminished his standing with his army? But why look so far back? For many ages, there hasn’t been a ruler less inclined toward showiness and excess than the current king of Sweden, who, obsessed with the title of hero, has not only sacrificed the lives and well-being of his subjects but (which is even rarer among kings) his own comfort and all the pleasures of life, to a relentless desire for vengeance; yet he is still followed to the detriment of his people, stubbornly pursuing a war that has nearly destroyed his kingdom.

Thus I have proved, that the real pleasures of all men in nature are worldly and sensual, if we judge from their practice; I say all men in nature, because devout Christians, who alone are to be excepted here, being regenerated, and preternaturally assisted by the Divine grace, cannot be said to be in nature. How strange it is, that they should all so unanimously deny it! ask not only the divines and moralists of every nation, but likewise all that are rich and powerful, about real pleasure, and they will tell you, with the Stoics, that there can be no true felicity in things mundane and [96]corruptible: but then look upon their lives, and you will find they take delight in no other.

Thus I have shown that the real pleasures everyone experiences in life are worldly and sensual, judging by their actions. I mention everyone because devout Christians, who should be excluded from this, have been transformed and supernaturally supported by divine grace and therefore can't be considered part of this group. It's quite odd that they all unanimously refute this! Just ask the theologians and moral thinkers of any nation, as well as all the wealthy and powerful, about real pleasure, and they'll tell you, like the Stoics, that true happiness cannot be found in worldly and corruptible things. But take a look at their lives, and you'll see they only find joy in those very things.

What must we do in this dilemma? shall we be so uncharitable, as judging from mens actions, to say, that all the world prevaricates, and that this is not their opinion, let them talk what they will? or shall we be so silly, as relying on what they say, to think them sincere in their sentiments, and so not believe our own eyes? or shall we rather endeavour to believe ourselves and them too, and say with Montaigne, that they imagine, and are fully persuaded, that they believe what they do not believe? these are his words: “some impose on the world, and would be thought to believe what they really do not: but much the greater number impose upon themselves, not considering, nor thoroughly apprehending what it is to believe.” But this is making all mankind either fools or impostors, which, to avoid, there is nothing left us, but to say what Mr. Bayle has endeavoured to prove at large in his Reflections on Comets: “that man is so unaccountable a creature as to act most commonly against his principle;” and this is so far from being injurious, that it is a compliment to human nature, for we must see either this or worse.

What should we do in this dilemma? Should we be so unkind as to conclude from people's actions that everyone is dishonest and that their words don’t reflect their true opinions? Or should we be naive enough to take them at their word and believe they are sincere, ignoring what we actually see? Or should we try to believe both ourselves and them, and agree with Montaigne that they think they genuinely believe what they do not? His words are: “some deceive the world and want to be seen as faith what they really do not: but a much larger number deceive themselves, not considering or fully understanding what it means to truly believe.” But this leads us to label all humanity as either foolish or deceitful, which we want to avoid. So, all we can do is accept what Mr. Bayle has thoroughly argued in his Reflections on Comets: “that man is such an unpredictable being that he often acts against his principles;” and this is not detrimental, but rather a compliment to human nature, because we must face either this reality or something worse.

This contradiction in the frame of man is the reason that the theory of virtue is so well understood, and the practice of it so rarely to be met with. If you ask me where to look for those beautiful shining qualities of prime ministers, and the great favourites of princes that are so finely painted in dedications, addresses, epitaphs, funeral sermons, and inscriptions, I answer, there, and no where else. Where would you look for the excellency of a statue, but in that part which you see of it? It is the polished outside only that has the skill and labour of the sculptor to boast of; what is out of sight is untouched. Would you break the head, or cut open the breast to look for the brains or the heart, you would only show your ignorance, and destroy the workmanship. This has often made me compare the virtues of great men to your large China jars: they make a fine show, and are ornamental even to a chimney; one would, by the bulk they appear in, and the value that is set upon them, think they might be very useful, but look into a thousand of them, and you will find nothing in them but dust and cobwebs. [97]

This contradiction in the nature of humanity explains why the theory of virtue is so well understood, yet its practice is so rarely seen. If you ask me where to find those admirable qualities in prime ministers and the favorite individuals of kings that are so beautifully described in dedications, speeches, epitaphs, funeral sermons, and inscriptions, my answer is, only there. Where else would you look for the excellence of a statue but in the part that is visible? It's the polished exterior that reflects the skill and effort of the sculptor; what lies hidden is left untouched. If you were to break the head or cut open the chest to search for the brain or the heart, you would only reveal your ignorance and ruin the craftsmanship. This often leads me to compare the virtues of great individuals to large china jars: they display beautifully and can serve as decor even on a mantelpiece; one might think, given their size and the value attached to them, that they could be very useful. But look inside a thousand of them, and you will find nothing but dust and cobwebs. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 201. ——The very poor

The underprivileged

Liv’d better than the rich before.

Lived better than the wealthy before.

If we trace the most flourishing nations in their origin, we shall find, that in the remote beginnings of every society, the richest and most considerable men among them were a great while destitute of a great many comforts of life that are now enjoyed by the meanest and most humble wretches: so that many things which were once looked upon as the invention of luxury, are now allowed, even to those that are so miserably poor as to become the objects of public charity, nay, counted so necessary, that we think no human creature ought to want them.

If we look back at the most successful nations and their beginnings, we’ll see that in the early days of every society, the wealthiest and most influential people were long without many comforts that even the poorest among us can enjoy today. What were once considered luxuries are now seen as basic needs, accessible even to those so destitute that they rely on public assistance, and we believe that no one should be without them.

In the first ages, man, without doubt, fed on the fruits of the earth, without any previous preparation, and reposed himself naked like other animals on the lap of their common parent: whatever has contributed since to make life more comfortable, as it must have been the result of thought, experience, and some labour, so it more or less deserves the name of luxury, the more or less trouble it required, and deviated from the primitive simplicity. Our admiration is extended no farther than to what is new to us, and we all overlook the excellency of things we are used to, be they never so curious. A man would be laughed at, that should discover luxury in the plain dress of a poor creature, that walks along in a thick parish gown, and a coarse shirt underneath it; and yet what a number of people, how many different trades, and what a variety of skill and tools must be employed to have the most ordinary Yorkshire cloth? What depth of thought and ingenuity, what toil and labour, and what length of time must it have cost, before man could learn from a seed, to raise and prepare so useful a product as linen.

In ancient times, people surely ate the fruits of the earth without any preparation and rested naked like other animals on the ground provided by nature. Everything that has since made life more comfortable, resulting from thought, experience, and effort, deserves some recognition as luxury, depending on the trouble it took to achieve it and how far it strayed from that original simplicity. Our admiration only extends to what feels new to us, and we often overlook the value of things we are used to, no matter how interesting they might be. Someone would be ridiculed for finding luxury in the simple clothing of a poor person wearing a thick parish gown with a rough shirt underneath; yet it takes a multitude of people, various trades, and a wide range of skills and tools to create even the most basic Yorkshire cloth. Consider the depth of thought, creativity, toil, and the long time it must have taken for humanity to discover how to grow and prepare such a useful product as linen from a single seed.

Must that society not be vainly curious, among whom this admirable commodity, after it is made, shall not be thought fit to be used even by the poorest of all, before it is brought to a perfect whiteness, which is not to be procured but by the assistance of all the elements, joined to a world of industry and patience? I have not done yet: can we reflect not only on the cost laid out upon this luxurious invention, but likewise on the little time the whiteness of it continues, in which part of its beauty consists, that every six or seven days at farthest it wants cleaning, and while it lasts is a continual [98]charge to the wearer; can we, I say, reflect on all this, and not think it an extravagant piece of nicety, that even those who receive alms of the parish, should not only have whole garments made of this operose manufacture, but likewise that as soon as they are soiled, to restore them to their pristine purity, they should make use of one of the most judicious as well as difficult compositions that chemistry can boast of; with which, dissolved in water by the help of fire, the most detersive, and yet innocent lixivium is prepared that human industry has hitherto been able to invent?

Must society really be so vainly curious, where this amazing product, once made, isn’t even considered suitable for use by the poorest, until it achieves a perfect whiteness that's only possible through the help of all the elements, combined with a lot of hard work and patience? I’m not finished yet: can we think about not just the expense put into this lavish invention, but also the short time its whiteness lasts, which is part of its appeal, given that every six or seven days at most it needs cleaning, and while it lasts, it’s a constant [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]burden for the wearer? Can we, I ask, consider all this and not view it as an extravagant obsession, that even those receiving parish charity should have entire garments made from this painstakingly crafted material, and that as soon as they get dirty, to restore them to their original cleanliness, they should use one of the most thoughtful and difficult solutions that chemistry has to offer; with which, dissolved in water using heat, the most cleansing yet harmless mixture is prepared that human effort has managed to create thus far?

It is certain, time was that the things I speak of would have bore those lofty expressions, and in which every body would have reasoned after the same manner; but the age we live in would call a man fool, who should talk of extravagance and nicety, if he saw a poor woman, after having wore her crown cloth smock a whole week, wash it with a bit of stinking soap of a groat a pound.

It’s true that there was a time when what I’m talking about would have inspired grand expressions, and everyone would have thought similarly; but in today’s world, a man would be seen as foolish if he mentioned extravagance and delicacy while watching a poor woman wash her worn crown cloth smock after a whole week using some cheap, foul-smelling soap that costs a groat per pound.

The arts of brewing, and making bread, have by slow degrees been brought to the perfection they now are in, but to have invented them at once, and à priori, would have required more knowledge and a deeper insight into the nature of fermentation, than the greatest philosopher has hitherto been endowed with; yet the fruits of both are now enjoyed by the meanest of our species, and a starving wretch knows not how to make a more humble, or a more modest petition, than by asking for a bit of bread, or a draught of small beer.

The skills of brewing and making bread have gradually improved to the perfection we see today, but inventing them all at once and à priori would have required more knowledge and a deeper understanding of fermentation than even the greatest philosophers have had so far. Yet today, the fruits of both are enjoyed by even the lowest among us, and a starving person couldn't make a more humble or modest request than simply asking for a piece of bread or a glass of light beer.

Man has learned by experience, that nothing was softer than the small plumes and down of birds, and found that heaped together, they would by their elasticity, gently resist any incumbent weight, and heave up again of themselves as soon as the pressure is over. To make use of them to sleep upon was, no doubt, first invented to compliment the vanity as well as ease of the wealthy and potent; but they are long since become so common, that almost every body lies upon featherbeds, and to substitute flocks in the room of them is counted a miserable shift of the most necessitous. What a vast height must luxury have been arrived to, before it could be reckoned a hardship to repose upon the soft wool of animals!

Humans have learned from experience that nothing is softer than the small feathers and down of birds. When piled together, they can gently resist any weight due to their elasticity and bounce back as soon as the pressure is relieved. Using them to sleep on was likely first created to flatter the vanity and comfort of the rich and powerful; however, they've become so common that almost everyone sleeps on featherbeds, and using wool instead is seen as a desperate measure for those in need. Just think about how far luxury must have come for it to be considered a hardship to rest on the soft wool of animals!

From caves, huts, hovels, tents, and barracks, with which mankind took up at first, we are come to warm and well-wrought houses, and the meanest habitations to be seen in cities, are regular buildings, contrived by persons skilled in [99]proportions and architecture. If the ancient Britons and Gauls should come out of their graves, with what amazement would they gaze on the mighty structures every where raised for the poor! Should they behold the magnificence of a Chelsey-College, a Greenwich-Hospital, or what surpasses all them, a Des Invalides at Paris, and see the care, the plenty, the superfluities and pomp, which people that have no possessions at all are treated with in those stately palaces, those who were once the greatest and richest of the land would have reason to envy the most reduced of our species now.

From caves, huts, shacks, tents, and barracks, where humanity started, we've moved to warm and well-built homes, and even the most basic places in cities are designed structures created by skilled people in [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] proportions and architecture. If the ancient Britons and Gauls were to rise from their graves, they would be amazed by the grand buildings everywhere made for the less fortunate! If they saw the splendor of Chelsea College, Greenwich Hospital, or, even more impressive, Les Invalides in Paris, and witnessed the care, abundance, excess, and luxury given to those without any possessions in those magnificent palaces, those who once held the greatest wealth would have every reason to envy even the most impoverished among us today.

Another piece of luxury the poor enjoy, that is not looked upon as such, and which there is no doubt but the wealthiest in a golden age would abstain from, is their making use of the flesh of animals to eat. In what concerns the fashions and manners of the ages men live in, they never examine into the real worth or merit of the cause, and generally judge of things not as their reason, but custom direct them. Time was when the funeral rites in the disposing of the dead, were performed by fire, and the cadavers of the greatest emperors were burnt to ashes. Then burying the corps in the ground was a funeral for slaves, or made a punishment for the worst of malefactors. Now nothing is decent or honourable but interring; and burning the body is reserved for crimes of the blackest dye. At some times we look upon trifles with horror, at other times we can behold enormities without concern. If we see a man walk with his hat on in a church, though out of service time, it shocks us; but if on a Sunday night we meet half a dozen fellows drunk in the street, the sight makes little or no impression upon us. If a woman at a merry-making dresses in man’s clothes, it is reckoned a frolic amongst friends, and he that finds too much fault with it is counted censorious: upon the stage it is done without reproach, and the most virtuous ladies will dispense with it in an actress, though every body has a full view of her legs and thighs; but if the same woman, as soon as she has petticoats on again, should show her leg to a man as high as her knee, it would be a very immodest action, and every body will call her impudent for it.

Another luxury that the poor enjoy, which isn’t seen as such and that even the wealthiest during a golden age would avoid, is their consumption of animal flesh. When it comes to the fashions and customs of different eras, people rarely question the true value or importance of what they do; they usually judge based on tradition rather than reason. There was a time when funeral rites for the dead were carried out by fire, and even the bodies of great emperors were reduced to ashes. Burying a body was considered a burial for slaves or a punishment for the worst criminals. Now, interment is seen as the only decent or honorable method, while cremation is reserved for the most heinous crimes. At times, we react with horror to trivial matters, while at others, we witness significant wrongs without any concern. If we see someone walking with their hat on in church, even when not in service, it shocks us; yet if we encounter a group of guys drunk in the street on a Sunday night, it barely registers. If a woman dresses in men’s clothing at a party, it’s viewed as a fun joke among friends, and those who criticize it too harshly are seen as overly judgmental. On stage, it’s accepted without backlash, and even the most virtuous ladies overlook it in an actress, despite everyone getting a close look at her legs and thighs. But if that same woman, once she’s back in her skirt, were to show her leg to a man up to her knee, it would be considered very immodest, and everyone would call her shameless for it.

I have often thought, if it was not for this tyranny which custom usurps over us, that men of any tolerable good-nature could never be reconciled to the killing of so many animals, for their daily food, as long as the bountiful earth so plentifully [100]provides them with varieties of vegetable dainties. I know that reason excites our compassion but faintly, and therefore I would not wonder how men should so little commiserate such imperfect creatures as crayfish, oysters, cockles, and indeed all fish in general: as they are mute, and their inward formation, as well as outward figure, vastly different from ours, they express themselves unintelligibly to us, and therefore it is not strange that their grief should not affect our understanding which it cannot reach; for nothing stirs us to pity so effectually, as when the symptoms of misery strike immediately upon our senses, and I have seen people moved at the noise a live lobster makes upon the spit, that could have killed half a dozen fowls with pleasure. But in such perfect animals as sheep and oxen, in whom the heart, the brain and nerves differ so little from ours, and in whom the separation of the spirits from the blood, the organs of sense, and consequently feeling itself, are the same as they are in human creatures; I cannot imagine how a man not hardened in blood and massacre, is able to see a violent death, and the pangs of it, without concern.

I often think that if it weren't for the tyranny that custom imposes on us, people with any decent nature could never accept the killing of so many animals for food, especially since the generous earth provides us with plenty of vegetable delicacies. I know that reason only stirs our compassion slightly, so I’m not surprised that people show so little sympathy for imperfect creatures like crayfish, oysters, cockles, and really all fish in general. Since they are silent and their internal structure, as well as their external appearance, is so different from ours, they communicate in ways we can't understand, which is why it's not strange that their suffering doesn't resonate with us. Nothing evokes our pity more effectively than when we can directly perceive signs of misery. I've seen people react to the sounds a live lobster makes on a spit, while they could easily enjoy killing half a dozen chickens without a second thought. However, with animals like sheep and cows, which have hearts, brains, and nerves that are so similar to ours, and whose separation of spirit from blood and sense organs – and therefore the ability to feel – mirror those in humans, I can’t comprehend how anyone not hardened by violence can witness a violent death and its suffering without feeling any concern.

In answer to this, most people will think it sufficient to say, that all things being allowed to be made for the service of man, there can be no cruelty in putting creatures to the use they were designed for; but I have heard men make this reply, while their nature within them has reproached them with the falsehood of the assertion. There is of all the multitude not one man in ten but what will own (if he was not brought up in a slaughter-house), that of all trades he could never have been a butcher; and I question whether ever any body so much as killed a chicken without reluctancy the first time. Some people are not to be persuaded to taste of any creatures they have daily seen and been acquainted with, while they were alive; others extend their scruple no further than to their own poultry, and refuse to eat what they fed and took care of themselves; yet all of them will feed heartily and without remorse on beef, mutton, and fowls, when they are bought in the market. In this behaviour, methinks, there appears something like a consciousness of guilt, it looks as if they endeavoured to save themselves from the imputation of a crime (which they know sticks somewhere) by removing the cause of it as far as they can from themselves; and I can discover in it some strong remains of primitive pity and innocence, which all the arbitrary power [101]of custom, and the violence of luxury, have not yet been able to conquer.

In response to this, most people will think it’s enough to say that since everything is made to serve humans, there can’t be cruelty in using creatures for their intended purpose. However, I’ve heard people make this claim while their inner conscience has pointed out the falsehood of the assertion. Out of all the crowd, not one in ten would admit (if they weren’t raised in a slaughterhouse) that they could ever be a butcher; and I wonder if anyone could kill a chicken without feeling uneasy the first time. Some people won’t even consider eating animals they’ve known and seen alive, while others limit their concerns to their own chickens and refuse to eat what they’ve fed and cared for; yet all of them will eagerly and without guilt eat beef, mutton, and poultry when bought at the market. This behavior seems to reveal a sense of guilt; it appears as if they try to distance themselves from the guilt of a crime (which they know exists) by pushing the source of it as far away from themselves as possible. I can still sense a strong trace of original pity and innocence within them, which all the strict norms of tradition and the pressures of luxury haven’t been able to overcome.

What I build upon I shall be told is a folly that wise men are not guilty of: I own it; but while it proceeds from a real passion inherent in our nature, it is sufficient to demonstrate, that we are born with a repugnancy to the killing, and consequently the eating of animals; for it is impossible that a natural appetite should ever prompt us to act, or desire others to do, what we have an aversion to, be it as foolish as it will.

What I'm building on, I’m told, is a foolish idea that wise people don’t fall for: I admit it; however, since it comes from a genuine passion that's part of our nature, it proves that we have an instinctive aversion to killing and, therefore, to eating animals. It's impossible for a natural desire to ever encourage us to do or wish for something we dislike, no matter how foolish it may seem.

Every body knows, that surgeons, in the cure of dangerous wounds and fractures, the extirpations of limbs, and other dreadful operations, are often compelled to put their patients to extraordinary torments, and that the more desperate and calamitous cases occur to them, the more the outcries and bodily sufferings of others must become familiar to them; for this reason, our English law, out of a most affectionate regard to the lives of the subject, allows them not to be of any jury upon life and death, as supposing that their practice itself is sufficient to harden and extinguish in them that tenderness, without which no man is capable of setting a true value upon the lives of his fellow-creatures. Now, if we ought to have no concern for what we do to brute beasts, and there was not imagined to be any cruelty in killing them, why should of all callings butchers, and only they, jointly with surgeons, be excluded from being jurymen by the same law?

Everyone knows that surgeons, when treating serious wounds and fractures, amputating limbs, and performing other intense procedures, often have to put their patients through extreme pain. The more severe and tragic cases they encounter, the more accustomed they become to the cries and suffering of others. For this reason, our English law, out of a deep concern for the lives of individuals, prevents them from serving on any jury that decides life and death. The assumption is that their medical practice alone is enough to desensitize them to the compassion needed to truly value the lives of others. Now, if we shouldn’t care about what we do to animals and there’s no perceived cruelty in killing them, why are butchers, along with surgeons, the only professions excluded from serving as jurors under the same law?

I shall urge nothing of what Pythagoras and many other wise men have said concerning this barbarity of eating flesh; I have gone too much out of my way already, and shall therefore beg the reader, if he would have any more of this, to run over the following fable, or else, if he be tired, to let it alone, with an assurance that in doing of either he shall equally oblige me.

I won't repeat what Pythagoras and other wise thinkers have said about the cruelty of eating meat; I've already strayed far enough from the point. So, I ask the reader to either check out the following fable for more on this topic or, if you're not interested, skip it entirely. Either choice will be equally appreciated.

A Roman merchant, in one of the Carthaginian wars, was cast away upon the coast of Afric: himself and his slave with great difficulty got safe ashore; but going in quest of relief, were met by a lion of a mighty size. It happened to be one of the breed that ranged in Æsop’s days, and one that could not only speak several languages, but seemed, moreover, very well acquainted with human affairs. The slave got upon a tree, but his master not thinking himself safe there, and having heard much of the generosity of lions, fell down prostrate before [102]him, with all the signs of fear and submission. The lion who had lately filled his belly, bids him rise, and for a while lay by his fears, assuring him withal, that he should not be touched, if he could give him any tolerable reasons why he should not be devoured. The merchant obeyed; and having now received some glimmering hopes of safety, gave a dismal account of the shipwreck he had suffered, and endeavouring from thence to raise the lion’s pity, pleaded his cause with abundance of good rhetoric; but observing by the countenance of the beast, that flattery and fine words made very little impression, he betook himself to arguments of greater solidity, and reasoning from the excellency of man’s nature and abilities, remonstrated how improbable it was that the gods should not have designed him for a better use, than to be eat by savage beasts. Upon this the lion became more attentive, and vouchsafed now and then a reply, till at last the following dialogue ensued between them.

A Roman merchant, during one of the Carthaginian wars, was stranded on the coast of Africa. He and his slave struggled to reach the shore safely; but when they sought help, they encountered a large lion. This lion was from the same breed that prowled during Æsop’s time and was capable of speaking several languages, appearing to be quite knowledgeable about human affairs. The slave climbed a tree, but the merchant, feeling unsafe there and having heard stories of lions’ generosity, fell to the ground before [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] him, showing all the signs of fear and submission. The lion, having recently eaten, told him to get up and set aside his fears, assuring him that he wouldn’t be harmed if he could give him any good reasons not to be eaten. The merchant complied; and with a glimmer of hope for safety, he gave a tragic account of his shipwreck and tried to evoke the lion’s pity with persuasive words. However, noticing that flattery and fine language did little to sway the beast, he switched to stronger arguments, reasoning about the greatness of human nature and abilities, and pointed out how unlikely it was that the gods would intend for him to be eaten by wild animals. This caused the lion to listen more intently, occasionally responding, until finally, a dialogue began between them.

Oh vain and covetous animal (said the lion), whose pride and avarice can make him leave his native soil, where his natural wants might be plentifully supplied, and try rough seas and dangerous mountains to find out superfluities, why should you esteem your species above ours? And if the gods have given you a superiority over all creatures, then why beg you of an inferior? Our superiority (answered the merchant) consists not in bodily force, but strength of understanding; the gods have endued us with a rational soul, which, though invisible, is much the better part of us. I desire to touch nothing of you but what is good to eat; but why do you value yourself so much upon that part which is invisible? Because it is immortal, and shall meet with rewards after death for the actions of this life, and the just shall enjoy eternal bliss and tranquillity with the heroes and demi-gods in the Elysian fields. What life have you led? I have honoured the gods, and studied to be beneficial to man. Then why do you fear death, if you think the gods as just as you have been? I have a wife and five small children that must come to want if they lose me. I have two whelps that are not big enough to shift for themselves, that are in want now, and must actually be starved if I can provide nothing for them: Your children will be provided for one way or other; at least as well when I have eat you, as if you had been drowned.

Oh, you vain and greedy creature (said the lion), whose pride and desire for more can make you leave your homeland, where your basic needs could be easily met, and venture through rough seas and dangerous mountains to seek out excess, why do you think your kind is better than ours? And if the gods have made you superior to all creatures, then why do you beg from someone lesser? Our superiority (answered the merchant) is not in physical strength, but in our understanding; the gods have given us a rational mind, which, though invisible, is our better half. I only want to take from you what’s good to eat, but why do you hold so much value in that which cannot be seen? Because it is immortal and will be rewarded after death for the actions of this life, and the righteous will enjoy eternal happiness and peace with heroes and demigods in the Elysian fields. What kind of life have you lived? I have honored the gods and strived to be of help to others. Then why do you fear death if you believe the gods are as just as you have been? I have a wife and five young children who will suffer if I am gone. I have two cubs that are too small to fend for themselves, who are currently in need and will actually starve if I can't provide for them: Your children will be looked after one way or another; at least as well when I have eaten you, as if you had drowned.

As to the excellency of either species, the value of things [103]among you has ever increased with the scarcity of them, and to a million of men there is hardly one lion; besides that, in the great veneration man pretends to have for his kind, there is little sincerity farther than it concerns the share which every one’s pride has in it for himself; it is a folly to boast of the tenderness shown, and attendance given to your young ones, or the excessive and lasting trouble bestowed in the education of them: Man being born the most necessitous and most helpless animal, this is only an instinct of nature, which, in all creatures, has ever proportioned the care of the parents to the wants and imbecilities of the offspring. But if a man had a real value for his kind, how is it possible that often ten thousand of them, and sometimes ten times as many, should be destroyed in few hours, for the caprice of two? All degrees of men despise those that are inferior to them, and if you could enter into the hearts of kings and princes, you would hardly find any but what have less value for the greatest part of the multitudes they rule over, than those have for the cattle that belong to them. Why should so many pretend to derive their race, though but spuriously, from the immortal gods; why should all of them suffer others to kneel down before them, and more or less take delight in having divine honours paid them, but to insinuate that themselves are of a more exalted nature, and a species superior to that of their subjects?

As for the excellence of either species, the value of things [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]among you has always increased with their scarcity, and for every million people, there's hardly one lion; besides, in the great respect that humans claim to have for their own kind, there's little sincerity beyond the personal pride each one has in it for themselves. It’s foolish to brag about the care and attention given to your young ones or the excessive and ongoing effort spent on their education: humans, being the most needy and helpless animals, only follow an instinct of nature that has always matched parents’ care to their offspring's needs and weaknesses. But if someone truly valued their fellow humans, how could it be that often ten thousand of them, and sometimes even ten times that number, are wiped out in a few hours for the whims of just two? All social classes look down on those beneath them, and if you could peer into the hearts of kings and princes, you would barely find any who value the majority of the masses they rule over more than those masses value the livestock they own. Why do so many claim to trace their lineage, even if falsely, back to the immortal gods? Why do they allow others to kneel before them, taking varying levels of pleasure in having divine honors paid to them, if not to suggest that they are of a higher nature and a superior species compared to their subjects?

Savage I am, but no creature can be called cruel, but what either by malice or insensibility extinguishes his natural pity: The lion was born without compassion; we follow the instinct of our nature; the gods have appointed us to live upon the waste and spoil of other animals, and as long as we can meet with dead ones, we never hunt after the living. It is only man, mischievous man, that can make death a sport. Nature taught your stomach to crave nothing but vegetables; but your violent fondness to change, and great eagerness after novelties, have prompted you to the destruction of animals without justice or necessity, perverted your nature, and warped your appetites which way soever your pride or luxury have called them. The lion has a ferment within him that consumes the toughest skin and hardest bones, as well as the flesh of all animals without exception: Your squeamish stomach, in which the digestive heat is weak and inconsiderable, will not so much as admit of the most tender parts of them, unless above half the concoction [104]has been performed by artificial fire before hand; and yet what animal have you spared to satisfy the caprices of a languid appetite? Languid I say; for what is man’s hunger, if compared to the lion’s? Yours, when it is at the worst, makes you faint, mine makes me mad: Oft have I tried with roots and herbs to allay the violence of it, but in vain; nothing but large quantities of flesh can anywise appease it.

Savage I may be, but no creature can truly be called cruel unless it extinguishes its natural compassion through malice or insensitivity. The lion is born without empathy; we act on our instincts. The gods have destined us to thrive on the remains of other animals, and as long as we find dead ones, we never hunt the living. It's only humans, troublesome humans, who can turn death into sport. Nature designed your body to crave only vegetables; yet your overwhelming desire for change and your eagerness for new experiences have led you to unjustly destroy animals without need, corrupting your nature and twisting your cravings based on pride or luxury. The lion has a powerful digestive system that can break down tough skin and hard bones, as well as the flesh of all animals indiscriminately. Your finicky stomach, which lacks strong digestive heat, won’t even accept the most tender parts unless they’ve been significantly cooked beforehand; yet, what animals have you spared to satisfy your whims of a weak appetite? Weak, I say, for what is human hunger compared to that of a lion? Your worst hunger makes you faint, mine drives me to madness. I’ve often tried to ease its intensity with roots and herbs, but to no avail; only large amounts of meat can ever really satisfy it. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Yet the fierceness of our hunger notwithstanding, lions have often requited benefits received; but ungrateful and perfidious man feeds on the sheep that clothes him, and spares not her innocent young ones, whom he has taken into his care and custody. If you tell me the gods made man master over all other creatures, what tyranny was it then to destroy them out of wantonness? No, fickle, timorous animal, the gods have made you for society, and designed that millions of you, when well joined together, should compose the strong Leviathan. A single lion bears some sway in the creation, but what is single man? A small and inconsiderable part, a trifling atom of one great beast. What nature designs, she executes; and it is not safe to judge of what she purposed, but from the effects she shows: If she had intended that man, as man from a superiority of species, should lord it over all other animals, the tiger, nay, the whale and eagle would have obeyed his voice.

Yet despite how fierce our hunger is, lions often return the favors they receive; but ungrateful and treacherous humans feast on the sheep that provide their clothing, showing no mercy to the innocent young they have taken under their care. If you tell me the gods made man the ruler over all other creatures, how is it tyranny to destroy them just for pleasure? No, fickle, fearful creature, the gods made you for community and intended for millions of you, when united, to form a powerful Leviathan. A single lion has some influence in creation, but what is one man? A tiny, insignificant part, a mere atom of one great beast. Nature does what she intends, and it's not wise to assume what she wanted based solely on intentions; if she had meant for man, due to his superior species, to rule over all other animals, then tigers, and even whales and eagles, would obey him.

But if your wit and understanding exceeds ours, ought not the lion, in deference to that superiority, to follow the maxims of men, with whom nothing is more sacred, than that the reason of the strongest is ever the most prevalent? Whole multitudes of you have conspired and compassed the destruction of one, after they had owned the gods had made him their superior; and one has often ruined and cut off whole multitudes, whom, by the same gods, he had sworn to defend and maintain. Man never acknowledged superiority without power, and why should I? The excellence I boast of is visible, all animals tremble at the sight of the lion, not out of panic fear. The gods have given me swiftness to overtake, and strength to conquer whatever comes near me. Where is there a creature that has teeth and claws like mine, behold the thickness of these massy jaw-bones, consider the width of them, and feel the firmness of this brawny neck. The nimblest deer, the wildest boar, the stoutest horse, and [105]strongest bull, are my prey wherever I meet them. Thus spoke the lion, and the merchant fainted away.

But if your intelligence and understanding are better than ours, shouldn’t the lion, out of respect for that superiority, follow the rules of men, for whom nothing is more sacred than the idea that the reasoning of the strongest always prevails? Many of you have banded together to destroy one man, after admitting that the gods have made him superior to you; and one has often ruined and taken down whole groups, whom he had sworn, by the same gods, to protect and support. A man never acknowledges superiority without power, so why should I? The greatness I take pride in is clear; all animals tremble at the sight of the lion, not out of sheer terror. The gods have given me the speed to catch and the strength to conquer anything that comes my way. Where is there a creature with teeth and claws like mine? Look at the thickness of these powerful jawbones, consider their width, and feel the strength of this muscular neck. The swiftest deer, the fiercest boar, the strongest horse, and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] the mightiest bull are my prey wherever I find them. Thus spoke the lion, and the merchant fainted.

The lion, in my opinion, has stretched the point too far; yet, when to soften the flesh of male animals, we have by castration prevented the firmness their tendons, and every fibre would have come to, without it, I confess, I think it ought to move a human creature, when he reflects upon the cruel care with which they are fattened for destruction. When a large and gentle bullock, after having resisted a ten times greater force of blows than would have killed his murderer, falls stunned at last, and his armed head is fastened to the ground with cords; as soon as the wide wound is made, and the jugulars are cut asunder, what mortal can, without compassion, hear the painful bellowings intercepted by his blood, the bitter sighs that speak the sharpness of his anguish, and the deep sounding groans, with loud anxiety, fetched from the bottom of his strong and palpitating heart; look on the trembling and violent convulsions of his limbs; see, while his reeking gore streams from him, his eyes become dim and languid, and behold his strugglings, gasps, and last efforts for life, the certain signs of his approaching fate? When a creature has given such convincing and undeniable proofs of the terrors upon him, and the pains and agonies he feels, is there a follower of Descartes so inured to blood, as not to refute, by his commiseration, the philosophy of that vain reasoner?

The lion, in my opinion, has taken things too far; however, when we soften the flesh of male animals through castration, we prevent the firmness their tendons and every fiber would have naturally developed. I have to admit, it should disturb any human when they consider the cruel way these animals are fattened for slaughter. When a large and gentle bull, having withstood ten times the force of blows that would have killed his attacker, finally collapses in shock, and his head is tied to the ground with ropes; as soon as a deep wound is made and his jugular veins are severed, who can, without feeling compassion, listen to his painful bellowing interrupted by blood, the bitter sighs that express his intense suffering, and the deep groans filled with anxiety, coming from deep within his strong and beating heart? To watch the violent trembling and convulsions of his limbs, see him bleed out, notice his eyes growing dim and lifeless, and witness his struggles, gasps, and final attempts for life—the clear signs of his impending death? When a creature shows such compelling and undeniable evidence of its fear and the agony it experiences, is there any follower of Descartes so hardened to bloodshed that they wouldn't, through their compassion, challenge the philosophy of that misguided thinker?

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 307. ——For frugally

For saving

They now liv’d ’on their salary.

They now lived on their salary.

When people have small comings in, and are honest withal, it is then that the generality of them begin to be frugal, and not before. Frugality in ethics is called that virtue, from the principle of which men abstain from superfluities, and, despising the operose contrivances of art to procure either ease or pleasure, content themselves with the natural simplicity of things, and are carefully temperate in the enjoyment of them, without any tincture of covetousness. Frugality thus limited, is perhaps scarcer than many may imagine; but what is generally understood by it, is a quality more often to be met with, and consists in a medium between profuseness and avarice, rather leaning to the latter. As this prudent economy, which some people call saving [106]is in private families the most certain method to increase an estate. So some imagine, that whether a country be barren or fruitful, the same method, if generally pursued (which they think practicable), will have the same effect upon a whole nation, and that, for example, the English might be much richer than they are, if they would be as frugal as some of their neighbours. This, I think, is an error, which to prove, I shall first refer the reader to what has been said upon this head in Remark on l. 180. and then go on thus.

When people start earning a little money and are honest about it, that's when most of them begin to be careful with their spending, not before. In ethics, frugality is that virtue from which people refrain from excess. They reject complex ways to gain comfort or pleasure and instead appreciate the straightforwardness of things, enjoying them with moderation and without any hint of greed. This limited kind of frugality is probably rarer than many think, but what most people usually mean by it is a quality that often leans towards being stingy rather than generous. This sensible budgeting, which some call saving [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__], is the most reliable way to grow wealth in private households. Some believe that the same approach, if applied broadly, could have a similar positive impact on an entire nation, suggesting that, for instance, the English could be significantly wealthier if they practiced the same frugality as some of their neighbors. I believe this is a misconception, and to support this, I will first refer the reader back to what has been discussed regarding this in Remark on l. 180, and then continue from there.

Experience teaches us first, that as people differ in their views and perceptions of things, so they vary in their inclinations; one man is given to covetousness, another to prodigality, and a third is only saving. Secondly, that men are never, or at least very seldom, reclaimed from their darling passions, either by reason or precept, and that if any thing ever draws them from what they are naturally propense to, it must be a change in their circumstances or their fortunes. If we reflect upon these observations, we shall find, that to render the generality of a nation lavish, the product of the country must be considerable, in proportion to the inhabitants, and what they are profuse of cheap; that, on the contrary, to make a nation generally frugal, the necessaries of life must be scarce, and consequently dear; and that, therefore, let the best politician do what he can, the profuseness or frugality of a people in general, must always depend upon, and will, in spite of his teeth, be ever proportioned to the fruitfulness and product of the country, the number of inhabitants, and the taxes they are to bear. If any body would refute what I have said, let them only prove from history, that there ever was in any country a national frugality without a national necessity.

Experience teaches us first that since people have different views and perceptions, they also have different tendencies; one person is greedy, another is extravagant, and a third is merely thrifty. Secondly, people are rarely, if ever, swayed from their strong passions by reason or advice, and if anything does change their natural inclinations, it has to be due to a change in their circumstances or fortunes. If we think about these observations, we’ll see that to make a nation extravagant, the country's resources must be significant in relation to its population, and what they spend on must be cheap; on the other hand, to make a nation generally frugal, the necessities of life must be scarce and therefore expensive. Thus, no matter what a skilled politician does, the general wastefulness or thriftiness of a society will always depend on and will, despite efforts to change it, be proportional to the land’s productivity, the population size, and the taxes they have to pay. If anyone wants to challenge what I've said, they just need to show from history that there has ever been a country with national frugality without national necessity.

Let us examine then what things are requisite to aggrandize and enrich a nation. The first desirable blessings for any society of men, are a fertile soil, and a happy climate, a mild government, and more land than people. These things will render man easy, loving, honest, and sincere. In this condition they may be as virtuous as they can, without the least injury to the public, and consequently as happy as they please themselves. But they shall have no arts or sciences, or be quiet longer than their neighbours will let them; they must be poor, ignorant, and almost wholly destitute of what we call the comforts of life, and all the cardinal virtues together would not so much as procure a tolerable coat [107]or a porridge-pot among them: for in this state of slothful ease and stupid innocence, as you need not fear great vices, so you must not expect any considerable virtues. Man never exerts himself but when he is roused by his desires: while they lie dormant, and there is nothing to raise them, his excellence and abilities will be for ever undiscovered, and the lumpish machine, without the influence of his passions, may be justly compared to a huge wind-mill without a breath of air.

Let’s take a look at what’s needed to make a nation prosperous and wealthy. The first essential blessings for any group of people are fertile land, a pleasant climate, a fair government, and more land than people. These factors will make people easygoing, loving, honest, and sincere. In this situation, they can be as virtuous as possible without harming the community, and therefore as happy as they want to be. However, they won’t have any arts or sciences, and they won’t be able to stay at peace for long if their neighbors don’t allow it; they’ll be poor, uninformed, and nearly completely lacking what we consider the comforts of life. Even all the virtues wouldn’t be enough to secure a decent coat or a pot for cooking: in this state of lazy ease and naivety, while you won’t have to worry about major vices, you also can’t expect any significant virtues. People only show their true potential when driven by their desires: if those desires remain dormant and not stirred, their talents and capabilities will stay hidden, and without the push of their passions, they can be compared to a massive windmill standing still without any wind.

Would you render a society of men strong and powerful, you must touch their passions. Divide the land, though there be never so much to spare, and their possessions will make them covetous: rouse them, though but in jest, from their idleness with praises, and pride will set them to work in earnest: teach them trades and handicrafts, and you will bring envy and emulation among them: to increase their numbers, set up a variety of manufactures, and leave no ground uncultivated; let property be inviolably secured, and privileges equal to all men; suffer nobody to act but what is lawful, and every body to think what he pleases; for a country where every body may be maintained that will be employed, and the other maxims are observed, must always be thronged, and can never want people, as long as there is any in the world. Would you have them bold and warlike, turn to military discipline, make good use of their fear, and flatter their vanity with art and assiduity: but would you, moreover, render them an opulent, knowing, and polite nation, teach them commerce with foreign countries, and, if possible, get into the sea, which to compass spare no labour nor industry, and let no difficulty deter you from it; then promote navigation, cherish the merchant, and encourage trade in every branch of it; this will bring riches, and where they are, arts and sciences will soon follow: and by the help of what I have named and good management, it is that politicians can make a people potent, renowned, and flourishing.

To make a society of men strong and powerful, you need to engage their passions. Even if there’s plenty to go around, dividing the land will make them greedy. Stimulate them, even if it's just for fun, with compliments, and their pride will motivate them to work hard. Teach them trades and skills, and you'll create envy and competition among them. To grow their numbers, establish a variety of industries, and make sure no land goes unused; ensure that property is securely protected and that everyone has equal rights. Allow people to act only within the law, but let everyone think as they wish. In a country where there's work available for everyone willing to be employed, and where these principles are followed, there will always be a bustling population. If you want them to be bold and ready for war, implement military training, manage their fears effectively, and stroke their egos with care and attention. But if you also want them to become a wealthy, educated, and cultured nation, teach them to trade with other countries, and if possible, encourage them to take to the sea—spare no effort or sweat to achieve this, and don't let any challenges stop you. Then foster navigation, support merchants, and promote trade in every aspect; this will bring wealth, and where there is wealth, arts and sciences will quickly follow. With what I've outlined, along with good management, politicians can create a powerful, well-known, and thriving populace.

But would you have a frugal and honest society, the best policy is to preserve men in their native simplicity, strive not to increase their numbers; let them never be acquainted with strangers or superfluities, but remove, and keep from them every thing that might raise their desires, or improve their understanding. [108]

But if you want a simple and honest society, the best approach is to keep people in their natural simplicity, avoid increasing their numbers; let them never interact with outsiders or excess, but take away and protect them from anything that could stir their desires or enhance their understanding. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Great wealth, and foreign treasure, will ever scorn to come among men, unless you will admit their inseparable companions, avarice and luxury: where trade is considerable, fraud will intrude. To be at once well-bred and sincere, is no less than a contradiction; and, therefore, while man advances in knowledge, and his manners are polished, we must expect to see, at the same time, his desires enlarged, his appetites refined, and his vices increased.

Great wealth and foreign treasures will always refuse to mingle with people unless you allow their constant companions, greed and luxury. Where trade thrives, deception will follow. Being both courteous and genuine is nothing less than a contradiction. Therefore, as people gain knowledge and their manners become more refined, we should expect to see their desires grow, their cravings become more sophisticated, and their vices increase.

The Dutch may ascribe their present grandeur to the virtue and frugality of their ancestors as they please; but what made that contemptible spot of ground so considerable among the principal powers of Europe, has been their political wisdom in postponing every thing to merchandise and navigation, the unlimited liberty of conscience that is enjoyed among them, and the unwearied application with which they have always made use of the most effectual means to encourage and increase trade in general.

The Dutch can credit their current greatness to the values and thriftiness of their ancestors if they want; however, what turned that seemingly insignificant piece of land into a significant player among the major European powers has been their political savvy in prioritizing trade and navigation, the complete freedom of belief that they enjoy, and their tireless efforts to use the most effective strategies to promote and grow commerce overall.

They never were noted for frugality before Philip II. of Spain began to rage over them with that unheard of tyranny. Their laws were trampled upon, their rights and large immunities taken from them, and their constitution torn to pieces. Several of their chief nobles were condemned and executed without legal form of process. Complaints and remonstrances were punished as severely as resistance, and those that escaped being massacred, were plundered by ravenous soldiers. As this was intolerable to a people that had always been used to the mildest of governments, and enjoyed greater privileges than any of the neighbouring nations, so they chose rather to die in arms than perish by cruel executioners. If we consider the strength Spain had then, and the low circumstances those distressed states were in, there never was heard of a more unequal strife; yet, such was their fortitude and resolution, that only seven of those provinces, uniting themselves together, maintained against the greatest and best disciplined nation in Europe, the most tedious and bloody war, that is to be met with in ancient or modern history.

They had never been known for being frugal until Philip II of Spain started to unleash his unprecedented tyranny on them. Their laws were ignored, their rights and significant privileges stripped away, and their constitution shattered. Several leading nobles were condemned and executed without any legal proceedings. Complaints and protests were punished just as harshly as outright resistance, and those who managed to avoid being killed were robbed by greedy soldiers. This was unbearable for a people who had always been accustomed to a gentle government and enjoyed more privileges than any of their neighboring countries, so they chose to fight rather than be slaughtered by merciless executioners. Considering Spain's strength at the time and the dire situation of those distressed states, it was an incredibly unequal struggle; yet, despite this, their determination and resolve allowed just seven of those provinces to unite and wage an incredibly long and bloody war against the strongest and most well-trained nation in Europe, a conflict that stands out in both ancient and modern history.

Rather than to become a victim to the Spanish fury, they were contented to live upon a third part of their revenues, and lay out far the greatest part of their income in defending themselves against their merciless enemies. These hardships and calamities of a war within their bowels, first put them upon that extraordinary frugality; and the continuance under the same difficulties for above fourscore years, [109]could not but render it customary and habitual to them. But all their arts of saving, and penurious way of living, could never have enabled them to make head against so potent an enemy, if their industry in promoting their fishery and navigation in general, had not helped to supply the natural wants and disadvantages they laboured under.

Rather than become victims of the Spanish fury, they were satisfied to live on just a third of their revenues and spent most of their income defending themselves against their ruthless enemies. These hardships and the ongoing turmoil of a civil war initially pushed them toward an extraordinary frugality, and continuing under the same difficulties for over eighty years could only incorporate it into their daily lives. However, all their savings and frugal lifestyle would never have allowed them to stand up against such a powerful enemy if their hard work in boosting their fishing industry and navigation had not helped to address their natural needs and challenges.

The country is so small and so populous, that there is not land enough (though hardly an inch of it is unimproved) to feed the tenth part of the inhabitants. Holland itself is full of large rivers, and lies lower than the sea, which would run over it every tide, and wash it away in one winter, if it was not kept out by vast banks and huge walls: the repairs of those, as well as their sluices, quays, mills, and other necessaries they are forced to make use of to keep themselves from being drowned, are a greater expence to them, one year with another, than could be raised by a general land tax of four shillings in the pound, if to be deducted from the neat produce of the landlord’s revenue.

The country is so small and so crowded that there isn’t enough land (even though hardly any of it is unused) to feed one-tenth of the population. Holland itself is filled with large rivers and sits lower than the sea, which would flood it every tide and wash it away in a single winter if it weren’t for the massive dikes and huge walls keeping the water out. The costs of maintaining these structures, along with their sluices, quays, mills, and other essentials they need to prevent flooding, are greater for them year after year than what could be raised by a general land tax of four shillings in the pound, if it were taken from the net income of the landlords’ revenue.

Is it a wonder, that people, under such circumstances, and loaden with greater taxes, besides, than any other nation, should be obliged to be saving? but why must they be a pattern to others, who, besides, that they are more happily situated, are much richer within themselves, and have, to the same number of people, above ten times the extent of ground? The Dutch and we often buy and sell at the same markets, and so far our views may be said to be the same: otherwise the interests and political reasons of the two nations, as to the private economy of either, are very different. It is their interest to be frugal, and spend little; because they must have every thing from abroad, except butter, cheese, and fish, and therefore of them, especially the latter, they consume three times the quantity, which the same number of people do here. It is our interest to eat plenty of beef and mutton to maintain the farmer, and further improve our land, of which we have enough to feed ourselves, and as many more, if it was better cultivated. The Dutch perhaps have more shipping, and more ready money than we, but then those are only to be considered as the tools they work with. So a carrier may have more horses than a man of ten times his worth, and a banker that has not above fifteen or sixteen hundred pounds in the world, may have generally more ready cash by him, than a gentleman of two thousand a-year. He that keeps three or four stage-coaches to get his bread, is to a gentleman that keeps [110]a coach for his pleasure, what the Dutch are in comparison to us; having nothing of their own but fish, they are carriers and freighters to the rest of the world, while the basis of our trade chiefly depends upon our own product.

Is it any wonder that people, under these conditions and burdened with higher taxes than any other nation, have to be frugal? But why should they set an example for others who, in addition to being in a more favorable situation, are much wealthier and have over ten times the land for the same number of people? The Dutch and we often buy and sell at the same markets, so our interests might seem aligned. However, the economic and political interests of the two nations regarding private finances are quite different. It's in their interest to be thrifty and spend less because they need to import everything except butter, cheese, and fish; in fact, they consume three times the amount of the latter than we do here. It benefits us to eat plenty of beef and mutton to support farmers and further improve our land, which has enough capacity to feed ourselves and many more if it were better cultivated. The Dutch may have more shipping and more cash on hand than we do, but those are just tools for their trade. A carrier may have more horses than someone worth ten times as much, and a banker with only fifteen or sixteen hundred pounds may generally have more cash available than a gentleman earning two thousand a year. A person who owns three or four stagecoaches to make a living compares to a gentleman who keeps a coach for pleasure just like the Dutch do in relation to us; having only fish as their own resource, they serve as carriers and freighters to the rest of the world, while the foundation of our trade primarily relies on our own products.

Another instance, that what makes the bulk of the people saving, are heavy taxes, scarcity of land, and such things that occasion a dearth of provisions, may be given from what is observable among the Dutch themselves. In the province of Holland there is a vast trade, and an unconceivable treasure of money. The land is almost as rich as dung itself, and (as I have said once already) not an inch of it unimproved. In Gelderland, and Overyssel, there is hardly any trade, and very little money: the soil is very indifferent, and abundance of ground lies waste. Then, what is the reason that the same Dutch, in the two latter provinces, though poorer than the first, are yet less stingy and more hospitable? Nothing but that their taxes in most things are less extravagant, and in proportion to the number of people, they have a great deal more ground. What they save in Holland, they save out of their bellies; it is eatables, drinkables, and fuel, that their heaviest taxes are upon, but they wear better clothes, and have richer furniture, than you will find in the other provinces.

Another example of what drives most people to save is heavy taxes, limited land, and factors that lead to a shortage of food, which can be seen among the Dutch themselves. In the province of Holland, there is extensive trade and an unimaginable amount of wealth. The land is nearly as fertile as manure itself, and, as I mentioned before, not a single inch is left unused. In Gelderland and Overijssel, there is hardly any trade and very little money: the soil is quite poor, and a lot of land remains uncultivated. So, why are the Dutch in these two latter provinces, despite being poorer than in the first, less stingy and more welcoming? The answer is simply that their taxes on most things are less excessive, and they have significantly more land in relation to the number of people. What they save in Holland comes from their food; the heaviest taxes are on food, drinks, and fuel, but they wear better clothes and have nicer furniture than you will find in the other provinces.

Those that are frugal by principle, are so in every thing; but in Holland the people are only sparing in such things as are daily wanted, and soon consumed; in what is lasting they are quite otherwise: in pictures and marble they are profuse; in their buildings and gardens they are extravagant to folly. In other countries, you may meet with stately courts and palaces of great extent, that belong to princes, which nobody can expect in a commonwealth, where so much equality is observed as there is in this; but in all Europe you shall find no private buildings so sumptuously magnificent, as a great many of the merchants and other gentlemen’s houses are in Amsterdam, and some other great cities of that small province; and the generality of those that build there, lay out a greater proportion of their estates on houses they dwell in, than any people upon the earth.

Those who are frugal by nature are frugal in everything; however, in Holland, people are only careful with things they use daily and consume quickly. When it comes to lasting items, they are completely different. They spend lavishly on paintings and marble, and their buildings and gardens are extravagantly excessive. In other countries, you might find impressive courts and vast palaces owned by princes, which is not something you can expect in a commonwealth like this, where equality is highly valued. Yet, throughout Europe, you won’t find private buildings as lavishly magnificent as many of the homes owned by merchants and other gentry in Amsterdam and some other major cities in that small province. Most people who build there invest a larger portion of their wealth in their homes than anyone else in the world.

The nation I speak of was never in greater straits, nor their affairs in a more dismal posture since they were a republic, than in the year 1671, and the beginning of 1672. What we know of their economy and constitution with any certainty, has been chiefly owing to Sir William Temple, whose [111]observations upon their manners and government, it is evident from several passages in his memoirs, were made about that time. The Dutch, indeed, were then very frugal; but since those days, and that their calamities have not been so pressing (though the common people, on whom the principal burden of all excises and impositions lies, are perhaps much as they were), a great alteration has been made among the better sort of people in their equipages, entertainments, and whole manner of living.

The nation I'm talking about has never faced greater challenges or had their situation look more grim since becoming a republic than in the year 1671 and at the start of 1672. What we know for sure about their economy and governance is largely thanks to Sir William Temple, whose [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]observations on their customs and government are clear from various parts of his memoirs, made around that time. The Dutch were indeed very frugal back then; however, since that time and as their hardships have lessened (even though ordinary people, who bear most of the burden of taxes and fees, might still be in a similar situation), there has been a significant change among the upper class in their lifestyles, entertainment, and overall way of living.

Those who would have it, that the frugality of that nation flows not so much from necessity, as a general aversion to vice and luxury, will put us in mind of their public administration, and smallness of salaries, their prudence in bargaining for, and buying stores and other necessaries, the great care they take not to be imposed upon by those that serve them, and their severity against them that break their contracts. But what they would ascribe to the virtue and honesty of ministers, is wholly due to their strict regulations, concerning the management of the public treasure, from which their admirable form of government will not suffer them to depart; and indeed one good man may take another’s word, if they so agree, but a whole nation ought never to trust to any honesty, but what is built upon necessity; for unhappy is the people, and their constitution will be ever precarious, whose welfare must depend upon the virtues and consciences of ministers and politicians.

Those who believe that the frugality of that nation comes not just from necessity, but from a general disapproval of vice and luxury, will remind us of their public administration and the low salaries, their carefulness in negotiating and purchasing supplies and other essentials, the great attention they pay to avoid being taken advantage of by those who serve them, and their strictness against those who break their contracts. However, what they attribute to the virtue and integrity of officials is entirely a result of their strict rules regarding the management of public funds, which their excellent form of government strictly enforces; indeed, one good person may trust another’s word if they agree, but an entire nation should never rely on any honesty that isn’t based on necessity; for a people is unfortunate, and their system will always be unstable, whose well-being must rely on the virtues and ethics of officials and politicians.

The Dutch generally endeavour to promote as much frugality among their subjects as it is possible, not because it is a virtue, but because it is, generally speaking, their interest, as I have shown before; for, as this latter changes, so they alter their maxims, as will be plain in the following instance.

The Dutch generally try to encourage as much frugality among their people as possible, not because it's a virtue, but because it's usually in their interest, as I've mentioned before; because when that interest changes, they adjust their principles, as will be clear in the following example.

As soon as their East India ships come home, the Company pays off the men, and many of them receive the greatest part of what they have been earning in seven or eight, or some fifteen or sixteen years time. These poor fellows are encouraged to spend their money with all profuseness imaginable; and considering that most of them, when they set out first, were reprobates, that under the tuition of a strict discipline, and a miserable diet, have been so long kept at hard labour without money, in the midst of danger, it cannot be difficult to make them lavish, as soon as they have plenty.

As soon as their East India ships return, the Company pays the crew, and many of them receive most of what they’ve earned over seven or eight, or sometimes even fifteen or sixteen years. These poor guys are encouraged to spend their money in the most extravagant ways possible; and considering that most of them, when they first set out, were troublemakers, who, under strict discipline and a poor diet, have been kept working hard without any money, in the midst of danger, it’s not hard to see why they go overboard as soon as they have cash to spend.

They squander away in wine, women, and music, as much [112]as people of their taste and education are well capable of, and are suffered (so they but abstain from doing of mischief), to revel and riot with greater licentiousness than is customary to be allowed to others. You may in some cities see them accompanied with three or four lewd women, few of them sober, run roaring through the streets by broad day-light with a fiddler before them: And if the money, to their thinking, goes not fast enough these ways, they will find out others, and sometimes fling it among the mob by handfuls. This madness continues in most of them while they have any thing left, which never lasts long, and for this reason, by a nick-name, they are called, Lords of six Weeks, that being generally the time by which the Company has other ships ready to depart; where these infatuated wretches (their money being gone) are forced to enter themselves again, and may have leisure to repent their folly.

They waste their time on drinking, women, and music as much as [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] people with their tastes and education can handle. They’re allowed—so long as they don’t cause any trouble—to party and act more recklessly than others typically can. In some cities, you can see them out in the daylight, running through the streets with three or four drunken women, usually not sober, with a violinist leading the way. If they feel like their money isn’t running out fast enough, they'll find other ways to spend it, sometimes throwing it into the crowd in handfuls. This craziness goes on for most of them until they run out of money, which never takes long. For this reason, they’re nicknamed Lords of Six Weeks, since that's typically the time it takes for the Company to have other ships ready to leave; after their money is gone, these foolish people have to sign back on and may finally have time to regret their mistakes.

In this stratagem there is a double policy: First, if the sailors that have been inured to the hot climates and unwholesome air and diet, should be frugal, and stay in their own country, the Company would be continually obliged to employ fresh men, of which (besides that they are not so fit for their business), hardly one in two ever lives in some places of the East Indies, which often would prove great charge as well as disappointment to them. The second is, that the large sums so often distributed among those sailors, are by this means made immediately to circulate throughout the country, from whence, by heavy excises, and other impositions, the greatest part of it is soon drawn back into the public treasure.

In this strategy, there are two key points: First, if the sailors who are used to the hot climates and unhealthy conditions stay in their own country and save their money, the Company would constantly need to hire new men. These new recruits, apart from being less suited for their work, have a high mortality rate in some parts of the East Indies, which could lead to significant costs and disappointment for the Company. The second point is that the large sums of money frequently given out to these sailors quickly circulate through the country. From there, through heavy taxes and other charges, most of it is soon funneled back into the government's coffers.

To convince the champions for national frugality by another argument, that what they urge is impracticable, we will suppose that I am mistaken in every thing which in Remark, l. 180, I have said in behalf of luxury, and the necessity of it to maintain trade: after that let us examine what a general frugality, if it was by art and management to be forced upon people whether they have occasion for it or not, would produce in such a nation as ours. We will grant, then, that all the people in Great Britain shall consume but four-fifths of what they do now, and so lay by one-fifth part of their income; I shall not speak of what influence this would have upon almost every trade, as well as the farmer, the grazier, and the landlord, but favourably suppose (what is yet impossible), that the same work shall be done, and consequently [113]the same handicrafts be employed as there are now. The consequence would be, that unless money should all at once fall prodigiously in value, and every thing else, contrary to reason, grow very dear, at the five years end all the working people, and the poorest of labourers (for I would not meddle with any of the rest), would be worth in ready cash as much as they now spend in a whole year; which, by the bye, would be more money than ever the nation had at once.

To convince the advocates for national frugality with another argument that what they propose is impractical, let's assume I’m wrong about everything I noted in Remark, l. 180, regarding luxury and its necessity for supporting trade. Now, let’s consider what total frugality, if it could be forced upon people regardless of their actual need for it, would lead to in a nation like ours. We'll agree that everyone in Great Britain should consume only four-fifths of what they currently do and save one-fifth of their income. I won't discuss the impact this would have on nearly every industry, along with farmers, grazers, and landlords, but let’s favorably assume (although it's still impossible) that the same amount of work gets done and the same craftsmen are employed as there are now. The result would be that unless money suddenly increased drastically in value and everything else, against all logic, became very expensive, at the end of five years, all the working people and the poorest laborers (since I won’t talk about the rest) would have in cash as much as they currently spend in a whole year, which, by the way, would be more money than the nation has ever had at once.

Let us now, overjoyed with this increase of wealth, take a view of the condition the working people would be in, and, reasoning from experience, and what we daily observe of them, judge what their behaviour would be in such a case. Every body knows that there is a vast number of journeymen weavers, tailors, clothworkers, and twenty other handicrafts, who, if by four days labour in a week they can maintain themselves, will hardly be persuaded to work the fifth; and that there are thousands of labouring men of all sorts, who will, though they can hardly subsist, put themselves to fifty inconveniences, disoblige their masters, pinch their bellies, and run in debt to make holidays. When men show such an extraordinary proclivity to idleness and pleasure, what reason have we to think that they would ever work, unless they were obliged to it by immediate necessity? When we see an artificer that cannot be drove to his work before Tuesday, because the Monday morning he has two shillings left of his last week’s pay; why should we imagine he would go to it at all, if he had fifteen or twenty pounds in his pocket?

Let’s now, thrilled with this increase in wealth, consider the situation of the working people and, based on our experiences and daily observations, judge how they might behave in such a scenario. Everyone knows there are a huge number of journeyman weavers, tailors, cloth workers, and many other trades who, if they can support themselves with just four days of work each week, will hardly be convinced to work that fifth day. Additionally, there are thousands of laborers of all kinds who, even if they can barely make ends meet, will endure numerous hardships, annoy their bosses, cut back on food, and go into debt just to take a day off. When people show such a strong tendency towards laziness and leisure, what reason do we have to think they would work at all unless they absolutely had to? When we see a worker who can’t be motivated to start his job before Tuesday because he still has two shillings left from his last week’s pay, why should we believe he would show up at all if he had fifteen or twenty pounds in his pocket?

What would, at this rate, become of our manufactures? If the merchant would send cloth abroad, he must make it himself, for the clothier cannot get one man out of twelve that used to work for him. If what I speak of was only to befal the journeymen shoemakers, and nobody else, in less than a twelvemonth, half of us would go barefoot. The chief and most pressing use there is for money in a nation, is to pay the labour of the poor, and when there is a real scarcity of it, those who have a great many workmen to pay, will always feel it first; yet notwithstanding this great necessity of coin, it would be easier, where property was well secured, to live without money, than without poor; for who would do the work? For this reason the quantity of circulating coin in a country, ought always to be proportioned to the number of [114]hands that are employed; and the wages of labourers to the price of provisions. From whence it is demonstrable, that whatever procures plenty, makes labourers cheap, where the poor are well managed; who as they ought to be kept from starving, so they should receive nothing worth saving. If here and there one of the lowest class by uncommon industry, and pinching his belly, lifts himself above the condition he was brought up in, nobody ought to hinder him; nay, it is undeniably the wisest course for every person in the society, and for every private family to be frugal; but it is the interest of all rich nations, that the greatest part of the poor should almost never be idle, and yet continually spend what they get.

What will happen to our manufacturing at this rate? If merchants want to send cloth abroad, they have to make it themselves because clothiers can’t find more than one out of twelve workers that used to work for them. If this issue only affected the journeymen shoemakers and no one else, in less than a year, half of us would be going barefoot. The main and most urgent purpose of money in a nation is to pay the labor of the poor, and when there is a real shortage of it, those who have many workers to pay will always feel the impact first. Yet, despite this urgent need for cash, it would be easier to live without money than without poor people, where property is well secured, because who would do the work? For this reason, the amount of circulating money in a country should always match the number of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]hands that are employed, and the wages of laborers should align with the cost of goods. This shows that anything that provides abundance makes laborers cheaper when the poor are managed properly; they should be kept from starving but should not receive anything worth saving. If someone from the lowest class manages to rise above their upbringing through hard work and scarcity, no one should stop them. In fact, it is undoubtedly the smartest strategy for everyone in society, and for every private household, to be frugal; however, it is in the interest of all wealthy nations that most of the poor are almost never idle and continually spend what they earn.

All men, as Sir William Temple observes very well, are more prone to ease and pleasure than they are to labour, when they are not prompted to it by pride and avarice, and those that get their living by their daily labour, are seldom powerfully influenced by either: so that they have nothing to stir them up to be serviceable but their wants, which it is prudence to relieve, but folly to cure. The only thing, then, that can render the labouring man industrious, is a moderate quantity of money; for as too little will, according as his temper is, either dispirit or make him desperate, so too much will make him insolent and lazy.

All men, as Sir William Temple points out quite well, tend to prefer comfort and pleasure over hard work, unless pushed by pride and greed. Those who earn their living through daily labor are rarely strongly motivated by either of those drivers; their only motivation to be productive comes from their needs, which it's wise to address but foolish to eliminate completely. Therefore, the only thing that can make a working man industrious is having a moderate amount of money; because too little can either discourage him or make him hopeless, while too much can lead to arrogance and laziness.

A man would be laughed at by most people, who should maintain that too much money could undo a nation: yet this has been the fate of Spain; to this the learned Don Diego Savedra ascribes the ruin of his country. The fruits of the earth in former ages had made Spain so rich, that King Lewis XI. of France being come to the court of Toledo, was astonished at its splendour, and said, that he had never seen any thing to be compared to it, either in Europe or Asia; he that in his travels to the Holy Land had run through every province of them. In the kingdom of Castile alone (if we may believe some writers), there were for the holy war, from all parts of the world got together one hundred thousand foot, ten thousand horse, and sixty thousand carriages for baggage, which Alonso III. maintained at his own charge, and paid every day, as well soldiers as officers and princes, every one according to his rank and dignity: nay, down to the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella (who equipped Columbus), and some time after, Spain was a fertile country, where trade and manufactures flourished, and had a [115]knowing industrious people to boast of. But as soon as that mighty treasure, that was obtained with more hazard and cruelty than the world until then had known, and which to come at, by the Spaniard’s own confession, had cost the lives of twenty millions of Indians; as soon, I say, as that ocean of treasure came rolling in upon them, it took away their senses, and their industry forsook them. The farmer left his plough, the mechanic his tools, the merchant his compting-house, and every body scorning to work, took his pleasure and turned gentleman. They thought they had reason to value themselves above all their neighbours, and now nothing but the conquest of the world would serve them.

A man would be laughed at by most, who would argue that too much wealth could ruin a country: yet that has been Spain's fate; the learned Don Diego Savedra attributes the downfall of his nation to this. The rich produce of the land in earlier times had made Spain so wealthy that when King Louis XI of France visited the court of Toledo, he was astonished by its splendor and claimed he had never seen anything like it in either Europe or Asia, having traveled through all their provinces on his journey to the Holy Land. In the kingdom of Castile alone (if we can believe some historians), there were gathered one hundred thousand infantry, ten thousand cavalry, and sixty thousand baggage wagons for the holy war, which Alonso III supported at his own expense, paying every soldier, officer, and prince daily, according to their rank and status. Even until the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella (who sponsored Columbus), and for some time afterward, Spain was a fertile nation where trade and manufacturing thrived, and it had a [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]skilled, industrious population to be proud of. But as soon as that vast treasure, acquired through more risk and brutality than the world had ever known, which, according to the Spaniards' own admission, cost the lives of twenty million Indians, started pouring in, it left them dazed, and their hard work abandoned them. Farmers left their plows, craftsmen their tools, merchants their ledgers, and everyone, looking down on labor, indulged themselves and fancied themselves gentlemen. They believed they had every reason to feel superior to their neighbors, and now only the conquest of the world would satisfy them.

The consequence of this has been, that other nations have supplied what their own sloth and pride denied them; and when every body saw, that notwithstanding all the prohibitions the government could make against the exportation of bullion, the Spaniard would part with his money, and bring it you aboard himself at the hazard of his neck, all the world endeavoured to work for Spain. Gold and silver being by this means yearly divided and shared among all the trading countries, have made all things dear, and most nations of Europe industrious, except their owners, who, ever since their mighty acquisitions, sit with their arms across, and wait every year with impatience and anxiety, the arrival of their revenues from abroad, to pay others for what they have spent already: and thus by too much money, the making of colonies and other mismanagements, of which it was the occasion, Spain is, from a fruitful and well-peopled country, with all its mighty titles and possessions, made a barren and empty thoroughfare through which gold and silver pass from America to the rest of the world; and the nation, from a rich, acute, diligent, and laborious, become a slow, idle, proud, and beggarly people: So much for Spain. The next country where money is called the product, is Portugal, and the figure which that kingdom with all its gold makes in Europe, I think is not much to be envied.

The result of this has been that other countries have provided what their own laziness and arrogance prevented them from acquiring; and when everyone saw that despite all the government’s prohibitions against exporting gold and silver, the Spaniard would willingly part with his money and personally deliver it to you at great risk, the whole world tried to cater to Spain. Gold and silver, being annually distributed among all the trading nations, have made everything expensive, and most nations in Europe industrious, except for their owners, who, ever since making their massive profits, just sit on their hands, impatiently waiting each year for their revenues from abroad to pay off what they’ve already spent. As a result of excessive money, the creation of colonies, and other mismanagements caused by this, Spain has turned from a fertile and well-populated country, with all its grand titles and possessions, into a barren and empty route through which gold and silver travel from America to the rest of the world; and the nation, once rich, sharp, diligent, and hardworking, has become slow, lazy, arrogant, and poverty-stricken. So much for Spain. The next country where money is said to be the product is Portugal, and the status that kingdom holds in Europe with all its gold is, in my opinion, not very enviable.

The great art then to make a nation happy, and what we call flourishing, consists in giving every body an opportunity of being employed; which to compass, let a government’s first care be to promote as great a variety of manufactures, arts, and handicrafts, as human wit can invent; and the second, to encourage agriculture and fishery in all their branches, that the whole earth may be forced to exert itself [116]as well as man; for as the one is an infallible maxim to draw vast multitudes of people into a nation, so the other is the only method to maintain them.

The key to making a nation happy and thriving is to provide everyone with the chance to be employed. To achieve this, the government should prioritize promoting a wide range of industries, arts, and crafts that human creativity can come up with. Secondly, it should support agriculture and fishing in all their forms so that the entire earth can contribute, just like people do. While the first approach is a surefire way to attract large numbers of people to a nation, the second is the only way to keep them there. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

It is from this policy, and not the trifling regulations of lavishness and frugality (which will ever take their own course, according to the circumstances of the people), that the greatness and felicity of nations must be expected; for let the value of gold and silver either rise or fall, the enjoyment of all societies will ever depend upon the fruits of the earth, and the labour of the people; both which joined together are a more certain, a more inexhaustible, and a more real treasure, than the gold of Brazil, or the silver of Potosi.

It's from this policy, not the minor rules about spending and saving (which will always depend on the circumstances of the people), that we should expect the greatness and happiness of nations. Whether the value of gold and silver goes up or down, the well-being of all societies will always rely on the produce of the land and the work of the people. Together, these are a more reliable, more abundant, and more genuine treasure than the gold of Brazil or the silver of Potosi.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 321. No honour now, &c.

No honor now, &c.

Honour, in its figurative sense, is a chimera without truth or being, an invention of moralists and politicians, and signifies a certain principle of virtue not related to religion, found in some men that keeps them close to their duty and engagements whatever they be; as for example, a man of honour enters into a conspiracy with others to murder a king; he is obliged to go thorough stitch with it; and if overcome by remorse or good nature, he startles at the enormity of his purpose, discovers the plot, and turns a witness against his accomplices, he then forfeits his honour, at least among the party he belonged to. The excellency of this principle is, that the vulgar are destitute of it, and it is only to be met with in people of the better sort, as some oranges have kernels, and others not, though the outside be the same. In great families it is like the gout, generally counted hereditary, and all the lords children are born with it. In some that never felt any thing of it, it is acquired by conversation and reading (especially of romances), in others by preferment; but there is nothing that encourages the growth of it more than a sword, and upon the first wearing of one, some people have felt considerable shoots of it in four and twenty hours.

Honor, in a figurative sense, is an illusion without truth or substance, a creation of moralists and politicians. It represents a certain principle of virtue unrelated to religion, found in some individuals that keeps them committed to their duties and obligations, no matter what they are. For example, a man of honor may join others in a plot to kill a king; he feels compelled to see it through. If he is later overcome by guilt or decency and is shocked by the gravity of his intentions, revealing the plan and turning informant against his co-conspirators, he then loses his honor, at least in the eyes of those he was involved with. The remarkable thing about this principle is that common people lack it, and it is primarily found in those of higher status, just as some oranges contain seeds while others do not, despite having the same exterior. In prominent families, it is like gout, generally considered hereditary, and all noble offspring are born with it. In some who have never experienced it, it can be gained through conversation and reading (especially novels), while in others it comes through advancement; however, nothing fosters its development more than a sword, and upon first donning one, some individuals have felt significant growth of it within twenty-four hours.

The chief and most important care a man of honour ought to have, is the preservation of this principle, and rather than forfeit it, he must lose his employments and estate, nay, life itself; for which reason, whatever humility he may show by way of good-breeding, he is allowed to put an inestimable value upon himself, as a possessor of this invisible ornament. [117]The only method to preserve this principle, is to live up to the rules of honour, which are laws he is to walk by: himself is obliged always to be faithful to his trust, to prefer the public interest to his own, not to tell lies, nor defraud or wrong any body, and from others to suffer no affront, which is a term of art for every action designedly done to undervalue him.

The main and most important concern for a person of honor should be upholding this principle. Rather than sacrificing it, he should be willing to give up his job, his property, or even his life. For this reason, no matter how humble he may act to show good manners, he is entitled to place an unmatched value on himself for possessing this invisible quality. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] The only way to maintain this principle is to adhere to the rules of honor, which serve as the guidelines he must follow: he must always be true to his commitments, prioritize the common good over his own, avoid lying, and not cheat or harm anyone. He should also refuse to tolerate any insults, which is a specific term used for actions meant to belittle him.

The men of ancient honour, of which I reckon Don Quixote to have been the last upon record, were very nice observers of all these laws, and a great many more than I have named; but the moderns seem to be more remiss: they have a profound veneration for the last of them, but they pay not an equal obedience to any of the other; and whoever will but strictly comply with that I hint at, shall have abundance of trespasses against all the rest connived at.

The honorable men of ancient times, of which I consider Don Quixote to be the last on record, were very attentive to all these rules, and many more than I’ve mentioned; but modern people seem to be more lax: they have a deep respect for the last one, but they don’t obey the others as closely; and anyone who strictly follows that one I refer to will have plenty of violations against all the others overlooked.

A man of honour is always counted impartial, and a man of sense of course; for nobody never heard of a man of honour that was a fool: for this reason, he has nothing to do with the law, and is always allowed to be a judge in his own case; and if the least injury be done either to himself or his friend, his relation, his servant, his dog, or any thing which he is pleased to take under his honourable protection, satisfaction must be forthwith demanded; and if it proves an affront, and he that gave it like wise a man of honour, a battle must ensue. From all this it is evident, that a man of honour must be possessed of courage, and that without it his other principle would be no more than a sword without a point. Let us, therefore, examine what courage consists in, and whether it be, as most people will have it, a real something that valiant men have in their nature distinct from all their other qualities or not.

A man of honor is always seen as impartial, and a wise man, of course; because nobody has ever heard of a man of honor who was a fool. For this reason, he has nothing to do with the law and is always allowed to judge his own case. If the slightest injury is done to himself, his friend, his family, his servant, his dog, or anything else he chooses to protect under his honor, he must demand satisfaction immediately. If it turns out to be an insult and the person who gave it is also a man of honor, then a fight must follow. From all this, it's clear that a man of honor must possess courage, and without it, his other principles would be like a sword without a point. So, let’s examine what courage consists of and whether it is, as most people believe, something real that brave men have in their nature, separate from all their other qualities or not.

There is nothing so universally sincere upon earth, as the love which all creatures, that are capable of any, bear to themselves; and as there is no love but what implies a care to preserve the thing beloved, so there is nothing more sincere in any creature than his will, wishes, and endeavours, to preserve himself. This is the law of nature, by which no creature is endued with any appetite or passion, but what either directly or indirectly tends to the preservation either of himself or his species.

There’s nothing as genuinely sincere on earth as the love that all creatures who can feel love have for themselves. Just as love always includes a desire to protect what is loved, nothing is more sincere in any creature than their will, wishes, and efforts to take care of themselves. This is the law of nature, which means that no creature possesses any desire or passion that doesn’t directly or indirectly aim to protect itself or its species.

The means by which nature obliges every creature continually to stir in this business of self-preservation, are grafted in him, and, in man, called desires, which either compel [118]him to crave what he thinks will sustain or please him, or command him to avoid what he imagines might displease, hurt, or destroy him. These desires or passions have all their different symptoms by which they manifest themselves to those they disturb, and from that variety of disturbances they make within us, their various denominations have been given them, as has been shown already in pride and shame.

The ways in which nature drives every creature to constantly engage in the process of self-preservation are embedded within them, and in humans, these are referred to as desires. These desires either push [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]him to seek out what he believes will provide sustenance or pleasure, or they urge him to steer clear of what he fears might cause discomfort, harm, or destruction. These desires or passions have various symptoms that reveal themselves to those they affect, and because of the different disturbances they create within us, they've been given distinct names, as already demonstrated in the cases of pride and shame.

The passion that is raised in us when we apprehend that mischief is approaching us, is called fear: the disturbance it makes within us is always more or less violent in proportion, not of the danger, but our apprehension of the mischief dreaded, whether real or imaginary. Our fear then being always proportioned to the apprehension we have of the danger, it follows, that while that apprehension lasts, a man can no more shake off his fear than he can a leg or an arm. In a fright, it is true, the apprehension of danger is so sudden, and attacks us so lively (as sometimes to take away reason and senses), that when it is over we often do not remember we had any apprehension at all; but, from the event, it is plain we had it, for how could we have been frightened if we had not apprehended that some evil or other was coming upon us?

The feeling that arises in us when we sense that trouble is coming is called fear. The turmoil it creates within us is always more or less intense based not on the actual danger, but on our perception of the feared trouble, whether it's real or imagined. Our fear is always proportional to how we perceive the danger, so as long as that perception lasts, a person can no more shake off their fear than they can a leg or an arm. In a panic, it's true that the perception of danger hits us suddenly and intensely (sometimes even overwhelming our reason and senses), so when it passes, we often don’t remember having any perception at all. However, based on what happens, it's clear we did have it; how else could we have been scared if we didn't sense that some kind of harm was on its way?

Most people are of opinion, that this apprehension is to be conquered by reason, but I confess I am not: Those that have been frightened will tell you, that as soon as they could recollect themselves, that is, make use of their reason, their apprehension was conquered. But this is no conquest at all, for in a fright the danger was either altogether imaginary, or else it is past by that time they can make use of their reason; and therefore if they find there is no danger, it is no wonder that they should not apprehend any: but, when the danger is permanent, let them then make use of their reason, and they will find that it may serve them to examine the greatness and reality of the danger, and that, if they find it less than they imagined, the apprehension will be lessened accordingly; but, if the danger proves real, and the same in every circumstance as they took it to be at first, then their reason, instead of diminishing, will rather increase their apprehension. While this fear lasts, no creature can fight offensively; and yet we see brutes daily fight obstinately, and worry one another to death; so that some other passion must be able to overcome this fear, and the most contrary to it is [119]anger: which, to trace to the bottom, I must beg leave to make another digression.

Most people think that fear can be overcome by reason, but I have to disagree: Those who have been scared will tell you that once they were able to gather their thoughts, or in other words, use their reason, their fear was gone. But this isn't really a victory at all, because in a state of fear, the danger was either completely imagined or it's already passed by the time they can think rationally; so if they realize there’s no threat, it’s no surprise that they don’t feel frightened anymore. However, when the danger is ongoing, if they then use their reason, they will find it can help them assess the severity and reality of the threat. If they discover it’s less serious than they thought, their fear will decrease accordingly; but if the threat turns out to be real and just as serious as they first believed, then their reason will only heighten their fear instead of reducing it. While this fear persists, no one can fight effectively; yet we see animals daily fight fiercely and even kill each other, suggesting that some other emotion must be powerful enough to overcome this fear, and the emotion most opposite to fear is [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]anger. To explore this further, I’ll need to take another detour.

No creature can subsist without food, nor any species of them (I speak of the more perfect animals) continue long unless young ones are continually born as fast as the old ones die. Therefore the first and fiercest appetite that nature has given them is hunger, the next is lust; the one prompting them to procreate, as the other bids them eat. Now, if we observe that anger is that passion which is raised in us when we are crossed or disturbed in our desires, and that, as it sums up all the strength in creatures, so it was given them, that by it they might exert themselves more vigorously in endeavouring to remove, overcome, or destroy whatever obstructs them in the pursuit of self preservation; we shall find that brutes, unless themselves or what they love, or the liberty of either are threatened or attacked, have nothing worth notice that can move them to anger, but hunger or lust. It is they that make them more fierce, for we must observe, that the appetites of creatures are as actually crossed, while they want and cannot meet with what they desire (though perhaps with less violence) as when hindered from enjoying what they have in view. What I have said will appear more plainly, if we but mind what nobody can be ignorant of, which is this: all creatures upon earth live either upon the fruits and product of it, or else the flesh of other animals, their fellow-creatures. The latter, which we call beasts of prey, nature has armed accordingly, and given them weapons and strength to overcome and tear asunder those whom she has designed for their food, and likewise a much keener appetite than to other animals that live upon herbs, &c. For, as to the first, if a cow loved mutton as well as she does grass, being made as she is, and having no claws or talons, and but one row of teeth before, that are all of an equal length, she would be starved even among a flock of sheep. Secondly, as to their voraciousness, if experience did not teach us, our reason might: in the first place, it is highly probable, that the hunger which can make a creature fatigue, harass and expose himself to danger for every bit he eats, is more piercing than that which only bids him eat what stands before him, and which he may have for stooping down. In the second, it is to be considered, that as beasts of prey have an instinct by which they learn to crave, trace, and discover those creatures [120]that are good food for them; so the others have likewise an instinct that teaches them to shun, conceal themselves, and run away from those that hunt after them: from hence it must follow, that beasts of prey, though they could almost eat forever, go yet more often with empty bellies than other creatures, whose victuals neither fly from nor oppose them. This must perpetuate as well as increase their hunger, which hereby becomes a constant fuel to their anger.

No creature can survive without food, and no species (I’m talking about the more advanced animals) can last long unless new ones are born as quickly as the old ones die. Therefore, the strongest and fiercest drive that nature has given them is hunger, followed by lust; one urges them to reproduce, while the other compels them to eat. If we notice that anger is the emotion that arises when our desires are frustrated or disturbed, and that it focuses all the energy in creatures, it was given to them so they could push themselves more energetically to remove, overcome, or destroy whatever stands in their way of self-preservation. We find that animals, unless they or what they love, or their freedom is threatened or attacked, have nothing significant that can trigger their anger, except hunger or lust. These are what make them fiercer, since we must observe that the desires of creatures are just as actively frustrated when they lack and cannot obtain what they want (though perhaps with less intensity) as when they are blocked from enjoying what they already seek. What I’ve said will become clearer if we consider something that everyone knows: all creatures on Earth live on either its fruits and products, or the flesh of other animals, their fellow beings. The latter, which we call predators, are equipped by nature accordingly, given the strength and weapons to capture and tear apart those she designed as their food, and also a much stronger appetite than the other animals that feed on plants, etc. For the former, if a cow craved lamb as much as she craves grass, being made as she is, without claws or talons, and having only one row of teeth upfront that are all the same length, she would starve even among a flock of sheep. Secondly, regarding their insatiability, if experience didn't teach us, our reason might: first of all, it’s highly likely that the hunger which drives a creature to exhaust itself and expose itself to danger for every morsel it eats is more intense than the hunger that just tells it to eat what’s right in front of it, which it can get by bending down. Secondly, we must consider that while predators have an instinct that teaches them to crave, track, and find those creatures [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that are good food for them, the other animals also have an instinct that teaches them to avoid, hide from, and flee from those that hunt them: this means that predators, although they could almost eat endlessly, often go with empty stomachs more than other creatures, whose food neither escapes nor resists them. This must keep their hunger alive and even intensify it, making it a constant fuel to their anger.

If you ask me what stirs up this anger in bulls and cocks that will fight to death, and yet are neither animals of prey, nor very voracious, I answer, lust. Those creatures, whose rage proceeds from hunger, both male and female, attack every thing they can master, and fight obstinately against all: But the animals, whose fury is provoked by a venereal ferment, being generally males, exert themselves chiefly against other males of the same species. They may do mischief by chance to other creatures; but the main objects of their hatred are their rivals, and it is against them only that their prowess and fortitude are shown. We see likewise in all those creatures, of which the male is able to satisfy a great number of females, a more considerable superiority in the male, expressed by nature in his make and features, as well as fierceness, than is observed in other creatures, where the male is contented with one or two females. Dogs, though become domestic animals, are ravenous to a proverb, and those of them that will fight being carnivorous, would soon become beasts of prey, if not fed by us; what we may observe in them is an ample proof of what I have hitherto advanced. Those of a true fighting breed, being voracious creatures, both male and female, will fasten upon any thing, and suffer themselves to be killed before they give over. As the female is rather more salacious than the male; so there is no difference in their make at all, what distinguishes the sexes excepted, and the female is rather the fiercest of the two. A bull is a terrible creature when he is kept up, but where he has twenty or more cows to range among, in a little time he will become as tame as any of them, and a dozen hens will spoil the best game cock in England. Harts and deers are counted chaste and timorous creatures, and so indeed they are almost all the year long, except in rutting time, and then on a sudden they become bold to admiration, and often make at the keepers themselves.

If you ask me what triggers this anger in bulls and roosters that will fight to the death, even though they're not predators or particularly greedy, I say it's lust. Those animals that get angry out of hunger, both males and females, attack anything they can overpower and fight fiercely against all. But the animals whose anger comes from sexual drive, usually males, mainly target other males of their species. They might accidentally harm other creatures, but their main focus is their rivals, and it's against them that they show their strength and bravery. We also see that in creatures where males can mate with many females, the males have a notable advantage, shown in their build and features, as well as their aggression, compared to those where the males are satisfied with one or two females. Dogs, even though they’re domesticated, are proverbially greedy, and those that fight are carnivorous; they would quickly turn into predators if not for being fed by us. What we can observe in them strongly supports what I’ve said so far. True fighting breeds, being greedy creatures, both male and female, will latch onto anything and fight to the death. While females tend to be more aggressive than males, there’s no significant difference in their physical build, aside from distinguishing features, and the female is often the fiercer of the two. A bull is a fearsome animal when isolated, but when he has twenty or more cows to roam with, he will become just as docile as any of them, and a dozen hens can ruin the best gamecock in England. Stags and deer are often seen as pure and timid creatures, and they are for the most part, except during mating season; then suddenly, they become impressively bold and will often charge at the keepers.

That the influence of those two principal appetites, hunger and lust, upon the temper of animals, is not so whimsical [121]as some may imagine, may be partly demonstrated from what is observable in ourselves; for, though our hunger is infinitely less violent than that of wolves and other ravenous creatures, yet we see that people who are in health, and have a tolerable stomach, are more fretful, and sooner put out of humour for trifles when they stay for their victuals beyond their usual hours, than at any other time. And again, though lust in man is not so raging as it is in bulls, and other salacious creatures, yet nothing provokes men and women both sooner, and more violently to anger, than what crosses their amours, when they are heartily in love; and the most fearful and tenderly educated of either sex, have slighted the greatest dangers, and set aside all other considerations, to compass the destruction of a rival.

The impact of the two main desires, hunger and lust, on the behavior of animals isn't as random as some might think. This can be partly shown by observing ourselves. Even though our hunger is much less intense than that of wolves and other ferocious animals, we notice that healthy people with a decent appetite are often more irritable and lose their temper over small things when they have to wait longer than usual for their food. Similarly, while lust in humans isn't as intense as it is in bulls and other sexually aggressive animals, nothing sparks anger in both men and women faster or more intensely than anything that disrupts their romantic pursuits when they're deeply in love. Even the most timid and well-bred individuals, regardless of gender, have overlooked great dangers and dismissed all other concerns to eliminate a rival.

Hitherto I have endeavoured to demonstrate, that no creature can fight offensively as long as his fear lasts; that fear cannot be conquered but by another passion; that the most contrary to it, and most effectual to overcome it, is anger; that the two principal appetites which, disappointed, can stir up this last-named passion, are hunger and lust, and that, in all brute beasts, the proneness to anger and obstinacy in fighting, generally depend upon the violence of either or both those appetites together: From whence it must follow, that what we call prowess, or natural courage in creatures, is nothing but the effect of anger, and that all fierce animals must be either very ravenous, or very lustful, if not both.

So far, I’ve tried to show that no creature can attack effectively as long as it’s afraid; that fear can only be overcome by a different emotion; that the strongest emotion to counter fear is anger; and that the main urges that can trigger this anger, when they are frustrated, are hunger and desire. In all animals, the tendency to get angry and their determination to fight generally depend on the intensity of one or both of these urges. Therefore, it follows that what we call bravery or natural courage in animals is really just a result of anger, and that all aggressive animals must be either very hungry, very sexual, or both.

Let us now examine what by this rule we ought to judge of our own species. From the tenderness of man’s skin, and the great care that is required for years together to rear him; from the make of his jaws, the evenness of his teeth, the breadth of his nails, and the slightness of both, it is not probable that nature should have designed him for rapine; for this reason his hunger is not voracious as it is in beasts of prey; neither is he so salacious as other animals that are called so, and being besides very industrious to supply his wants, he can have no reigning appetite to perpetuate his anger, and must consequently be a timorous animal.

Let’s now look at how we should judge our own species based on this rule. Considering the softness of human skin and the extensive care needed over many years to raise a child; the structure of our jaws, the alignment of our teeth, the width of our nails, and their delicacy, it’s unlikely that nature intended us to be predators. For this reason, our hunger isn’t as fierce as that of carnivorous animals; nor are we as sexually driven as those animals that are labeled that way. Additionally, since we work hard to meet our needs, we don’t have a strong desire to hold onto our anger, which means we tend to be more fearful creatures.

What I have said last must only be understood of man in his savage state; for, if we examine him as a member of a society, and a taught animal, we shall find him quite another creature: As soon as his pride has room to play, and envy, avarice, and ambition begin to catch hold of him, he is roused from his natural innocence and stupidity. As his [122]knowledge increases, his desires are enlarged, and consequently his wants and appetites are multiplied: Hence it must follow, that he will often be crossed in the pursuit of them, and meet with abundance more disappointment to stir up his anger in this than his former condition, and man would in a little time become the most hurtful and obnoxious creature in the world, if let alone, whenever he could over-power his adversary, if he had no mischief to fear but from the person that angered him.

What I just said should only be understood in the context of humans in their primitive state. If we look at people as members of society and as learned beings, we see they are quite different. Once their pride gets a chance to show itself, and feelings like envy, greed, and ambition start to take hold, they wake up from their natural innocence and ignorance. As their knowledge grows, so do their desires, which means their wants and appetites increase. This leads to them often getting frustrated in trying to fulfill those wants, resulting in much more disappointment that fuels their anger compared to their earlier state. If left unchecked, people could quickly become the most harmful and troublesome beings in the world, overpowering their opponents whenever they have no other threats to fear except from those who provoke them.

The first care, therefore, of all governments is, by severe punishments to curb his anger when it does hurt, and so, by increasing his fears, prevent the mischief it might produce. When various laws to restrain him from using force are strictly executed, self-preservation must teach him to be peaceable; and, as it is every body’s business to be as little disturbed as is possible, his fears will be continually augmented and enlarged as he advances in experience, understanding, and foresight. The consequence of this must be, that as the provocations he will receive to anger will be infinite in the civilized state, so his fears to damp it will be the same, and thus, in a little time, he will be taught by his fears to destroy his anger, and by art to consult, in an opposite method, the same self-preservation for which nature before had furnished him with anger, as well as the rest of his passions.

The main responsibility of all governments, then, is to control anger through strict punishments when it causes harm, and by increasing fear, prevent any potential damage. When various laws against the use of force are enforced, self-preservation should encourage him to be peaceful. Since it's everyone's interest to be as undisturbed as possible, his fears will continue to grow as he gains more experience, understanding, and foresight. As a result, while he will face countless provocations to anger in a civilized society, his fears will match that intensity. In time, he'll learn to manage his anger through these fears, adapting his approach to self-preservation, which nature originally equipped him with anger and other emotions to achieve.

The only useful passion, then, that man is possessed of toward the peace and quiet of a society, is his fear, and the more you work upon it the more orderly and governable he will be; for how useful soever anger may be to man, as he is a single creature by himself, yet the society has no manner of occasion for it: But nature being always the same, in the formation of animals, produces all creatures as like to those that beget and bear them, as the place she forms them in, and the various influences from without, will give her leave; and consequently all men, whether they are born in courts or forests, are susceptible of anger. When this passion overcomes (as among all degrees of people it sometimes does) the whole set of fears man has, he has true courage, and will fight as boldly as a lion or a tiger, and at no other time; and I shall endeavour to prove, that whatever is called courage in man, when he is not angry, is spurious and artificial.

The only real passion that people have for the peace and stability of society is fear, and the more you play on that, the more orderly and manageable they become. Even though anger can be useful for individuals, society doesn’t need it at all. Nature consistently shapes animals, creating each creature to reflect those that produce them, based on their environment and external influences. As a result, all humans, whether born in courts or forests, can feel anger. When this emotion takes over—sometimes it does for all kinds of people—they display true courage, fighting as fiercely as a lion or a tiger, but only in those moments. I will argue that what is considered courage in people when they aren't angry is fake and manufactured.

It is possible, by good government, to keep a society always quiet in itself, but nobody can ensure peace from without [123]for ever. The society may have occasion to extend their limits further, and enlarge their territories, or others may invade theirs, or something else will happen that man must be brought to fight; for how civilized soever men may be, they never forget that force goes beyond reason: The politician now must alter his measures, and take off some of man’s fears; he must strive to persuade him, that all what was told him before of the barbarity of killing men ceases, as soon as these men are enemies to the public, and that their adversaries are neither so good nor so strong as themselves. These things well managed will seldom fail of drawing the hardiest, the most quarrelsome, and the most mischievous into combat; but unless they are better qualified, I will not answer for their behaviour there: If once you can make them undervalue their enemies, you may soon stir them up to anger, and while that lasts they will fight with greater obstinacy than any disciplined troops: But if any thing happens that was unforeseen, and a sudden great noise, a tempest, or any strange or uncommon accident that seems to threaten them, intervenes, fear seizes them, disarms their anger, and makes them run away to a man.

It’s possible, with good governance, to keep a society calm within itself, but no one can guarantee lasting peace from outside. The society might need to expand its borders or face invasions, or other events might force people to fight; because no matter how civilized people are, they never forget that force trumps reason. Politicians must change their strategies and alleviate some of people’s fears; they need to convince them that all the talk about the wrongness of killing disappears as soon as those people become enemies of the state, and that their opponents aren’t as good or strong as they are. If managed well, this approach will usually lead the toughest, most aggressive, and most troublesome individuals into battle; but unless they are better prepared, I can’t guarantee their actions in such situations. If you can get them to underestimate their enemies, you can easily provoke them into anger, and while that anger lasts, they’ll fight more fiercely than any trained troops. However, if something unexpected happens, like a sudden loud noise, a storm, or any strange or unusual event that seems threatening, fear will grip them, disarm their anger, and make them flee in unison.

This natural courage, therefore, as soon as people begin to have more wit, must be soon exploded. In the first place, those that have felt the smart of the enemy’s blows, will not always believe what is said to undervalue him, and are often not easily provoked to anger. Secondly, anger consisting in an ebullition of the spirits, is a passion of no long continuance (ira furor brevis est), and the enemies, if they withstand the first shock of these angry people, have commonly the better of it. Thirdly, as long as people are angry, all counsel and discipline are lost upon them, and they can never be brought to use art or conduct in their battles. Anger then, without which no creature has natural courage, being altogether useless in a war to be managed by stratagem, and brought into a regular art, the government must find out an equivalent for courage that will make men fight.

This natural courage, therefore, as soon as people start to be more clever, will soon fade away. First of all, those who have felt the pain of the enemy's attacks won’t always trust what’s said to belittle him, and often they aren’t easily provoked to anger. Secondly, anger, which is a surge of emotions, is a feeling that doesn’t last long (ira furor brevis est), and enemies who can withstand the initial force of these angry people usually end up having the advantage. Thirdly, as long as people are angry, they lose all sense of advice and discipline, and they can never be made to use strategy or planning in their fights. Anger, then, which is essential for any creature to have natural courage, is completely useless in a war that requires strategy and organization, so the leadership must find an alternative for courage that will motivate men to fight.

Whoever would civilize men, and establish them into a body politic, must be thoroughly acquainted with all the passions and appetites, strength and weaknesses of their frame, and understand how to turn their greatest frailties to the advantage of the public. In the Inquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue, I have shown how easily men were induced [124]to believe any thing that is said in their praise. If, therefore, a lawgiver or politician, whom they have a great veneration for, should tell them, that the generality of men had within them a principle of valour distinct from anger, or any other passion, that made them to despise danger, and face death itself with intrepidity, and that they who had the most of it were the most valuable of their kind, it is very likely, considering what has been said, that most of them, though they felt nothing of this principle, would swallow it for truth, and that the proudest, feeling themselves moved at this piece of flattery, and not well versed in distinguishing the passions, might imagine that they felt it heaving in their breasts, by mistaking pride for courage. If but one in ten can be persuaded openly to declare, that he is possessed of this principle, and maintain it against all gainsayers, there will soon be half a dozen that shall assert the same. Whoever has once owned it is engaged, the politician has nothing to do but to take all imaginable care to flatter the pride of those that brag of, and are willing to stand by it a thousand different ways: The same pride that drew him in first will ever after oblige him to defend the assertion, till at last the fear of discovering the reality of his heart, comes to be so great, that it outdoes the fear of death itself. Do but increase man’s pride, and his fear of shame will ever be proportioned to it: for the greater value a man sets upon himself, the more pains he will take, and the greater hardships he will undergo, to avoid shame.

Anyone who wants to civilize people and establish them in a political society must have a deep understanding of all their emotions, desires, strengths, and weaknesses, and know how to turn their biggest flaws into benefits for the public. In the Inquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue, I've demonstrated how easily people can be convinced [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] to believe anything said in their praise. So, if a respected lawmaker or politician tells them that most people possess an intrinsic principle of bravery, separate from anger or any other emotion, which allows them to disregard danger and face death fearlessly, it's very likely that many, even if they don’t truly feel this principle, will accept it as true. The proudest among them, touched by this flattering notion and not skilled in distinguishing their emotions, might mistakenly believe they feel this principle in their hearts, confusing pride for courage. If just one in ten can be convinced to openly claim possession of this principle and defend it against all challengers, soon there will be several others asserting the same. Once someone acknowledges it, they are committed; the politician just needs to carefully cater to the pride of those who boast about it and are eager to support it in countless ways. The same pride that pulled them in will compel them to defend that claim, until the fear of revealing their true feelings becomes so intense that it surpasses their fear of death itself. Just increase a person's pride, and their fear of shame will always match it: the more value a person places on themselves, the more effort they will exert, and the greater the hardships they will face, to avoid embarrassment.

The great art to make man courageous, is first to make him own this principle of valour within, and afterwards to inspire him with as much horror against shame, as nature has given him against death; and that there are things to which man has, or may have, a stronger aversion than he has to death, is evident from suicide. He that makes death his choice, must look upon it as less terrible than what he shuns by it; for whether the evil dreaded be present or to come, real or imaginary, nobody would kill himself wilfully but to avoid something. Lucretia held out bravely against all the attacks of the ravisher, even when he threatened her life; which shows that she valued her virtue beyond it: but when he threatened her reputation with eternal infamy, she fairly surrendered, and then slew herself; a certain sign that she valued her virtue less than her glory, and her life less than either. The fear of death did not make her yield, for she [125]resolved to die before she did it, and her compliance must only be considered as a bribe, to make Tarquin forbear sullying her reputation; so that life had neither the first nor second place in the esteem of Lucretia. The courage, then, which is only useful to the body politic, and what is generally called true valour, is artificial, and consists in a superlative horror against shame, by flattery infused into men of exalted pride.

The key to making a person brave starts with helping them recognize their own inner courage, and then instilling in them a fear of shame that matches their natural fear of death. It’s clear that there are things a person can dread even more than death, as seen with suicide. A person who chooses death must see it as less frightening than what they are trying to escape; whether the feared threat is real or imagined, no one would willingly take their own life without wanting to avoid something. Lucretia stood strong against her attacker, even when he threatened to kill her, showing that she valued her virtue more than her life. But when he threatened her reputation with lifelong disgrace, she gave in and then took her own life, indicating that she valued her virtue less than her honor, and her life less than both. The fear of death didn’t cause her to give in; she had decided to die before submitting, and her compliance should be seen as a way to convince Tarquin not to tarnish her reputation. Thus, life held no significant value for Lucretia. Therefore, the kind of courage that only supports the state, which is often referred to as true valor, is superficial and based on an overwhelming fear of shame, cultivated through flattery in those with high pride.

As soon as the notions of honour and shame are received among a society, it is not difficult to make men fight. First, take care they are persuaded of the justice of their cause; for no man fights heartily that thinks himself in the wrong; then show them that their altars, their possessions, wives, children, and every thing that is near and dear to them, is concerned in the present quarrel, or at least may be influenced by it hereafter; then put feathers in their caps, and distinguish them from others, talk of public-spiritedness, the love of their country, facing an enemy with intrepidity, despising death the bed of honour, and such like high-sounding words, and every proud man will take up arms and fight himself to death before we will turn tail, if it be by daylight. One man in an army is a check upon another, and a hundred of them, that single and without witness, would be all cowards, are, for fear of incurring one another’s contempt, made valiant by being together. To continue and heighten this artificial courage, all that run away ought to be punished with ignominy; those that fought well, whether they did beat or were beaten, must be flattered and solemnly commended; those that lost their limbs rewarded; and those that were killed, ought, above all to be taken notice of, artfully lamented, and to have extraordinary encomiums bestowed upon them; for to pay honours to the dead, will ever be a sure method to make bubbles of the living.

As soon as the ideas of honor and shame are accepted in a society, it’s not hard to get people to fight. First, ensure they’re convinced their cause is just; no one fights passionately if they believe they’re in the wrong. Then, make it clear that their values, possessions, spouses, children, and everything they hold dear is at stake in the current conflict, or might be affected by it later. Next, give them a sense of pride, set them apart from others, and talk about being public-spirited, loving their country, facing an enemy boldly, and viewing death as an honor. With all this, any proud individual will pick up arms and fight to the death before retreating, especially if it’s during the day. Each person in an army keeps an eye on the others, and a hundred who would be cowards alone become brave simply because they’re together, fearing each other’s judgment. To maintain and boost this artificial courage, anyone who flees should be punished with shame; those who fought well, regardless of victory or defeat, must be praised and honored; those who lost limbs should be rewarded; and the fallen should be especially honored, mourned skillfully, and given high praise. Paying tribute to the dead is always a sure way to manipulate the living.

When I say, that the courage made use of in the wars is artificial, I do not imagine that by the same art, all men may be made equally valiant: as men have not an equal share of pride, and differ from one another in shape and inward structure, it is impossible they should be all equally fit for the same uses. Some men will never be able to learn music, and yet make good mathematicians; others will play excellently well upon the violin, and yet be coxcombs as long as they live, let them converse with whom they please. But to show that there is no evasion, I shall prove, that setting aside [126]what I said of artificial courage already, what the greatest heroe differs in from the rankest coward, is altogether corporeal, and depends upon the inward make of man. What I mean is called constitution; by which is understood the orderly or disorderly mixture of the fluids in our body: that constitution which favours courage, consists in the natural strength, elasticity, and due contexture of the finer spirits, and upon them wholly depends what we call stedfastness, resolution, and obstinacy. It is the only ingredient that is common to natural and artificial bravery, and is to either what size is to white walls, which hinders them from coming off, and makes them lasting. That some people are very much, others very little frightened at things that are strange and sudden to them, is likewise altogether owing to the firmness or imbecility in the tone of the spirits. Pride is of no use in a fright, because while it lasts we cannot think, which, being counted a disgrace, is the reason people is always angry with any thing that frightens them, as soon as the surprise is over; and when at the turn of a battle the conquerors give no quarter, and are very cruel, it is a sign their enemies fought well, and had put them first into great fears.

When I say that the courage used in wars is artificial, I don't think that this same method can make all men equally brave. Since people don't share the same level of pride and differ in their physical and internal makeup, it's impossible for everyone to be equally suited for the same tasks. Some people will never be able to learn music and still be good at math; others will play the violin beautifully but remain foolish no matter who they talk to. To prove my point, aside from what I've already said about artificial courage, the main difference between the greatest hero and the biggest coward is purely physical and depends on human anatomy. What I'm referring to is called constitution, which refers to the orderly or disorderly mixture of fluids in our bodies. The constitution that supports courage is based on natural strength, elasticity, and the right balance of finer spirits, and these entirely determine what we call steadfastness, determination, and stubbornness. It’s the only element that is common to both natural and artificial bravery, similar to how a base coat is to white walls, preventing them from peeling and making them durable. The fact that some people are greatly frightened while others are hardly affected by sudden or strange things is also entirely due to the stability or weakness in the tone of their spirits. Pride doesn’t help in moments of fear because when we're frightened, we can’t think straight, which is considered embarrassing. This is why people often get angry at anything that scares them once the shock passes. When the victors in a battle show no mercy and act cruelly, it indicates that their enemies fought well and had instilled great fear in them first.

That resolution depends upon this tone of the spirits, appears likewise from the effects of strong liquors, the fiery particles whereof crowding into the brain, strengthen the spirits; their operation imitates that of anger, which I said before was an ebullition of the spirits. It is for this reason, that most people when they are in drink, are sooner touched and more prone to anger, than at other times, and some raving mad without any provocation at all. It is likewise observed, that brandy makes men more quarrelsome at the same pitch of drunkenness than wine; because the spirits of distilled waters have abundance of fiery particles mixed with them, which the other has not. The contexture of spirits is so weak in some, that though they have pride enough, no art can ever make them fight, or overcome their fears; but this is a defect in the principle of the fluids, as other deformities are faults of the solids. These pusillanimous people, are never thoroughly provoked to anger, where there is any danger, and drinking makes them bolder, but seldom so resolute as to attack any, unless they be women or children, or such who they know dare not resist. This constitution is often influenced by health and sickness, and impaired by great losses of blood; sometimes it is corrected by diet; and it is this which [127]the Duke de la Rochefoucauld means, when he says: vanity, shame, and above all constitution, make up very often the courage of men, and virtue of women.

That determination relies on the state of one's spirits, which is also evident from the effects of strong drinks. The fiery particles in liquor rush into the brain, boosting the spirits; this effect mimics that of anger, which I mentioned earlier is a sudden surge of spirits. For this reason, most people tend to get more emotional and are quicker to anger when they are drunk than at other times, with some even becoming irrationally furious without any provocation. It’s been noted that brandy makes people more combative at the same level of intoxication compared to wine; this is because distilled spirits contain a lot of fiery particles that wine lacks. Some people have such weak spirits that although they might be proud, no amount of encouragement can make them fight or overcome their fears; this reflects a flaw in their fluids, just as other deformities are flaws in the solids. These timid individuals are rarely pushed to anger in dangerous situations, and while drinking makes them bolder, they still seldom become brave enough to confront anyone unless they’re dealing with women, children, or individuals they know won’t resist. This constitution is often affected by health and illness, and can be worsened by significant blood loss; sometimes, it can be improved through diet. This is what [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] the Duke de la Rochesfoucauld refers to when he statesUnderstood! Please provide the text you'd like me to modernize. that vanity, shame, and especially one's constitution often shape the courage of men and the virtue of women.

There is nothing that more improves the useful martial courage I treat of, and at the same time shows it to be artificial, than practice; for when men are disciplined, come to be acquainted with all the tools of death, and engines of destruction, when the shouts, the outcries, the fire and smoke, the grones of wounded, and ghostly looks of dying men, with all the various scenes of mangled carcases and bloody limbs tore off, begin to be familiar to them, their fear abate apace; not that they are now less afraid to die than before, but being used so often to see the same dangers, they apprehend the reality of them less than they did: as they are deservedly valued for every siege they are at, and every battle they are in, it is impossible but the several actions they share in, must continually become as many solid steps by which their pride mounts up; and thus their fear of shame, as I said before, will always be proportioned to their pride, increasing as the apprehension of the danger decreases, it is no wonder that most of them learn to discover little or no fear: and some great generals are able to preserve a presence of mind, and counterfeit a calm serenity within the midst of all the noise, horror, and confusion, that attend a battle.

There’s nothing that improves the practical martial courage I’m discussing, while also revealing it to be somewhat artificial, more than practice. When people are trained, become familiar with all the tools of death and means of destruction, and when the sounds of shouting, cries, flames and smoke, groans of the wounded, and the haunting expressions of dying men, along with all the different scenes of mangled bodies and severed limbs, start to feel familiar, their fear quickly diminishes. It’s not that they are any less afraid of dying than before, but after seeing the same dangers so often, they begin to take the reality of those dangers less seriously. As they are rightfully valued for every siege they participate in and every battle they fight, it’s inevitable that each experience they share becomes a solid step that boosts their pride. Consequently, their fear of shame, as I mentioned earlier, will always relate directly to their pride, increasing as their apprehension of danger decreases. So it’s no surprise that most of them learn to show little to no fear; some great generals can maintain their composure and fake a calm serenity amid all the noise, horror, and chaos of battle.

So silly a creature is man, as that, intoxicated with the fumes of vanity, he can feast on the thoughts of the praises that shall be paid his memory in future ages, with so much ecstacy, as to neglect his present life, nay, court and covet death, if he but imagines that it will add to the glory he had acquired before. There is no pitch of self-denial, that a man of pride and constitution cannot reach, nor any passion so violent but he will sacrifice it to another, which is superior to it; and here I cannot but admire at the simplicity of some good men, who, when they hear of the joy and alacrity with which holy men in persecutions have suffered for their faith, imagine that such constancy must exceed all human force, unless it was supported by some miraculous assistance from Heaven. As most people are willing to acknowledge all the frailties of their species, so they are unacquainted with the strength of our nature, and know not that some men of firm constitution may work themselves up into enthusiasm, by no other help than the violence of their passions; yet, it is certain, that there have been men who only assisted with [128]pride and constitution to maintain the worst of causes, have undergone death and torments, with as much cheerfulness as the best of men, animated with piety and devotion, ever did for the true religion.

So foolish is man that, consumed by the fumes of vanity, he can indulge in thoughts of the praise that will be given to his memory in future generations with such ecstasy that he neglects his present life, even desiring death if he believes it will enhance the glory he has already achieved. There’s no level of self-denial that a proud and strong-willed person can't reach, nor any passion so intense that he won't sacrifice it for another that he believes is more important. Here, I can’t help but admire the naivety of some good people who, upon hearing about the joy and eagerness with which holy individuals have endured persecution for their faith, think that such steadfastness must be beyond human capability unless assisted by some miraculous support from Heaven. While most people readily admit the weaknesses of humanity, they remain unaware of the strength inherent in our nature, not realizing that some strong-willed individuals can generate enthusiasm solely through the intensity of their passions. Still, it’s certain that there have been individuals who, fueled only by pride and willpower to uphold the worst causes, have faced death and torment with as much cheerfulness as the best of men, filled with piety and devotion, have done for the true faith.

To prove this assertion, I could produce many instances; but one or two will be sufficient. Jordanus Bruno of Nola, who wrote that silly piece of blasphemy, called Spaccio della Bestia triumphante, and the infamous Vanini, were both executed for openly professing and teaching of atheism: the latter might have been pardoned the moment before the execution, if he would have retracted his doctrine; but rather than recant, he chose to be burnt to ashes. As he went to the stake, he was so far from showing any concern, that he held his hand out to a physician whom he happened to know, desiring him to judge of the calmness of his mind by the regularity of his pulse, and from thence taking an opportunity of making an impious comparison, uttered a sentence too execrable to be mentioned. To these we may join one Mahomet Effendi, who, as Sir Paul Ricaut tells us, was put to death at Constantinople, for having advanced some notions against the existence of a God. He likewise might have saved his life by confessing his error, and renouncing it for the future; but chose rather to persist in his blasphemies, saying, “Though he had no reward to expect, the love of truth constrained him to suffer martyrdom in its defence.

To prove this claim, I could provide many examples, but one or two will be enough. Giordano Bruno from Nola, who wrote that ridiculous piece of blasphemy called Spaccio della Bestia triunphante, and the infamous Vanini, were both executed for openly declaring and promoting atheism. The latter could have been pardoned just moments before his execution if he had recanted his beliefs; but instead of renouncing them, he chose to be burned alive. As he walked to the stake, he showed no signs of fear at all, even extending his hand to a physician he happened to know, asking him to assess his calmness by checking his pulse. From that, he took the chance to make an irreverent comparison, uttering a remark too horrible to repeat. We can also include Mahomet Effendi, who, as Sir Paul Ricaut tells us, was executed in Constantinople for expressing ideas against the existence of God. He too could have saved himself by admitting he was wrong and promising to change in the future, but he preferred to stick to his blasphemies, saying, “Though he had no reward to expect, the love of truth compelled him to suffer martyrdom in its defense.

I have made this digression chiefly to show the strength of human nature, and what mere man may perform by pride and constitution alone. Man may certainly be as violently roused by his vanity, as a lion is by his anger; and not only this, avarice, revenge, ambition, and almost every passion, pity not excepted, when they are extraordinary, may, by overcoming fear, serve him instead of valour, and be mistaken for it even by himself; as daily experience must teach every body that will examine and look into the motives from which some men act. But that we may more clearly perceive what this pretended principle is really built upon, let us look into the management of military affairs, and we shall find that pride is no where so openly encouraged as there. As for clothes, the very lowest of the commission officers have them richer, or at least more gay and splendid, than are generally wore by other people of four or five times their income. Most of them, and especially those that have families, and can hardly subsist, would be very glad, all Europe over, to be less [129]expensive that way; but it is a force put upon them to uphold their pride, which they do not think on.

I’ve digressed mainly to highlight the strength of human nature and what an ordinary person can achieve through pride and sheer will. A person can be stirred as intensely by their vanity as a lion is by its anger; furthermore, greed, revenge, ambition, and almost every passion—even pity, when taken to extremes—can, by overcoming fear, substitute for courage and be mistaken for it, even by the person themselves. Daily experiences teach anyone willing to investigate the motivations behind some people's actions this lesson. To better understand what this so-called principle is really based on, let’s examine military affairs, where pride is very visibly encouraged. In terms of clothing, even the lowest-ranking officers have uniforms that are more elaborate, or at least more colorful and striking, than what most others making four or five times their salary wear. Many of them, especially those with families struggling to get by, would be more than happy across Europe to spend less on clothing; however, they feel pressured to maintain their pride, often without realizing it.

But the ways and means to rouse man’s pride, and catch him by it, are nowhere more grossly conspicuous, than in the treatment which the common soldiers receive, whose vanity is to be worked upon (because there must be so many) at the cheapest rate imaginable. Things we are accustomed to we do not mind, or else what mortal that never had seen a soldier, could look without laughing upon a man accoutred with so much paltry gaudiness, and affected finery? The coarsest manufacture that can be made of wool, dyed of a brickdust colour, goes down with him, because it is in imitation of scarlet or crimson cloth; and to make him think himself as like his officer as it is possible, with little or no cost, instead of silver or gold lace, his hat is trimmed with white or yellow worsted, which in others would deserve bedlam; yet these fine allurements, and the noise made upon a calf’s skin, have drawn in, and been the destruction of more men in reality, than all the killing eyes and bewitching voices of women ever slew in jest. To-day the swine herd puts on his red coat, and believes every body in earnest that calls him gentleman; and two days after Serjeant Kite gives him a swinging wrap with his cane, for holding his musket an inch higher than he should do. As to the real dignity of the employment, in the two last wars, officers, when recruits were wanted, were allowed to list fellows that were convicted of burglary and other capital crimes, which shows that to be made a soldier is deemed to be a preferment next to hanging. A trooper is yet worse than a foot soldier; for when he is most at ease, he has the mortification of being groom to a horse, that spends more money than himself. When a man reflects on all this, the usage they generally receive from their officers, their pay, and the care that is taken of them, when they are not wanted, must he not wonder how wretches can be so silly as to be proud of being called gentlemen soldiers? Yet if there were not, no art, discipline, or money, would be capable of making them so brave as thousands of them are.

But the ways to boost a man’s pride and catch his attention are nowhere more obvious than in the treatment that common soldiers receive, whose vanity is exploited (since there are so many of them) at the lowest cost possible. We don’t think twice about things we’re used to; otherwise, how could anyone who had never seen a soldier not laugh at a man dressed up in such cheap decorations and silly finery? The roughest wool, dyed a brick-red color, is acceptable to him because it mimics scarlet or crimson cloth; and to make him think he resembles his officer as much as possible, for little or no expense, instead of having silver or gold lace, his hat is trimmed with white or yellow worsted, which would be ridiculous on anyone else. Yet these flashy enticements, and the noise made on a calfskin drum, have lured in and harmed more men in reality than all the enchanting looks and seductive voices of women have ever done in jest. Today, the swineherd puts on his red coat and genuinely believes everyone who calls him a gentleman. Two days later, Serjeant Kite gives him a hard whack with his cane for holding his musket an inch too high. Regarding the actual dignity of the job, in the last two wars, officers could enlist men who had been convicted of burglary and other serious crimes, which shows that becoming a soldier is considered a promotion right before hanging. A cavalryman is even worse off than a foot soldier; because when he is most relaxed, he has the humiliation of being a groom to a horse that costs more than he does. When a person reflects on all this—the treatment they generally receive from their officers, their pay, and the attention given to them when they’re not needed—one has to wonder how anyone could be foolish enough to take pride in being called a gentleman soldier. Yet if there weren’t, no skill, self-control, or money could make them as brave as thousands of them are.

If we will mind what effects man’s bravery, without any other qualifications to sweeten him, would have out of an army, we shall find that it would be very pernicious to the civil society; for if man could conquer all his fears, you would hear of nothing but rapes, murders, and violences of [130]all sorts, and valiant men would be like giants in romances: politics, therefore, discovered in men a mixed-metal principle, which was a compound of justice, honesty, and all the moral virtues joined to courage, and all that were possessed of it turned knights-errant of course. They did abundance of good throughout the world, by taming monsters, delivering the distressed, and killing the oppressors: but the wings of all the dragons being clipped, the giants destroyed, and the damsels every where set at liberty, except some few in Spain and Italy, who remained still captivated by their monsters, the order of chivalry, to whom the standard of ancient honour belonged, has been laid aside some time. It was like their armours very massy and heavy; the many virtues about it made it very troublesome, and as ages grew wiser and wiser, the principle of honour in the beginning of the last century was melted over again, and brought to a new standard; they put in the same weight of courage, half the quantity of honesty, and a very little justice, but not a scrap of any other virtue, which has made it very easy and portable to what it was. However, such as it is, there would be no living without it in a large nation; it is the tie of society, and though we are beholden to our frailties for the chief ingredient of it, there is no virtue, at least that I am acquainted with, that has been half so instrumental to the civilizing of mankind, who in great societies would soon degenerate into cruel villains and treacherous slaves, were honour to be removed from among them.

If we consider the impact of a man's bravery, without any other qualities to soften it, we’ll realize it could be very harmful to society. If a man could overcome all his fears, we would only hear about rapes, murders, and all kinds of violence, and brave men would be like giants in fairy tales. Therefore, politics revealed to men a mixed principle that combined justice, honesty, and all the moral virtues with courage, and those who embraced it naturally became knights-errant. They did a lot of good in the world by taming monsters, rescuing the distressed, and defeating oppressors. However, with all the dragons defeated, the giants destroyed, and the damsels freed—except for a few in Spain and Italy, who still remained captive to their monsters—the order of chivalry, which once upheld the ancient standard of honor, has been set aside for some time. It was like their armor: very heavy and burdensome. The many virtues associated with it made it difficult to bear, and as the ages became more enlightened, the principle of honor at the start of the last century was redefined, incorporating the same amount of courage, half as much honesty, and very little justice, while completely omitting any other virtue, making it much lighter and easier to bear than it used to be. Still, despite its flaws, there would be no civilization without it in a large society; it is the glue that holds society together, and even though we owe our weaknesses for its main ingredient, I don’t know of any virtue that has been as crucial in civilizing humanity. In large groups, people would quickly devolve into cruel villains and treacherous slaves if honor were to be taken away from them.

As to the duelling part which belongs to it, I pity the unfortunate whose lot it is; but to say, that those who are guilty of it go by false rules, or mistake the notions of honour, is ridiculous; for either there is no honour at all, or it teaches men to resent injuries, and accept of challenges. You may as well deny that it is the fashion what you see every body wear, as to say that demanding and giving satisfaction is against the laws of true honour. Those that rail at duelling do not consider the benefit the society receives from that fashion: if every ill-bred fellow might use what language he pleased, without being called to an account for it, all conversation would be spoiled. Some grave people tell us, that the Greeks and Romans were such valiant men, and yet knew nothing of duelling but in their country’s quarrel. This is very true, but, for that reason, the kings and princes in Homer gave one another worse language than [131]our porters and hackney coachmen would be able to bear without resentment.

As for the dueling aspect that comes with it, I feel sorry for those unfortunate enough to be involved; however, to claim that those who partake in it are following false principles or misinterpreting the idea of honor is absurd. Either there's no real honor at all, or it teaches people to respond to wrongs and accept challenges. It's just as ridiculous to deny the current fashion that everyone follows as it is to say that seeking and granting satisfaction goes against true honor. Those who criticize dueling fail to see the benefit society gains from this practice: if every rude person could say whatever they wanted without facing consequences, all conversations would be ruined. Some serious individuals remind us that the Greeks and Romans were brave men but knew nothing of dueling except in matters of their country. This is true, but because of that, the kings and princes in Homer's tales often insulted each other far worse than our porters and taxi drivers would tolerate without getting angry.

Would you hinder duelling, pardon nobody that offends that way, and make the laws as severe as you can, but do not take away the thing itself, the custom of it. This will not only prevent the frequency of it, but likewise, by rendering the most resolute and most powerful cautious and circumspect in their behaviour, polish and brighten society in general. Nothing civilizes a man equally as his fear, and if not all (as my lord Rochester said), at least most men would be cowards if they durst. The dread of being called to an account keeps abundance in awe; and there are thousands of mannerly and well-accomplished gentlemen in Europe, who would have been insolent and insupportable coxcombs without it: besides, if it was out of fashion to ask satisfaction for injuries which the law cannot take hold of, there would be twenty times the mischief done there is now, or else you must have twenty times the constables and other officers to keep the peace. I confess that though it happens but seldom, it is a calamity to the people, and generally the families it falls upon; but there can be no perfect happiness in this world, and all felicity has an allay. The act itself is uncharitable, but when above thirty in a nation destroy themselves in one year, and not half that number are killed by others, I do not think the people can be said to love their neighbours worse than themselves. It is strange that a nation should grudge to see, perhaps, half-a-dozen men sacrificed in a twelvemonth to obtain so valuable a blessing, as the politeness of manners, the pleasure of conversation, and the happiness of company in general, that is often so willing to expose, and sometimes loses as many thousands in a few hours, without knowing whether it will do any good or not.

Would you stop dueling, refuse to excuse anyone who behaves that way, and enforce the strictest laws possible, but don’t eliminate the practice itself? This approach wouldn’t just reduce how often it happens; it would also make even the strongest and most fearless think twice about their actions, ultimately refining and improving society as a whole. Nothing civilizes a person quite like fear, and while not everyone (as my lord Rochester said) would be a coward if they could be, most men would be. The fear of being held accountable keeps many people in check, and there are countless polite and well-mannered gentlemen in Europe who would be rude and unbearable without it. Moreover, if it became out of style to seek vengeance for offenses the law can’t address, there would be twenty times the damage done now, or else we’d need twenty times as many peacekeepers and officials to maintain order. I admit that while it happens infrequently, it is a tragedy for the society and usually for the families involved; however, perfect happiness doesn’t exist in this world, and all joy comes with some drawbacks. The act itself is unkind, but when over thirty people in a nation take their own lives in a year and not even half that number die at the hands of others, I don’t think you can say that people care less for their neighbors than for themselves. It’s odd that a country would begrudge seeing, perhaps, half a dozen men sacrificed in a year to gain such a valuable benefit as good manners, enjoyable conversations, and the joy of socializing, while it often allows thousands to perish in just a few hours, with no guarantee that it will bring any positive outcome.

I would have nobody that reflects on the mean original of honour, complain of being gulled and made a property by cunning politicians, but desire every body to be satisfied, that the governors of societies, and those in high stations, are greater bubbles to pride than any of the rest. If some great men had not a superlative pride, and every body understood the enjoyment of life, who would be a lord chancellor of England, a prime minister of state in France, or what gives more fatigue, and not a sixth part of the profit of either, a grand pensionary of Holland? The reciprocal services [132]which all men pay to one another, are the foundation of the society. The great ones are not flattered with their high birth for nothing: it is to rouse their pride, and excite them to glorious actions, that we extol their race, whether it deserves it or not; and some men have been complimented with the greatness of their family, and the merit of their ancestors, when in the whole generation you could not find two but what were uxorious fools, silly biggots, noted poltrons, or debauched whore-masters. The established pride that is inseparable from those that are possessed of titles already, makes them often strive as much not to seem unworthy of them, as the working ambition of others that are yet without, renders them industrious and indefatigable to deserve them. When a gentleman is made a baron or an earl, it is as great a check upon him in many respects, as a gown and cassock are to a young student that has been newly taken into orders.

I wouldn’t want anyone who thinks about the harsh reality of honor to complain about being tricked and turned into a pawn by crafty politicians. Instead, I want everyone to realize that the leaders of societies and those in high positions are often more caught up in pride than anyone else. If some powerful individuals didn’t have an extreme sense of pride, and if everyone understood how to enjoy life, who would want to be the Lord Chancellor of England, the Prime Minister of France, or, even more exhausting for less reward, a Grand Pensionary of Holland? The mutual help that everyone provides to one another is the foundation of society. The elite aren’t praised for their noble birth for no reason: it’s to boost their pride and inspire them to achieve great things that we celebrate their lineage, whether it’s deserved or not. Some people have been praised for their family's prominence and their ancestors’ accomplishments, even when, throughout the entire family line, you could find only those who were foolish, narrow-minded, cowardly, or notorious for their debauchery. The entrenched pride that comes with having titles often makes those who hold them strive just as hard not to appear unworthy as the aspiring individuals without titles work tirelessly to earn them. When a gentleman is elevated to a baron or an earl, it demands as many considerations from him as a robe and cassock do from a young scholar who has just entered the clergy.

The only thing of weight that can be said against modern honour is, that it is directly opposite to religion. The one bids you bear injuries with patience; the other tells you if you do not resent them, you are not fit to live. Religion commands you to leave all revenge to God; honour bids you trust your revenge to nobody but yourself, even where the law would do it for you: religion plainly forbids murder; honour openly justifies it: religion bids you not shed blood upon any account whatever; honour bids you fight for the least trifle: religion is built on humility, and honour upon pride: how to reconcile them must be left to wiser heads than mine.

The only significant criticism of modern honor is that it directly opposes religion. Religion encourages you to endure injuries patiently, while honor insists that if you don’t retaliate, you’re not worthy of living. Religion instructs you to leave all vengeance to God; honor demands that you take revenge into your own hands, even when the law would do it for you: religion clearly prohibits murder; honor openly justifies it. Religion tells you not to shed blood for any reason at all; honor tells you to fight over the smallest issues. Religion is based on humility, while honor is based on pride. How to reconcile them is a question for smarter people than me.

The reason why there are so few men of real virtue, and so many of real honour, is, because all the recompence a man has of a virtuous action, is the pleasure of doing it, which most people reckon but poor pay; but the self-denial a man of honour submits to in one appetite, is immediately rewarded by the satisfaction he receives from another, and what he abates of his avarice, or any other passion, is doubly repaid to his pride: besides, honour gives large grains of allowance, and virtue none. A man of honour must not cheat or tell a lie; he must punctually repay what he borrows at play, though the creditor has nothing to show for it; but he may drink, and swear, and owe money to all the tradesmen in town, without taking notice of their dunning. A man of honour must be true to his prince and country, while he is in their service; but if [133]he thinks himself not well used, he may quit it, and do them all the mischief he can. A man of honour must never change his religion for interest; but he may be as debauched as he pleases, and never practise any. He must make no attempts upon his friend’s wife, daughter, sister, or any body that is trusted to his care; but he may lie with all the world besides.

The reason there are so few truly virtuous men and so many men of honor is that the only reward for a virtuous action is the pleasure of doing it, which most people consider to be poor pay. However, the self-denial that a man of honor experiences in one desire is quickly compensated by the satisfaction he gets from another. What he gives up from his greed or any other passion is repaid twice over in pride. Additionally, honor offers lots of leeway, while virtue offers none. A man of honor shouldn't cheat or lie; he must pay back what he borrows when he plays, even if the lender has no proof of it. But he can drink and swear and owe money to all the local tradesmen without worrying about their nagging. A man of honor must be loyal to his prince and country while in their service, but if he feels mistreated, he can leave and do as much damage as he can. A man of honor should never change his religion for personal gain, but he can live as debauched as he wants and never actually practice any faith. He must not make a move on his friend’s wife, daughter, sister, or anyone entrusted to his care, but he can be with anyone else without issue.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 353. No limner for his art is fam’d,

Line 353. No artist for his craft is renowned,

Stone-cutters, carvers are not nam’d.

Stone-cutters and carvers are unnamed.

It is, without doubt, that among the consequences of a national honesty and frugality, it would be one not to build any new houses, or use new materials as long as there were old ones enough to serve. By this three parts in four, of masons, carpenters, bricklayers, &c. would want employment; and the building trade being once destroyed, what would become of limning, carving, and other arts that are ministering to luxury, and have been carefully forbid by those lawgivers that preferred a good and honest, to a great and wealthy society, and endeavoured to render their subjects rather virtuous than rich. By a law of Lycurgus, it was enacted, that the ceilings of the Spartan houses should only be wrought by the ax, and their gates and doors only smoothed by the saw; and this, says Plutarch, was not without mystery: for if Epaminondas could say with so good a grace, inviting some of his friends to his table: “Come, gentlemen, be secure, treason would never come to such a poor dinner as this:” Why might not this great lawgiver, in all probability, have thought that such ill-favoured houses would never be capable of receiving luxury and superfluity?

Without a doubt, one consequence of national honesty and frugality would be not building any new houses or using new materials as long as enough old ones were available. This would leave about three-quarters of masons, carpenters, bricklayers, etc., without work. Once the building trade is destroyed, what would happen to painting, carving, and other arts that cater to luxury, which have been carefully prohibited by lawmakers who valued a good and honest society over a wealthy one and aimed to make their citizens more virtuous than rich? According to a law from Lycurgus, it was mandated that the ceilings of Spartan homes should only be worked on with an axe, and their gates and doors should only be smoothed with a saw; and this, Plutarch says, was not without meaning. For if Epaminondas could elegantly invite some friends to his table with, “Come, gentlemen, rest easy, treason would never come to such a meager dinner as this,” could it not be that this great lawgiver believed that such unattractive houses would never be suited for luxury and excess?

It is reported, as the same author tells us, that Leotichidas, the first of that name, was so little used to the sight of carved work, that being entertained at Corinth in a stately room, he was much surprised to see the timber and ceiling so finely wrought, and asked his host whether the trees grew so in his country.

It is reported, as the same author tells us, that Leotichidas, the first of that name, was so unaccustomed to seeing carved work that while being hosted in a grand room in Corinth, he was astonished to see the beautifully crafted beams and ceiling, and asked his host if trees grew like that in his country.

The same want of employment would reach innumerable callings; and, among the rest, that of the

The same lack of jobs would affect countless professions, including that of the

Weavers that join’d rich silk with plate,

Weavers who combined rich silk with metal,

And all the trades subordinate,

And all the trades below,

[134]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

(as the fable has it) would be one of the first that should have reason to complain; for the price of land and houses being, by the removal of the vast numbers that had left the hive, sunk very low on the one side, and every body abhorring all other ways of gain, but such as were strictly honest on the other, it is not probable that many without pride or prodigality should be able to wear cloth of gold and silver, or rich brocades. The consequence of which would be, that not only the weaver, but likewise the silver-spinner, the flatter, the wire-drawer, the bar-man, and the refiner, would, in a little time be affected with this frugality.

(as the fable goes) would be one of the first to have a reason to complain; because the price of land and houses had dropped significantly due to the many people who had left the hive, while everyone was avoiding any means of making money that wasn’t completely honest. It's unlikely that many people, without being arrogant or wasteful, could afford to wear cloth made of gold and silver or fancy brocades. As a result, not only would the weaver be affected, but also the silversmith, the flatterer, the wire-drawer, the bar-man, and the refiner would soon feel the impact of this frugality.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 367. ——To live great,

Live great,

Had made her husband rob the state.

Had made her husband steal from the state.

What our common rogues, when they are going to be hanged, chiefly complain of, as the cause of their untimely end, is, next to the neglect of the Sabbath, their having kept company with ill women, meaning whores; and I do not question, but that among the lesser villains, many venture their necks to indulge and satisfy their low amours. But the words that have given occasion to this remark, may serve to hint to us, that among the great ones, men are often put upon such dangerous projects, and forced into such pernicious measures by their wives, as the most subtle mistress never could have persuaded them to. I have shown already, that the worst of women, and most profligate of the sex, did contribute to the consumption of superfluities, as well as the necessaries of life, and consequently were beneficial to many peaceable drudges, that work hard to maintain their families, and have no worse design than an honest livelihood. Let them be banished, notwithstanding, says a good man: When every strumpet is gone, and the land wholly freed from lewdness, God Almighty will pour such blessings upon it, as will vastly exceed the profits that are now got by harlots. This perhaps would be true; but I can make it evident, that, with or without prostitutes, nothing could make amends, for the detriment trade would sustain, if all those of that sex, who enjoy the happy state of matrimony, should act and behave themselves as a sober wise man could wish them.

What our usual criminals complain about most when facing execution is, next to ignoring the Sabbath, their associations with bad women, meaning prostitutes. I have no doubt that among the lesser offenders, many risk their lives to indulge their low desires. However, the words that led to this observation may suggest that among the powerful, men are often pushed into risky and harmful actions by their wives in ways that no clever mistress could ever convince them to. I’ve already shown that the worst women and the most immoral among them contribute to the consumption of both excess and necessities of life, and as a result, they provide support to many hardworking individuals trying to support their families, who have no worse intentions than to earn a decent living. Despite this, a well-meaning person might say they should be banished. Once every prostitute is gone and the land is completely free of immorality, God will bestow blessings that far exceed the profits made from harlots. This might be true; however, I can clearly show that, with or without sex workers, nothing could compensate for the damage the trade would suffer if all those of that gender, who are happily married, behaved as a wise and sober person would hope.

The variety of work that is performed, and the number of hands employed to gratify the fickleness and luxury of [135]women, is prodigious, and if only the married ones should hearken to reason and just remonstrances, think themselves sufficiently answered with the first refusal, and never ask a second time what had been once denied them: If, I say, married women would do this, and then lay out no money but what their husbands knew, and freely allowed of, the consumption of a thousand things, they now make use of, would be lessened by at least a fourth part. Let us go from house to house, and observe the way of the world only among the middling people, creditable shop-keepers, that spend two or three hundred a-year, and we shall find the women when they have half a score suits of clothes, two or three of them not the worse for wearing, will think it a sufficient plea for new ones, if they can say that they have never a gown or petticoat, but what they have been often seen in, and are known by, especially at church; I do not speak now of profuse extravagant women, but such as are counted prudent and moderate in their desires.

The amount of work done and the number of people involved to satisfy the whims and luxuries of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]women is overwhelming. If only married women would listen to reason and reasonable objections, consider the first refusal enough, and never ask again for what was once denied: If, I say, married women would do this, and only spend money that their husbands knew about and approved of, the waste on countless items they currently use would decrease by at least a quarter. Let’s go from house to house and take a look at everyday life among middle-class people, respectable shopkeepers who spend two or three hundred a year. We’ll see that when women have a dozen outfits, with two or three still in good shape, they think it’s a good enough excuse for new ones if they claim they have no gown or petticoat that hasn’t been seen often and is recognized, especially at church. I’m not talking about excessively extravagant women, but those who are considered sensible and moderate in their wants.

If by this pattern we should in proportion judge of the highest ranks, where the richest clothes are but a trifle to their other expences, and not forget the furniture of all sorts, equipages, jewels, and buildings of persons of quality, we should find the fourth part I speak of a vast article in trade, and that the loss of it would be a greater calamity to such a nation as ours, than it is possible to conceive any other, a raging pestilence not excepted: for the death of half a million of people could not cause a tenth part of the disturbance to the kingdom, than the same number of poor unemployed would certainly create, if at once they were to be added to those, that already, one way or other, are a burden to the society.

If we use this pattern to judge the highest ranks, where the fanciest clothes are just a small part of their overall expenses, and we also consider all kinds of furniture, vehicles, jewelry, and estates owned by wealthy people, we would see that the category I’m talking about is a huge part of trade. The loss of it would be a bigger disaster for a nation like ours than any other scenario imaginable, including a serious plague. The death of half a million people wouldn’t cause a tenth of the disruption to the kingdom that the same number of unemployed poor people would create if they suddenly joined those who are already, in one way or another, a burden to society.

Some few men have a real passion for their wives, and are fond of them without reserve; others that do not care, and have little occasion for women, are yet seemingly uxorious, and love out of vanity; they take delight in a handsome wife, as a coxcomb does in a fine horse, not for the use he makes of it, but because it is his: The pleasure lies in the consciousness of an uncontrolable possession, and what follows from it, the reflection on the mighty thoughts he imagines others to have of his happiness. The men of either sort may be very lavish to their wives, and often preventing their wishes, crowd new clothes, and other finery upon them, faster than they can ask it, but the greatest part are wiser, [136]than to indulge the extravagances of their wives so far, as to give them immediately every thing they are pleased to fancy. It is incredible what vast quantity of trinkets, as well as apparel, are purchased and used by women, which they could never have come at by any other means, than pinching their families, marketing, and other ways of cheating and pilfering from their husbands: Others, by ever teazing their spouses, tire them into compliance, and conquer even obstinate churls by perseverance, and their assiduity of asking: A third sort are outrageous at a denial, and by downright noise and scolding, bully their tame fools out of any thing they have a mind to; while thousands, by the force of wheedling, know how to overcome the best weighed reasons, and the most positive reiterated refusals; the young and beautiful, especially, laugh at all remonstrances and denials, and few of them scruple to employ the most tender minutes of wedlock to promote a sordid interest. Here, had I time, I could inveigh with warmth against those base, those wicked women, who calmly play their arts and false deluding charms against our strength and prudence, and act the harlots with their husbands! Nay, she is worse than whore, who impiously profanes and prostitutes the sacred rites of love to vile ignoble ends; that first excites to passion, and invites to joy with seeming ardour, then racks our fondness for no other purpose than to extort a gift, while full of guile in counterfeited transports, she watches for the moment when men can least deny.

Some men truly love their wives and care for them wholeheartedly; others, who aren't that interested in women, can still appear doting and love out of vanity. They enjoy having a beautiful wife just as a show-off enjoys a fancy car, not for its practical use but simply because it's theirs. The pleasure comes from knowing they possess something uncontestable and thinking about how others perceive their happiness. Both types of men might shower their wives with gifts, often anticipating their desires and piling on clothes and other luxuries faster than the wives can ask for them. However, most men are cleverer [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] than to indulge their wives’ whims to the point of giving them everything they fancy immediately. It's astonishing how much jewelry and clothing women accumulate, often through pinching their families, shopping smartly, or other sneaky ways of getting from their husbands. Some women wear down their partners with constant nagging until they give in, while others loudly complain to bully their compliant husbands into submission. Many, through charming persuasion, manage to wear down the best arguments and repeated refusals. The young and attractive, in particular, often laugh off any objections, and many don’t hesitate to use intimate moments to further their own interests. If I had the time, I could passionately criticize those unworthy and deceitful women who manipulate and charm their husbands, acting like harlots! A woman is even worse than a prostitute if she shamelessly misuses love for base purposes; she first ignites passion and invites joy with feigned enthusiasm, then exploits our affection solely to extract gifts, all while being sly in her fake displays of desire, waiting for the moment when men are least likely to deny her.

I beg pardon for this start out of my way, and desire the experienced reader duly to weigh what has been said as to the main purpose, and after that call to mind the temporal blessings, which men daily hear not only toasted and wished for, when people are merry and doing of nothing; but likewise gravely and solemnly prayed for in churches, and other religious assemblies, by clergymen of all sorts and sizes: And as soon as he shall have laid these things together, and, from what he has observed in the common affairs of life, reasoned upon them consequentially without prejudice, I dare flatter myself, that he will be obliged to own, that a considerable portion of what the prosperity of London and trade in general, and consequently the honour, strength, safety, and all the worldly interest of the nation consist in, depend entirely on the deceit and vile stratagems of women; and that humility, content, meekness, obedience to reasonable husbands, [137]frugality, and all the virtues together, if they were possessed of them in the most eminent degree, could not possibly be a thousandth part so serviceable, to make an opulent, powerful, and what we call a flourishing kingdom, than their most hateful qualities.

I apologize for starting off on a tangent and ask that the seasoned reader carefully consider what’s been said about the main purpose. After that, think about the blessings we often hear people wishing for when they’re happy and relaxed, as well as those that are solemnly prayed for in churches and religious gatherings by clergy of all types: Once he has put these ideas together and, based on what he has seen in everyday life, thought about them logically and without bias, I believe he will have to admit that a significant part of London’s prosperity and trade, and by extension the honor, strength, safety, and all the worldly interests of the nation, relies entirely on the deceit and cunning strategies of women. Moreover, humility, contentment, meekness, obedience to reasonable husbands, frugality, and all the virtues combined, even if they were possessed to the highest degree, couldn’t possibly be a fraction as beneficial in creating a wealthy, powerful, and what we call a thriving kingdom as their most disliked traits.

I do not question, but many of my readers will be startled at this assertion, when they look on the consequences that may be drawn from it; and I shall be asked, whether people may not as well be virtuous in a populous, rich, wide, extended kingdom, as in a small, indigent state or principality, that is poorly inhabited? And if that be impossible, Whether it is not the duty of all sovereigns to reduce their subjects, as to wealth and numbers, as much as they can? If I allow they may, I own myself in the wrong; and if I affirm the other, my tenets will justly be called impious, or at least dangerous to all large societies. As it is not in this place of the book only, but a great many others, that such queries might be made even by a well-meaning reader, I shall here explain myself, and endeavour to solve those difficulties, which several passages might have raised in him, in order to demonstrate the consistency of my opinion to reason, and the strictest morality.

I don’t doubt it, but many of my readers might be surprised by this claim when they consider the implications. They might ask whether people can be virtuous in a large, wealthy, expansive kingdom just as well as in a small, poor state or principality with few inhabitants. And if that isn’t possible, is it not the responsibility of all rulers to reduce their subjects' wealth and population as much as they can? If I say they can, then I admit I’m wrong; and if I say they can’t, then my beliefs might justifiably be seen as immoral, or at least harmful to larger societies. Since these questions could arise not just in this part of the book but also in many others, I’ll explain myself here and try to address the difficulties that various passages may raise, in order to show the consistency of my views with reason and the highest moral standards.

I lay down as a first principle, that in all societies, great or small, it is the duty of every member of it to be good, that virtue ought to be encouraged, vice discountenanced, the laws obeyed, and the transgressors punished. After this I affirm, that if we consult history, both ancient and modern, and take a view of what has passed in the world, we shall find that human nature, since the fall of Adam, has always been the same, and that the strength and frailties of it have ever been conspicuous in one part of the globe or other, without any regard to ages, climates, or religion. I never said, nor imagined, that man could not be virtuous as well in a rich and mighty kingdom, as in the most pitiful commonwealth; but I own it is my sense, that no society can be raised into such a rich and mighty kingdom, or so raised, subsist in their wealth and power for any considerable time, without the vices of man.

I start with the basic idea that in all societies, big or small, it’s every member’s responsibility to be good. Virtue should be promoted, vice should be discouraged, laws should be followed, and wrongdoers should face consequences. Looking at history, both ancient and modern, we see that human nature has remained the same since Adam’s fall. The strengths and weaknesses of humanity are evident in different parts of the world, regardless of time, climate, or religion. I never claimed that people can’t be virtuous in a wealthy, powerful kingdom as well as in a struggling society; however, I do believe that no society can grow into a rich and powerful kingdom or maintain its wealth and power for a significant period without the vices of humanity.

This, I imagine, is sufficiently proved throughout the book; and as human nature still continues the same, as it has always been for so many thousand years, we have no great reason to suspect a future change in it, while the world endures. Now, I cannot see what immorality there is in [138]showing a man the origin and power of those passions, which so often, even unknowingly to himself, hurry him away from his reason; or that there is any impiety in putting him upon his guard against himself, and the secret stratagems of self-love, and teaching him the difference between such actions as proceed from a victory over the passions, and those that are only the result of a conquest which one passion obtains over another; that is, between real and counterfeited virtue. It is an admirable saying of a worthy divine, That though many discoveries have been made in the world of self-love, there is yet abundance of terra incognita left behind. What hurt do I do to man, if I make him more known to himself than he was before? But we are all so desperately in love with flattery, that we can never relish a truth that is mortifying, and I do not believe that the immortality of the soul, a truth broached long before Christianity, would have ever found such a general reception in human capacities as it has, had it not been a pleasing one, that extolled, and was a compliment to the whole species, the meanest and most miserable not excepted.

This, I think, is clearly demonstrated throughout the book; and since human nature has remained the same for so many thousands of years, we have no good reason to expect any significant change in it while the world exists. Now, I don’t see what’s immoral about [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] showing someone the origins and influence of those passions that often drive him away from his reason, even without him realizing it; nor do I think there’s any irreverence in cautioning him against himself, and the hidden tricks of self-love, and in teaching him the difference between actions that come from mastery over passions and those that result from one passion dominating another; that is, between true and false virtue. It’s a great point made by a respected scholar, that although many insights into self-love have been uncovered, there’s still plenty of terra incognita left unexplored. What harm am I doing if I help someone understand himself better? But we are all so desperately in love with flattery that we can never accept a truth that’s uncomfortable, and I don’t believe the idea of the immortality of the soul, a concept that existed long before Christianity, would have been so widely accepted by people if it hadn’t been a pleasing notion that celebrated and flattered all of humanity, even the lowest and most miserable among us.

Every one loves to hear the thing well spoke of that he has a share in, even bailiffs, gaol-keepers, and the hangman himself would have you think well of their functions; nay, thieves and house breakers have a greater regard to those of their fraternity, than they have for honest people; and I sincerely believe, that it is chiefly self-love that has gained this little treatise (as it was before the last impression), so many enemies; every one looks upon it as an affront done to himself, because it detracts from the dignity, and lessens the fine notions he had conceived of mankind, the most worshipful company he belongs to. When I say that societies cannot be raised to wealth and power, and the top of earthly glory, without vices, I do not think that, by so saying, I bid men be vicious, any more than I bid them be quarrelsome or covetous, when I affirm that the profession of the law could not be maintained in such numbers and splendor, if there was not abundance of too selfish and litigious people.

Everyone loves to hear good things about what they’re involved in, even bailiffs, guards, and even the executioner would want you to think positively about their jobs; in fact, thieves and burglars often care more about their own kind than they do about honest people. I truly believe that it’s mostly self-interest that's made this little essay (as it was before the last edition) so unpopular; each person sees it as a personal insult because it takes away from the dignity and diminishes the high opinion they have of humanity—the esteemed group they belong to. When I say that societies can't reach wealth and power, and the height of earthly glory, without vices, I don’t mean to encourage people to be immoral, any more than I’m suggesting they should be argumentative or greedy when I state that the legal profession couldn’t exist in such numbers and prestige if there weren’t plenty of overly selfish and litigious individuals.

But as nothing would more clearly demonstrate the falsity of my notions, than that the generality of the people should fall in with them, so I do not expect the approbation of the multitude. I write not to many, nor seek for any well-wishers, but among the few that can think abstractly, and have their minds elevated above the vulgar. If I have shown [139]the way to worldly greatness, I have always, without hesitation, preferred the road that leads to virtue.

But nothing would prove the falsehood of my ideas more clearly than if most people agreed with them, so I don’t expect the approval of the masses. I don’t write for many, nor do I seek any supporters, but rather for the few who can think abstractly and have minds that rise above the ordinary. If I have shown [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the way to worldly success, I have always preferred the path that leads to virtue without any doubt.

Would you banish fraud and luxury, prevent profaneness and irreligion, and make the generality of the people charitable, good, and virtuous; break down the printing-presses, melt the founds, and burn all the books in the island, except those at the universities, where they remain unmolested, and suffer no volume in private hands but a Bible: knock down foreign trade, prohibit all commerce with strangers, and permit no ships to go to sea, that ever will return, beyond fisher-boats. Restore to the clergy, the king and the barons their ancient privileges, prerogatives, and professions: build new churches, and convert all the coin you can come at into sacred utensils: erect monasteries and alms-houses in abundance, and let no parish be without a charity-school. Enact sumptuary laws, and let your youth be inured to hardship: inspire them with all the nice and most refined notions of honour and shame, of friendship and of heroism, and introduce among them a great variety of imaginary rewards: then let the clergy preach abstinence and self-denial to others, and take what liberty they please for themselves; let them bear the greatest sway in the management of state-affairs, and no man be made lord-treasurer but a bishop.

Would you get rid of fraud and luxury, stop inappropriate behavior and irreligion, and encourage most people to be charitable, good, and virtuous? Tear down printing presses, melt down metal, and burn all the books on the island, except those at the universities, which would be left untouched, and allow no private possession of anything but a Bible? Cut off foreign trade, ban all commerce with outsiders, and allow no ships to go to sea that will ever return, except for fishing boats. Restore the ancient rights, privileges, and roles of the clergy, the king, and the barons. Build new churches and turn any money you can find into sacred items. Erect plenty of monasteries and charity houses, and ensure no parish is without a charity school. Make laws about spending, and let your youth get used to hardship. Instill in them the most refined ideas of honor and shame, friendship, and heroism, and introduce a wide range of imagined rewards. Then let the clergy preach self-control and self-denial to others while taking any liberties they want for themselves; let them have the most influence in managing state affairs, and ensure that no one is made lord treasurer unless they are a bishop.

But by such pious endeavours, and wholesome regulations, the scene would be soon altered; the greatest part of the covetous, the discontented, the restless and ambitious villains, would leave the land; vast swarms of cheating knaves would abandon the city, and be dispersed throughout the country: artificers would learn to hold the plough, merchants turn farmers, and the sinful overgrown Jerusalem, without famine, war, pestilence, or compulsion, be emptied in the most easy manner, and ever after cease to be dreadful to her sovereigns. The happy reformed kingdom would by this means be crowded in no part of it, and every thing necessary for the sustenance of man, be cheap and abound: on the contrary, the root of so many thousand evils, money, would be very scarce, and as little wanted, where every man should enjoy the fruits of his own labour, and our own dear manufacture unmixed, be promiscuously wore by the lord and the peasant. It is impossible, that such a change of circumstances should not influence the manners of a nation, and render them temperate, honest, and sincere; and from the next generation we might reasonably expect a more healthy [140]and robust offspring than the present; an harmless, innocent, and well-meaning people, that would never dispute the doctrine of passive obedience, nor any other orthodox principles, but be submissive to superiors, and unanimous in religious worship.

But through these dedicated efforts and wholesome regulations, the situation would soon change; most of the greedy, dissatisfied, restless, and ambitious wrongdoers would leave the land. Huge numbers of deceitful tricksters would abandon the city and spread out across the countryside. Skilled workers would learn to farm, merchants would become farmers, and the sinful, overgrown Jerusalem would be emptied easily, without famine, war, disease, or force, and would no longer be a threat to its rulers. The reformed kingdom would be balanced throughout, and everything necessary for people's survival would be affordable and plentiful. In contrast, the root of many problems—money—would be scarce and less needed, allowing everyone to enjoy the fruits of their own labor, and our own beloved handcrafted goods would be worn freely by both lords and peasants. It’s hard to believe that such a change in circumstances wouldn’t influence the behaviors of a nation, making them more moderate, honest, and sincere; from the next generation, we could reasonably expect a healthier and stronger population than the current one—people who are harmless, innocent, and well-meaning, who would never question the doctrine of passive obedience or any other orthodox principles, but would be respectful to their superiors and united in worship.

Here I fancy myself interrupted by an Epicure, who, not to want a restorative diet in case of necessity, is never without live ortolans; and I am told that goodness and probity are to be had at a cheaper rate than the ruin of a nation, and the destruction of all the comforts of life; that liberty and property may be maintained without wickedness or fraud, and men be good subjects without being slaves, and religious though they refused to be priest-rid; that to be frugal and saving is a duty incumbent only on those, whose circumstances require it, but that a man of a good estate does his country a service by living up to the income of it; that as to himself, he is so much master of his appetites, that he can abstain from any thing upon occasion; that where true Hermitage was not to be had, he could content himself with plain Bourdeaux, if it had a good body; that many a morning, instead of St. Lawrence, he has made a shift with Fronteniac, and after dinner given Cyprus wine, and even Madeira, when he has had a large company, and thought it extravagant to treat with Tockay; but that all voluntary mortifications are superstitious, only belonging to blind zealots and enthusiasts. He will quote my Lord Shaftsbury against me, and tell me that people may be virtuous and sociable without self-denial; that it is an affront to virtue to make it inaccessible, that I make a bugbear of it to frighten men from it as a thing impracticable; but that for his part he can praise God, and at the same time enjoy his creatures with a good conscience; neither will he forget any thing to his purpose of what I have said, page 66. He will ask me at last, whether the legislature, the wisdom of the nation itself, while they endeavour as much as possible, to discourage profaneness and immorality, and promote the glory of God, do not openly profess, at the same time, to have nothing more at heart, than the ease and welfare of the subject, the wealth, strength, honour, and what else is called the true interest of the country? and, moreover, whether the most devout and most learned of our prelates, in their greatest concern for our conversion, when they beseech the Deity to turn their own as well as our hearts, from the world and all [141]carnal desires, do not in the same prayer as loudly solicit him to pour all earthly blessings and temporal felicity, on the kingdom they belong to?

Here I imagine being interrupted by an Epicurean, who, in case of needing a restorative diet, always has live ortolans on hand. I'm told that goodness and honesty can be obtained more cheaply than the downfall of a nation and the loss of all life’s comforts; that liberty and property can exist without wickedness or deceit, and that people can be good citizens without being enslaved, and can be religious without being controlled by priests. They say being frugal is a duty only for those who need to be, but a wealthy person serves their country by spending what they earn; that this person has such control over their desires that they can refrain from anything when necessary, and that when true Hermitage isn’t available, they can be satisfied with plain Bordeaux if it has a good body; that many mornings, instead of St. Lawrence, they’ve managed with Fronteniac, and after dinner served Cyprus wine, and even Madeira when hosting a large group, finding it excessive to treat with Tokay; but that all voluntary self-denial is superstitious, meant only for blind zealots and enthusiasts. They will quote my Lord Shaftsbury against me, saying that people can be virtuous and sociable without self-denial; that it’s an insult to virtue to make it unattainable, that I use it as a scary story to deter people from pursuing it as if it’s impossible; but for them, they can praise God while enjoying His creations with a clear conscience; and they won’t forget anything I’ve said, page 66. In the end, they will ask me whether the legislature, the country’s wisdom, while trying as hard as they can to discourage profanity and immorality and promote God’s glory, doesn’t also openly state that their main concern is the comfort and well-being of the citizenry, the nation’s wealth, strength, honor, and what is deemed the true interest of the country? And furthermore, whether the most devout and learned bishops, in their deep concern for our conversion, when they ask God to turn their hearts as well as ours away from the world and all [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]carnal desires, don’t in the same prayer just as fervently ask Him to shower all earthly blessings and temporal happiness on the kingdom they belong to?

These are the apologies, the excuses, and common pleas, not only of those who are notoriously vicious, but the generality of mankind, when you touch the copy-hold of their inclinations; and trying the real value they have for spirituals, would actually strip them of what their minds are wholly bent upon. Ashamed of the many frailties they feel within, all men endeavour to hide themselves, their ugly nakedness, from each other, and wrapping up the true motives of their hearts, in the specious cloak of sociableness, and their concern for the public good, they are in hopes of concealing their filthy appetites, and the deformity of their desires; while they are conscious within of the fondness for their darling lusts, and their incapacity, bare-faced, to tread the arduous, rugged path of virtue.

These are the apologies, the excuses, and common pleas, not only of those who are notoriously wicked, but of most people when you challenge their desires; and testing the true value they place on spirituality would actually take away what they are fully focused on. Ashamed of the many weaknesses they feel inside, everyone tries to hide themselves, their ugly truth, from one another. By covering up the real motives of their hearts with a false front of sociability and concern for the common good, they hope to hide their selfish cravings and the ugliness of their desires. Meanwhile, they are painfully aware of their attachment to their favorite vices and their inability to openly walk the difficult, rocky path of virtue.

As to the two last questions, I own they are very puzzling: to what the Epicure asks, I am obliged to answer in the affirmative; and unless I would (which God forbid!) arraign the sincerity of kings, bishops, and the whole legislative power, the objection stands good against me: all I can say for myself is, that in the connection of the facts, there is a mystery past human understanding; and to convince the reader, that this is no evasion, I shall illustrate the incomprehensibility of it in the following parable.

As for the last two questions, I admit they are quite confusing: in response to the Epicure's inquiry, I have to say yes; and unless I want to (which God forbid!) question the sincerity of kings, bishops, and the entire legislative power, the objection holds against me. All I can say for myself is that in the context of the facts, there’s a mystery beyond human comprehension; to show the reader that this isn’t just a dodge, I will explain the incomprehensibility of it in the following parable.

In old heathen times, there was, they say, a whimsical country, where the people talked much of religion, and the greatest part, as to outward appearance, seemed really devout: the chief moral evil among them was thirst, and to quench it a damnable sin; yet they unanimously agreed that every one was born thirsty, more or less: small beer in moderation was allowed to all, and he was counted an hypocrite, a cynic, or a madman, who pretended that one could live altogether without it; yet those, who owned they loved it, and drank it to excess, were counted wicked. All this, while the beer itself was reckoned a blessing from Heaven, and there was no harm in the use of it; all the enormity lay in the abuse, the motive of the heart, that made them drink it. He that took the least drop of it to quench his thirst, committed a heinous crime, while others drank large quantities without any guilt, so they did it indifferently, and for no other reason than to mend their complexion. [142]

In ancient pagan times, there was, they say, a quirky country where the people talked a lot about religion, and for the most part, they seemed genuinely devout on the surface. The biggest moral issue among them was thirst, and trying to satisfy it was considered a serious sin; still, they all agreed that everyone was born thirsty, to some extent. Small amounts of beer were allowed for everyone, and anyone claiming that one could live entirely without it was seen as a hypocrite, a cynic, or insane; yet those who admitted they loved it and drank excessively were viewed as wicked. This was all while beer itself was considered a gift from Heaven, and there was nothing wrong with using it; the real issue lay in the abuse and the intentions behind their drinking. Anyone who took even a tiny sip to quench their thirst committed a grave offense, while others could drink large amounts without feeling guilty as long as they did it casually and just to improve their appearance. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

They brewed for other countries as well as their own, and for the small beer they sent abroad, they received large returns of Westphalia-hams, neats tongues, hung-beef, and Bologna sausages, red-herrings, pickled sturgeon, caviar, anchovies, and every thing that was proper to make their liquor go down with pleasure. Those who kept great stores of small beer by them without making use of it, were generally envied, and at the same time very odious to the public, and nobody was easy that had not enough of it come to his own share. The greatest calamity they thought could befal them, was to keep their hops and barley upon their hands, and the more they yearly consumed of them, the more they reckoned the country to flourish.

They brewed for their own country as well as others, and for the small beer they exported, they received a hefty supply of Westphalia hams, beef tongues, dried beef, Bologna sausages, red herrings, pickled sturgeon, caviar, anchovies, and everything else that made their drinks enjoyable. Those who stockpiled small beer without using it were often envied and disliked by the public, and no one felt comfortable without a sufficient supply of it. The worst thing they thought could happen was to have their hops and barley go unused, and the more they consumed each year, the more they believed their country was thriving.

The government had many very wise regulations concerning the returns that were made for their exports, encouraged very much the importation of salt and pepper, and laid heavy duties on every thing that was not well seasoned, and might any ways obstruct the sale of their own hops and barley. Those at helm, when they acted in public, showed themselves on all accounts exempt and wholly divested from thirst, made several laws to prevent the growth of it, and punish the wicked who openly dared to quench it. If you examined them in their private persons, and pryed narrowly into their lives and conversations, they seemed to be more fond, or at least drank larger draughts of small beer than others, but always under pretence that the mending of complexions required greater quantities of liquor in them, than it did in those they ruled over; and that, what they had chiefly at heart, without any regard to themselves, was to procure great plenty of small beer, among the subjects in general, and a great demand for their hops and barley.

The government had a lot of smart rules about the returns from their exports, strongly encouraged the importation of salt and pepper, and imposed heavy taxes on anything that wasn’t well-seasoned, which could hurt the sale of their own hops and barley. Those in charge, when acting in public, made sure to appear completely above any desire for drink and created several laws to stop its spread, punishing those who openly dared to indulge. However, if you looked closely at their private lives and conversations, they seemed to enjoy, or at least consumed more small beer than others, always claiming that improving their appearances required more drinks than those they governed. They insisted that their main concern, without selfish motives, was to ensure a large supply of small beer among the general population and to create high demand for their hops and barley.

As nobody was debarred from small beer, the clergy made use of it as well as the laity, and some of them very plentifully; yet all of them desired to be thought less thirsty by their function than others, and never would own that they drank any but to mend their complexions. In their religious assemblies they were more sincere; for as soon as they came there, they all openly confessed, the clergy as well as the laity, from the highest to the lowest, that they were thirsty, that mending their complexions was what they minded the least, and that all their hearts were set upon small beer and quenching their thirst, whatever they might pretend to the contrary. What was remarkable, is, that to have laid hold of those [143]truths to any ones prejudice, and made use of those confessions afterwards out of their temples, would be counted very impertinent, and every body thought it an heinous affront to be called thirsty, though you had seen him drink small beer by whole gallons. The chief topics of their preachers, was the great evil of thirst, and the folly there was in quenching it. They exhorted their hearers to resist the temptations of it, inveighed against small beer, and often told them it was poison, if they drank it with pleasure, or any other design than to mend their complexions.

As no one was excluded from having small beer, both the clergy and the laity enjoyed it, and some of them quite a lot; however, they all wanted to appear less thirsty due to their roles and would never admit they drank it except for improving their skin. In their religious gatherings, they were more honest; as soon as they arrived, everyone, clergy and laity alike, from the highest to the lowest, openly confessed that they were thirsty, that improving their skin was the least of their concerns, and that all they really cared about was small beer and quenching their thirst, no matter what they might claim otherwise. What was notable is that using those [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]truths against anyone and bringing up those confessions outside their places of worship would be considered extremely rude, and everyone found it a serious insult to be called thirsty, even if you had seen them drink small beer by the gallon. The main topics of their sermons were the great danger of thirst and the foolishness of trying to satisfy it. They urged their listeners to resist the temptation of thirst, condemned small beer, and often warned them that it was poison if they drank it for enjoyment or for any purpose other than improving their skin.

In their acknowledgments to the gods, they thanked them for the plenty of comfortable small beer they had received from them, notwithstanding they had so little deserved it, and continually quenched their thirst with it; whereas, they were so thoroughly satisfied, that it was given them for a better use. Having begged pardon for those offences, they desired the gods to lessen their thirst, and give them strength to resist the importunities of it; yet, in the midst of their sorest repentance, and most humble supplications, they never forgot small beer, and prayed that they might continue to have it in great plenty, with a solemn promise, that how neglectful soever they might hitherto have been in this point, they would for the future not drink a drop of it, with any other design than to mend their complexions.

In their acknowledgments to the gods, they thanked them for the abundance of refreshing small beer they had received, even though they felt they didn’t deserve it, and they constantly quenched their thirst with it; yet, they were so completely content that it was given to them for a better purpose. After asking for forgiveness for their wrongdoings, they wanted the gods to reduce their thirst and give them the strength to resist its temptations; however, in the midst of their deepest regret and most humble prayers, they never forgot small beer, and prayed that they might continue to have it in great abundance, with a serious promise that no matter how neglectful they had been in the past, they would from now on only drink it to improve their appearances.

These were standing petitions put together to last; and having continued to be made use of without any alterations, for several hundred years together; it was thought by some, that the gods, who understood futurity, and knew that the same promise they heard in June, would be made to them the January following, did not rely much more on those vows, than we do on those waggish inscriptions by which men offer us their goods; to-day for money, and to-morrow for nothing. They often began their prayers very mystically, and spoke many things in a spiritual sense; yet, they never were so abstract from the world in them, as to end one without beseeching the gods to bless and prosper the brewing trade in all its branches, and for the good of the whole, more and more to increase the consumption of hops and barley. [144]

These were long-lasting petitions that had been used for hundreds of years without any changes. Some believed that the gods, who were aware of the future and knew that the same promise they heard in June would be repeated the following January, didn’t take those vows much more seriously than we do the humorous signs that advertise goods for sale; today for money, tomorrow for nothing. They often started their prayers in a mysterious way and expressed many things spiritually; however, they were never so disconnected from reality that they didn't finish by asking the gods to bless and prosper the brewing industry in all its forms and to continually increase the consumption of hops and barley for the common good. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 388. Content, the bane of industry.

Line 388. Content, the curse of productivity.

I have been told by many, that the bane of industry is laziness, and not content; therefore to prove my assertion, which seems a paradox to some, I shall treat of laziness and content separately, and afterwards speak of industry, that the reader may judge which it is of the two former, that is opposite to the latter.

I’ve heard from many that the downfall of work is laziness, not satisfaction. To support my claim, which may seem contradictory to some, I’ll discuss laziness and satisfaction separately, and then I’ll talk about work, so the reader can decide which of the first two is opposed to the latter.

Laziness is an aversion to business, generally attended with an unreasonable desire of remaining unactive; and every body is lazy, who, without being hindered by any other warrantable employment, refuses or puts off any business which he ought to do for himself or others. We seldom call any body lazy, but such as we reckon inferior to us, and of whom we expect some service. Children do not think their parents lazy, nor servants their masters; and if a gentleman indulges his ease and sloth so abominably, that he will not put on his own shoes, though he is young and slender, nobody shall call him lazy for it, if he can keep but a footman, or some body else to do it for him.

Laziness is a reluctance to work, usually accompanied by an unreasonable desire to stay inactive; anyone is considered lazy if they refuse or postpone tasks they should handle for themselves or others, without being occupied by any other valid work. We rarely label someone as lazy unless we see them as inferior to us and expect something from them. Children don't see their parents as lazy, nor do servants view their masters that way; and if a gentleman is so indulgent in his leisure and laziness that he won't even put on his own shoes, despite being young and thin, no one will call him lazy if he can afford a footman or someone else to take care of it for him.

Mr. Dryden has given us a very good idea of superlative slothfulness, in the person of a luxurious king of Egypt. His majesty having bestowed some considerable gifts on several of his favourites, is attended by some of his chief ministers with a parchment, which he was to sign to confirm those grants. First, he walks a few turns to and fro, with a heavy uneasiness in his looks, then sets himself down like a man that is tired, and, at last, with abundance of reluctancy to what he was going about, he takes up the pen, and falls a complaining very seriously of the length of the word Ptolemy, and expresses a great deal of concern, that he had not some short monosyllable for his name, which he thought would save him a world of trouble.

Mr. Dryden gives us a clear picture of extreme laziness in the form of a pampered king of Egypt. After bestowing generous gifts on several of his favorites, the king is accompanied by some of his top ministers with a document he needs to sign to confirm those grants. First, he paces back and forth with a look of heavy discomfort, then he plops down like a fatigued person, and finally, with a lot of reluctance about what he’s supposed to do, he picks up the pen and starts complaining very seriously about the length of the name Ptolemy. He expresses a lot of frustration that he doesn’t have a short one-syllable name, which he believes would save him a lot of hassle.

We often reproach others with laziness, because we are guilty of it ourselves. Some days ago, as two young women sat knotting together, says one to the other, there comes a wicked cold through that door; you are the nearest to it, sister, pray shut it. The other, who was the youngest, vouchsafed, indeed, to cast an eye towards the door, but sat still, and said nothing; the eldest spoke again two or three times, and at last the other making her no answer, nor offering to stir, she got up in a pet, and shut the door herself; coming [145]back to sit down again, she gave the younger a very hard look; and said, Lord, sister Betty, I would not be so lazy as you are for all the world; which she spoke so earnestly, that it brought a colour in her face. The youngest should have risen, I own; but if the eldest had not overvalued her labour, she would have shut the door herself, as soon as the cold was offensive to her, without making any words of it. She was not above a step farther from the door than her sister, and as to age, there was not eleven months difference between them, and they were both under twenty. I thought it a hard matter to determine which was the laziest of the two.

We often criticize others for being lazy because we struggle with it ourselves. A few days ago, two young women were sitting together, and one said to the other, “A cold draft is coming through that door; you’re closest to it, please shut it.” The younger one glanced at the door but didn’t move or say anything. After the eldest asked a couple more times and got no response, she finally stood up in frustration and shut the door herself. When she came back to sit down, she shot the younger one a hard look and said, “Honestly, sister Betty, I wouldn’t want to be as lazy as you are for anything.” She said it so earnestly that it flushed the younger one's cheeks. It’s true the youngest should have gotten up, but if the eldest hadn’t valued her effort so highly, she would have just closed the door as soon as the cold bothered her, without making a fuss about it. She was only a step further from the door than her sister, and there was less than eleven months difference in their ages; they were both under twenty. I thought it was tough to decide which one was lazier.

There are a thousand wretches that are always working the marrow out of their bones for next to nothing, because they are unthinking and ignorant of what the pains they take are worth: while others who are cunning, and understand the true value of their work, refuse to be employed at under rates, not because they are of an unactive temper, but because they will not beat down the price of their labour. A country gentleman sees at the back side of the Exchange a porter walking to and fro with his hands in his pockets. Pray, says he, friend, will you step for me with this letter as far as Bow-church, and I will give you a penny? I will go with all my heart, says the other, but I must have twopence, master; which the gentleman refusing to give, the fellow turned his back, and told him, he would rather play for nothing than work for nothing. The gentleman thought it an unaccountable piece of laziness in a porter, rather to saunter up and down for nothing, than to be earning a penny with as little trouble. Some hours after he happened to be with some friends at a tavern in Threadneedle-street, where one of them calling to mind that he had forgot to send for a bill of exchange that was to go away with the post that night, was in great perplexity, and immediately wanted some body to go for him to Hackney with all the speed imaginable. It was after ten, in the middle of winter, a very rainy night, and all the porters thereabouts were gone to bed. The gentleman grew very uneasy, and said, whatever it cost him, that somebody he must send; at last one of the drawers seeing him so very pressing, told him that he knew a porter, who would rise, if it was a job worth his while. Worth his while, said the gentleman very eagerly, do not doubt of that, good lad, if you know of any body, let him make what haste he can, and I will give him a crown if he [146]be back by twelve o’clock. Upon this the drawer took the errand, left the room, and in less than a quarter of an hour, came back with the welcome news that the message would be dispatched with all expedition. The company in the mean time, diverted themselves as they had done before; but when it began to be towards twelve, the watches were pulled out, and the porter’s return was all the discourse. Some were of opinion he might yet come before the clock had struck; others thought it impossible, and now it wanted but three minutes of twelve, when in comes the nimble messenger smoking hot, with his clothes as wet as dung with the rain, and his head all over in a bath of sweat. He had nothing dry about him but the inside of his pocket-book, out of which he took the bill he had been for, and by the drawer’s direction, presented it to the gentleman it belonged to; who, being very well pleased with the dispatch he had made, gave him the crown he had promised, while another filled him a bumper, and the whole company commended his diligence. As the fellow came nearer the light, to take up the wine, the country gentleman I mentioned at first, to his great admiration, knew him to be the same porter that had refused to earn his penny, and whom he thought the laziest mortal alive.

There are a thousand people who are always grinding themselves down for hardly any pay because they don’t think about what their hard work is really worth. Meanwhile, others who are savvy and understand the real value of their labor won’t accept low wages, not because they’re lazy, but because they refuse to undercut the worth of their work. A country gentleman sees a porter wandering around with his hands in his pockets behind the Exchange. “Hey, friend, can you take this letter to Bow Church for me? I’ll give you a penny.” The porter replies, “I’d be happy to, but I need two pence, sir.” When the gentleman refuses, the porter turns away and says he’d rather do nothing than work for nothing. The gentleman thinks it’s an unbelievable example of laziness for a porter to stroll around for free instead of earning a penny with minimal effort. Some hours later, while he’s with friends at a tavern on Threadneedle Street, one of them remembers he forgot to send for a bill of exchange that had to go out with the post that night and is in distress, needing someone to rush to Hackney. It’s after ten on a rainy winter night, and all the porters have gone to bed. The gentleman, feeling anxious, insists that he has to send someone, no matter the cost. Finally, one of the waiters, seeing him so desperate, says he knows a porter who would get up if the job is worth it. “Worth it?” the gentleman replies eagerly, “Absolutely! If you can find someone, tell him to hurry, and I’ll give him a crown if he’s back by midnight.” The waiter takes on the task, leaves the room, and returns in less than fifteen minutes with the good news that the message will be sent immediately. Meanwhile, the group continues their conversation, but as it gets closer to twelve, they check their watches and the porter’s return becomes all anyone talks about. Some think he might arrive before the clock strikes, while others say it’s impossible. Just three minutes to midnight, in comes the quick messenger, completely soaked and out of breath, looking like he just stepped out of a rainstorm. The only dry thing on him is his pocketbook, from which he pulls the bill he went to get and hands it to the gentleman as directed by the waiter. The gentleman is pleased with how quickly he came back and gives him the crown he promised, while another person fills him a glass, and everyone praises his efficiency. As the porter moves closer to the light to grab the wine, the country gentleman I mentioned earlier, to his surprise, recognizes him as the same porter who had turned down the penny, whom he thought was the laziest person alive.

The story teaches us, that we ought not to confound those who remain unemployed for want of an opportunity of exerting themselves to the best advantage, with such as for want of spirit, hug themselves in their sloth, and will rather starve than stir. Without this caution, we must pronounce all the world more or less lazy, according to their estimation of the reward they are to purchase with their labour, and then the most industrious may be called lazy.

The story teaches us that we shouldn't confuse those who are unemployed because they haven't had the chance to show what they can do with those who are too lacking in drive to get off the couch and would rather suffer than take action. If we don't make this distinction, we might label everyone as lazy, depending on how they value the rewards of their work, which could lead us to wrongly call even the most hardworking people lazy.

Content, I call that calm serenity of the mind, which men enjoy while they think themselves happy, and rest satisfied with the station they are in: It implies a favourable construction of our present circumstances, and a peaceful tranquillity, which men are strangers to as long as they are solicitous about mending their condition. This is a virtue of which the applause is very precarious and uncertain: for, according as mens circumstances vary, they will either be blamed or commended for being possessed of it.

Contentment is what I call the calm serenity of the mind that people experience when they believe they are happy and are satisfied with their current situation. It involves a positive view of our present circumstances and a peaceful tranquility, which people don't truly feel as long as they are worried about improving their situation. This is a quality that receives praise that is often unreliable and unpredictable; depending on how people's circumstances change, they may either be criticized or praised for having it.

A single man that works hard at a laborious trade, has a hundred a year left him by a relation: this change of fortune makes him soon weary of working, and not having industry [147]enough to put himself forward in the world, he resolves to do nothing at all, and live upon his income. As long as he lives within compass, pays for what he has, and offends nobody, he shall be called an honest quiet man. The victualler, his landlady, the tailor, and others, divide what he has between them, and the society is every year the better for his revenue; whereas, if he should follow his own or any other trade, he must hinder others, and some body would have the less for what he should get; and therefore, though he should be the idlest fellow in the world, lie a-bed fifteen hours in four and twenty, and do nothing but sauntering up and down all the rest of the time, nobody would discommend him, and his unactive spirit is honoured with the name of content.

A single man who works hard at a tough job inherited a hundred a year from a relative. This change in fortune makes him quickly lose interest in working, and since he doesn't have the drive to advance in life, he decides to do nothing and live off his income. As long as he lives within his means, pays for what he has, and doesn't upset anyone, people will consider him an honest, quiet man. The innkeeper, his landlady, the tailor, and others share what he has among themselves, and society benefits each year from his income. In contrast, if he were to pursue his own or any other job, he would take away from others, and someone else would have less because of what he earns. So, even if he turns out to be the laziest person ever, sleeping fifteen hours a day and just wandering around the rest of the time, no one would criticize him, and his lack of activity would be praised as contentment.

But if the same man marries, gets three or four children, and still continues of the same easy temper, rests satisfied with what he has, and without endeavouring to get a penny, indulges his former sloth: first, his relations, afterwards, all his acquaintance, will be alarmed at his negligence: they foresee that his income will not be sufficient to bring up so many children handsomely, and are afraid, some of them may, if not a burden, become a disgrace to them. When these fears have been, for some time, whispered about from one to another, his uncle Gripe takes him to task, and accosts him in the following cant: “What, nephew, no business yet! fie upon it! I cannot imagine how you do to spend your time; if you will not work at your own trade, there are fifty ways that a man may pick up a penny by: you have a hundred a-year, it is true, but your charges increase every year, and what must you do when your children are grown up? I have a better estate than you myself, and yet you do not see me leave off my business; nay, I declare it, might I have the world I could not lead the life you do. It is no business of mine, I own, but every body cries, it is a shame for a young man, as you are, that has his limbs and his health, should not turn his hands to something or other.” If these admonitions do not reform him in a little time, and he continues half-a-year longer without employment, he will become a discourse to the whole neighbourhood, and for the same qualifications that once got him the name of a quiet contented man, he shall be called the worst of husbands, and the laziest fellow upon earth: from whence it is manifest, that when we pronounce [148]actions good or evil, we only regard the hurt or benefit the society receives from them, and not the person who commits them. (See page 17.)

But if the same guy gets married, has three or four kids, and still continues with the same laid-back attitude, feeling content with what he has, and not trying to earn any extra cash, he’ll fall back into his old laziness: at first, his family will notice, and then all his friends will be concerned about his carelessness. They worry that his income won’t be enough to raise those kids well, and some of them are afraid that, even if they’re not a burden, they’ll end up being a shame to the family. Once these concerns start getting whispered from one person to another, his Uncle Gripe steps in and confronts him with this speech: “What’s going on, nephew, still no job? That’s not good! I can’t understand how you waste your time; if you won’t work at your own trade, there are plenty of ways a person can make a little money: you have a hundred a year, that’s true, but your expenses keep going up every year, and what will you do when your kids grow up? I actually have a better income than you, and yet you don’t see me stop working; honestly, if I had all the money in the world, I couldn’t live the way you do. It’s not my business, I admit, but everyone’s saying it’s a shame for a young man like you, who’s healthy and able, to not be doing something.” If these warnings don’t change him in a little while, and he stays unemployed for another six months, he will become a topic of gossip in the entire neighborhood, and for the same traits that once made him seem like a calm, content person, he will now be labeled the worst husband and the laziest guy on the planet: which clearly shows that when we judge [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] actions as good or bad, we only consider the impact on society, not the individual who is doing them. (See page 17.)

Diligence and industry are often used promiscuously, to signify the same thing, but there is a great difference between them. A poor wretch may want neither diligence nor ingenuity, be a saving pains-taking man, and yet without striving to mend his circumstances, remain contented with the station he lives in; but industry implies, besides the other qualities, a thirst after gain, and an indefatigable desire of meliorating our condition. When men think either the customary profits of their calling, or else the share of business they have too small, they have two ways to deserve the name of industrious; and they must be either ingenious enough to find out uncommon, and yet warrantable methods to increase their business or their profit, or else supply that defect by a multiplicity of occupations. If a tradesman takes care to provide his shop, and gives due attendance to those that come to it, he is a diligent man in his business; but if, besides that, he takes particular pains to sell, to the same advantage, a better commodity than the rest of his neighbours, or if, by his obsequiousness, or some other good quality, getting into a large acquaintance, he uses all possible endeavours of drawing customers to his house, he then may be called industrious. A cobbler, though he is not employed half of his time, if he neglects no business, and makes dispatch when he has any, is a diligent man; but if he runs of errands when he has no work, or makes but shoe-pins, and serves as a watchman a-nights, he deserves the name of industrious.

Diligence and hard work are often used interchangeably to mean the same thing, but they are quite different. A struggling person may lack both diligence and creativity, be a frugal, hardworking individual, and still be content with their current situation without trying to improve it. In contrast, hard work implies, in addition to these other qualities, a strong desire for profit and an unrelenting drive to improve one’s situation. When people feel that the usual earnings from their job or the amount of work they have is too low, they have two ways to earn the label of hardworking; they must either be clever enough to discover unique and acceptable methods to boost their business or income, or they need to make up for that gap by taking on multiple jobs. If a shopkeeper makes sure to stock their store and attends to customers who come in, they are a diligent worker in their trade; but if, on top of that, they go the extra mile to sell a better product than their competitors, or if they build a wide network through their friendliness or other positive traits to attract more customers, then they can be called hardworking. A cobbler, even if he isn’t busy half the time, is considered diligent if he doesn’t neglect any tasks and works quickly when he has them; but if he runs errands when there’s no work or only makes shoe pegs while also working as a night watchman, he earns the title of hardworking.

If what has been said in this remark be duly weighed, we shall find either, that laziness and content are very near a-kin, or, if there be a great difference between them, that the latter is more contrary to industry than the former.

If we carefully consider this statement, we will find either that laziness and contentment are very similar, or, if there is a significant difference between them, that contentment is more opposed to hard work than laziness is.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 410. To make a great and honest hive.

Line 410. To create a great and honest hive.

This perhaps might be done where people are contented to be poor and hardy; but if they would likewise enjoy their ease and the comforts of the world, and be at once an opulent, potent, and flourishing, as well as a warlike nation, it is utterly impossible. I have heard people speak of the [149]mighty figure the Spartans made above all the commonwealths of Greece, notwithstanding their uncommon frugality and other exemplary virtues. But certainly there never was a nation whose greatness was more empty than theirs: The splendor they lived in was inferior to that of a theatre, and the only thing they could be proud of, was, that they enjoyed nothing. They were, indeed, both feared and esteemed abroad: they were so famed for valour and skill in martial affairs, that their neighbours did not only court their friendship and assistance in their wars, but were satisfied, and thought themselves sure of the victory, if they could but get a Spartan general to command their armies. But then their discipline was so rigid, and their manner of living so austere and void of all comfort, that the most temperate man among us would refuse to submit to the harshness of such uncouth laws. There was a perfect equality among them: gold and silver coin were cried down; their current money was made of iron, to render it of a great bulk, and little worth: To lay up twenty or thirty pounds, required a pretty large chamber, and to remove it, nothing less than a yoke of oxen. Another remedy they had against luxury, was, that they were obliged to eat in common of the same meat, and they so little allowed any body to dine, or sup by himself at home, that Agis, one of their kings, having vanquished the Athenians, and sending for his commons at his return home (because he desired privately to eat with his queen) was refused by the Polemarchi.

This might work for people who are okay with being poor and tough; but if they also want to enjoy comfort and the luxuries of life, while being a wealthy, powerful, and thriving nation, it's completely impossible. I've heard people talk about the impressive status the Spartans held among all the city-states of Greece, despite their extreme frugality and other admirable qualities. But honestly, no nation was ever less substantial than theirs: the lifestyle they had was less glamorous than a stage performance, and the only pride they seemed to have was in enjoying nothing at all. They were indeed both feared and respected abroad: famous for their bravery and skill in battle, their neighbors not only sought their friendship and help in wars, but felt confident that they would win if they could just get a Spartan general to lead their armies. However, their discipline was so strict and their lifestyle so harsh and devoid of comfort that even the most moderate person would refuse to endure such severe rules. There was complete equality among them: gold and silver coins were dismissed; their regular money was made of iron, heavy and practically worthless. Storing up twenty or thirty pounds of it required a pretty big room, and moving it would need nothing less than a yoke of oxen. Another way they fought against luxury was by requiring everyone to eat the same food together, and they allowed so little privacy that Agis, one of their kings, after defeating the Athenians, tried to invite his subjects home for a meal (because he wanted to eat privately with his queen) but was denied by the Polemarchi.

In training up their youth, their chief care, says Plutarch, was to make them good subjects, to fit them to endure the fatigues of long and tedious marches, and never to return without victory from the field. When they were twelve years old, they lodged in little bands, upon beds made of the rushes, which grew by the banks of the river Eurotas; and because their points were sharp, they were to break them off with their hands without a knife: If it were a hard winter, they mingled some thistle-down with their rushes to keep them warm (see Plutarch in the life of Lycurgus.) From all these circumstances it is plain, that no nation on earth was less effeminate; but being debarred from all the comforts of life, they could have nothing for their pains, but the glory of being a warlike people, inured to toils and hardships, which was a happiness that few people would have cared for upon the same terms: and, though they had [150]been masters of the world, as long as they enjoyed no more of it, Englishmen would hardly have envied them their greatness. What men want now-a-days has sufficiently been shewn in Remark on line 200, where I have treated of real pleasures.

In training their youth, their main focus, according to Plutarch, was to turn them into good citizens, preparing them to handle the strains of long and exhausting marches, and to never return from battle without victory. When they turned twelve, they slept in small groups on beds made of rushes from the banks of the Eurotas River; and because the ends were sharp, they had to break them off by hand instead of using a knife. During harsh winters, they mixed some thistle-down with their rushes to keep warm (see Plutarch in the life of Lycurgus). From all these details, it's clear that no nation was less effeminate. Deprived of life's comforts, they gained nothing for their efforts but the glory of being a warrior society, accustomed to toil and hardships, which is a happiness that few would truly value under the same circumstances. Even if they had been masters of the world, as long as they had no more enjoyment from it, the English would hardly have envied their greatness. What people want nowadays has been clearly outlined in Remark on line 200, where I discussed true pleasures.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Line 411. T’ enjoy the world’s conveniencies.

Line 411. To enjoy the world's conveniences.

That the words, decency and conveniency, were very ambiguous, and not to be understood, unless we were acquainted with the quality and circumstances of the persons that made use of them, has been hinted already in Remark on line 177. The goldsmith, mercer, or any other of the most creditable shopkeepers, that has three or four thousand pounds to set up with, must have two dishes of meat every day, and something extraordinary for Sundays. His wife must have a damask bed against her lying-in, and two or three rooms very well furnished: the following summer she must have a house, or at least very good lodgings in the country. A man that has a being out of town, must have a horse; his footman must have another. If he has a tolerable trade, he expects in eight or ten years time to keep his coach, which, notwithstanding, he hopes, that after he has slaved (as he calls it) for two or three and twenty years, he shall be worth at least a thousand a-year for his eldest son to inherit, and two or three thousand pounds for each of his other children to begin the world with; and when men of such circumstances pray for their daily bread, and mean nothing more extravagant by it, they are counted pretty modest people. Call this pride, luxury, superfluity, or what you please, it is nothing but what ought to be in the capital of a flourishing nation: those of inferior condition must content themselves with less costly conveniencies, as others of higher rank will be sure to make theirs more expensive. Some people call it but decency to be served in plate, and reckon a coach and six among the necessary comforts of life; and if a peer has not above three or four thousand a-year, his lordship is counted poor. [151]

The terms "decency" and "conveniency" are quite vague and can only be understood when we know the status and circumstances of the people using them. As pointed out in the Remark on line 177, a goldsmith, mercer, or any reputable shopkeeper with three or four thousand pounds to start should have two meals a day and something special for Sundays. His wife needs a damask bed for childbirth and two or three well-furnished rooms. The next summer, she should have a house or at least decent accommodations in the countryside. A man living outside the city must have a horse, and his footman should have one too. If he has a good trade, he expects to own a coach within eight to ten years, and despite putting in hard work (as he calls it) for two or three decades, he hopes to be worth at least a thousand a year for his eldest son to inherit, along with two or three thousand pounds for each of his other children to start their lives. When people in such positions ask for their daily bread, and mean nothing more extravagant by it, they are seen as quite modest. Whether you call this pride, luxury, or excess, it’s just what’s expected in the capital of a thriving nation: those of lower status must settle for less expensive comforts, while those of higher rank will make their comforts more lavish. Some consider it only decent to be served on fine china and view a coach and six horses as necessary comforts of life; if a peer earns less than three or four thousand a year, they are considered poor. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Since the first edition of this book, several have attacked me with demonstrations of the certain ruin, which excessive luxury must bring upon all nations, who yet were soon answered, when I showed them the limits within which I had confined it; and therefore, that no reader for the future may misconstrue me on this head, I shall point at the cautions I have given, and the provisos I have made in the former, as well as this present impression, and which, if not overlooked, must prevent all rational censure, and obviate several objections that otherwise might be made against me. I have laid down as maxims never to be departed from, that the2 poor should be kept strictly to work, and that it was prudence to relieve their wants, but folly to cure them; that agriculture3 and fishery should be promoted in all their branches, in order to render provisions, and consequently labour cheap. I have named4 ignorance as a necessary ingredient in the mixture of society: from all which it is manifest that I could never have imagined, that luxury was to be made general through every part of a kingdom. I have likewise required5 that property should be well secured, justice impartially administered, and in every thing the interest of the nation taken care of: but what I have insisted on the most, and repeated more than once, is the great regard that is to be had to the balance of trade, and the care the legislature ought to take, that the yearly6 imports never exceed the exports; and where this is observed, and the other things I spoke of are not neglected, I still continue to assert that no foreign luxury can undo a country: the height of it is never seen but in nations that are vastly populous, and there only in the upper part of it, and the greater, that is, the larger still in proportion must be the lowest, the basis that supports all, the multitude of working poor.

Since the first edition of this book, many have criticized me with claims about the inevitable destruction that excessive luxury will bring to all nations. However, they were quickly addressed when I pointed out the limits I've established. To ensure that no future reader misunderstands my position on this, I will highlight the cautions and stipulations I have made in both the earlier and the current editions. If these are not ignored, they should prevent any reasonable criticism and counter several objections that might otherwise arise against me. I have set firm principles that must not be overlooked: that the poor should be kept diligently working, and while it is wise to address their needs, it is foolish to try to completely remedy their situation. I believe that agriculture and fishing should be encouraged in all their forms to keep food and, consequently, labor affordable. I have pointed out that ignorance is a necessary part of society's makeup, which clearly indicates that I could never have envisioned luxury becoming widespread throughout a kingdom. I have also emphasized that property must be well protected, justice administered fairly, and the nation's interests should be prioritized. However, what I stress the most, and have repeated multiple times, is the importance of maintaining a balance of trade, ensuring that annual imports do not surpass exports. When this principle is upheld and the other matters I mentioned are not neglected, I continue to assert that foreign luxury cannot ruin a country. Its peak is only observed in very populous nations, and even then, only at the top tier, while the base, which supports everything, must be comprised of a large number of working poor.

Those who would too nearly imitate others of superior fortune, must thank themselves if they are ruined. This is nothing against luxury; for whoever can subsist, and lives above his income is a fool. Some persons of quality may keep three or four coaches and six, and at the same time lay up money for their children: while a young shopkeeper is undone [152]for keeping one sorry horse. It is impossible there should be a rich nation without prodigals, yet I never knew a city so full of spendthrifts, but there were covetous people enough to answer their number. As an old merchant breaks for having been extravagant or careless a great while, so a young beginner falling into the same business, gets an estate by being saving or more industrious before he is forty years old: besides, that the frailties of men often work by contraries: some narrow souls can never thrive because they are too stingy, while longer heads amass great wealth by spending their money freely, and seeming to despise it. But the vicissitudes of fortune are necessary, and the most lamentable are no more detrimental to society, than the death of the individual members of it. Christenings are a proper balance to burials. Those who immediately lose by the misfortunes of others, are very sorry, complain, and make a noise; but the others who get by them, as there always are such, hold their tongues, because it is odious to be thought the better for the losses and calamities of our neighbour. The various ups and downs compose a wheel, that always turning round, gives motion to the whole machine. Philosophers, that dare extend their thoughts beyond the narrow compass of what is immediately before them, look on the alternate changes in the civil society, no otherwise than they do on the risings and fallings of the lungs; the latter of which are much a part of respiration in the most perfect animals as the first; so that the fickle breath of never-stable fortune is to the body politic, the same as floating air is to a living creature.

Those who try too hard to copy those who are better off have only themselves to blame if they end up ruined. This isn't a critique of luxury; anyone who can make ends meet but lives beyond their means is foolish. Some wealthy individuals can own three or four carriages and still save money for their kids, while a young shopkeeper can go broke just trying to keep one average horse. It's impossible for a rich nation to exist without reckless spenders, yet in every city full of spendthrifts, there are just as many greedy people to balance things out. Just like an old merchant may go bankrupt due to being extravagant or careless for a long time, a young entrepreneur can build wealth by being frugal or more hardworking before turning forty. Moreover, human weaknesses often work in opposites: some narrow-minded people never succeed because they are too stingy, while those who are more open-minded accumulate great wealth by spending their money freely and appearing to disregard it. However, the ups and downs of fortune are necessary, and the most tragic events are no more harmful to society than the deaths of individuals within it. Christenings serve as a proper counterbalance to burials. Those who feel immediate losses from others' misfortunes are very upset, complain, and make a fuss; but those who benefit from these situations, and there are always some, stay quiet because it's unpleasant to seem to profit from the losses and calamities of others. The various highs and lows create a cycle that keeps everything in motion. Philosophers who dare to think beyond the limited scope of their immediate surroundings view the changes in society much like they do the rise and fall of the lungs; the latter being just as essential to breathing in the most perfect beings as the former. Thus, the unstable breath of unpredictable fortune is to the body politic what floating air is to a living creature.

Avarice then, and prodigality, are equally necessary to the society. That in some countries, men are most generally lavish than in others, proceeds from the difference in circumstances that dispose to either vice, and arise from the condition of the social body, as well as the temperament of the natural. I beg pardon of the attentive reader, if here, in behalf of short memories, I repeat some things, the substance of which they have already seen in Remark, line 307. More money than land, heavy taxes and scarcity of provisions, industry, laboriousness, an active and stirring spirit, ill-nature, and saturnine temper; old age, wisdom, trade, riches, acquired by our own labour, and liberty and property well secured, are all things that dispose to avarice. On the contrary, indolence, content, good-nature, a jovial temper, youth, folly, arbitrary power, money easily got, plenty of provisions [153]and the uncertainty of possessions, are circumstances that render men prone to prodigality: where there is the most of the first, the prevailing vice will be avarice, and prodigality where the other turns the scale; but a national frugality there never was nor never will be without a national necessity.

Avarice and wastefulness are both essential to society. In some countries, people tend to be more extravagant than in others, which comes from the different circumstances that lead to each behavior, arising from both social conditions and natural temperament. I apologize to the attentive reader if I repeat some points here for those with shorter memories that they have already encountered in Remark, line 307. More money than land, high taxes, and a lack of food, along with hard work, diligence, an active spirit, bad temperament, and a gloomy disposition; old age, wisdom, and wealth earned through our own efforts, along with secured freedom and property, all encourage avarice. In contrast, laziness, contentment, good nature, a cheerful attitude, youth, foolishness, arbitrary control, easily acquired money, abundance of resources, and uncertainty of possessions make people inclined toward wastefulness. Where there's more of the first, the dominant vice will be avarice, and where the latter prevails, it will be wastefulness; however, there has never been and never will be a national frugality without a national necessity.

Sumptuary laws, may be of use to an indigent country, after great calamities of war, pestilence, or famine, when work has stood still, and the labour of the poor been interrupted; but to introduce them into an opulent kingdom, is the wrong way to consult the interest of it. I shall end my remarks on the Grumbling-Hive, with assuring the champions of national frugality, that it would be impossible for the Persians and other eastern people, to purchase the vast quantities of fine English cloth they consume, should we load our women with less cargoes of Asiatic silks. [155]

Sumptuary laws might be helpful in a struggling country after major disasters like war, disease, or famine, when work has stopped and the poor are having a hard time; however, bringing them into a wealthy nation is not the right way to support its interests. I'll conclude my thoughts on the Grumbling-Hive by assuring the advocates of national frugality that it would be impossible for Persians and other Eastern people to buy the large amounts of fine English cloth they use if we burden our women with fewer shipments of Asian silks. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]


1 This was wrote in 1714. 

1 This was written in 1714. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__

2 P. 212, 213. First Edit. 175, 176. 

2 P. 212, 213. First Edit. 175, 176.

3 P. 215. First Edit. 178. 

3 P. 215. First Edit. 178. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__

4 P. 106. First Edit. 77. 

4 P. 106. First Edit. 77. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__

5 P. 116. First Edit. 87. 

5 P. 116. First Edit. 87. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__

6 P. 115, 116. First Edit. 86, 87. 

6 P. 115, 116. First Edit. 86, 87.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

AN
ESSAY ON CHARITY,
AND
CHARITY-SCHOOLS.

Charity, is that virtue by which part of that sincere love we have for ourselves, is transferred pure and unmixed to others, not tied to us by the bonds of friendship or consanguinity, and even mere strangers, whom we have no obligation to, nor hope or expect any thing from. If we lessen any ways the rigour of this definition, part of the virtue must be lost. What we do for our friends and kindred, we do partly for ourselves: when a man acts in behalf of nephews or nieces, and says they are my brother’s children, I do it out of charity; he deceives you: for if he is capable, it is expected from him, and he does it partly for his own sake: if he values the esteem of the world, and is nice as to honour and reputation, he is obliged to have a greater regard to them than for strangers, or else he must suffer in his character.

Charity is the virtue that allows us to transfer a part of the genuine love we have for ourselves to others, without being connected to them through friendship or family ties. It even extends to strangers, whom we don’t owe anything to and from whom we don’t expect anything in return. If we soften this definition in any way, we lose part of the virtue itself. What we do for friends and family is often for our own benefit as well. When someone says they’re helping their nephews or nieces out of charity, that’s misleading; if they’re capable, it’s expected of them, and they’re also doing it, at least in part, for their own sake. If they care about their reputation and standing in society, they are naturally more inclined to regard their family over strangers, or they risk damaging their character.

The exercise of this virtue, relates either to opinion, or to action, and is manifested in what we think of others, or what we do for them. To be charitable, then, in the first place, we ought to put the best construction on all that others do or say, that things are capable of. If a man builds a fine house, though he has not one symptom of humility, furnishes it richly, and lays out a good estate in plate and pictures, we ought not to think that he does it out of vanity, but to encourage artists, employ hands, and set the poor to work for the good of his country: and if a man sleeps at church, so he does not snore, we ought to think he shuts his eyes to increase his attention. The reason is, because in our turn we desire that our utmost avarice should pass for frugality; and that for religion, which we know to be hypocrisy. Secondly, that virtue is conspicuous in us, when we bestow our time and labour for nothing, or employ our credit with others, in behalf of those who stand in need of it, and yet could not expect such an assistance from our friendship or nearness of blood. The last branch of charity consists in giving away (while we are alive) what we value ourselves, [156]to such as I have already named; being contented rather to have and enjoy less, than not relieve those who want, and shall be the objects of our choice.

The practice of this virtue relates either to our thoughts or our actions, and it shows in how we perceive others and what we do for them. To be charitable, first, we should interpret everything others do or say in the most positive light possible. If someone builds a beautiful house, even if they don't show any signs of humility, decorates it lavishly, and invests in valuable art and furniture, we shouldn’t assume they’re being vain; instead, we should think they’re supporting artists, providing jobs, and helping the less fortunate for the benefit of their community. And if someone dozes off in church, as long as they’re not snoring, we might consider that they’re closing their eyes to better focus. This is because, in our own lives, we hope our greed will be seen as frugality, and that our hypocrisy will pass for genuine faith. Secondly, this virtue appears in us when we offer our time and effort selflessly, or use our influence to help those in need, even when they wouldn’t expect such support from our friendship or family ties. The final aspect of charity involves giving away what we value while we’re still alive, as I’ve mentioned, preferring to have and enjoy less ourselves rather than neglecting those who are in need and whom we choose to support. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

This virtue is often counterfeited by a passion of ours, called Pity or Compassion, which consists in a fellow-feeling and condolence for the misfortunes and calamities of others: all mankind are more or less affected with it; but the weakest minds generally the most. It is raised in us, when the sufferings and misery of other creatures make so forcible an impression upon us, as to make us uneasy. It comes in either at the eye, or ear, or both; and the nearer and more violently the object of compassion strikes those senses, the greater disturbance it causes in us, often to such a degree, as to occasion great pain and anxiety.

This quality is often faked by a feeling we have called Pity or Compassion, which is about feeling for and sympathizing with the misfortunes and hardships of others. Everyone experiences it to some extent, but it usually affects the weaker minds the most. It arises in us when the suffering and misery of other beings make such a strong impression on us that it makes us feel uncomfortable. It can come through our eyes, ears, or both; and the closer and more intensely the compassionate object impacts those senses, the more it disturbs us, often to the point of causing significant pain and anxiety.

Should any of us be locked up in a ground-room, where in a yard joining to it, there was a thriving good humoured child at play, of two or three years old, so near us that through the grates of the window we could almost touch it with our hand; and if while we took delight in the harmless diversion, and imperfect prittle-prattle of the innocent babe, a nasty overgrown sow should come in upon the child, set it a screaming, and frighten it out of its wits; it is natural to think, that this would make us uneasy, and that with crying out, and making all the menacing noise we could, we should endeavour to drive the sow away. But if this should happen to be an half-starved creature, that, mad with hunger, went roaming about in quest of food, and we should behold the ravenous brute, in spite of our cries, and all the threatening gestures we could think of, actually lay hold of the helpless infant, destroy and devour it; to see her widely open her destructive jaws, and the poor lamb beat down with greedy haste; to look on the defenceless posture of tender limbs first trampled on, then tore asunder; to see the filthy snout digging in the yet living entrails, suck up the smoking blood, and now and then to hear the crackling of the bones, and the cruel animal with savage pleasure grunt over the horrid banquet; to hear and see all this, what tortures would it give the soul beyond expression! let me see the most shining virtue the moralists have to boast of, so manifest either to the person possessed of it, or those who behold his actions: let me see courage, or the love of ones country so apparent without any mixture, cleared and distinct, the first from pride and anger, the other from the love of glory, and every shadow of self-interest, as this pity would be cleared and distinct from [157]all other passions. There would be no need of virtue or self-denial to be moved at such a scene; and not only a man of humanity, of good morals and commiseration, but likewise an highwayman, an house-breaker, or a murderer could feel anxieties on such an occasion; how calamitous soever a man’s circumstances might be, he would forget his misfortunes for the time, and the most troublesome passion would give way to pity, and not one of the species has a heart so obdurate or engaged, that it would not ache at such a sight, as no language has an epithet to fit it.

If any of us were locked in a room, and outside in a yard nearby, there was a happy, playful child about two or three years old, so close that we could almost reach out and touch them through the window bars; and if while we were enjoying the innocent fun and babbling of that child, a huge, nasty pig came upon the kid, making it scream in terror, it’s only natural to think we would feel uneasy and try to drive the pig away by yelling and making as much noise as we could. But if that pig turned out to be starving, mad with hunger, wandering around looking for food, and we saw that hungry animal, despite our cries and threatening gestures, actually grab the helpless child, tearing it apart and eating it; to witness her open her deadly jaws, and the poor child get overwhelmed in a frenzy; to watch those tender limbs first trampled on then ripped apart; to see the filthy snout digging into the still-living insides, sucking up the warm blood, and now and then hearing the crunching of bones while the ravenous creature grunted in delight over such a horrific feast; to hear and see all this—what unimaginable torture it would create in our souls! Show me the most shining virtue that moralists brag about, clear and distinct, unlike any other passion: let me see courage or love for one’s country so evident, without any pride or anger mixed in, and without the desire for glory or any hint of self-interest, as pure as this pity. There would be no need for virtue or self-control to be affected by such a scene; not only a person of compassion, good morals and sympathy, but even a robber, a burglar, or a murderer could feel anxiety in such a moment. No matter how troubled someone’s circumstances might be, they would forget their own misfortunes for a while, and the strongest emotions would yield to pity; none among us has a heart so hard or indifferent that it wouldn’t ache at such a sight, which no words can truly capture.

Many will wonder at what I have said of pity, that it comes in at the eye or ear, but the truth of this will be known when we consider that the nearer the object is, the more we suffer, and the more remote it is, the less we are troubled with it. To see people executed for crimes, if it is a great way off, moves us but little, in comparison to what it does when we are near enough to see the motion of the soul in their eyes, observe their fears and agonies, and are able to read the pangs in every feature of the face. When the object is quite removed from our senses, the relation of the calamities or the reading of them, can never raise in us the passion called pity. We may be concerned at bad news, the loss and misfortunes of friends and those whose cause we espouse, but this is not pity, but grief or sorrow; the same as we feel for the death of those we love, or the destruction of what we value.

Many will wonder about what I’ve said regarding pity, that it comes through the eye or ear, but the truth of this becomes clear when we consider that the closer we are to the situation, the more we suffer, and the farther it is, the less it troubles us. Seeing people executed for crimes, from a distance, hardly moves us compared to how we feel when we’re close enough to notice the soul's movement in their eyes, observe their fears and agonies, and read the pain etched on every feature of their face. When the situation is far removed from our senses, hearing about or reading about the tragedies cannot evoke the feeling we call pity. We may feel distress over bad news, the loss, and misfortunes of friends and those we care about, but that’s not pity; it’s grief or sorrow, just like what we feel for the death of our loved ones or the loss of things we value.

When we hear that three or four thousand men, all strangers to us, are killed with the sword, or forced into some river where they are drowned, we say, and perhaps believe, that we pity them. It is humanity bids us have compassion with the sufferings of others; and reason tells us, that whether a thing be far off or done in our sight, our sentiments concerning it ought to be the same, and we should be ashamed to own, that we felt no commiseration in us when any thing requires it. He is a cruel man, he has no bowels of compassion; all these things are the effects of reason and humanity, but nature makes no compliments; when the object does not strike, the body does not feel it; and when men talk of pitying people out of sight, they are to be believed in the same manner as when they say, that they are our humble servants. In paying the usual civilities at first meeting, those who do not see one another every day, are often very glad and very sorry alternately, for five or six times together, in [158]less than two minutes, and yet at parting carry away not a jot more of grief or joy than they met with. The same it is with pity, and it is a choice no more than fear or anger. Those who have a strong and lively imagination, and can make representations of things in their minds, as they would be if they were actually before them, may work themselves up into something that resembles compassion; but this is done by art, and often the help of a little enthusiasm, and is only an imitation of pity; the heart feels little of it, and it is as faint as what we suffer at the acting of a tragedy; where our judgment leaves part of the mind uninformed, and to indulge a lazy wantonness, suffers it to be led into an error, which is necessary to have a passion raised, the slight strokes of which are not unpleasant to us, when the soul is in an idle unactive humour.

When we hear that three or four thousand men, all strangers to us, are killed with a sword or forced into a river where they drown, we say, and maybe believe, that we feel sorry for them. It’s our humanity that makes us care about the suffering of others; and reason tells us that whether something happens far away or right in front of us, our feelings about it should be the same, and we should be ashamed to admit that we felt no compassion when it’s needed. He is a cruel person, lacking any compassion; all of this stems from reason and humanity, but nature doesn’t hold back; when the event doesn’t resonate, the body doesn’t respond; and when people claim to feel pity for those out of sight, they should be believed in the same way as when they say they are our humble servants. When exchanging the usual pleasantries upon first meeting, those who don’t see each other every day often oscillate between being very happy and very sad, multiple times in [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]less than two minutes, yet when they part ways, they take away no more grief or joy than they arrived with. It’s the same with pity; it’s merely a choice like fear or anger. Those with a vivid imagination who can visualize things in their minds as if they were really in front of them might evoke something that resembles compassion; but this is achieved through art and often requires a bit of enthusiasm, and it’s just an imitation of pity; the heart feels little of it, and it’s as faint as what we experience while watching a tragedy, where our judgment leaves part of the mind unaware and, to indulge in a lazy distraction, allows itself to be misled, which is necessary to stir an emotion, the minor effects of which are not unpleasant when the soul is in a lazy, unactive mood.

As pity is often by ourselves and in our own cases mistaken for charity, so it assumes the shape, and borrows the very name of it; a beggar asks you to exert that virtue for Jesus Christ’s sake, but all the while his great design is to raise your pity. He represents to your view the first side of his ailments and bodily infirmities; in chosen words he gives you an epitome of his calamities, real or fictitious; and while he seems to pray God that he will open your heart, he is actually at work upon your ears; the greatest profligate of them flies to religion for aid, and assists his cant with a doleful tone, and a studied dismality of gestures: but he trusts not to one passion only, he flatters your pride with titles and names of honour and distinction; your avarice he sooths with often repeating to you the smallness of the gift he sues for, and conditional promises of future returns, with an interest extravagant beyond the statute of usury, though out of the reach of it. People not used to great cities, being thus attacked on all sides, are commonly forced to yield, and cannot help giving something though they can hardly spare it themselves. How oddly are we managed by self-love! It is ever watching in our defence, and yet, to sooth a predominant passion, obliges us to act against our interest: for when pity seizes us, if we can but imagine, that we contribute to the relief of him we have compassion with, and are instrumental to the lessening of his sorrows, it eases us, and therefore pitiful people often give an alms, when they really feel that they would rather not. [159]

As pity is often mistaken for charity by ourselves in our own situations, it takes on the form and even the name of charity. A beggar asks you to show that virtue for the sake of Jesus Christ, but their true aim is to stir your pity. They present the visible side of their suffering and physical issues; using carefully chosen words, they provide a summary of their misfortunes, whether real or made up. While they seem to pray for God to open your heart, they are actually working on your emotions; the most disreputable among them turns to religion for help, adding a mournful tone and deliberate sad gestures. But they don't rely on just one emotion; they flatter your pride with titles and names that imply honor and distinction; they soothe your greed by frequently reminding you how small the gift they ask for is and making conditional promises of future returns, with interest that's wildly beyond any legal limits, even though it's still out of reach. People who aren't used to large cities, when faced with this kind of pressure from all sides, often feel compelled to give, even when they can hardly afford it. How strangely we are influenced by self-love! It's always on guard for our protection, yet when trying to appease a stronger emotion, it leads us to act against our own best interests. When pity grabs hold of us, if we can just imagine that we're helping to ease someone else's suffering, it brings us relief, which is why compassionate people often give alms even when they'd really prefer not to. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

When sores are very bare, or seem otherwise afflicting in an extraordinary manner, and the beggar can bear to have them exposed to the cold air, it is very shocking to some people; it is a shame, they cry, such sights should be suffered; the main reason is, it touches their pity feelingly, and at the same time they are resolved, either because they are covetous, or count it an idle expence, to give nothing, which makes them more uneasy. They turn their eyes, and where the cries are dismal, some would willingly stop their ears if they were not ashamed. What they can do is to mend their pace, and be very angry in their hearts that beggars should be about the streets. But it is with pity as it is with fear, the more we are conversant with objects that excite either passion, the less we are disturbed by them, and those to whom all these scenes and tones are by custom made familiar, they make little impression upon. The only thing the industrious beggar has left to conquer those fortified hearts, if he can walk either with or without crutches, is to follow close, and with uninterrupted noise teaze and importune them, to try if he can make them buy their peace. Thus thousands give money to beggars from the same motive as they pay their corn-cutter, to walk easy. And many a halfpenny is given to impudent and designedly persecuting rascals, whom, if it could be done handsomely, a man would cane with much greater satisfaction. Yet all this, by the courtesy of the country, is called charity.

When wounds are very exposed or seem unusually painful, and the beggar can endure having them out in the cold air, it's quite shocking to some people; they cry it's a shame that such sights should be allowed. The main reason is that it tugs at their emotions, but at the same time, they refuse to give anything because they are either greedy or think it's a waste of money, which makes them feel even more uncomfortable. They look away, and when the cries are heart-wrenching, some would gladly cover their ears if they weren't embarrassed. What they can do is quicken their pace and feel angry in their hearts that there are beggars on the streets. But pity is like fear; the more we encounter things that provoke either feeling, the less they disturb us, and those who have become accustomed to these scenes and sounds are hardly affected. The only strategy left for a determined beggar to reach those hardened hearts, whether he walks with or without crutches, is to follow closely and constantly make noise to annoy and press them, trying to get them to pay him off for some peace. In this way, thousands give money to beggars for the same reason they pay their corn-cutter, wanting some peace of mind. Many a halfpenny is given to rude and intentionally bothersome scoundrels, whom, if it were easy to do so, one would love to beat with a stick. Yet all this is politely called charity in our society.

The reverse of pity is malice: I have spoke of it where I treat of envy. Those who know what it is to examine themselves, will soon own that it is very difficult to trace the root and origin of this passion. It is one of those we are most ashamed of, and therefore the hurtful part of it is easily subdued and corrected by a judicious education. When any body near us stumbles, it is natural even before reflection, to stretch out our hands to hinder, or at least break the fall, which shows that while we are calm we are rather bent to pity. But though malice by itself is little to be feared, yet assisted with pride it is often mischievous, and becomes most terrible when egged on and heightened by anger. There is nothing that more readily or more effectually extinguishes pity than this mixture, which is called cruelty: from whence we may learn, that to perform a meritorious action, it is not sufficient barely to conquer a passion, unless it likewise be done from a laudable principle, and consequently how necessary that clause [160]was in the definition of virtue, that our endeavours were to proceed from a rational ambition of being good.

The opposite of pity is malice: I’ve discussed this when talking about envy. Those who understand what it means to reflect on themselves will quickly admit that it’s very challenging to pinpoint the root and origin of this feeling. It’s one of those emotions we tend to be most embarrassed about, so the harmful aspect of it is often easily subdued and corrected through good education. When someone close to us stumbles, it’s instinctive, even without thinking, to reach out to help or at least to break their fall, which shows that when we’re calm, we’re generally inclined to feel pity. However, while malice by itself isn’t particularly concerning, when combined with pride, it can become quite harmful, and it’s especially dreadful when fueled by anger. There’s nothing that more quickly or effectively snuffs out pity than this mix, which we call cruelty: from this, we can learn that to perform a commendable act, it’s not enough just to overcome an emotion unless it comes from a worthy intention, highlighting how important that clause [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]was in defining virtue, which emphasizes that our efforts should stem from a rational desire to do good.

Pity, as I have said somewhere else, is the most amiable of all our passions, and there are not many occasions, on which we ought to conquer or curb it. A surgeon may be as compassionate as he pleases, so it does not make him omit or forbear to perform what he ought to do. Judges likewise, and juries, may be influenced with pity, if they take care that plain laws and justice itself are not infringed, and do not suffer by it. No pity does more mischief in the world, than what is excited by the tenderness of parents, and hinders them from managing their children, as their rational love to them would require, and themselves could wish it. The sway likewise which this passion bears in the affections of women, is more considerable than is commonly imagined, and they daily commit faults that are altogether ascribed to lust, and yet are in a great measure owing to pity.

Unfortunately, as I've mentioned elsewhere, pity is the most lovable of all our emotions, and there aren’t many situations where we should suppress or control it. A surgeon can be as compassionate as he wants, as long as it doesn’t prevent him from doing what he needs to do. Similarly, judges and juries can feel pity, as long as they ensure that clear laws and justice are upheld and not compromised. No pity causes more harm in the world than that stirred by the affection of parents, which prevents them from raising their children in the way their rational love would demand and they themselves desire. The influence of this emotion in women’s feelings is also more significant than many realize, leading them to make mistakes often attributed solely to lust, while in reality, those mistakes are largely due to pity.

What I named last is not the only passion that mocks and resembles charity; pride and vanity have built more hospitals than all the virtues together. Men are so tenacious of their possessions, and selfishness is so riveted in our nature, that whoever can but any ways conquer it shall have the applause of the public, and all the encouragement imaginable to conceal his frailty, and sooth any other appetite he shall have a mind to indulge. The man that supplies, with his private fortune, what the whole must otherwise have provided for, obliges every member of the society, and, therefore, all the world are ready to pay him their acknowledgment, and think themselves in duty bound to pronounce all such actions virtuous, without examining, or so much as looking into the motives from which they were performed. Nothing is more destructive to virtue or religion itself, than to make men believe, that giving money to the poor, though they should not part with it till after death, will make a full atonement in the next world, for the sins they have committed in this. A villain, who has been guilty of a barbarous murder, may, by the help of false witnesses, escape the punishment he deserved: he prospers, we will say, heaps up great wealth, and, by the advice of his father confessor, leaves all his estate to a monastery, and his children beggars. What fine amends has this good Christian made for his crime, and what an honest man was the priest who directed his conscience? He who parts with all he has in his life-time, whatever principle he [161]acts from, only gives away what was his own; but the rich miser who refuses to assist his nearest relations while he is alive, though they never designedly disobliged him, and disposes of his money, for what we call charitable uses, after his death, may imagine of his goodness what he pleases, but he robs his posterity. I am now thinking of a late instance of charity, a prodigious gift, that has made a great noise in the world: I have a mind to set it in the light I think it deserves, and beg leave, for once, to please pedants, to treat it somewhat rhetorically.

What I mentioned last isn't the only passion that mocks and resembles charity; pride and vanity have built more hospitals than all the virtues combined. People cling tightly to their possessions, and selfishness is so ingrained in our nature that anyone who manages to overcome it will earn public applause and all the encouragement imaginable to hide their flaws and satisfy any other desire they want to indulge. The person who uses their private wealth to cover what society would otherwise need to provide obliges every member of that society, and so everyone is quick to acknowledge him, feeling bound to call such actions virtuous without ever examining the motives behind them. Nothing is more destructive to virtue or religion than leading people to believe that giving money to the poor, even if they don't part with it until after death, will fully atone for their sins in this life. A villain who has committed a horrific murder may, through false witnesses, escape the punishment he deserves: let's say he prospers, accumulates great wealth, and, on the advice of his confessor, leaves all his estate to a monastery, while his children become beggars. What great restitution has this good Christian made for his crime, and what an honest man was the priest who guided his conscience? The person who gives away everything they have in their lifetime, no matter what principles they act on, is simply giving away what was theirs; however, the rich miser who refuses to help his closest relatives while alive, even though they have never intentionally offended him, and decides to donate his money to what we call charitable causes after he dies, may think as highly of his goodness as he likes, but he is robbing his descendants. I’m now thinking of a recent example of charity, a huge gift that's created quite a stir in the world: I want to highlight it as it deserves, and I ask, just this once, to indulge the pedants and discuss it somewhat rhetorically.

That a man, with small skill in physic, and hardly any learning, should, by vile arts, get into practice, and lay up great wealth, is no mighty wonder; but, that he should so deeply work himself into the good opinion of the world as to gain the general esteem of a nation, and establish a reputation beyond all his contemporaries, with no other qualities but a perfect knowledge of mankind, and a capacity of making the most of it, is something extraordinary. If a man arrived to such a height of glory should be almost distracted with pride, sometime give his attendance on a servant or any mean person for nothing, and, at the same time, neglect a nobleman that gives exorbitant fees, at other times refuse to leave his bottle for his business, without any regard to the quality of the persons that sent for him, or the danger they are in: if he should be surly and morose, affect to be an humourist, treat his patients like dogs, though people of distinction, and value no man but what would deify him, and never call in question the certainty of his oracles: if he should insult all the world, affront the first nobility, and extend his insolence even to the royal family: if, to maintain as well as to increase the fame of his sufficiency, he should scorn to consult with his betters on what emergency soever, look down with contempt on the most deserving of his profession, and never confer with any other physician but what will pay homage to his superior genius, creep to his humour, and never approach him but with all the slavish obsequiousness a court-flatterer can treat a prince with: If a man, in his lifetime, should discover, on the one hand, such manifest symptoms of superlative pride, and an insatiable greediness after wealth at the same time, and, on the other, no regard to religion or affection to his kindred, no compassion to the poor, and hardly any humanity to his fellow-creatures, if he gave no proofs that he loved his [162]country, had a public spirit, or was a lover of arts, of books, or of literature, what must we judge of his motive, the principle he acted from, when, after his death, we find that he has left a trifle among his relations who stood in need of it, and an immense treasure to an university that did not want it.

That a man with little skill in medicine and hardly any education could, through unethical means, enter the field and accumulate great wealth is not surprising; however, for him to embed himself so deeply into the public's favor, earning widespread respect and establishing a reputation that surpasses all his peers, with nothing more than a keen understanding of people and the ability to exploit that knowledge, is truly extraordinary. If a man reaches such heights of fame yet is often consumed by pride, at times serving a servant or someone of low status for free while ignoring a nobleman who pays extravagant fees, and at other times refusing to set aside his drinking for work, showing no concern for the status of those who summon him or the danger they face: if he behaves rudely and sourly, pretends to be quirky, treats his patients badly despite their high status, and only values those who worship him and never question his certainty: if he insults everyone, disrespects the highest nobility, and extends his arrogance to the royal family: if he, to maintain and enhance his reputation, dismisses consulting with those more qualified, looks down on the most deserving in his field, and only interacts with other doctors who will flatter his superiority, bowing to his whims with all the fawning subservience a court flatterer shows a prince: if a man in his life exhibits such clear signs of extreme pride, an unquenchable desire for wealth, and on the other hand, shows no regard for religion, little affection for family, no compassion for the poor, and hardly any humanity towards others; if he provides no evidence of loving his country, shows no public spirit, or appreciation for the arts, books, or literature, what should we conclude about his motives and the principles guiding him, when after his death we find that he has bequeathed a small sum to relatives in need, while leaving a vast fortune to a university that had no need for it?

Let a man be as charitable as it is possible for him to be without forfeiting his reason or good sense: can he think otherwise, but that this famous physician did, in the making of his will, as in every thing else, indulge his darling passion, entertaining his vanity with the happiness of the contrivance? when he thought on the monuments and inscriptions, with all the sacrifices of praise that would be made to him, and, above all, the yearly tribute of thanks, of reverence, and veneration that would be paid to his memory, with so much pomp and solemnity; when he considered, how in all these performances, wit and invention would be racked, art and eloquence ransacked to find out encomiums suitable to the public spirit, the munificence and the dignity of the benefactor, and the artful gratitude of the receivers; when he thought on, I say, and considered these things, it must have thrown his ambitious soul into vast ecstasies of pleasure, especially when he ruminated on the duration of his glory, and the perpetuity he would by this means procure to his name. Charitable opinions are often stupidly false; when men are dead and gone, we ought to judge of their actions, as we do of books, and neither wrong their understanding nor our own. The British Æsculapius was undeniably a man of sense, and if he had been influenced by charity, a public spirit, or the love of learning, and had aimed at the good of mankind in general, or that of his own profession in particular, and acted from any of these principles, he could never have made such a will; because so much wealth might have been better managed, and a man of much less capacity would have found out several better ways of laying out the money. But if we consider, that he was as undeniably a man of vast pride, as he was a man of sense, and give ourselves leave only to surmise, that this extraordinary gift might have proceeded from such a motive, we shall presently discover the excellency of his parts, and his consummate knowledge of the world: for, if a man would render himself immortal, be ever praised and deified after his death, and have all the acknowledgment, the honours, and compliments [163]paid to his memory, that vain glory herself could wish for, I do not think it in human skill to invent a more effectual method. Had he followed arms, behaved himself in five-and-twenty sieges, and as many battles, with the bravery of an Alexander, and exposed his life and limbs to all the fatigues and dangers of war for fifty campaigns together; or devoting himself to the muses, sacrificed his pleasure, his rest, and his health to literature, and spent all his days in a laborious study, and the toils of learning; or else, abandoning all worldly interest, excelled in probity, temperance, and austerity of life, and ever trod in the strictest path of virtue, he would not so effectually have provided for the eternity of his name, as after a voluptuous life, and the luxurious gratification of his passions, he has now done without any trouble or self denial, only by the choice in the disposal of his money, when he was forced to leave it.

Let a man be as generous as he can be without losing his reason or good judgment: can he really think that this famous doctor, when making his will, did anything other than indulge his favorite passion, satisfying his vanity with the joy of his plan? When he thought about the monuments and inscriptions, along with all the praises that would be directed at him, and, most importantly, the yearly tributes of thanks, respect, and admiration that would be given to his memory with such grandeur and solemnity; when he considered how in all these tributes, wit and creativity would be stretched, art and eloquence would be exhausted to find suitable praises for the public spirit, the generosity, and the dignity of the benefactor, and the gratefulness of the recipients; when he focused on, I say, and pondered these things, it must have sent his ambitious soul into tremendous ecstasies of pleasure, especially when he reflected on the longevity of his fame and the immortality he would secure for his name through this action. Generous opinions are often misguided; when people are dead and gone, we should judge their actions like we do books, without misjudging their understanding or our own. The British Æsculapius was undoubtedly a sensible man, and if he had been motivated by generosity, a sense of public duty, or a love of knowledge, seeking the overall good of humanity or his profession in particular, and acted on any of these principles, he could never have made such a will; because so much wealth could have been better utilized, and a person with much less intelligence could have found much better ways to spend that money. But if we recognize that he was just as undeniably a proud man as he was a sensible one, and allow ourselves to speculate that this extraordinary gift might have come from such a motive, we'll quickly see the excellence of his skills and his complete understanding of the world: for if a man wants to make himself immortal, be constantly praised and revered after his death, and have all the acknowledgments, honors, and compliments paid to his memory that vain glory could desire, I don't think there's a more effective way to achieve that. Had he engaged in warfare, showing bravery in countless sieges and battles like Alexander, putting his life on the line through the grueling demands and dangers of war for fifty campaigns; or devoted himself to the arts, sacrificing his pleasures, rest, and health for literature, spending all his days in intensive study and the challenges of learning; or, alternatively, forsaking all worldly pursuits, excelling in integrity, moderation, and a strict life, constantly walking the narrowest path of virtue, he wouldn’t have so effectively secured the eternal legacy of his name as he has now done after a life of luxury and indulgence, effortlessly, merely through his choice of how to allocate his money when he had to leave it behind.

A rich miser, who is thoroughly selfish, and would receive the interest of his money, even after his death, has nothing else to do than to defraud his relations, and leave his estate to some famous university; they are the best markets to buy immortality at with little merit: in them knowledge, wit, and penetration are the growth, I had almost said the manufacture of the place: there men are profoundly skilled in human nature, and know what it is their benefactors want; and their extraordinary bounties shall always meet with an extraordinary recompence, and the measure of the gift is ever the standard of their praises, whether the donor be a physician or a tinker, when once the living witnesses that might laugh at them are extinct. I can never think on the anniversary of the thanksgiving-day decreed to a great man, but it puts me in mind of the miraculous cures, and other surprising things that will be said of him a hundred years hence; and I dare prognosticate, that before the end of the present century, he will have stories forged in his favour (for rhetoricians are never upon oath) that shall be as fabulous, at least, as any legends of the saints.

A wealthy miser, who is completely selfish and would even take the interest from his money after he’s dead, has nothing better to do than cheat his relatives and leave his estate to a prestigious university; they’re the best places to buy a legacy with minimal merit: in these institutions, knowledge, wit, and insight are cultivated, I might even say manufactured. There, people are experts in human nature and understand exactly what their benefactors desire; their exceptional donations will always receive exceptional rewards, and the size of the gift is the benchmark for their praise, whether the donor is a doctor or a handyman, once the living witnesses who might mock them have passed away. Whenever I think about the anniversary of the thanksgiving day established in honor of a great man, it reminds me of the miraculous cures and other astonishing things that will be claimed about him a hundred years from now; I can confidently predict that by the end of this century, there will be many stories spun in his favor (since rhetoricians are never accountable) that will be at least as legendary as any tales of the saints.

Of all this our subtle benefactor was not ignorant; he understood universities, their genius, and their politics, and from thence foresaw and knew, that the incense to be offered to him would not cease with the present or few succeeding generations, and that it would not only for the trifling space of three or four hundred years, but that it would continue to be paid to him through all changes and revolutions of [164]government and religion, as long as the nation subsists, and the island itself remains.

Of all this, our clever benefactor was well aware; he understood universities, their culture, and their politics, and from that knowledge, he anticipated and realized that the praise offered to him would not stop with the current or just a few future generations. It wouldn’t just last for a short period of three or four hundred years, but would continue to be given to him through all changes and upheavals of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]government and religion, as long as the nation exists and the island itself remains.

It is deplorable that the proud should have such temptations to wrong their lawful heirs: For when a man in ease and affluence, brim-full of vain glory, and humoured in his pride by the greatest of a polite nation, has such an infallible security in petto for an everlasting homage and adoration to his manes to be paid in such an extraordinary manner, he is like a hero in battle, who, in feasting of his own imagination, tastes all the felicity of enthusiasm. It buys him up in sickness, relieves him in pain, and either guards him against, or keeps from his view all the terrors of death, and the most dismal apprehensions of futurity.

It’s sad that the proud have such temptations to wrong their rightful heirs. When a man lives in comfort and wealth, filled with vanity and supported in his pride by the most respected people of a polite society, and holds a foolproof guarantee in mind for everlasting homage and adoration to his memory in such an extraordinary way, he is like a hero in battle who, in feasting on his own imagination, experiences all the joy of enthusiasm. It lifts him up when he’s sick, eases his pain, and either protects him from or keeps out of sight all the fears of death and the darkest worries about the future.

Should it be said, that to be thus censorious, and look into matters, and men’s consciences with that nicety, will discourage people from laying out their money this way; and that, let the money and the motive of the donor be what they will, he that receives the benefit is the gainer, I would not disown the charge, but am of opinion, that this is no injury to the public, should one prevent men from crowding too much treasure into the dead stock of the kingdom. There ought to be a vast disproportion between the active and unactive part of the society to make it happy, and where this is not regarded, the multitude of gifts and endowments may soon be excessive and detrimental to a nation. Charity, where it is too extensive, seldom fails of promoting sloth and idleness, and is good for little in the commonwealth but to breed drones, and destroy industry. The more colleges and alms-houses you build, the more you may. The first founders and benefactors may have just and good intentions, and would perhaps, for their own reputations, seem to labour for the most laudable purposes, but the executors of those wills, the governors that come after him, have quite other views, and we seldom see charities long applied as it was first intended they should be. I have no design that is cruel, nor the least aim that savours of inhumanity. To have sufficient hospitals for sick and wounded, I look upon as an indispensable duty both in peace and war: Young children without parents, old age without support, and all that are disabled from working, ought to be taken care of with tenderness and alacrity. But as, on the one hand, I would have none neglected that are helpless, and really necessitous without being wanting to themselves, so, on the [165]other, I would not encourage beggary or laziness in the poor: All should be set to work that are anywise able, and scrutinies should be made even among the infirm: Employments might be found out for most of our lame, and many that are unfit for hard labour, as well as the blind, as long as their health and strength would allow of it. What I have now under consideration leads me naturally to that kind of distraction the nation has laboured under for some time, the enthusiastic passion for Charity-Schools.

Should we say that being so critical and examining matters, as well as people’s consciences with such precision, will discourage individuals from spending their money this way? And that regardless of the donor's money or motives, the one who benefits is the actual winner? I wouldn't deny this claim, but I believe it's not harmful to the public if it prevents people from pouring too much wealth into the stagnant assets of the kingdom. There should be a significant imbalance between the active and inactive segments of society for happiness to thrive; if this is overlooked, an excess of gifts and endowments can quickly become detrimental to a nation. Charity, when it's too widespread, often promotes laziness and idleness, serving little purpose in society except to create freeloaders and undermine hard work. The more colleges and alms-houses you construct, the more you may. The initial founders and donors might have good intentions, possibly aiming to enhance their reputations by pursuing noble goals, but the executors of their wills and the administrators that follow often have different agendas, and we rarely see charities maintained as originally intended. I have no cruel intentions or any hint of inhumanity. I view establishing sufficient hospitals for the sick and injured as an essential duty, both in peace and in war. Young children without parents, the elderly without support, and everyone unable to work should be cared for with kindness and eagerness. However, while I wouldn't want to neglect those who are helpless and genuinely in need without being passive themselves, I also wouldn’t encourage begging or laziness among the poor. Everyone capable should be put to work, and assessments should be made even among the disabled. Jobs can be found for most of our physically challenged individuals, and many who can't do hard labor, as well as the blind, as long as their health and strength permit. What I’m considering now naturally leads me to the kind of distraction that the nation has been dealing with for some time now—the intense passion for Charity Schools.

The generality are so bewitched with the usefulness and excellency of them, that whoever dares openly oppose them is in danger of being stoned by the rabble. Children that are taught the principles of religion, and can read the word of God, have a greater opportunity to improve in virtue and good morality, and must certainly be more civilized than others, that are suffered to run at random, and have nobody to look after them. How perverse must be the judgment of those, who would not rather see children decently dressed, with clean linen at least once a-week, that, in an orderly manner, follow their master to church, than in every open place, meet with a company of blackguards without shirts or any thing whole about them, that, insensible of their misery, are continually increasing it with oaths and imprecations! Can any one doubt but these are the great nursery of thieves and pickpockets? What numbers of felons, and other criminals, have we tried and convicted every sessions! This will be prevented by charity-schools; and when the children of the poor receive a better education, the society will, in a few years, reap the benefit of it, and the nation be cleared of so many miscreants, as now this great city, and all the country about it, are filled with.

The general public is so captivated by their usefulness and excellence that anyone who openly opposes them risks being attacked by the mob. Children who are taught the fundamentals of religion and can read the Bible have a better chance to grow in virtue and good morals, and they must be more civilized than those who are left to wander aimlessly without anyone to guide them. How misguided must be the judgment of those who would prefer to see children properly dressed, in clean clothes at least once a week, following their teacher to church in an orderly fashion, rather than encountering a group of troublemakers without shirts or anything decent, who, unaware of their misery, only add to it with curses and insults? Who can doubt that these are the breeding grounds for thieves and pickpockets? How many criminals have we tried and convicted every session! This will be prevented by charity schools; and when the kids of the less fortunate receive a better education, society will, in a few years, benefit from it, and the nation will be rid of many wrongdoers that currently fill this great city and the surrounding areas.

This is the general cry, and he that speaks the least word against it, an uncharitable, hard-hearted and inhuman, if not a wicked, profane, and atheistical wretch. As to the comeliness of the sight, nobody disputes it; but I would not have a nation pay too dear for so transient a pleasure; and if we might set aside the finery of the show, every thing that is material in this popular oration might soon be answered.

This is the common opinion, and anyone who says a word against it is seen as unkind, cold-hearted, and inhumane, if not a wicked, profane, and godless person. No one argues about how nice it looks; however, I don't think a nation should pay too much for such a fleeting enjoyment. If we could ignore the glamour of the show, everything important in this popular speech could be quickly addressed.

As to religion, the most knowing and polite part of a nation have every where the least of it; craft has a greater hand in making rogues than stupidity, and vice, in general, is nowhere more predominant than where arts and sciences flourish. Ignorance is, to a proverb, counted to be the mother [166]of devotion; and it is certain, that we shall find innocence and honesty nowhere more general than among the most illiterate, the poor silly country people. The next to be considered, are the manners and civility that by charity-schools are to be grafted into the poor of the nation. I confess that, in my opinion, to be in any degree possessed of what I named, is a frivolous, if not a hurtful quality, at least nothing is less requisite in the laborious poor. It is not compliments we want of them, but their work and assiduity. But I give up this article with all my heart; good manners we will say are necessary to all people, but which way will they be furnished with them in a charity-school? Boys there may be taught to pull off their caps promiscuously to all they meet, unless it be a beggar: But that they should acquire in it any civility beyond that I cannot conceive.

When it comes to religion, the most educated and refined people in a society tend to have the least of it; craftiness contributes more to creating deceivers than ignorance does, and generally, vice is more prevalent where arts and sciences thrive. Ignorance is often referred to as the mother [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]of devotion; it's clear that we’ll find innocence and honesty most common among the uneducated, poor, simple country folks. The next topic to address is the manners and civility that charity schools are supposed to instill in the poor population. Personally, I believe that having even a bit of what I mentioned is a trivial, if not harmful, trait; at the very least, it's not something the hardworking poor truly need. What we need from them isn’t politeness but their labor and dedication. However, I fully concede this point; let’s agree that good manners are essential for everyone, but how will they learn this in a charity school? Boys might be taught to take off their hats for anyone they encounter, except for a beggar, but I can’t imagine they’ll gain any civility beyond that.

The master is not greatly qualified, as may be guessed by his salary, and if he could teach them manners he has not time for it: while they are at school they are either learning or saying their lesson to him, or employed in writing or arithmetic; and as soon as school is done, they are as much at liberty as other poor people’s children. It is precept, and the example of parents, and those they eat, drink and converse with, that have an influence upon the minds of children: reprobate parents that take ill courses, and are regardless to their children, will not have a mannerly civilized offspring though they went to a charity-school till they were married. The honest pains-taking people, be they never so poor, if they have any notion of goodness and decency themselves, will keep their children in awe, and never suffer them to rake about the streets, and lie out a-nights. Those who will work themselves, and have any command over their children, will make them do something or other that turns to profit as soon as they are able, be it never so little; and such are so ungovernable, that neither words nor blows can work upon them, no charity-school will mend; nay, experience teaches us, that among the charity-boys there are abundance of bad ones that swear and curse about, and, bar the clothes, are as much blackguard as ever Tower-hill or St. James’s produced.

The teacher isn't very qualified, which is clear from his salary, and even if he could teach them manners, he doesn't have the time. While they're in school, they're either learning or reciting their lessons to him, or they're busy with writing or math. As soon as school is over, they're as free as other less fortunate kids. It's the rules and the example set by their parents and those they eat, drink, and talk with that really shape children's minds. Irresponsible parents who make poor choices and neglect their children won't raise well-mannered kids, even if they send them to a charity school until they get married. Honest, hardworking people, no matter how poor they are, if they have any sense of decency, will keep their children in check and won’t let them roam the streets or stay out all night. Those who work hard themselves and have some authority over their kids will make them do something productive as soon as they're able, no matter how small. And there are those who are so unruly that neither words nor punishment can change them; no charity school will fix that. In fact, experience shows that among the charity boys, there are plenty of troublemakers who swear and curse, and aside from their clothes, they are just as rough as any kids you’d find in Tower Hill or St. James’s.

I am now come to the enormous crimes, and vast multitude of malefactors, that are all laid upon the want of this notable education. That abundance of thefts and robberies are daily committed in and about the city, and great numbers yearly suffer death for those crimes is undeniable: but [167]because this is ever hooked in, when the usefulness of charity-schools is called in question, as if there was no dispute, but they would in a great measure remedy, and in time prevent those disorders; I intend to examine into the real causes of those mischiefs so justly complained of, and doubt not but to make it appear that charity-schools, and every thing else that promotes idleness, and keeps the poor from working, are more accessary to the growth of villany, than the want of reading and writing, or even the grossest ignorance and stupidity.

I’ve now come to the serious crimes and the large number of wrongdoers that are attributed to the lack of this important education. It’s undeniable that many thefts and robberies happen every day in and around the city, and lots of people face death for these crimes each year: but [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] this is always brought up when the effectiveness of charity schools is questioned, as if it’s accepted that they would largely fix and eventually prevent these issues. I intend to look into the real reasons behind the problems that are so rightly criticized and I believe I can show that charity schools, along with anything else that encourages idleness and keeps the poor from working, contribute more to the rise of crime than the lack of reading and writing or even the worst forms of ignorance and stupidity.

Here I must interrupt myself to obviate the clamours of some impatient people, who, upon reading of what I said last, will cry out, that far from encouraging idleness, they bring up their charity-children to handicrafts, as well as trades, and all manner of honest labour. I promise them that I shall take notice of that hereafter, and answer it without stifling the least thing that can be said in their behalf.

Here I need to pause to address the complaints of some impatient people who, upon reading what I said earlier, will shout that instead of encouraging laziness, they teach their charity children various trades, crafts, and all kinds of honest work. I assure them that I will acknowledge this issue later and respond without ignoring any valid points in their favor.

In a populous city, it is not difficult for a young rascal, that has pushed himself into a crowd, with a small hand and nimble fingers, to whip away a handkerchief or snuff-box, from a man who is thinking on business, and regardless of his pocket. Success in small crimes seldom fails of ushering in greater; and he that picks pockets with impunity at twelve, is likely to be a house-breaker at sixteen, and a thorough-paced villain long before he is twenty. Those who are cautious as well as bold, and no drunkards, may do a world of mischief before they are discovered: and this is one of the greatest inconveniencies of such vast overgrown cities, as London or Paris; that they harbour rogues and villains as granaries do vermin; they afford a perpetual shelter to the worst of people, and are places of safety to thousands of criminals, who daily commit thefts and burglaries, and yet, by often changing their places of abode, may conceal themselves for many years, and will perhaps for ever escape the hands of justice, unless by chance they are apprehended in a fact. And when they are taken, the evidences perhaps want clearness, or are otherwise insufficient; the depositions are not strong enough; juries and often judges are touched with compassion; prosecutors though vigorous at first, often relent before the time of trial comes on: few men prefer the public safety to their own ease; a man of good-nature is not easily reconciled with taking away of another man’s life, though he has deserved the gallows. To be the cause of any [168]ones death, though justice requires it, is what most people is startled at, especially men of conscience and probity, when they want judgment or resolution: as this is the reason that thousands escape that deserve to be capitally punished, so it is likewise the cause that there are so many offenders, who boldly venture, in hopes that if they are taken they shall have the same good fortune of getting off.

In a crowded city, it's not hard for a young troublemaker, who slips into a group, with quick hands and agile fingers, to snatch a handkerchief or snuffbox from someone preoccupied with their business, completely unaware of their belongings. Those who succeed in small crimes often move on to bigger ones; someone who picks pockets without getting caught at twelve is likely to become a burglar at sixteen, and a full-fledged criminal long before reaching twenty. Those who are both cautious and daring, and not addicted to drink, can cause a lot of trouble before they get caught. This is one of the biggest disadvantages of sprawling cities like London or Paris; they harbor thieves and scoundrels just as grain storages harbor pests; they provide a constant refuge for the worst kinds of people, and are safe havens for countless criminals who commit thefts and break-ins every day. By frequently changing where they live, they can evade capture for years, and might even escape justice forever—unless they're caught in the act. And when they are apprehended, the evidence might be unclear or inadequate; testimonies often lack strength; juries and sometimes even judges feel sympathy; and prosecutors who are determined at first often back down by the time of the trial. Few people prioritize public safety over their own comfort; a good-hearted person finds it difficult to accept taking another person's life, even if that person deserves the gallows. Causing someone's death, even if justice demands it, is something that most people find unsettling, especially conscientious and honest individuals, when they struggle to make a judgment or decision. This is why many escape who deserve severe punishment, and also the reason that there are so many offenders who boldly take risks, hoping that if they are caught, they will be just as fortunate in getting away.

But if men did imagine, and were fully persuaded, that as surely as they committed a fact that deserved hanging, so surely they would be hanged; executions would be very rare, and the most desperate felon would almost as soon hang himself as he would break open a house. To be stupid and ignorant is seldom the character of a thief. Robberies on the highway, and other bold crimes, are generally perpetrated by rogues of spirit, and a genius; and villains of any fame are commonly subtle cunning fellows, that are well versed in the method of trials, and acquainted with every quirk in the law that can be of use to them; that overlook not the smallest flaw in an indictment, and know how to make an advantage of the least slip of an evidence, and every thing else, that can serve their turn to bring them off.

But if people truly believed, and were absolutely convinced, that if they committed a crime deserving of hanging, they would definitely be hanged; executions would be very uncommon, and even the most desperate criminal would prefer to hang themselves rather than break into a house. Being stupid and ignorant is rarely the trait of a thief. Robberies on the highway and other bold crimes are usually carried out by clever, spirited individuals, and notorious criminals are typically sly and cunning, well-versed in the trial process, and familiar with every legal loophole that could benefit them; they don’t miss the tiniest flaw in an indictment and know how to take advantage of the smallest mistake by a witness, along with anything else that could help them get off.

It is a mighty saying, that it is better that five hundred guilty people should escape, than that one innocent person should suffer: this maxim is only true as to futurity, and in relation to another world; but it is very false in regard to the temporal welfare of society. It is a terrible thing a man should be put to death for a crime he is not guilty of; yet so oddly circumstances may meet in the infinite variety of accidents, that it is possible it should come to pass, all the wisdom that judges, and consciousness that juries may be possessed of, notwithstanding. But where men endeavour to avoid this, with all the care and precaution human prudence is able to take, should such a misfortune happen perhaps once or twice in half a score years, on condition that all that time justice should be administered with all the strictness and severity, and not one guilty person suffered to escape with impunity, it would be a vast advantage to a nation, not only as to the securing of every ones property, and the peace of the society in general, but would likewise save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of necessitous wretches, that are daily hanged for trifles, and who would never have attempted any thing against the law, or at least have ventured on capital crimes, [169]if the hopes of getting off, should they be taken, had not been one of the motives that animated their resolution. Therefore where the laws are plain and severe, all the remissness in the execution of them, lenity of juries, and frequency of pardons, are in the main a much greater cruelty to a populous state or kingdom, than the use of racks and the most exquisite torments.

It’s a strong statement that it’s better for five hundred guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to suffer; this principle is only true when looking to the future and in the context of another world. However, it’s quite misleading when it comes to the immediate welfare of society. It’s terrible for someone to be executed for a crime they didn’t commit; still, given the unpredictable nature of circumstances, it’s possible that can happen despite all the wisdom of judges and juries. But when people try to prevent this with as much care and caution as they can, if such a misfortune occurs once or twice in twenty years, while ensuring that justice is managed strictly, and no guilty person goes unpunished, it would greatly benefit the nation. This would not only secure everyone’s property and maintain social peace but also save the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of desperate individuals who are hanged for minor offenses—people who might never have broken the law, or at least not committed serious crimes, if they hadn’t been motivated by the hope of getting away with it. Therefore, in cases where the laws are clear and strict, any negligence in enforcing them, leniency from juries, and frequent pardons are ultimately much more cruel to a populous state or kingdom than the use of torture or extreme punishments.

Another great cause of those evils, is to be looked for in the want of precaution in those that are robbed, and the many temptations that are given. Abundance of families are very remiss in looking after the safety of their houses; some are robbed by the carelessness of servants, others for having grudged the price of bars and shutters. Brass and pewter are ready money, they are every where about the house; plate perhaps and money are better secured; but an ordinary lock is soon opened, when once a rogue is got in.

Another major cause of these problems can be found in the lack of caution among those who get robbed, along with the many temptations presented. Many families are quite careless about ensuring the safety of their homes; some get robbed because of their servants' negligence, while others suffer theft because they were too cheap to buy proper bars and shutters. Brass and pewter are easy cash, as they are readily available around the house; silverware and cash may be better protected, but a simple lock can be easily picked once a thief gains entry.

It is manifest, then, that many different causes concur, and several scarce avoidable evils contribute to the misfortune of being pestered with pilferers, thieves, and robbers, which all countries ever were, and ever will be, more or less, in and near considerable towns, more especially vast and overgrown cities. It is opportunity makes the thief; carelessness and neglect in fastening doors and windows, the excessive tenderness of juries and prosecutors, the small difficulty of getting a reprieve and frequency of pardons; but above all, the many examples of those who are known to be guilty, are destitute both of friends and money, and yet by imposing on the jury, baffling the witnesses, or other tricks and stratagems, find out means to escape the gallows. These are all strong temptations that conspire to draw in the necessitous, who want principle and education.

It’s clear that a variety of factors come together, and several nearly unavoidable issues contribute to the problem of dealing with pickpockets, thieves, and robbers, which all countries have faced and will continue to face, more or less, especially in and around significant towns, particularly large and sprawling cities. It’s opportunity that creates the thief; carelessness in securing doors and windows, the overly lenient attitudes of juries and prosecutors, the ease of obtaining a reprieve, and the frequent pardons all play a role as well. But above all, many known criminals, lacking both friends and money, manage to avoid punishment by misleading the jury, confusing witnesses, or employing other tricks and schemes. These are powerful temptations that attract those in need, who lack moral guidance and education.

To these you may add as auxiliaries to mischief, an habit of sloth and idleness, and strong aversion to labour and assiduity, which all young people will contract that are not brought up to downright working, or at least kept employed most days in the week, and the greatest part of the day. All children that are idle, even the best of either sex, are bad company to one another whenever they meet.

To this, you can add a tendency for laziness and idleness, along with a strong dislike for work and diligence, which all young people will develop if they are not raised to actually work or at least kept busy most days of the week and for a large part of the day. All children who are idle, even the best of both boys and girls, become poor company for each other whenever they gather.

It is not, then, the want of reading and writing, but the concurrence and complication of more substantial evils, that are the perpetual nursery of abandoned profligates in great and opulent nations; and whoever would accuse ignorance, stupidity, and dastardness, as the first, and what the physicians [170]call the procataric cause, let him examine into the lives, and narrowly inspect the conversations and actions of ordinary rogues and our common felons, and he will find the reverse to be true, and that the blame ought rather to be laid on the excessive cunning and subtlety, and too much knowledge in general, which the worst of miscreants and the scum of the nation are possessed of.

It’s not just a lack of reading and writing that creates the ongoing problem of lost souls in wealthy nations; rather, it’s the combination of deeper issues that fuels the issue. And anyone who points to ignorance, stupidity, and cowardice as the main culprits should closely examine the lives, conversations, and actions of everyday crooks and common criminals. They will see the opposite is true; the blame should actually be placed on the excessive cunning and cleverness, along with an abundance of general knowledge, that the worst offenders and society's outcasts possess.

Human nature is every where the same: genius, wit, and natural parts, are always sharpened by application, and may be as much improved in the practice of the meanest villany, as they can in the exercise of industry, or the most heroic virtue. There is no station of life, where pride, emulation, and the love of glory may not be displayed. A young pick-pocket, that makes a jest of his angry prosecutor, and dextrously wheedles the old justice into an opinion of his innocence, is envied by his equals, and admired by all the fraternity. Rogues have the same passions to gratify as other men, and value themselves on their honour and faithfulness to one another, their courage, intrepidity, and other manly virtues, as well as people of better professions; and in daring enterprises, the resolution of a robber may be as much supported by his pride, as that of an honest soldier, who fights for his country.

Human nature is the same everywhere: talent, wit, and natural abilities are always enhanced by effort and can be just as developed in practicing the most despicable crimes as they can in working hard or displaying great virtue. There’s no position in life where pride, ambition, and the desire for recognition can’t be seen. A young pickpocket who mocks his angry accuser and skillfully persuades the old judge to believe in his innocence is envied by his peers and admired by others in the profession. Thieves have the same desires to satisfy as anyone else and take pride in their honor and loyalty to each other, their bravery, fearlessness, and other manly traits, just like people in more respected jobs; in bold undertakings, a robber's determination can be just as fueled by pride as that of an honorable soldier fighting for his country.

The evils then we complain of, are owing to quite other causes than what we assign for them. Men must be very wavering in their sentiments, if not inconsistent with themselves, that at one time will uphold knowledge and learning to be the most proper means to promote religion, and defend at another, that ignorance is the mother of devotion.

The problems we complain about actually come from different reasons than the ones we claim. People must be really inconsistent in their beliefs if they can support knowledge and learning as the best way to promote religion one moment, and then argue that ignorance is the source of devotion the next.

But if the reasons alleged for this general education are not the true ones, whence comes it, that the whole kingdom, both great and small, are so unanimously fond of it? There is no miraculous conversion to be perceived among us, no universal bent to goodness and morality that has on a sudden overspread the island; there is as much wickedness as ever, charity is as cold, and real virtue as scarce: the year seventeen hundred and twenty, has been as prolific in deep villany, and remarkable for selfish crimes and premeditated mischief, as can be picked out of any century whatever; not committed by poor ignorant rogues, that could neither read nor write, but the better sort of people as to wealth and education, that most of them were great masters in arithmetic, and lived in reputation and splendor. To say, that when a [171]thing is once in vogue, the multitude follows the common cry, that charity schools are in fashion in the same manner as hooped petticoats, by caprice, and that no more reason can be given for the one than the other, I am afraid will not be satisfactory to the curious, and at the same time I doubt much, whether it will be thought of great weight by many of my readers, what I can advance besides.

But if the reasons given for this general education aren’t the real ones, why is it that the whole kingdom, both big and small, is so unanimously in favor of it? There’s no miraculous change among us, no universal drive toward goodness and morality that has suddenly taken over the island; there is as much wickedness as ever, kindness is as scarce, and real virtue is hard to find: the year 1720 was just as full of deep villainy and notable selfish crimes and planned mischief as any century before it; not committed by poor, ignorant people who couldn’t read or write, but by more affluent and educated individuals, many of whom were skilled in arithmetic and lived in wealth and luxury. To say that when something becomes popular, the crowd just follows the trend, and that charity schools are in fashion like hooped petticoats, purely out of whim, and that there’s no more reason for one than the other, I’m afraid won’t satisfy the curious, and I also doubt that many of my readers will find what I can offer beyond this particularly significant.

The real source of this present folly, is certainly very abstruse and remote from sight; but he that affords the least light in matters of great obscurity, does a kind office to the inquirers. I am willing to allow, that in the beginning, the first design of those schools, was good and charitable; but to know what increases them so extravagantly, and who are the chief promoters of them now, we must make our search another way, and address ourselves to the rigid party-men, that are zealous for their cause, either episcopacy or presbytery; but as the latter are but the poor mimicks of the first, though equally pernicious, we shall confine ourselves to the national church, and take a turn through a parish that is not blessed yet with a charity school.—But here I think myself obliged in conscience to ask pardon of my reader, for the tiresome dance I am going to lead him, if he intends to follow me, and therefore I desire, that he would either throw away the book and leave me, or else arm himself with the patience of Job, to endure all the impertinences of low life; the cant and tittle-tattle he is like to meet with before he can go half a street’s length.

The real source of this current foolishness is definitely hidden and out of sight; but anyone who sheds even a little light on complex issues is doing a good service for those searching for answers. I’m willing to admit that initially, the purpose of those schools was noble and charitable; however, to understand what drives their outrageous growth now and who the main supporters are, we need to change our approach and focus on the strict party loyalists who are passionate about their cause, whether it’s episcopacy or presbytery. Since the latter are merely poor imitations of the former, though just as harmful, we will limit our discussion to the national church and take a walk through a parish that isn’t yet blessed with a charity school. But here I feel it's only fair to apologize to my reader for the tedious journey I'm about to take him on, if he chooses to follow me. Therefore, I suggest that he either toss the book aside and leave, or prepare himself with the patience of Job to endure the trivialities of everyday life; the pointless chatter and gossip he’s sure to encounter before he even makes it halfway down the street.

First we must look out among the young shop-keepers, that have not half the business they could wish for, and consequently time to spare. If such a new-beginner has but a little pride more than ordinary, and loves to be meddling, he is soon mortified in the vestry, where men of substance and long standing, or else your pert litigious or opinionated bawlers, that have obtained the title of notable men, commonly bear the sway. His stock and perhaps credit are but inconsiderable, and yet he finds within himself a strong inclination to govern. A man thus qualified, thinks it a thousand pities there is no charity-school in the parish: he communicates his thoughts to two or three of his acquaintance first; they do the same to others, and in a month’s time there is nothing else talked of in the parish. Every body invents discourses and arguments to the purpose, according to his abilities.—It is an arrant shame, says one, to see so many poor that are not [172]able to educate their children, and no provision made for them, where we have so many rich people. What do you talk of rich, answers another, they are the worst: they must have so many servants, coaches and horses: they can lay out hundreds, and some of them thousands of pounds for jewels and furniture, but not spare a shilling to a poor creature that wants it: when modes and fashions are discoursed of, they can hearken with great attention, but are wilfully deaf to the cries of the poor. Indeed, neighbour, replies the first, you are very right, I do not believe there is a worse parish in England for charity than ours: It is such as you and I that would do good if it was in our power, but of those that are able there is very few that are willing.

First, we need to look at the young shopkeepers who don’t have as much business as they’d like and therefore have some free time. If one of these newcomers has a bit more pride than usual and enjoys getting involved, he quickly feels out of place in the vestry, where established and well-off men, or the brash, argumentative hotshots who have earned the label of notable figures, usually hold power. His stock and maybe his credit are pretty limited, yet he feels a strong urge to take charge. A person like this thinks it’s a real shame that there isn’t a charity school in the community. He shares his thoughts with a couple of friends, and they pass it on to others, and within a month, it’s all anyone talks about in the parish. Everyone comes up with their own speeches and arguments about it, depending on their abilities. “It’s a disgrace,” says one, “to see so many poor people who can’t educate their kids and nothing done about it, especially with so many wealthy people around.” “What do you mean wealthy?” another replies, “They’re the worst! They have to keep so many servants, coaches, and horses. They can spend hundreds, even thousands of pounds on jewelry and furniture, but can’t spare a penny for someone in need. When it comes to discussing trends and fashions, they listen intently, but they turn a blind eye to the cries of the poor.” “You’re absolutely right, neighbor,” replies the first. “I truly don’t think there’s a worse parish in England for charity than ours. It’s people like you and me who would help if we could, but among those who are able, there are very few who are willing.”

Others more violent, fall upon particular persons, and fasten slander on every man of substance they dislike, and a thousand idle stories in behalf of charity, are raised and handed about to defame their betters. While this is doing throughout the neighbourhood, he that first broached the pious thought, rejoices to hear so many come into it, and places no small merit in being the first cause of so much talk and bustle: but neither himself nor his intimates, being considerable enough to set such a thing on foot, some body must be found out who has greater interest: he is to be addressed to, and showed the necessity, the goodness, the usefulness, and Christianity of such a design: next he is to be flattered.—Indeed, Sir, if you would espouse it, nobody has a greater influence over the best of the parish than yourself: one word of you I am sure would engage such a one: if you once would take it to heart, Sir, I would look upon the thing as done, Sir.—If by this kind of rhetoric they can draw in some old fool, or conceited busy-body that is rich, or at least reputed to be such, the thing begins to be feasible, and is discoursed of among the better sort. The parson or his curate, and the lecturer, are every where extolling the pious project. The first promoters meanwhile are indefatigable: if they were guilty of any open vice, they either sacrifice it to the love of reputation, or at least grow more cautious and learn to play the hypocrite, well knowing that to be flagitious or noted for enormities, is inconsistent with the zeal which they pretend to, for works of supererogation and excessive piety.

Some people, more aggressive, target specific individuals and spread rumors about anyone of means they dislike, creating a thousand baseless stories under the guise of charity to tarnish the reputation of those they envy. While this is happening throughout the neighborhood, the one who first suggested the noble idea takes pleasure in seeing so many buy into it and feels a sense of pride in being the origin of all the chatter and commotion: but since neither he nor his close friends has enough influence to get the ball rolling, someone with more connections needs to be found. They must approach this person, highlighting the necessity, goodness, usefulness, and Christian nature of the proposal, and then flatter him. "Indeed, Sir, if you would support it, no one has more sway over the best of the parish than you do: one word from you would surely persuade such a person. If you took this to heart, Sir, I would consider the matter settled." If they can lure in some old fool or self-important busybody who is wealthy or at least thought to be, the plan becomes more achievable and starts to circulate among the upper class. The priest or his assistant, along with the lecturer, are all singing the praises of the noble project. Meanwhile, the initial promoters are tireless: if they have any openly sinful behavior, they either give it up for the sake of their reputation or become more careful and learn to be hypocrites, fully aware that being scandalous or notorious for wrongdoing is at odds with the fervor they claim to have for acts of excess and extreme piety.

The number of these diminutive patriots increasing, they form themselves into a society, and appoint stated meetings, where every one concealing his vices, has liberty to display [173]his talents. Religion is the theme, or else the misery of the times occasioned by atheism and profaneness. Men of worth, who live in splendour, and thriving people that have a great deal of business of their own, are seldom seen among them. Men of sense and education likewise, if they have nothing to do, generally look out for better diversion. All those who have a higher aim, shall have their attendance easily excused, but contribute they must, or else lead a weary life in the parish. Two sorts of people come in voluntarily, stanch churchmen, who have good reasons for it in petto, and your sly sinners that look upon it as meritorious, and hope that it will expiate their guilt, and Satan be nonsuited by it at a small expence. Some come into it to save their credit, others to retrieve it, according as they have either lost or are afraid of losing it: others again do it prudentially, to increase their trade and get acquaintance, and many would own to you, if they dared to be sincere and speak the truth, that they would never have been concerned in it, but to be better known in the parish. Men of sense that see the folly of it, and have nobody to fear, are persuaded into it not to be thought singular, or to run counter to all the world; even those who are resolute at first in denying it, it is ten to one but at last they are teazed and importuned into a compliance. The charge being calculated for most of the inhabitants, the insignificancy of it is another argument that prevails much, and many are drawn in to be contributors, who, without that, would have stood out and strenuously opposed the whole scheme.

As the number of these tiny patriots grows, they create a society and schedule regular meetings, where everyone hides their faults but is free to showcase [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]their skills. The focus is on religion or the troubles of the times caused by atheism and irreverence. Worthy individuals who live in luxury and busy people with their own affairs are rarely seen among them. Intelligent and educated people, if they're not occupied, usually seek better entertainment. Those with higher ambitions can easily excuse themselves from attending, but they must contribute or else lead a tedious life in the parish. Two kinds of people join voluntarily: devoted churchgoers, who have good reasons for doing so, and cunning sinners who see it as virtuous and hope it will atone for their wrongdoings, getting off easy with the devil. Some join to save their reputation, while others do it to recover it, depending on whether they have lost or fear losing it. Others do it for practical reasons, to boost their business and make connections, and many would admit, if they were honest, that they wouldn’t have participated if not to be better recognized in the parish. Sensible people who see the absurdity of it and have no one to fear often join just to avoid being seen as unusual or to go against the crowd; even those who are initially resolute about rejecting it are likely to be pressured and persuaded into going along with it in the end. The cost being calculated for most residents makes it seem insignificant, which is another reason many are drawn to contribute, who otherwise would have resisted and strongly opposed the entire idea.

The governors are made of the middling people, and many inferior to that class are made use of, if the forwardness of their zeal can but over-balance the meanness of their condition. If you should ask these worthy rulers, why they take upon them so much trouble, to the detriment of their own affairs and loss of time, either singly or the whole body of them, they would all unanimously answer, that it is the regard they have for religion and the church, and the pleasure they take in contributing to the good, and eternal welfare of so many poor innocents, that in all probability would run into perdition, in these wicked times of scoffers and freethinkers. They have no thought of interest; even those who deal in and provide these children with what they want, have not the least design of getting by what they sell for their use; and though in every thing else, their avarice and greediness after lucre be glaringly conspicuous, in this affair they [174]are wholly divested from selfishness, and have no worldly ends. One motive above all, which is none of the least with the most of them, is to be carefully concealed, I mean the satisfaction there is in ordering and directing: there is a melodious sound in the word governor, that is charming to mean people: every body admires sway and superiority; even imperium in belluas has its delights: there is a pleasure in ruling over any thing; and it is this chiefly that supports human nature in the tedious slavery of school-masters. But if there be the least satisfaction in governing the children, it must be ravishing to govern the school-master himself. What fine things are said and perhaps wrote to a governor, when a school-master is to be chosen! How the praises tickle, and how pleasant it is not to find out the fulsomeness of the flattery, the stiffness of the expressions, or the pedantry of the stile!

The governors are made up of ordinary people, and many who are beneath that class are used, as long as their eagerness can outweigh their low status. If you were to ask these respected leaders why they take on so much trouble, harming their own affairs and wasting time, either individually or as a group, they would all agree that it’s their concern for religion and the church, and the joy they feel in helping the good and eternal welfare of so many innocent kids, who would likely fall into ruin in these wicked times of skeptics and free thinkers. They have no intention of personal gain; even those who supply these children with what they need aren’t trying to profit from what they sell for their benefit; and although their greed and desire for profit are obvious in everything else, in this matter they [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]are completely free from selfishness and have no worldly motives. One reason, above all, which is significant for most of them, is to be discreetly acknowledged: the pleasure that comes from organizing and directing. The term governor has a nice ring to it that appeals to ordinary people: everyone admires power and control; even imperium in belluas has its own charm: there is a joy in ruling over anything; and this is primarily what keeps human nature engaged in the tedious role of schoolmasters. But if there is any satisfaction in governing children, it must be exhilarating to have authority over the schoolmaster himself. What delightful things are said, and perhaps written, to a governor when a schoolmaster is being selected! How the compliments flatter, and how enjoyable it is to overlook the insincerity of the praise, the stiffness of the language, or the pretentiousness of the style!

Those who can examine nature, will always find, that what these people most pretend to is the least, and what they utterly deny their greatest motive. No habit or quality is more easily acquired than hypocrisy, nor any thing sooner learned than to deny the sentiments of our hearts, and the principle we act from: but the seeds of every passion are innate to us, and nobody comes into the world without them. If we will mind the pastimes and recreations of young children, we shall observe nothing more general in them, than that all who are suffered to do it, take delight in playing with kittens and little puppy dogs. What makes them always lugging and pulling the poor creatures about the house, proceeds from nothing else but that they can do with them what they please, and put them into what posture and shape they list; and the pleasure they receive from this, is originally owing to the love of dominion, and that usurping temper all mankind are born with.

Those who can observe nature will always find that what these people claim to want the most is actually the least important, and what they completely deny is their greatest motivation. No habit or quality is easier to adopt than hypocrisy, nor is there anything learned more quickly than denying our true feelings and the principles behind our actions. However, the roots of every passion are innate in us, and no one enters the world without them. If we pay attention to the activities and play of young children, we will notice nothing is more common among them than their enjoyment of playing with kittens and little puppies. Their constant tugging and pulling of these poor animals around the house comes from the fact that they can do whatever they want with them and position them however they like; the joy they get from this ultimately stems from a desire for control, which is a natural inclination that all humans are born with.

When this great work is brought to bear, and actually accomplished, joy and serenity seem to overspread the face of every inhabitant, which likewise to account for, I must make a short digression. There are every where slovenly sorry fellows, that are used to be seen always ragged and dirty: these people we look upon as miserable creatures in general, and unless they are very remarkable, we take little notice of them, and yet among these there are handsome and well-shaped men, as well as among their betters. But if one of these turns soldier, what a vast alteration is there observed in [175]him for the better, as soon as he is put in his red coat, and we see him look smart with his grenadier’s cap and a great ammunition sword! All who knew him before are struck with other ideas of his qualities, and the judgment which both men and women form of him in their minds, is very different from what it was. There is something analogous to this in the sight of charity children; there is a natural beauty in uniformity, which most people delight in. It is diverting to the eye to see children well matched, either boys or girls, march two and two in good order; and to have them all whole and tight in the same clothes and trimming, must add to the comeliness of the sight; and what makes it still more generally entertaining, is the imaginary share which even servants, and the meanest in the parish, have in it, to whom it costs nothing: our parish church, our charity children. In all this there is a shadow of property that tickles every body, that has a right to make use of the words, but more especially those who actually contribute, and had a great hand in advancing the pious work.

When this significant task is completed, joy and peace seem to spread across the faces of every resident. However, to explain this, I need to take a brief detour. There are careless individuals everywhere who always appear ragged and dirty. We generally view these people as unfortunate, and unless they stand out in some way, we hardly notice them. Yet among them are attractive and well-built individuals, just like in any other group. But when one of these people becomes a soldier, the transformation is remarkable. As soon as he's dressed in his red coat, looking sharp with his grenadier cap and a large ammunition sword, everyone who knew him before sees him differently. The opinions that men and women form about him change drastically. There’s a similar effect when we see children in charity uniforms; there’s a natural appeal in uniformity that most people appreciate. It’s pleasing to watch children, whether boys or girls, march in pairs in good order, all dressed neatly in matching clothes. This uniformity enhances the visual appeal, and what makes it even more enjoyable is the imagined connection everyone in the community, including servants and those of lower status, feels to it, as it costs them nothing: our parish church, our charity children. In all of this, there’s a sense of ownership that delights everyone who has the right to use these terms, especially those who actually contribute and play a significant role in supporting this charitable endeavor.

It is hardly conceivable, that men should so little know their own hearts, and be so ignorant of their inward condition, as to mistake frailty, passion, and enthusiasm, for goodness, virtue and charity; yet nothing is more true than that the satisfaction, the joy and transports they feel on the accounts I named, pass with these miserable judges for principles of piety and religion. Whoever will consider of what I have said for two or three pages, and suffer his imagination to rove a little further on what he has heard and seen concerning this subject, will be furnished with sufficient reasons, abstract from the love of God and true Christianity, why charity-schools are in such uncommon vogue, and so unanimously approved of and admired among all sorts and conditions of people. It is a theme which every body can talk of, and understands thoroughly; there is not a more inexhaustible fund for tittle-tattle, and a variety of low conversation in hoy-boats and stage-coaches. If a governor that in behalf of the school or the sermon, exerted himself more than ordinary, happens to be in company, how he is commended by the women, and his zeal and charitable disposition extolled to the skies! Upon my word, sir, says an old lady, we are all very much obliged to you; I do not think any of the other governors could have made interest enough to procure us a bishop; it was on your account, I am told, that his lordship [176]came, though he was not very well: to which the other replies very gravely, that it is his duty, but that he values no trouble nor fatigue, so he can be but serviceable to the children, poor lambs: indeed, says he, I was resolved to get a pair of lawn sleeves, though I rid all night for it, and I am very glad I was not disappointed.

It’s hard to believe that people can be so unaware of their own hearts and so clueless about their true feelings that they confuse weakness, passion, and excitement with goodness, virtue, and charity. Yet, the truth is that the satisfaction, joy, and thrill they feel about these things are seen by these misguided judges as signs of piety and faith. Anyone who thinks about what I’ve said for a couple of pages and lets their mind wander a bit further on what they’ve heard and seen about this topic will come up with plenty of reasons, aside from the love of God and real Christianity, for why charity schools are so popular and so widely praised among all kinds of people. It’s a subject that everyone can discuss and fully understands; there’s no better source for gossip and casual conversation in little boats and stagecoaches. If a school governor or a preacher puts in extra effort on behalf of the school, and happens to be in the company, they are praised by the women, and their dedication and charitable spirit are celebrated! “Honestly, sir,” says an elderly lady, “we are all very grateful to you; I don’t think any of the other governors could have done enough to bring us a bishop; I heard it was because of you that his lordship [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] came, even though he wasn’t feeling well.” To which the other replies very seriously that it’s his duty, but he doesn’t mind any trouble or effort as long as he can be of help to the children, poor little things: “Indeed,” he says, “I was determined to get a pair of lawn sleeves, even if I had to ride all night for it, and I’m really glad I wasn’t let down.”

Sometimes the school itself is discoursed of, and of whom in all the parish it is most expected he should build one: The old room where it is now kept is ready to drop down; such a one had a vast estate left him by his uncle, and a great deal of money besides; a thousand pounds would be nothing in his pocket.

Sometimes people talk about the school itself and who in the whole parish is most expected to build one. The old room it's currently in is falling apart; this person inherited a huge estate from his uncle and has a lot of money as well; a thousand pounds wouldn’t even be a dent in his finances.

At others, the great crowds are talked of that are seen at some churches, and the considerable sums that are gathered; from whence, by an easy transition, they go over to the abilities, the different talents and orthodoxy of clergymen. Dr. —— is a man of great parts and learning, and I believe he is very hearty for the church, but I do not like him for a charity sermon. There is no better man in the world than ——; he forces the money out of their pockets. When he preached last for our children, I am sure there was abundance of people that gave more than they intended when they came to church. I could see it in their faces, and rejoiced at it heartily.

At times, people talk about the large crowds seen at some churches and the significant amounts of money raised; from there, it’s an easy shift to discussing the skills, different talents, and beliefs of the clergy. Dr. —— is a highly talented and knowledgeable man, and I believe he is very committed to the church, but I don’t think he’s the right choice for a charity sermon. There is no better person than ——; he really knows how to encourage people to donate. When he preached for our kids last time, I noticed that many people ended up giving more than they planned when they came to church. I could see it in their expressions and felt genuinely happy about it.

Another charm that renders charity-schools so bewitching to the multitude, is the general opinion established among them, that they are not only actually beneficial to society as to temporal happiness, but likewise that Christianity enjoys and requires of us, we should erect them for our future welfare. They are earnestly and fervently recommended by the whole body of the clergy, and have more labour and eloquence laid out upon them than any other Christian duty; not by young persons, or poor scholars of little credit, but the most learned of our prelates, and the most eminent for orthodoxy, even those who do not often fatigue themselves on any other occasion. As to religion, there is no doubt but they know what is chiefly required of us, and consequently the most necessary to salvation: and as to the world, who should understand the interest of the kingdom better than the wisdom of the nation, of which the lords spiritual are so considerable a branch? The consequence of this sanction is, first, that those, who, with their purses or power, are instrumental to the increase or maintenance of these schools, are tempted to [177]place a greater merit in what they do, than otherwise they could suppose it deserved. Secondly, that all the rest, who either cannot, or will not any wise contribute towards them, have still a very good reason why they should speak well of them; for though it be difficult, in things that interfere with our passions, to act well, it is always in our power to wish well, because it is performed with little cost. There is hardly a person so wicked among the superstitious vulgar, but in the liking he has for charity schools, he imagines to see a glimmering hope that it will make an atonement for his sins, from the same principle as the most vicious comfort themselves with the love and veneration they bear to the church; and the greatest profligates find an opportunity in it to show the rectitude of their inclinations at no expence.

Another reason that makes charity schools so appealing to the public is the widespread belief that they are not only truly beneficial for society's well-being but that Christianity also supports and requires us to establish them for our future good. They are passionately advocated by all the clergy, with more effort and persuasion put into them than any other Christian duty; this isn't just from young people or unknown poor scholars, but from the most knowledgeable bishops and the most respected figures in orthodoxy, even those who rarely engage in other matters. When it comes to religion, there's no doubt that they know what we must do, which is essential for salvation; and concerning the world, who understands the kingdom's interests better than the wise leaders of the nation, among whom spiritual lords play a significant role? The result of this endorsement is, first, that those who contribute financially or have the power to support these schools may be tempted to place excessive value on what they do beyond what it actually deserves. Secondly, everyone else, who either cannot or chooses not to contribute, still has a solid reason to speak positively about them; for while it can be challenging to act well in situations that conflict with our desires, we can always wish well, as it's something that costs little. There is hardly anyone among the superstitious masses so vile, who doesn't, in their approval of charity schools, see a flicker of hope that it will atone for their sins, much like how the most immoral comfort themselves with their love and reverence for the church; and the biggest wrongdoers find a chance in it to demonstrate the purity of their intentions at no cost.

But if all these were not inducements sufficient to make men stand up in defence of the idol I speak of, there is another that will infallibly bribe most people to be advocates for it. We all naturally love triumph, and whoever engages in this course is sure of conquest, at least in nine companies out of ten. Let him dispute with whom he will, considering the speciousness of the pretence, and the majority he has on his side, it is a castle, an impregnable fortress he can never be beat out of; and was the most sober, virtuous man alive to produce all the arguments to prove the detriment charity-schools, at least the multiplicity of them, do to society, which I shall give hereafter, and such as are yet stronger, against the greatest scoundrel in the world, who should only make use of the common cant of charity and religion, the vogue would be against the first, and himself lose his cause in the opinion of the vulgar.

But if all of these reasons aren’t enough to motivate people to defend the idol I’m talking about, there’s another one that will definitely persuade most to support it. We all naturally love to win, and anyone who takes this route is almost guaranteed to succeed, at least in nine out of ten cases. No matter who he argues with, considering how convincing the argument seems and the majority he has backing him, it’s a stronghold he can never be pushed out of; and even if the most respectable, decent person alive were to provide all the arguments showing the harm that charity schools, or at least the sheer number of them, do to society—which I will present later—and even if those arguments were stronger than anything the worst person in the world could come up with, who only uses the usual talk about charity and religion, the public would still side with the former and he would lose his case in the eyes of the general population.

The rise, then, and original of all the bustle and clamour that is made throughout the kingdom in behalf of charity schools, is chiefly built on frailty and human passion, at least it is more than possible that a nation should have the same fondness, and feel the same zeal for them as are shown in ours, and yet not be prompted to it by any principle of virtue or religion. Encouraged by this consideration, I shall, with the greater liberty, attack this vulgar error, and endeavour to make it evident, that far from being beneficial, this forced education is pernicious to the public, the welfare whereof, as it demands of us a regard superior to all other laws and considerations, so it shall be the only apology I intend to make for differing from the present sentiments of the [178]learned and reverend body of our divines, and venturing plainly to deny, what I have just now owned to be openly asserted by most of our bishops, as well as inferior clergy. As our church pretends to no infallibility even in spirituals, her proper province, so it cannot be an affront to her to imagine that she may err in temporals, which are not so much under her immediate care. But to my task.

The rise and origin of all the noise and fuss made across the kingdom in support of charity schools is largely based on human weakness and emotion. It's quite possible for a nation to share the same affection and enthusiasm for them as we do, without being motivated by any sense of virtue or religion. With this in mind, I'll feel freer to challenge this common misconception and try to show that, rather than being helpful, this forced education is harmful to the public. The well-being of the public demands that we prioritize it above all other laws and considerations, and that will be my only justification for differing from the current views of the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] learned and respected members of our clergy, and for boldly denying what many of our bishops and lower clergy openly assert. Our church claims no never being wrong even in spiritual matters, which are her main focus, so it shouldn't be seen as an insult to suggest that she might be wrong about worldly matters, which aren't really under her direct oversight. But now, to my task.

The whole earth being cursed, and no bread to be had but what we eat in the sweat of our brows, vast toil must be undergone before man can provide himself with necessaries for his sustenance, and the bare support of his corrupt and defective nature, as he is a single creature; but infinitely more to make life comfortable in a civil society, where men are become taught animals, and great numbers of them have, by mutual compact, framed themselves into a body politic; and the more man’s knowledge increases in this state, the greater will be the variety of labour required to make him easy. It is impossible that a society can long subsist, and suffer many of its members to live in idleness, and enjoy all the ease and pleasure they can invent, without having, at the same time, great multitudes of people that to make good this defect will condescend to be quite the reverse, and by use and patience inure their bodies to work for others and themselves besides.

The whole world is cursed, and the only food we can get is through hard work. A lot of effort has to go into providing for our basic needs and just to support our flawed nature as individuals. But it's even more challenging to make life comfortable in a society, where we’ve become educated beings, and many people have banded together to form a political community. As people gain more knowledge in this setting, the range of labor needed to make life easier will expand. It’s impossible for a society to last if many of its members live in idleness, enjoying all the leisure and pleasures they can think of without having a large number of others who are willing to do the opposite. Those people work hard for both themselves and others, becoming accustomed to labor through practice and patience.

The plenty and cheapness of provisions depends, in a great measure, on the price and value that is set upon this labour, and consequently the welfare of all societies, even before they are tainted with foreign luxury, requires that it should be performed by such of their members as, in the first place, are sturdy and robust, and never used to ease or idleness; and, in the second, soon contented as to the necessaries of life; such as are glad to take up with the coarsest manufacture in every thing they wear, and in their diet have no other aim than to feed their bodies when their stomachs prompt them to eat, and, with little regard to taste or relish, refuse no wholesome nourishment that can be swallowed when men are hungry, or ask any thing for their thirst but to quench it.

The abundance and affordability of food relies heavily on the value placed on this labor, and therefore the well-being of all communities, even before they fall into the trap of foreign luxury, requires that it be carried out by those members who are, firstly, strong and hardworking, and not accustomed to ease or idleness; and secondly, easily satisfied with the basics of life. These individuals are happy to settle for the simplest clothing and have no greater goal in their diet than to satisfy their hunger when it strikes, caring little for flavor or taste, and will accept any nutritious food available when they are hungry, asking for nothing more than a way to quench their thirst.

As the greatest part of the drudgery is to be done by daylight, so it is by this only that they actually measure the time of their labour without any thought of the hours they are employed, or the weariness they feel; and the hireling in the country must get up in the morning, not because he has [179]rested enough, but because the sun is going to rise. This last article alone would be an intolerable hardship to grown people under thirty, who, during nonage, had been used to lie a-bed as long as they could sleep: but all three together make up such a condition of life, as a man more mildly educated would hardly choose, though it should deliver him from a gaol or a shrew.

As most of the hard work is done during the day, it's the only time they really keep track of their working hours without considering how long they’ve been at it or how tired they are. A laborer in the countryside has to get up in the morning, not because he’s well-rested, but because the sun is about to rise. This alone would be a tough situation for anyone under thirty, who, during their youth, was used to sleeping in as long as possible. But these three factors together create a lifestyle that a more gently educated person would probably avoid, even if it meant escaping from prison or dealing with a difficult partner.

If such people there must be, as no great nation can be happy without vast numbers of them, would not a wise legislature cultivate the breed of them with all imaginable care, and provide against their scarcity as he would prevent the scarcity of provision itself? No man would be poor, and fatigue himself for a livelihood, if he could help it: The absolute necessity all stand in for victuals and drink, and in cold climates for clothes and lodging, makes them submit to any thing that can be bore with. If nobody did want, nobody would work; but the greatest hardships are looked upon as solid pleasures, when they keep a man from starving.

If there have to be such people, since no great nation can be truly happy without a lot of them, wouldn’t a smart government take great care to encourage their presence and protect against their shortage just like it would ensure there’s enough food? No one would choose to be poor and exhaust themselves just to get by if they could avoid it. The basic need for food and drink, and in colder places for clothes and shelter, forces people to endure anything they can bear. If no one needed anything, no one would work; but the toughest conditions are seen as worthwhile when they prevent a person from starving.

From what has been said, it is manifest, that in a free nation, where slaves are not allowed of, the surest wealth consists in a multitude of laborious poor; for besides that they are the never-failing nursery of fleets and armies, without them there could be no enjoyment, and no product of any country could be valuable. To make the society happy, and people easy under the meanest circumstances, it is requisite that great numbers of them should be ignorant, as well as poor. Knowledge both enlarges and multiplies our desires, and the fewer things a man wishes for, the more easily his necessities may be supplied.

From what has been said, it's clear that in a free nation, where slavery is not permitted, the greatest wealth comes from a large population of hardworking poor people. Not only are they the essential foundation for fleets and armies, but without them, there would be no enjoyment, and the products of any country wouldn’t have value. To make society happy and help people feel comfortable even in the toughest situations, it’s necessary for many of them to remain ignorant as well as poor. Knowledge increases our desires, and the fewer things a person wishes for, the more easily their needs can be met.

The welfare and felicity, therefore, of every state and kingdom, require that the knowledge of the working poor should be confined within the verge of their occupations, and never extended (as to things visible), beyond what relates to their calling. The more a shepherd, a ploughman, or any other peasant, knows of the world, and the things that are foreign to his labour or employment, the less fit he will be to go through the fatigues and hardships of it with cheerfulness and content.

The well-being and happiness of every state and kingdom depend on keeping the knowledge of the working poor limited to their jobs and not allowing it to extend too far into other areas of life. The more a shepherd, farmer, or any other laborer knows about the world and things that aren't related to their work, the less equipped they'll be to handle the challenges and struggles of their tasks with joy and satisfaction.

Reading, writing, and arithmetic, are very necessary to those whose business require such qualifications; but where people’s livelihood has no dependence on these arts, they are very pernicious to the poor, who are forced to get their daily bread by their daily labour. Few children make any [180]progress at school, but, at the same time, they are capable of being employed in some business or other, so that every hour those of poor people spend at their book is so much time lost to the society. Going to school, in comparison to working, is idleness, and the longer boys continue in this easy sort of life, the more unfit they will be when grown up for downright labour, both as to strength and inclination. Men who are to remain and end their days in a laborious, tiresome, and painful station of life, the sooner they are put upon it at first, the more patiently they will submit to it for ever after. Hard labour, and the coarsest diet, are a proper punishment to several kinds of malefactors, but to impose either on those that have not been used and brought up to both, is the greatest cruelty, when there is no crime you can charge them with.

Reading, writing, and math are essential for those whose jobs require these skills; but for people whose livelihoods don’t depend on these subjects, they can be harmful to the poor, who have to earn their daily bread through hard work. Few children make significant [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]progress in school, yet they can still be useful in various jobs, which means that every hour poor children spend in school is an hour lost to society. Going to school, compared to working, is just idleness, and the longer boys remain in this comfortable lifestyle, the less prepared they will be for hard work as adults, both in terms of strength and motivation. For men who will spend their lives in hard, exhausting, and painful jobs, starting early makes them more willing to accept that life in the long run. Hard labor and basic food may serve as punishment for certain offenders, but imposing that on those who haven’t been accustomed to it is the greatest cruelty, especially when they haven’t committed any crime.

Reading and writing are not attained to without some labour of the brain and assiduity, and before people are tolerably versed in either, they esteem themselves infinitely above those who are wholly ignorant of them, often with so little justice and moderation, as if they were of another species. As all mortals have naturally an aversion to trouble and pains-taking, so we are all fond of, and apt to overvalue those qualifications we have purchased at the expence of our ease and quiet for years together. Those who spent a great part of their youth in learning to read, write, and cypher, expect, and not unjustly, to be employed where those qualifications may be of use to them; the generality of them will look upon downright labour with the utmost contempt, I mean labour performed in the service of others in the lowest station of life, and for the meanest consideration. A man, who has had some education, may follow husbandry by choice, and be diligent at the dirtiest and most laborious work; but then the concern must be his own, and avarice, the care of a family, or some other pressing motive, must put him upon it; but he will not make a good hireling, and serve a farmer for a pitiful reward; at least he is not so fit for it as a day labourer that has always been employed about the plough and dung cart, and remembers not that ever he has lived otherwise.

Reading and writing require effort and dedication, and before people become reasonably skilled in either, they often see themselves as far superior to those who have no knowledge of them, usually with little fairness and restraint, as though they belong to a different species. Since all humans naturally shy away from hard work and effort, we tend to cherish and overvalue the skills we've acquired at the expense of our comfort and peace for many years. Those who have spent much of their youth learning to read, write, and do math expect—fairly so—to find jobs where these skills are useful; however, most of them will look down on manual labor, especially work done for others in the lower ranks of society and for meager pay. A man who has received some education might choose farming and work hard at the dirtiest, most demanding tasks, but it must be for his own benefit, driven by greed, family responsibilities, or some other strong motivation; otherwise, he won't make a good employee and serve a farmer for a paltry wage. At least, he isn't as suited for that role as a day laborer who has always worked with the plow and manure cart and doesn't remember living any other way.

When obsequiousness and mean services are required, we shall always observe that they are never so cheerfully nor so heartily performed, as from inferiors to superiors; I mean inferiors not only in riches and quality, but likewise in [181]knowledge and understanding. A servant can have no unfeigned respect for his master, as soon as he has sense enough to find out that he serves a fool. When we are to learn or to obey, we shall experience in ourselves, that the greater opinion we have of the wisdom and capacity of those that are either to teach or command us, the greater deference we pay to their laws and instructions. No creatures submit contentedly to their equals; and should a horse know as much as a man, I should not desire to be his rider.

When flattery and lowly services are needed, we usually notice that they're never done as cheerfully or sincerely when it’s between people of different ranks; I mean those who are lower not just in wealth and status, but also in [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]knowledge and understanding. A servant can’t truly respect their master if they realize they’re serving someone foolish. When we need to learn or follow orders, we'll find that the higher we regard the wisdom and ability of those teaching or commanding us, the more respect we give to their rules and guidance. No living beings willingly submit to their equals; and if a horse were as knowledgeable as a human, I would not want to ride it.

Here I am obliged again to make a digression, though I declare I never had a less mind to it than I have at this minute; but I see a thousand rods in piss, and the whole posse of diminutive pedants against me, for assaulting the Christ-cross-row, and opposing the very elements of literature.

Here I am again forced to go off on a tangent, even though I can honestly say I’m less in the mood for it than I am right now; but I see a thousand critics ready to jump on me, alongside the whole group of small-minded teachers, for taking on the basics of writing and challenging the fundamental elements of literature.

This is no panic fear, and the reader will not imagine my apprehensions ill grounded, if he considers what an army of petty tyrants I have to cope with, that all either actually persecute with birch, or else are soliciting for such a preferment. For if I had no other adversaries than the starving wretches of both sexes, throughout the kingdom of Great Britain, that from a natural antipathy to working, have a great dislike to their present employment, and perceiving within a much stronger inclination to command than ever they felt to obey others, think themselves qualified, and wish from their hearts to be masters and mistresses of charity schools, the number of my enemies would, by the most modest computation, amount to one hundred thousand at least.

This isn’t just a simple fear, and the reader won’t think my worries are unfounded if they consider the army of petty tyrants I have to deal with, all of whom either actively persecute with harsh punishment or are vying for such positions. For if I had no other opponents than the starving people of both genders throughout Great Britain, who have a natural aversion to work and a strong dislike for their current jobs, and who, feeling a much greater urge to lead than to follow, believe they are qualified and genuinely want to be in charge of charity schools, the number of my enemies would, by the most modest estimate, be at least one hundred thousand.

Methinks I hear them cry out, that a more dangerous doctrine never was broached, and Popery is a fool to it, and ask what brute of a Saracen it is that draws his ugly weapon for the destruction of learning. It is ten to one but they will indict me for endeavouring, by instigation of the prince of darkness, to introduce into these realms greater ignorance and barbarity, than ever nation was plunged into by Goths and Vandals since the light of the gospel first appeared in the world. Whoever labours under the public odium, has always crimes laid to his charge he never was guilty of, and it will be suspected that I have had a hand in obliterating the Holy Scriptures, and perhaps affirmed, that it was at my request that the small Bibles, published by patent in the year 1721, and chiefly made use of in charity schools, were, through badness of print and paper, rendered illegible; which yet I protest I am as innocent of as the child unborn. But I am in a thousand [182]fears; the more I consider my case, the worse I like it, and the greatest comfort I have is in my sincere belief, that hardly any body will mind a word of what I say; or else, if ever the people suspected that what I write would be of any weight to any considerable part of the society, I should not have the courage barely to think on all the trades I should disoblige; and I cannot but smile, when I reflect on the variety of uncouth sufferings that would be prepared for me, if the punishment they would differently inflict upon me was emblematically to point at my crime. For if I was not suddenly stuck full of useless pen knives up to the hilts, the company of stationers would certainly take me in hand, and either have me buried alive in their hall, under a great heap of primers and spelling-books, they would not be able to sell; or else send me up against tide to be bruised to death in a paper mill, that would be obliged to stand still a week upon my account. The ink-makers, at the same time, would, for the public good, offer to choke me with astringents, or drown me in the black liquor that would be left upon their hands; which, if they joined stock, might easily be performed in less than a month; and if I should escape the cruelty of these united bodies, the resentment of a private monopolist would be as fatal to me, and I should soon find myself pelted and knocked on the head with little squat Bibles clasped in brass, and ready armed for mischief, that, charitable learning ceasing, would be fit for nothing but unopened to fight with, and exercises truly polemic.

I think I hear them shouting that a more dangerous idea has never been proposed, and that Popery is a joke compared to it. They’ll wonder which barbaric Saracen is pulling out his ugly weapon to destroy knowledge. It’s a good bet they’ll accuse me of trying, through the influence of the prince of darkness, to introduce even more ignorance and savagery into these lands than any nation has faced since the light of the gospel first shone in the world. Anyone who has public disdain directed toward them always has false accusations thrown at them, and it will be assumed that I’ve been involved in getting rid of the Holy Scriptures. They might even claim that I asked for the small Bibles, published in 1721 and mainly used in charity schools, to become unreadable due to poor printing and paper quality; which I swear I am as innocent of as an unborn child. But I’m filled with countless fears; the more I think about my situation, the worse it seems to me, and the only comfort I have is my firm belief that hardly anyone will care about what I say. Or if people ever thought my writing would actually matter to a significant part of society, I wouldn’t have the courage to think about all the trades I’d upset. I can’t help but chuckle when I consider the strange punishments that would be devised for me if they were to symbolically point out my crime. Because if I wasn’t suddenly filled with useless pen knives up to the handles, the stationers would definitely take matters into their own hands, either burying me alive in their hall under a big pile of primers and spelling books they couldn’t sell, or sending me upstream to be crushed to death in a paper mill, which would have to shut down for a week because of me. At the same time, the ink makers would, for the public good, try to choke me with astringents, or drown me in the leftover black liquid; which, if they teamed up, could easily be done in under a month. And if I managed to escape the cruelty of these groups, the anger of a private monopolist would be just as deadly, and I’d soon find myself being pelted and bashed on the head with little squat Bibles clasped in brass, armed and ready for harm, which, with charitable learning coming to an end, would be good for nothing but to fight with and serve as true weapons for debate.

The digression I spoke of just now, is not the foolish trifle that ended with the last paragraph, and which the grave critic, to whom all mirth is unseasonable, will think very impertinent; but a serious apologetical one I am going to make out of hand, to clear myself from having any design against arts and sciences, as some heads of colleges and other careful preservers of human learning might have apprehended, upon seeing ignorance recommended as a necessary ingredient in the mixture of civil society.

The digression I mentioned earlier isn’t the silly nonsense that wrapped up the last paragraph, which the serious critic, who finds all humor inappropriate, will probably consider quite rude. Instead, I’m about to make a serious apology to clarify that I have no intention of opposing the arts and sciences, which some college heads and other dedicated guardians of human knowledge might have feared after seeing ignorance suggested as an essential part of civil society.

In the first place, I would have near double the number of professors in every university of what there is now. Theology with us is generally well provided, but the two other faculties have very little to boast of, especially physic. Every branch of that art ought to have two or three professors, that would take pains to communicate their skill and knowledge to others. In public lectures, a vain man has great opportunities [183]to set off his parts, but private instructions are more useful to students. Pharmacy, and the knowledge of the simples, are as necessary as anatomy or the history of diseases: it is a shame, that when men have taken their degree, and are by authority intrusted with the lives of the subject, they should be forced to come to London to be acquainted with the Materia Medica, and the composition of medicines, and receive instructions from others that never had university education themselves; it is certain, that in the city I named, there is ten times more opportunity for a man to improve himself in anatomy, botany, pharmacy, and the practice of physic, than at both universities together. What has an oil shop to do with silks; or who would look for hams and pickles at a mercers? Where things are well managed, hospitals are made as subservient to the advancement of students in the art of physic, as they are to the recovery of health in the poor.

First, I would nearly double the number of professors in every university compared to what we have now. Our theology department is generally well-staffed, but the other two faculties have little to be proud of, especially medicine. Every branch of that field should have two or three professors who are dedicated to sharing their skills and knowledge with others. In public lectures, a vain person has plenty of opportunities [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] to show off their abilities, but private instruction is far more beneficial for students. Pharmacy and knowledge of the basics are as essential as anatomy or the study of diseases. It’s truly a shame that after earning their degrees, individuals entrusted by authorities with the lives of patients have to travel to London to learn about the Pharmacology and how to prepare medications, and to receive training from people who never even had a university education themselves. It's clear that in the city I mentioned, there are ten times more opportunities for someone to enhance their knowledge in anatomy, botany, pharmacy, and medical practice than at both universities combined. What does an oil shop have to do with silks? Or who would expect to find hams and pickles at a mercer’s? Where management is effective, hospitals serve both to advance students in the field of medicine and to aid in restoring the health of the poor.

Good sense ought to govern men in learning as well as in trade: no man ever bound his son apprentice to a goldsmith to make him a linen draper; then why should he have a divine for his tutor to become a lawyer or a physician? It is true, that the languages, logic and philosophy, should be the first studies in all the learned professions; but there is so little help for physic in our universities that are so rich, and where so many idle people are well paid for eating and drinking, and being magnificently, as well as commodiously lodged, that bar books, and what is common to all the three faculties, a man may as well qualify himself at Oxford or Cambridge to be a Turkey merchant, as he can to be a physician; which is, in my humble opinion, a great sign that some part of the great wealth they are possessed of is not so well applied as it might be.

Common sense should guide people in both education and business: no one would apprentice their son to a goldsmith if they wanted him to become a linen draper; so why would anyone hire a priest as a tutor to turn him into a lawyer or a doctor? It’s true that languages, logic, and philosophy should be the foundation of all learned professions; however, there is such little support for medical education in our wealthy universities, where many idle people are well-compensated for their feasting and enjoying luxurious and comfortable accommodations, that someone might as well prepare at Oxford or Cambridge to become a merchant in Turkey as to become a doctor. In my humble opinion, this is a clear indication that some of the great wealth they possess isn’t being used as wisely as it could be.

Professors should, besides their stipends allowed them by the public, have gratifications from every student they teach, that self-interest, as well as emulation and the love of glory, might spur them on to labour and assiduity. When a man excels in any one study or part of learning, and is qualified to teach others, he ought to be procured, if money will purchase him, without regarding what party, or indeed what country or nation he is of, whether black or white. Universities should be public marts for all manner of literature, as your annual fairs, that are kept at Leipsic, Frankfort, and other places in Germany, are for different wares [184]and merchandises, where no difference is made between natives and foreigners, and which men resort to from all parts of the world with equal freedom and equal privilege.

Professors should, in addition to their public salaries, receive compensation from each student they teach, so that self-interest, competition, and the pursuit of recognition motivate them to work hard and diligently. When someone excels in a particular subject or field of study and is qualified to teach others, they should be hired, if money can secure them, regardless of their background, nationality, or race. Universities should serve as public marketplaces for all types of literature, similar to the annual fairs held in Leipzig, Frankfurt, and other places in Germany that offer various goods, where there is no distinction between locals and foreigners, and where people come from all over the world with equal freedom and rights. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

From paying the gratifications I spoke of, I would excuse all students designed for the ministry of the gospel. There is no faculty so immediately necessary to the government of a nation as that of theology, and as we ought to have great numbers of divines for the service of this island, I would not have the meaner people discouraged from bringing up their children to that function. For though wealthy men, if they have many sons, sometimes make one of them a clergyman, as we see even persons of quality take up holy orders, and there are likewise people of good sense, especially divines, that from a principle of prudence bring up their children to that profession, when they are morally assured that they have friends or interest enough, and shall be able, either by a good fellowship at the university, advowsons, or other means to procure them a livelihood: but these produce not the large number of divines that are yearly ordained, and for the bulk of the clergy, we are indebted to another original.

From paying the fees I mentioned, I would exempt all students training for the ministry. No skill is as essential to a nation’s governance as that of theology, and since we need a significant number of clergy for the service of this island, I want to ensure that families with fewer resources are not discouraged from raising their children for this role. While wealthy individuals with multiple sons sometimes designate one of them as a clergyman, as we see even among people of high status who take on holy orders, there are also sensible individuals, especially clergy, who out of practicality encourage their children to pursue this profession when they are reasonably sure they have the support or connections to secure a livelihood—whether through beneficial university placements, advowsons, or other means. However, these do not account for the large number of clergy who are ordained each year; we owe that to a different source.

Among the middling people of all trades there are bigots who have a superstitious awe for a gown and cassock: of these there are multitudes that feel an ardent desire of having a son promoted to the ministry of the gospel, without considering what is to become of them afterwards; and many a kind mother in this kingdom, without consulting her own circumstances or her child’s capacity, transported with this laudable wish, is daily feasting on this pleasing thought, and often before her son is twelve years old, mixing maternal love with devotion, throws herself into ecstasies and tears of satisfaction, by reflecting on the future enjoyment she is to receive from seeing him stand in a pulpit, and, with her own ears, hearing him preach the word of God. It is to this religious zeal, or at least the human frailties that pass for and represent it, that we owe the great plenty of poor scholars the nation enjoys. For, considering the inequality of livings, and the smallness of benefices up and down the kingdom, without this happy disposition in parents of small fortune, we could not possibly be furnished from any other quarter with proper persons for the ministry, to attend all the cures of souls, so pitifully provided for, that no mortal could live upon them that had been educated in any tolerable plenty, unless he was possessed of real virtue, which [185]it is foolish and indeed injurious, we should more expect from the clergy than we generally find it in the laity.

Among everyday people from all walks of life, there are those who hold a superstitious reverence for a gown and robe: many feel a strong desire to see their sons advance to the ministry, without thinking about what will happen to them afterward; and countless devoted mothers in this country, caught up in this admirable wish, often fantasize about their sons becoming ministers even before they turn twelve, blending their maternal love with devotion, and finding themselves in ecstatic moments of joy and tears as they imagine hearing him preach the word of God from a pulpit. It is this religious fervor, or at least the human flaws that seem to represent it, that accounts for the large number of underprivileged scholars in the nation. Given the disparity in incomes and the small size of benefices across the country, without this hopeful attitude among parents of modest means, we wouldn't be able to find enough suitable candidates for the ministry to care for the spiritually neglected, as no one could survive on these meager incomes if they had been raised in any reasonable comfort, unless they truly possessed real virtue, which [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] is unreasonable and indeed unfair to expect more from the clergy than we generally see in the general population.

The great care I would take to promote that part of learning which is more immediately useful to society, should not make me neglect the more curious and polite, but all the liberal arts, and every branch of literature should be encouraged throughout the kingdom, more than they are, if my wishing could do it. In every county, there should be one or more large schools, erected at the public charge, for Latin and Greek, that should be divided into six or more classes, with particular masters in each of them. The whole should be under the care and inspection of some men of letters in authority, who would not only be titular governors, but actually take pains at least twice a-year, in hearing every class thoroughly examined by the master of it, and not content themselves with judging of the progress the scholars had made for the themes and other exercises that had been made out of their sight.

The effort I would make to support the part of learning that's most directly useful to society shouldn't make me overlook the more interesting and refined subjects. All liberal arts and every area of literature should be promoted throughout the kingdom more than they currently are, if I could make it happen. In every county, there should be one or more large public schools for Latin and Greek, divided into six or more classes, each with specific teachers. The entire system should be managed and overseen by knowledgeable individuals in positions of authority, who wouldn’t just hold nominal titles but would actually put in the effort to hear every class be thoroughly examined by its teacher at least twice a year, rather than just relying on assignments and exercises completed out of their sight to assess the students' progress.

At the same time, I would discharge and hinder the multiplicity of those petty schools, that never would have had any existence had the masters of them not been extremely indigent. It is a vulgar error, that nobody can spell or write English well without a little smatch of Latin. This is upheld by pedants for their own interest, and by none more strenuously maintained than such of them as are poor scholars in more than one sense; in the mean time it is an abominable falsehood. I have known, and I am still acquainted with several, and some of the fair sex, that never learned any Latin, and yet kept to strict orthography, and write admirable good sense; where, on the other hand, every body may meet with the scribblings of pretended scholars, at least such as went to a grammar school for several years, that have grammar faults and are ill spelled. The understanding of Latin thoroughly, is highly necessary to all that are designed for any of the learned professions, and I would have no gentleman without literature; even those who are to be brought up attorneys, surgeons, and apothecaries, should be much better versed in that language than generally they are; but to youth, who afterwards are to get a livelihood in trades and callings in which Latin is not daily wanted, it is of no use, and the learning of it an evident loss of just so much time and money as are bestowed upon it. When men come into business, what was taught them of it, in those [186]petty schools is either soon forgot, or only fit to make them impertinent, and often very troublesome in company. Few men can forbear valuing themselves on any knowledge they had once acquired, even after they have lost it; and, unless they are very modest and discreet, the undigested scraps which such people commonly remember of Latin, seldom fail of rendering them, at one time or other, ridiculous to those who understand it.

At the same time, I would shut down and prevent the proliferation of those small schools that wouldn’t exist if their teachers weren't extremely poor. It's a common misconception that no one can spell or write English well without a bit of Latin. This idea is pushed by pedants for their own benefit, and none more vigorously than those among them who are poor scholars in more ways than one; meanwhile, it is a terrible falsehood. I have known, and I still know several people, including some women, who never learned any Latin and yet maintain strict spelling and write exceptionally well; whereas, on the other hand, anyone can encounter the doodles of so-called scholars, at least those who attended a grammar school for several years, who make grammatical errors and spell badly. A solid understanding of Latin is essential for anyone pursuing a learned profession, and I wouldn't want any gentleman without some education; even those who will become lawyers, surgeons, and pharmacists should be much better versed in that language than they usually are; but for young people who will go on to make a living in trades and jobs where Latin isn’t needed daily, it’s pointless, and learning it is a clear waste of time and money spent on it. When people enter the workforce, what they learned in those [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] petty schools is either quickly forgotten or only serves to make them arrogant and often very annoying in social settings. Few people can help but take pride in any knowledge they once had, even after forgetting it; and unless they are very modest and discreet, the poorly grasped bits of Latin that such people usually remember often end up making them seem ridiculous to those who actually understand the language.

Reading and writing I would treat as we do music and dancing, I would not hinder them nor force them upon the society: as long as there was any thing to be got by them, there would be masters enough to teach them; but nothing should be taught for nothing but at church: and here I would exclude even those who might be designed for the ministry of the gospel; for, if parents are so miserably poor that they cannot afford their children these first elements of learning, it is impudence in them to aspire any further.

Reading and writing should be approached like music and dancing; I wouldn’t restrict or impose them on society. As long as there’s a benefit to be gained from them, there will be plenty of teachers available. However, nothing should be taught for free except in church. I would even exclude those preparing for the ministry, because if parents are so desperately poor that they can’t provide their children with basic education, it’s audacious for them to aim for anything beyond that.

It would encourage, likewise, the lower sort of people to give their children this part of education, if they could see them preferred to those of idle sots or sorry rake-hells, that never knew what it was to provide a rag for their brats but by begging. But now, when a boy or a girl are wanted for any small service, we reckon it a duty to employ our charity children before any other. The education of them looks like a reward for being vicious and unactive, a benefit commonly bestowed on parents, who deserve to be punished for shamefully neglecting their families. In one place you may hear a rascal half drunk, damning himself, call for the other pot, and as a good reason for it, add, that his boy is provided for in clothes, and has his schooling for nothing: In another you shall see a poor woman in great necessity, whose child is to be taken care of, because herself is a lazy slut, and never did any thing to remedy her wants in good earnest, but bewailing them at a gin-shop.

It would also encourage lower-income families to give their children this kind of education if they could see them valued more than those of lazy drunks or irresponsible individuals who never provided for their kids except by begging. But now, when we need a boy or girl for a small job, we feel it's our duty to hire charity kids first. Educating them seems like a reward for being immoral and inactive, a benefit typically given to parents who ought to be punished for neglecting their families. In one place, you might hear a drunken loser cursing himself, calling for another drink, and justifying it by saying his kid is well-dressed and gets an education for free. In another, you'll see a desperate woman, whose child is being taken care of, simply because she's lazy and has done nothing to seriously improve her situation except complain at a bar.

If every body’s children are well taught, who, by their own industry, can educate them at our universities, there will be men of learning enough to supply this nation and such another; and reading, writing, or arithmetic, would never be wanting in the business that requires them, though none were to learn them but such whose parents could be at the charge of it. It is not with letters as it is with the gifts of the Holy Ghost, that they may not be purchased with money; and bought wit, if we believe the proverb, is none of the worst. [187]

If all parents make sure their kids receive a good education, which allows them to learn at our universities, there will be plenty of educated people to serve this nation and others. Skills like reading, writing, and math will always be in demand in jobs that need them, even if only those whose families can afford it get to learn them. Unlike the gifts of the Holy Spirit, you can’t buy knowledge with money; and according to the saying, learning that’s bought isn’t necessarily bad. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

I thought it necessary to say thus much of learning, to obviate the clamours of the enemies to truth and fair dealing, who, had I not so amply explained myself on this head, would have represented me as a mortal foe to all literature and useful knowledge, and a wicked advocate for universal ignorance and stupidity. I shall now make good my promise, of answering what I know the well-wishers to charity schools would object against me, by saying that they brought up the children under their care, to warrantable and laborious trades, and not to idleness as I did insinuate.

I felt it was important to discuss learning to counter the complaints from those who oppose truth and fairness, who would have painted me as an enemy of all literature and valuable knowledge, and a harmful supporter of complete ignorance and foolishness, if I hadn’t explained myself in detail on this matter. Now, I will fulfill my promise to address the concerns I know charity school supporters have about me by stating that they raise the children in their care to pursue respectable and hardworking trades, not to idleness, as I suggested.

I have sufficiently showed already, why going to school was idleness if compared to working, and exploded this sort of education in the children of the poor, because it incapacitates them ever after for downright labour, which is their proper province, and, in every civil society, a portion they ought not to repine or grumble at, if exacted from them with discretion and humanity. What remains, is, that I should speak as to their putting them out to trades, which I shall endeavour to demonstrate to be destructive to the harmony of a nation, and an impertinent intermeddling with what few of these governors know any thing of.

I have already shown why going to school is a waste of time compared to working, and I've criticized this kind of education for poor children, as it leaves them unable to perform real labor, which is their true role. In any society, they shouldn’t complain about doing this work if it's asked of them reasonably and kindly. What’s left to discuss is how placing them into trades can disrupt the harmony of a nation, and I will attempt to show that it’s an unnecessary interference by those few leaders who don’t really understand it.

In order to this, let us examine into the nature of societies, and what the compound ought to consist of, if we would raise it to as high a degree of strength, beauty, and perfection, as the ground we are to do it upon will let us. The variety of services that are required to supply the luxurious and wanton desires, as well as real necessities of man, with all their subordinate callings, is in such a nation as ours prodigious; yet it is certain that though the number of those several occupations be excessively great, it is far from being infinite; if you add one more than is required, it must be superfluous. If a man had a good stock, and the best shop in Cheapside to sell turbants in, he would be ruined; and if Demetrius, or any other silversmith, made nothing but Diana’s shrines, he would not get his bread, now the worship of that goddess is out of fashion. As it is folly to set up trades that are not wanted, so what is next to it is to increase in any one trade, the numbers beyond what are required. As things are managed with us, it would be preposterous to have as many brewers as there are bakers, or as many woollen-drapers as there are shoemakers. This proportion as to numbers, in every trade, finds itself, and is never better kept than when nobody meddles or interferes with it. [188]

To this end, let's take a look at the nature of societies and what they should consist of if we want to elevate them to the highest level of strength, beauty, and perfection that the foundation allows. The wide range of services needed to meet both the extravagant and basic needs of people, along with all their supporting roles, is enormous in a nation like ours; however, it's clear that while the number of these various occupations is quite high, it is not limitless. If you add even one more than what's necessary, it becomes redundant. For instance, if someone had a good stock and the best shop on Cheapside selling turbans, he would go bankrupt. Similarly, if Demetrius or any other silversmith only crafted shrines for Diana, he wouldn’t make a living since the worship of that goddess is no longer popular. It's foolish to start trades that aren't needed, and closely related is the mistake of increasing the number of workers in any one trade beyond what is necessary. As things stand, it would be absurd to have as many brewers as bakers, or as many woolen drapers as shoemakers. This balance in numbers for every trade regulates itself and is best maintained when no one interferes with it. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

People that have children to educate that must get their livelihood, are always consulting and deliberating what trade or calling they are to bring them up to, until they are fixed; and thousands think on this, that hardly think at all on any thing else. First, they confine themselves to their circumstances, and he that can give but ten pounds with his son must not look out for a trade, where they ask an hundred with an apprentice; but the next they think on, is always which will be the most advantageous; if there be a calling where at that time people are more generally employed than they are in any other in the same reach, there are presently half a score fathers ready to supply it with their sons. Therefore the greatest care most companies have, is about the regulation of the number of apprentices. Now, when all trades complain, and perhaps justly, that they are overstocked, you manifestly injure that trade, to which you add one member more than would flow from the nature of society. Besides that, the governors of charity schools do not deliberate so much what trade is the best, but what tradesmen they can get that will take the boys, with such a sum; and few men of substance and experience will have any thing to do with these children; they are afraid of a hundred inconveniencies from the necessitous parents of them: so that they are bound, at least most commonly, either to sots and neglectful masters, or else such as are very needy and do not care what becomes of their apprentices, after they have received the money; by which it seems as if we studied nothing more than to have a perpetual nursery for charity schools.

Parents who need to support their families are always discussing and thinking about what trade or profession they should prepare their children for until they settle on a choice; and many of them focus on this to the exclusion of everything else. First, they limit themselves to their financial situation, and someone who can only provide ten pounds for their child’s apprenticeship can't look for a trade that requires a hundred. Next, they consider which option will be the most beneficial; if there's a profession at the time that has more jobs available than others in the area, there are immediately several fathers ready to send their sons there. That's why the main concern for most trades is controlling the number of apprentices. Now, when all trades complain, and perhaps rightly so, that they are oversaturated, adding one more apprentice clearly harms that trade beyond what society naturally requires. Additionally, the leaders of charity schools often don’t spend as much time considering which trade is best as they do figuring out which businesses will take the boys for a certain amount of money; and few financially stable and experienced people want to take on these children because they worry about various problems stemming from their struggling parents. This often means that the boys are stuck with either careless or irresponsible masters, or those who are very poor and indifferent about what happens to their apprentices once they’ve received their payment; which makes it seem like we’re doing nothing more than creating a constant source of children for charity schools.

When all trades and handicrafts are overstocked, it is a certain sign there is a fault in the management of the whole; for it is impossible there should be too many people if the country is able to feed them. Are provisions dear? Whose fault is that, as long as you have ground untilled and hands unemployed? But I shall be answered, that to increase plenty, must at long-run undo the farmer, or lessen the rents all over England. To which I reply, that what the husbandman complains of most, is what I would redress: the greatest grievance of farmers, gardeners, and others, where hard labour is required, and dirty work to be done, is, that they cannot get servants for the same wages they used to have them at. The day-labourer grumbles at sixteen pence to do no other drudgery, than what thirty years ago his grandfather did cheerfully for half the money. As to the rents, it is impossible [189]they should fall while you increase your numbers; but the price of provisions, and all labour in general, must fall with them, if not before; and a man of a hundred and fifty pounds a-year, has no reason to complain that his income is reduced to one hundred, if he can buy as much for that one hundred as before he could have done for two.

When all trades and crafts have too many goods available, it's a clear sign that there's a problem with overall management; it's impossible to have too many people if the country can feed them. Are food prices high? Whose responsibility is that, when there’s uncultivated land and people without jobs? But I’ll be told that increasing abundance will ultimately harm the farmer or reduce rents across England. My response is that what farmers, gardeners, and others who do hard labor really complain about is that they can't find workers for the same wages they used to pay. Laborers are unhappy with sixteen pence for doing work that their grandfathers did cheerfully for half that pay thirty years ago. Regarding rents, it's impossible [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] for them to decrease while the number of people increases; however, the price of food and all labor in general must drop alongside it, if not beforehand. A person earning one hundred fifty pounds a year has no reason to complain if their income drops to one hundred pounds, as long as they can buy the same amount for that one hundred as they could before for two hundred.

There is no intrinsic worth in money, but what is alterable with the times; and whether a guinea goes for twenty pounds or for a shilling, it is (as I have already hinted before) the labour of the poor, and not the high and low value that is set on gold or silver, which all the comforts of life must arise from. It is in our power to have a much greater plenty than we enjoy, if agriculture and fishery were taken care of, as they might be; but we are so little capable of increasing our labour, that we have hardly poor enough to do what is necessary to make us subsist. The proportion of the society is spoiled, and the bulk of the nation, which should every where consist of labouring poor, that are unacquainted with every thing but their work, is too little for the other parts. In all business where downright labour is shunned or over-paid, there is plenty of people. To one merchant you have ten book keepers, or at least pretenders; and every where in the country the farmer wants hands. Ask for a footman that for some time has been in gentlemen’s families, and you will get a dozen that are all butlers. You may have chamber-maids by the score, but you cannot get a cook under extravagant wages.

Money doesn't have any real value; it's all about what changes with the times. Whether a guinea is worth twenty pounds or just a shilling, it's the labor of the poor—and not the high or low values placed on gold or silver—that provides us with all the comforts of life. We could have much more abundance than we currently do if we paid more attention to agriculture and fishing, but we are so unable to increase our labor that we hardly have enough poor people to do what's necessary for our survival. The balance in society is disrupted, and the majority of the population, which should mainly consist of unskilled laborers focused only on their work, isn't large enough compared to other groups. In areas where hard labor is avoided or overpaid, there are plenty of people. For every merchant, there are ten bookkeepers or at least those pretending to be. Farmers everywhere are looking for help. If you ask for a footman who's worked in gentlemen's households, you'll get a dozen who all claim to be butlers. You can find countless chambermaids, but good cooks demand outrageous salaries.

Nobody will do the dirty slavish work, that can help it. I do not discommend them; but all these things show, that the people of the meanest rank, know too much to be serviceable to us. Servants require more than masters and mistresses can afford; and what madness is it to encourage them in this, by industriously increasing at our cost, that knowledge, which they will be sure to make us pay for over again! And it is not only that those who are educated at our own expence, encroach upon us, but the raw ignorant country wenches and boobily fellows that can do, and are good for nothing, impose upon us likewise. The scarcity of servants occasioned by the education of the first, gives a handle to the latter of advancing their price, and demanding what ought only to be given to servants that understand their business, and have most of the good qualities that can be required in them. There is no place in the world where there are more clever [190]fellows to look at, or to do an errand, than some of our footmen; but what are they good for in the main? The greatest part of them are rogues, and not to be trusted; and if they are honest, half of them are sots, and will get drunk three or four times a week. The surly ones are generally quarrelsome, and valuing their manhood beyond all other considerations, care not what clothes they spoil, or what disappointments they may occasion, when their prowess is in question. Those who are good-natured, are generally sad whore-masters, that are ever running after the wenches, and spoil all the maid-servants they come near. Many of them are guilty of all these vices, whoring, drinking, quarrelling, and yet shall have all their faults overlooked and bore with, because they are men of good mien and humble address, that know how to wait on gentlemen; which is an unpardonable folly in masters, and generally ends in the ruin of servants.

Nobody wants to do the dirty, tedious work that could actually help. I don't blame them; but all this shows that people from the lowest classes know too much to be useful to us. Servants demand more than what their masters and mistresses can provide; and how foolish is it to encourage this by constantly increasing their knowledge at our expense, which they’ll definitely make us pay for again! It’s not just that those educated at our expense take advantage of us, but also the uneducated country girls and clueless guys who are completely useless impose on us too. The shortage of servants caused by the education of the first group gives the latter a reason to raise their prices and demand what should only be given to servants who know their jobs and possess the necessary qualities. There’s no place in the world with smarter [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]people to look at or run errands than some of our footmen; but what are they really good for? Most of them are crooks and can't be trusted; and if they are honest, half of them are heavy drinkers who get wasted three or four times a week. The grumpy ones are usually aggressive and, valuing their masculinity above all else, don’t care about ruining clothes or causing disappointments when their toughness is challenged. Those who are friendly often turn out to be terrible womanizers, constantly chasing after girls and ruining all the maid-servants they get close to. Many of them indulge in these vices—womanizing, drinking, arguing—and still have all their faults ignored and tolerated because they have a good appearance and know how to serve gentlemen, which is a foolish mistake by their masters and usually ends up ruining the servants.

Some few there are, that are not addicted to any of these failings, and understand their duty besides; but as these are rarities, so there is not one in fifty but what over-rates himself; his wages must be extravagant, and you can never have done giving him; every thing in the house is his perquisite, and he will not stay with you unless his vails are sufficient to maintain a middling family; and though you had taken him from the dunghill, out of an hospital, or a prison, you shall never keep him longer than he can make of his place, what in his high estimation of himself he shall think he deserves; nay, the best and most civilized, that never were saucy and impertinent, will leave the most indulgent master, and, to get handsomely away, frame fifty excuses, and tell downright lies, as soon as they can mend themselves. A man, who keeps an half-crown or twelve-penny ordinary, looks not more for money from his customers, than a footman does from every guest that dines or sups with his master; and I question whether the one does not often think a shilling or half-a-crown, according to the quality of the person, his due as much as the other.

There are a few people who aren’t caught up in these shortcomings and actually understand their responsibilities; however, since they are rare, almost everyone else thinks more highly of themselves than they should. Their pay has to be excessive, and you’ll never stop giving to them. Everything in the house feels like it belongs to them, and they won’t stick around unless their tips are enough to support a decent family. Even if you picked them up from a dirty place, a hospital, or a jail, you won't keep them longer than they think they deserve based on their inflated self-image. Even the best and most respectful ones, who are never rude or disrespectful, will leave the most generous employer and, to make a clean break, will come up with countless excuses and outright lies as soon as they find a better situation. A guy who runs a cheap eatery doesn’t expect more from his customers than a footman does from every guest who dines or has supper with his boss; and I wonder if either of them doesn’t sometimes feel entitled to a shilling or a half-crown, depending on the person.

A housekeeper, who cannot afford to make many entertainments, and does not often invite people to his table, can have no creditable man-servant, and is forced to take up with some country booby, or other awkward fellow, who will likewise give him the slip, as soon as he imagines himself fit for any other service, and is made wiser by his rascally companions. All noted eating-houses, and places that many [191]gentlemen resort to for diversion or business, more especially the precincts of Westminster-hall, are the great schools for servants, where the dullest fellows may have their understandings improved; and get rid at once of their stupidity and their innocence. They are the academies for footmen, where public lectures are daily read, on all sciences of low debauchery, by the experienced professors of them; and students are instructed in above seven hundred illiberal arts, how to cheat, impose upon, and find out the blind side of their masters, with so much application, that in few years they become graduates in iniquity. Young gentlemen and others, that are not thoroughly versed in the world, when they get such knowing sharpers in their service, are commonly indulging above measure; and for fear of discovering their want of experience, hardly dare to contradict or deny them any thing, which is often the reason, that by allowing them unreasonable privileges, they expose their ignorance when they are most endeavouring to conceal it.

A housekeeper who can’t afford to entertain much and doesn’t often invite people over can’t hire a respectable male servant. Instead, he has to settle for some clueless country bumpkin or other awkward guy, who will also leave him as soon as he thinks he's qualified for a better job, often getting influenced by his shady friends. All the popular restaurants and places where many gentlemen go for fun or business, especially around Westminster Hall, are like the top schools for servants, where even the dullest individuals can sharpen their wits and lose both their naivety and innocence. They serve as the training grounds for footmen, hosting daily public lectures on all types of low corruption, given by experienced experts. Students are taught over seven hundred shady skills on how to cheat, deceive, and find the weaknesses of their masters, to the point that within a few years, they become graduates in wrongdoing. Young gentlemen and others who aren’t fully experienced in life often let these cunning con artists get away with too much, and out of fear of showing their own inexperience, they hardly dare to contradict them or say no. This often leads them to grant unreasonable privileges, revealing their ignorance just when they’re trying hardest to hide it.

Some perhaps will lay the things I complain of to the charge of luxury, of which I said that it could do no hurt to a rich nation, if the imports never did exceed the exports; but I do not think this imputation just, and nothing ought to be scored on the account of luxury, that is downright the effect of folly. A man may be very extravagant in indulging his ease and his pleasure, and render the enjoyment of the world as operose and expensive as they can be made, if he can afford it, and, at the same time, show his good sense in every thing about him: This he cannot be said to do, if he industriously renders his people incapable of doing him that service he expects from them. It is too much money, excessive wages, and unreasonable vails, that spoil servants in England. A man may have five and twenty horses in his stables, without being guilty of folly, if it suits with the rest of his circumstances; but if he keeps but one, and overfeeds it to show his wealth, he is a fool for his pains. Is it not madness to suffer, that servants should take three, and others five per cent. of what they pay to tradesmen for their masters, as is so well known to watchmakers, and others that sell toys, superfluous nicknacks, and other curiosities, if they deal with people of quality and fashionable gentlemen, that are above telling their own money? If they should accept of a present when offered, it might be connived at, but it is an unpardonable impudence that they should claim it as [192]their due, and contend for it if refused. Those who have all the necessaries of life provided for, can have no occasion for money, but what does them hurt as servants, unless they were to hoard it up for age or sickness, which, among our skip-kennels, is not very common, and even then it makes them saucy and insupportable.

Some might attribute the issues I complain about to luxury, which I mentioned doesn't harm a wealthy nation as long as imports don't exceed exports. However, I don't think this accusation is fair, and nothing should be blamed on luxury that clearly results from foolishness. A person can be very extravagant in seeking comfort and pleasure, making the enjoyment of life as complicated and costly as possible, if they can afford it, while still demonstrating good judgment in everything else. They wouldn't be showing good sense if they deliberately make their people unable to provide the service they expect from them. It’s excessive money, high wages, and unreasonable tips that ruin servants in England. A person can own twenty-five horses without being foolish, provided it fits their overall situation; but if they only have one and overfeed it just to flaunt their wealth, they're a fool for their trouble. Isn’t it ridiculous to allow servants to take three or even five percent of what they pay tradespeople for their employers, as is well-known among watchmakers and others who sell luxury items and trinkets, especially when dealing with well-off and fashionable gentlemen who don’t bother keeping track of their own money? If they accept a gift when it's offered, that might be acceptable, but it’s outrageous for them to demand it as their right and insist on it when refused. Those who have all the necessities of life provided for shouldn’t need any money, except for things that can harm them as servants, unless they're saving it for old age or illness, which isn't very common among our riff-raff, and even then it tends to make them arrogant and unbearable.

I am credibly informed, that a parcel of footmen are arrived to that height of insolence, as to have entered into a society together, and made laws, by which they oblige themselves not to serve for less than such a sum, nor carry burdens, or any bundle or parcel above a certain weight, not exceeding two or three pounds, with other regulations directly opposite to the interest of those they serve, and altogether destructive to the use they were designed for. If any of them be turned away for strictly adhering to the orders of this honourable corporation, he is taken care of till another service is provided for him; and there is no money wanting at any time to commence and maintain a law-suit against any master that shall pretend to strike, or offer any other injury to his gentleman footman, contrary to the statutes of their society. If this be true, as I have reason to believe it is, and they are suffered to go on in consulting and providing for their own ease and conveniency any further, we may expect quickly to see the French comedy, Le Maitre le Valet acted in good earnest in most families, which, if not redressed in a little time, and those footmen increase their company to the number it is possible they may, as well as assemble when they please with impunity, it will be in their power to make a tragedy of it whenever they have a mind to it.

I’ve been reliably informed that a group of footmen have become so arrogant that they’ve formed a society together and made rules that force them to charge a minimum fee, refuse to carry anything heavier than two or three pounds, and set other regulations that directly undermine the interests of those they work for, completely ruining the purpose they were meant to serve. If anyone is dismissed for strictly following the orders of this esteemed group, they’re supported until they find another job; there’s also no shortage of funds for starting and maintaining a lawsuit against any employer who tries to hit or harm their gentleman footman, contrary to their society’s rules. If this is true, as I have strong reason to believe, and they are allowed to keep planning and organizing for their own comfort, we can soon expect to see the French comedy, Le Maitre le Valet, played out seriously in many households. If this isn’t addressed soon, and if the number of footmen continues to grow and they can gather without consequences, they’ll be able to turn it into a tragedy whenever they choose.

But suppose those apprehensions frivolous and groundless, it is undeniable that servants, in general, are daily encroaching upon masters and mistresses, and endeavouring to be more upon the level with them. They not only seem solicitous to abolish the low dignity of their condition, but have already considerably raised it in the common estimation from the original meanness which the public welfare requires it should always remain in. I do not say that these things are altogether owing to charity schools, there are other evils they may be partly ascribed to. London is too big for the country, and, in several respects, we are wanting to ourselves. But if a thousand faults were to concur before the inconveniences could be produced we labour under, can any man doubt, who will consider what I have said, that charity [193]schools are accessary, or, at least, that they are more likely to create and increase than to lessen or redress those complaints?

But let's say those concerns are trivial and unfounded; it's clear that servants are increasingly pushing the boundaries with their employers and trying to establish more equality. They don't just seem eager to get rid of the low status of their position; they've already significantly improved how it's viewed in society, rising above the original lowliness that the public good demands it should always maintain. I'm not suggesting that these issues are solely caused by charity schools; there are other problems they can partly be attributed to. London is far too large compared to the countryside, and in many ways, we're falling short. However, even if a thousand issues had to come together for the problems we face to arise, can anyone doubt, upon reflection on what I've said, that charity [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] schools contribute to this situation, or at least are more likely to create and worsen than to alleviate those complaints?

The only thing of weight, then, that can be said in their behalf is, that so many thousand children are educated by them in the Christian faith, and the principles of the church of England. To demonstrate that this is not a sufficient plea for them, I must desire the reader, as I hate repetitions, to look back on what I have said before, to which I shall add, that whatever is necessary to salvation, and requisite for poor labouring people to know concerning religion, that children learn at school, may fully as well either by preaching or catechizing be taught at church, from which, or some other place of worship, I would not have the meanest of a parish that is able to walk to it be absent on Sundays. It is the Sabbath, the most useful day in seven, that is set apart for divine service and religious exercise, as well as resting from bodily labour; and it is a duty incumbent on all magistrates, to take particular care of that day. The poor more especially and their children, should be made to go to church on it, both in the fore and afternoon, because they have no time on any other. By precept and example they ought to be encouraged and used to it from their very infancy; the wilful neglect of it ought to be counted scandalous, and if downright compulsion to what I urge might seem too harsh, and perhaps impracticable, all diversions at least ought strictly to be prohibited, and the poor hindered from every amusement abroad that might allure or draw them from it.

The only significant point in their favor is that they educate thousands of children in the Christian faith and the principles of the Church of England. To show that this is not a solid justification for them, I ask the reader, as I dislike repeating myself, to refer back to what I've said earlier. I will add that whatever is necessary for salvation and important for working-class people to understand about religion can just as easily be taught at church through preaching or catechizing. I believe no poor parishioner who can walk should miss church on Sundays. Sunday is the Sabbath, the most valuable day of the week, dedicated to worship and religious activities, as well as a break from physical work. It's the responsibility of all officials to take special care of that day. The poor, especially their children, should be encouraged to attend church in the morning and afternoon, since they have no time to do so on other days. They should be guided and accustomed to this from a very young age; neglecting it should be seen as shameful. If forcing attendance seems too harsh and perhaps impractical, at the very least, all distractions should be strictly banned, preventing the poor from any leisure activities that might tempt them away from church.

Where this care is taken by the magistrates, as far as it lies in their power, ministers of the gospel may instil into the smallest capacities, more piety and devotion, and better principles of virtue and religion, than charity schools ever did or ever will produce; and those who complain, when they have such opportunities, that they cannot imbue their parishioners with sufficient knowledge, of what they stand in need of as Christians, without the assistance of reading and writing, are either very lazy or very ignorant and undeserving themselves.

Where the magistrates take this care, as much as they can, ministers of the gospel can instill more piety and devotion, along with better principles of virtue and religion, into even the smallest minds than charity schools ever have or ever will. Those who complain that they can't teach their parishioners what they need to know as Christians without help from reading and writing are either very lazy or very ignorant and don't deserve to be in that position themselves.

That the most knowing are not the most religious, will be evident if we make a trial between people of different abilities, even in this juncture, where going to church is not made such an obligation on the poor and illiterate, as it might be. Let us pitch upon a hundred poor men, the first we can light on, that are above forty, and were brought up to hard labour [194]from their infancy, such as never went to school at all, and always lived remote from knowledge and great towns: Let us compare to these an equal number of very good scholars, that shall all have had university education, and be, if you will, half of them divines, well versed in philology and polemic learning; then let us impartially examine into the lives and conversations of both, and I dare engage that among the first, who can neither read nor write, we shall meet with more union and neighbourly love, less wickedness and attachment to the world, more content of mind, more innocence, sincerity, and other good qualities that conduce to the public peace and real felicity, than we shall find among the latter, where, on the contrary, we may be assured of the height of pride and insolence, eternal quarrels and dissensions, irreconcileable hatreds, strife, envy, calumny, and other vices, destructive to mutual concord, which the illiterate labouring poor are hardly ever tainted with, to any considerable degree.

It's clear that those who are the most knowledgeable aren't always the most religious. If we look at different groups of people, especially now when church attendance isn't as heavily enforced for the poor and uneducated as it could be, this becomes obvious. Let's take a hundred poor men, over forty years old, who have worked hard since childhood, who never went to school and have lived far from knowledge and cities. Now, let’s compare them to an equal number of well-educated individuals, half of whom are scholars who have studied at university, including some who are well-versed in theology and critical discussions. If we carefully examine the lives and interactions of both groups, I believe we’ll find that among the first group, who can neither read nor write, there will be more community spirit and kindness, less wickedness and attachment to material things, and more contentment, innocence, sincerity, and other positive traits that contribute to public peace and true happiness. In contrast, among the educated group, we might expect to see a lot of pride and arrogance, constant arguments and conflicts, deep-seated hatred, rivalry, jealousy, false accusations, and other vices that harm mutual harmony, which the uneducated laboring poor rarely experience to a significant extent.

I am very well persuaded, that what I have said in the last paragraph, will be no news to most of my readers; but if it be truth, why should it be stifled, and why must our concern for religion be eternally made a cloak to hide our real drifts and worldly intentions? Would both parties agree to pull off the mask, we should soon discover that whatever they pretend to, they aim at nothing so much in charity schools, as to strengthen their party; and that the great sticklers for the church, by educating children in the principles of religion, mean inspiring them with a superlative veneration for the clergy of the church of England, and a strong aversion and immortal animosity against all that dissent from it. To be assured of this, we are but to mind on the one hand, what divines are most admired for their charity sermons, and most fond to preach them; and on the other, whether of late years we have had any riots or party scuffles among the mob, in which the youth of a famous hospital in this city, were not always the most forward ringleaders.

I’m pretty sure that what I mentioned in the last paragraph won’t be news to most of my readers; but if it’s true, why should we hide it, and why must our concern for religion always be used as a cover for our real motives and worldly intentions? If both sides were to drop the facade, we’d quickly see that, despite their claims, they’re mainly focused on promoting their own agendas in charity schools. Those who staunchly support the church often aim to instill in children an extraordinary respect for the clergy of the Church of England, along with a strong dislike and lasting hostility towards anyone who disagrees with it. To confirm this, we just need to look at which religious figures are most praised for their charity sermons and are eager to preach them, and also consider whether we’ve had any riots or clashes among the public in recent years where the youths from a prominent hospital in this city weren’t leading the charge.

The grand asserters of liberty, who are ever guarding themselves, and skirmishing against arbitrary power, often when they are in no danger of it, are generally speaking, not very superstitious, nor seem to lay great stress on any modern apostleship: yet some of these likewise speak up loudly for charity schools; but what they expect from them has no relation to religion or morality: they only look upon them [195]as the proper means to destroy, and disappoint the power of the priests over the laity. Reading and writing increase knowledge; and the more men know, the better they can judge for themselves, and they imagine that, if knowledge could be rendered universal, people could not be priest-rid, which is the thing they fear the most.

The outspoken champions of freedom, who are always on guard and ready to fight against oppressive power, usually aren’t very superstitious and don’t put much weight on any modern authority: yet some of them also advocate strongly for charity schools; however, what they hope to achieve from them isn’t connected to religion or morality: they simply see them as a way to undermine and reduce the priests’ control over the general public. Learning to read and write boosts knowledge, and the more people know, the better equipped they are to think for themselves, and they believe that if knowledge were widespread, people couldn’t be manipulated by priests, which is what they fear the most. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

The first, I confess, it is very possible will get their aim. But sure wise men that are not red-hot for a party, or bigots to the priests, will not think it worth while to suffer so many inconveniencies, as charity schools may be the occasion of, only to promote the ambition and power of the clergy. To the other I would answer, that if all those who are educated at the charge of their parents or relations, will but think for themselves, and refuse to have their reason imposed upon by the priests, we need not be concerned for what the clergy will work upon the ignorant that have no education at all. Let them make the most of them: considering the schools we have for those who can and do pay for learning, it is ridiculous to imagine that the abolishing of charity schools would be a step towards any ignorance that could be prejudicial to the nation.

The first point, I admit, might be achievable. But wise people who aren’t blindly loyal to a party or fanatical about the clergy won’t see it as worth enduring so many drawbacks caused by charity schools just to boost the ambitions and power of the church. In response to the second point, I would say that if everyone who is educated at their own expense or that of their family learns to think for themselves and refuses to let the clergy dictate their reasoning, we shouldn’t worry about what the church can achieve with those who are completely uneducated. Let them do what they will with those individuals; given the schools available for those who can afford an education, it’s absurd to think that getting rid of charity schools would lead to any harmful ignorance for the country.

I would not be thought cruel, and am well assured if I know any thing of myself, that I abhor inhumanity; but to be compassionate to excess, where reason forbids it, and the general interest of the society requires steadiness of thought and resolution, is an unpardonable weakness. I know it will be ever urged against me, that it is barbarous the children of the poor should have no opportunity of exerting themselves, as long as God has not debarred them from natural parts and genius, more than the rich. But I cannot think this is harder, than it is that they should not have money, as long as they have the same inclinations to spend as others. That great and useful men have sprung from hospitals, I do not deny; but it is likewise very probable, that when they were first employed, many as capable as themselves not brought up in hospitals were neglected, that with the same good fortune would have done as well as they, if they had been made use of instead of them.

I don’t want to seem cruel, and I’m pretty sure I despise inhumanity; but being overly compassionate when reason suggests otherwise and society needs clear thinking and strong decisions is a serious weakness. I know people will always argue that it’s barbaric for poor children to have no chance to succeed, especially when God hasn’t denied them natural talents and abilities any more than rich kids. But I don’t think it’s any tougher that they lack money when they have the same urges to spend as anyone else. I don’t deny that great and useful people have come from hospitals, but it’s also likely that when they were first given opportunities, many equally capable individuals who didn’t grow up in hospitals were overlooked, and if they’d been given a chance instead, they might have succeeded just as well.

There are many examples of women that have excelled in learning, and even in war, but this is no reason we should bring them all up to Latin and Greek, or else military discipline, instead of needle-work and housewifery. But there is no scarcity of sprightliness or natural parts among us, and [196]no soil and climate has human creatures to boast of better formed, either inside or outside, than this island generally produces. But it is not wit, genius, or docility we want, but diligence, application, and assiduity.

There are plenty of examples of women who have excelled in learning and even in battle, but that doesn’t mean we should push them all towards Latin and Greek, or military training, instead of skills like sewing and managing a household. However, there’s no lack of energy or natural talent among us, and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]no place has humans that can compete with the quality, both inside and out, that this island typically produces. What we really need isn’t cleverness, talent, or willingness to learn, but hard work, dedication, and perseverance.

Abundance of hard and dirty labour is to be done, and coarse living is to be complied with: where shall we find a better nursery for these necessities than the children of the poor? none, certainly, are nearer to it or fitter for it: Besides that the things I called hardships, neither seem nor are such to those who have been brought up to them, and know no better. There is not a more contented people among us, than those who work the hardest, and are the least acquainted with the pomp and delicacies of the world.

There is a lot of tough and dirty work to be done, and rough living has to be accepted: where can we find a better source for these needs than the poor children? No one is closer or more suitable for it. Besides, what I call hardships don't really seem like hardships to those who have grown up with them and know nothing else. Among us, there are no people more content than those who work the hardest and know the least about the luxuries and conveniences of the world.

These are truths that are undeniable; yet I know few people will be pleased to have them divulged; what makes them odious, is an unreasonable vein of petty reverence for the poor, that runs through most multitudes, and more particularly in this nation, and arises from a mixture of pity, folly, and superstition. It is from a lively sense of this compound, that men cannot endure to hear or see any thing said or acted against the poor; without considering how just the one, or insolent the other. So a beggar must not be beat, though he strikes you first. Journeymen tailors go to law with their masters, and are obstinate in a wrong cause, yet they must be pitied; and murmuring weavers must be relieved, and have fifty silly things done to humour them, though in the midst of their poverty they insult their betters, and, on all occasions, appear to be more prone to make holidays and riots than they are to working or sobriety.

These are undeniable truths; however, I know that few people will be happy to hear them. What makes them unpleasant is an unreasonable tendency to hold a petty reverence for the poor that runs through most people, especially in this country, stemming from a mix of pity, ignorance, and superstition. This mix makes it so that people can't stand to hear or see anything said or done against the poor, without considering how fair the first might be or how rude the second is. So, a beggar shouldn't be hit, even if he strikes you first. Journeyman tailors take their bosses to court and stubbornly cling to a wrong cause, yet they're still to be pitied. Meanwhile, complaining weavers must be helped, and fifty ridiculous things must be done to cater to them, even while they insult their superiors and seem far more likely to throw parties and cause trouble than to work or behave themselves.

This puts me in mind of our wool, which, considering the posture of our affairs, and the behaviour of the poor, I sincerely believe, ought not, upon any account, to be carried abroad: but if we look into the reason, why suffering it to be fetched away is so pernicious, our heavy complaint and lamentations that it is exported can be no great credit to us. Considering the mighty and manifold hazards that must be run before it can be got off the coast, and safely landed beyond sea, it is manifest that the foreigners, before they can work our wool, must pay more for it very considerably, than what we can have it for at home. Yet, notwithstanding this great difference in the prime cost, they can afford to sell the manufactures made of it cheaper at foreign markets than ourselves. This is the disaster we groan under, the intolerable mischief, without which the exportation of that commodity [197]could be no greater prejudice to us than that of tin or lead, as long as our hands were fully employed, and we had still wool to spare.

This reminds me of our wool, which, considering our current situation and the struggles of the less fortunate, I genuinely believe shouldn't be exported at all. But if we examine why allowing it to be taken away is so harmful, our constant complaints and cries about its exportation don’t reflect well on us. Given the huge and numerous risks that must be faced before it can leave our shores and be safely delivered overseas, it's clear that foreigners must pay significantly more to process our wool than we do locally. Yet, despite this large difference in the base cost, they can sell the goods made from it for less in foreign markets than we can. This is the problem we suffer from, the unbearable harm; without this issue, exporting that commodity [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] would hardly be a greater disadvantage for us than exporting tin or lead, as long as we were fully occupied and still had wool to spare.

There is no people yet come to higher perfection in the woollen manufacture, either as to dispatch or goodness of work, at least in the most considerable branches, than ourselves; and therefore what we complain of can only depend on the difference in the management of the poor, between other nations and ours. If the labouring people in one country will work twelve hours in a day, and six days in a week, and in another they are employed but eight hours in a day, and not above four days in a week the one is obliged to have nine hands for what the other does with four. But if, moreover, the living, the food, and raiment, and what is consumed by the workmen of the industrious, costs but half the money of what is expended among an equal number of the other, the consequence must be, that the first will have the work of eighteen men for the same price as the other gives for the work of four. I would not insinuate, neither do I think, that the difference, either in diligence or necessaries of life between us and any neighbouring nation, is near so great as what I speak of, yet I would have it considered, that half of that difference, and much less, is sufficient to over-balance the disadvantage they labour under as to the price of wool.

There are no people who have achieved greater skill in wool manufacturing, in terms of efficiency or quality of work, especially in the most important areas, than we have. Therefore, our complaints must stem from differences in how we manage the poor compared to other countries. If workers in one country put in twelve-hour days for six days a week, while in another country, they only work eight hours a day for four days, the first country has to employ nine workers to do the same amount of work that four workers can do in the second country. Moreover, if the cost of living, food, clothing, and other necessities for the industrious workers in one place is only half of what is spent on an equal number of workers in another, then it follows that the first can produce the same output as eighteen men for what the other pays for four. I don't want to suggest, and I don't believe, that the differences in hard work or living costs between us and any neighboring nation are nearly as vast as what I've mentioned. However, I would like to point out that even half of that difference, or even less, would be enough to offset the disadvantage related to wool prices.

Nothing to me is more evident, than that no nation in any manufacture whatever can undersell their neighbours with whom they are at best but equals as to skill and dispatch, and the conveniency for working, more especially when the prime cost of the thing to be manufactured is not in their favour, unless they have provisions, and whatever is relating to their sustenance, cheaper, or else workmen that are either more assiduous, and will remain longer at their work, or be content with a meaner and coarser way of living than those of their neighbours. This is certain, that where numbers are equal, the more laborious people are, and the fewer hands the same quantity of work is performed by, the greater plenty there is in a country of the necessaries for life, the more considerable and the cheaper that country may render its exports.

Nothing is clearer to me than that no nation can sell its products for less than its neighbors, especially if they are equal in skills, efficiency, and available resources for production. This is especially true when the basic costs of the items being produced are not in their favor, unless they have access to cheaper supplies or food sources, or if their workers are more dedicated, stay longer on the job, or are willing to live in less favorable conditions than those in neighboring countries. It's clear that when populations are equal, the more hardworking a people are, and the fewer workers there are handling the same amount of work, the more abundant the necessities of life will be in that country, allowing it to produce more valuable and cheaper exports.

It being granted, then, that abundance of work is to be done, the next thing which I think to be likewise undeniable, is, that the more cheerfully it is done the better, as well for [198]those that perform it, as for the rest of the society. To be happy is to be pleased, and the less notion a man has of a better way of living, the more content he will be with his own; and, on the other hand, the greater a man’s knowledge and experience is in the world, the more exquisite the delicacy of his taste, and the more consummate judge he is of things in general, certainly the more difficult it will be to please him. I would not advance any thing that is barbarous or inhuman: but when a man enjoys himself, laughs and sings, and in his gesture and behaviour shows me all the tokens of content and satisfaction, I pronounce him happy, and have nothing to do with his wit or capacity. I never enter into the reasonableness of his mirth, at least I ought not to judge of it by my own standard, and argue from the effect which the thing that makes him merry would have upon me. At that rate, a man that hates cheese must call me fool for loving blue mold. De gustibus non est disputandum is as true in a metaphorical, as it is in the literal sense; and the greater the distance is between people as to their condition, their circumstances and manner of living, the less capable they are of judging of one another’s troubles or pleasures.

Given that a lot of work needs to be done, the next thing I believe is also undeniable is that the more cheerfully it is done, the better it is for [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]those who do the work and for society as a whole. Happiness comes from feeling good, and the less someone knows about a better way of living, the more content they will be with their own life. Conversely, the more knowledgeable and experienced someone is, the more refined their tastes will be, making it harder to please them. I wouldn't suggest anything cruel or inhumane, but when someone enjoys themselves, laughs, sings, and shows signs of contentment and satisfaction, I see them as happy and don't consider their intelligence or abilities. I don't delve into the reasons behind their joy, and I shouldn't judge it by my own standards or assume that what makes them happy would have the same effect on me. By that logic, someone who hates cheese would think I'm foolish for loving blue cheese. De gustibus non est disputandum holds true both literally and metaphorically; the more different people's circumstances and lifestyles are, the less able they are to understand each other's troubles or joys.

Had the meanest and most uncivilized peasant leave incognito to observe the greatest king for a fortnight; though he might pick out several things he would like for himself, yet he would find a great many more, which, if the monarch and he were to exchange conditions, he would wish for his part to have immediately altered or redressed, and which with amazement he sees the king submit to. And again, if the sovereign was to examine the peasant in the same manner, his labour would be unsufferable; the dirt and squalor, his diet and amours, his pastimes and recreations would be all abominable; but then what charms would he find in the other’s peace of mind, the calmness and tranquillity of his soul? No necessity for dissimulation with any of his family, or feigned affection to his mortal enemies; no wife in a foreign interest, no danger to apprehend from his children; no plots to unravel, no poison to fear; no popular statesman at home, or cunning courts abroad to manage; no seeming patriots to bribe; no unsatiable favourite to gratify; no selfish ministry to obey; no divided nation to please, or fickle mob to humour, that would direct and interfere with his pleasures.

Had the rudest and most uncivilized peasant go incognito to observe the greatest king for two weeks; even though he might spot several things he'd want for himself, he would discover far more that, if the king and he were to swap places, he would want changed or fixed right away, and which would astonish him to see the king accept. Likewise, if the king were to look at the peasant in the same way, his life would seem unbearable; the filth and squalor, his food and relationships, his hobbies and entertainment would all be disgusting; but then what attractions would he find in the other’s peace of mind, the calmness and tranquility of his soul? No need for deception with any of his family, or fake affection towards his mortal enemies; no wife with foreign interests, no threats from his children; no conspiracies to untangle, no poison to fear; no popular politician at home, or crafty courts abroad to deal with; no pretending patriots to bribe; no insatiable favorite to please; no self-serving government to obey; no divided nation to appease, or fickle crowd to cater to, that would dictate and interfere with his enjoyment.

Was impartial reason to be judge between real good and real evil, and a catalogue made accordingly, of the several delights and vexations differently to be met with in both stations; [199]I question whether the condition of kings would be at all preferable to that of peasants, even as ignorant and laborious as I seem to require the latter to be. The reason why the generality of people would rather be kings than peasants, is first owing to pride and ambition, that is deeply riveted in human nature, and which to gratify, we daily see men undergo and despise the greatest hazards and difficulties. Secondly, to the difference there is in the force with which our affection is wrought upon, as the objects are either material or spiritual. Things that immediately strike our outward senses, act more violently upon our passions than what is the result of thought, and the dictates of the most demonstrative reason; and there is a much stronger bias to gain our liking or aversion in the first, than there is in the latter.

If we were to judge fairly between true good and true evil, and make a list of the different pleasures and pains found in both situations, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]I wonder if being a king would really be any better than being a peasant, even if I portray the latter as ignorant and hard-working. The reason most people would prefer to be kings instead of peasants comes down to pride and ambition, which are deeply ingrained in human nature. To satisfy these desires, we often see people face great dangers and challenges. Additionally, there's a difference in how strongly our feelings are affected, depending on whether they involve physical things or abstract concepts. Things that directly appeal to our senses tend to trigger our emotions more intensely than those that are based on thought and logical reasoning; we are much more easily swayed by the former than the latter.

Having thus demonstrated that what I urge could be no injury, or the least diminution of happiness to the poor, I leave it to the judicious reader, whether it is not more probable we should increase our exports by the methods I hint at, than by sitting still and damning and sinking our neighbours, for beating us at our own weapons; some of them out-selling us in manufactures made of our own product, which they dearly purchased, others growing rich in spite of distance and trouble, by the same fish which we neglect, though it is ready to jump into our mouths.

Having shown that what I suggest wouldn’t harm or lessen the happiness of the poor in any way, I leave it to the sensible reader to consider whether it’s more likely we could boost our exports through the methods I mentioned, rather than just sitting back and criticizing and resenting our neighbors for outdoing us with our own tools; some of them are beating us in manufacturing goods made from our own products, which they bought at a high price, while others are getting rich despite the distance and difficulties, by catching the same fish that we ignore, even though it’s practically jumping into our mouths.

As by discouraging idleness with art and steadiness, you may compel the poor to labour without force; so, by bringing them up in ignorance, you may inure them to real hardships, without being ever sensible themselves that they are such. By bringing them up in ignorance, I mean no more, as I have hinted long ago, than that, as to worldly affairs, their knowledge should be confined within the verge of their own occupations, at least that we should not take pains to extend it beyond those limits. When by these two engines we shall have made provisions, and consequently labour cheap, we must infallibly outsell our neighbours; and at the same time increase our numbers. This is the noble and manly way of encountering the rivals of our trade, and by dint of merit outdoing them at foreign markets.

By discouraging idleness through art and discipline, you can encourage the poor to work without force; similarly, by raising them in ignorance, you can toughen them to real hardships without them even realizing. When I say "raising them in ignorance," I mean that, regarding worldly matters, their knowledge should be limited to their own jobs, and we shouldn't make an effort to expand it beyond those boundaries. Once we've achieved this through these two methods, we will make resources available and consequently make labor cheaper, allowing us to outcompete our neighbors while also increasing our population. This is a strong and honorable way to face our trade rivals and, through our merits, surpass them in international markets.

To allure the poor, we make use of policy in some cases with success. Why should we be neglectful of it in the most important point, when they make their boast that they will not live as the poor of other nations? If we cannot alter their resolution, why should we applaud the justness of their sentiments [200]against the common interest? I have often wondered formerly how an Englishman that pretended to have the honour and glory, as well as the welfare of his country at heart, could take delight in the evening to hear an idle tenant that owed him above a year’s rent, ridicule the French for wearing wooden shoes, when in the morning he had had the mortification of hearing the great King William, that ambitious monarch, as well as able statesman, openly own to the world, and with grief and anger in his looks, complain of the exorbitant power of France. Yet I do not recommend wooden shoes, nor do the maxims I would introduce require arbitrary power in one person. Liberty and property I hope may remain secured, and yet the poor be better employed than they are, though their children should wear out their clothes by useful labour, and blacken them with country dirt for something, instead of tearing them off their backs at play, and daubing them with ink for nothing.

To attract the poor, we sometimes use policy successfully. Why should we ignore it on the most crucial issue when they claim they won't live like the poor in other countries? If we can't change their minds, why should we celebrate their sentiments [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] against the common good? I've often wondered how an Englishman who professes to care about the honor, glory, and welfare of his country could enjoy listening to a lazy tenant who owes him over a year's rent ridicule the French for wearing wooden shoes, especially after hearing King William, that ambitious monarch and skilled statesman, openly lament the overwhelming power of France with visible grief and anger. However, I don't advocate for wooden shoes, nor do the principles I want to introduce require one person to have arbitrary power. I hope that liberty and property can be secured while ensuring that the poor are engaged in productive work, even if their children wear out their clothes through useful labor and get them dirty with country mud for a purpose, rather than ripping them off for fun and staining them with ink for no reason.

There is above three or four hundred years work, for a hundred thousand poor more than we have in this island. To make every part of it useful, and the whole thoroughly inhabited, many rivers are to be made navigable; canals to be cut in hundreds of places. Some lands are to be drained and secured from inundations for the future: abundance of barren soil is to be made fertile, and thousands of acres rendered more beneficial, by being made more accessible. Dii laboribus omnia vendunt. There is no difficulty of this nature, that labour and patience cannot surmount. The highest mountains may be thrown into their valleys that stand ready to receive them; and bridges might be laid where now we would not dare to think of it. Let us look back on the stupendous works of the Romans, more especially their highways and aqueducts. Let us consider in one view the vast extent of several of their roads, how substantial they made them, and what duration they have been of; and in another a poor traveller that at every ten miles end is stopped by a turnpike, and dunned for a penny for mending the roads in the summer, with what every body knows will be dirt before the winter that succeeds is expired.

There is over three or four hundred years' worth of work for a hundred thousand more poor people than we have on this island. To make every part of it useful and fully inhabited, many rivers need to be made navigable, and hundreds of canals need to be cut. Some land needs to be drained and protected from future flooding; a lot of barren land should be turned fertile, and thousands of acres could be made more productive by making them easier to access. Dii laboribus omnia vendunt. There’s no challenge that hard work and patience can’t overcome. The highest mountains can be moved into the valleys waiting for them, and bridges could be built where we wouldn’t dare to imagine it now. Let’s look back at the incredible works of the Romans, especially their roads and aqueducts. Consider the vast distance of some of their roads, how solidly they built them, and how long they have lasted; now compare that to a poor traveler who is stopped by a toll booth every ten miles, forced to pay a penny for road repairs in the summer, knowing that what is fixed will just be mud before winter is done.

The conveniency of the public ought ever to be the public care, and no private interest of a town, or a whole country, should ever hinder the execution of a project or contrivance that would manifestly tend to the improvement of the whole; and every member of the legislature, who knows his duty. [201]and would choose rather to act like a wise man, than curry favour with his neighbours, will prefer the least benefit accruing to the whole kingdom, to the most visible advantage of the place he serves for.

The convenience of the public should always be the public's priority, and no local or national private interest should ever get in the way of a plan or project that clearly contributes to the improvement of everyone; and every legislator who understands their responsibilities and chooses to be wise rather than seek favor with their peers will prioritize the smallest benefit for the whole country over the most obvious gain for their specific area. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

We have materials of our own, and want neither stone nor timber to do any thing; and was the money that people give uncompelled to beggars, who do not deserve it, and what every housekeeper is obliged to pay to the poor of his parish, that is other wise employed or ill-applied, to be put together every year, it would make a sufficient fund to keep a great many thousands at work. I do not say this because I think it practicable, but only to show that we have money enough to spare, to employ vast multitudes of labourers; neither should we want so much for it as we perhaps might imagine. When it is taken for granted, that a soldier, whose strength and vigour is to be kept up at least as much as any body’s, can live upon sixpence a-day, I cannot conceive the necessity of giving the greatest part of the year, sixteen and eighteen pence to a day-labourer.

We have our own resources and don't need stone or wood for anything. If we were to combine the money that people willingly give to beggars who don’t really deserve it, along with what every homeowner has to pay to the poor in their parish— which is otherwise wasted or misused— we would have enough to provide jobs for a vast number of people. I'm not saying this is feasible, but it shows that we have enough extra money to employ many laborers, and we might not need as much as we think. When it’s assumed that a soldier, whose strength and energy need to be maintained just like anyone else’s, can live on sixpence a day, I can’t understand why we would pay day laborers a significant amount, like sixteen or eighteen pence a day.

The fearful and cautious people, that are ever jealous of their liberty, I know will cry out, that where the multitudes I speak of should be kept in constant pay, property and privileges would be precarious. But they might be answered, that sure means might be found out, and such regulations made, as to the hands in which to trust the management and direction of these labourers, that it would be impossible for the prince, or any body else, to make an ill use of their numbers.

The fearful and cautious people, who are always worried about their freedom, will definitely argue that keeping the large groups I mentioned on constant payroll would put property and rights at risk. However, it could be pointed out that reliable methods could certainly be developed, along with regulations on who should manage and direct these workers, making it impossible for the prince or anyone else to misuse their numbers.

What I have said in the four or five last paragraphs, I foresee, will, with abundance of scorn, be laughed at by many of my readers, and at best be called building castles in the air; but whether that is my fault or theirs is a question. When the public spirit has left a nation, they not only lose their patience with it, and all thoughts of perseverance, but become likewise so narrow-souled, that it is a pain for them even to think of things that are of uncommon extent, or require great length of time; and whatever is noble or sublime in such conjectures, is counted chimerical. Where deep ignorance is entirely routed and expelled, and low learning promiscuously scattered on all the people, self-love turns knowledge into cunning; and the more this last qualification prevails in any country, the more the people will fix all their cares, concern, and application, on the time present, without [202]regard of what is to come after them, or hardly ever thinking beyond the next generation.

What I've mentioned in the last four or five paragraphs, I anticipate will be met with a lot of scorn and laughter from many of my readers, who will at best call it just dreaming. But whether that's my fault or theirs is debatable. When the public spirit fades in a nation, people not only lose patience with it and any thoughts of persistence, but they also become so narrow-minded that it's painful for them to even consider ideas that are broad or take a long time. Anything noble or grand in such thoughts is dismissed as unrealistic. When deep ignorance is completely eliminated and shallow knowledge is spread among the people, self-love turns knowledge into cleverness; and the more this quality takes hold in any country, the more people will focus all their concerns and efforts on the present moment, with little regard for what comes after them, hardly ever thinking beyond the next generation.

But as cunning, according to my Lord Verulam, is but left-handed wisdom; so a prudent legislator ought to provide against this disorder of the society, as soon as the symptoms of it appear, among which the following are the most obvious. Imaginary rewards are generally despised; every body is for turning the penny, and short bargains; he that is diffident of every thing and believes nothing but what he sees with his own eyes, is counted the most prudent; and in all their dealings, men seem to act from no other principle than that of the devil take the hindmost. Instead of planting oaks, that will require a hundred and fifty years before they are fit to be cut down, they build houses with a design that they shall not stand above twelve or fourteen years. All heads run upon the uncertainty of things, and the vicissitudes of human affairs. The mathematics become the only valuable study, and are made use of in every thing, even where it is ridiculous, and men seem to repose no greater trust in Providence than they would in a broken merchant.

But as cunning, according to my Lord Verulam, is just a form of left-handed wisdom, a wise lawmaker should address this disorder in society as soon as the signs show up, with the most obvious being the following. Imaginary rewards are usually looked down upon; everyone is looking to make a quick profit and cut deals. Those who doubt everything and believe only what they can see with their own eyes are considered the most sensible. In all their dealings, people seem to operate on the principle that it’s every man for himself. Instead of planting oaks that will take a hundred and fifty years to mature, they build houses with the expectation that they won’t last more than twelve or fourteen years. Everyone’s fixated on the unpredictability of life and the ups and downs of human affairs. Mathematics becomes the only worthwhile subject and is applied everywhere, even where it’s absurd, and people seem to trust Providence no more than they would trust an unreliable merchant.

It is the business of the public to supply the defects of the society, and take that in hand first which is most neglected by private persons. Contraries are best cured by contraries, and therefore, as example is of greater efficacy than precept, in the amendment of national failings, the legislature ought to resolve upon some great undertakings, that must be the work of ages as well as vast labour, and convince the world that they did nothing without an anxious regard to their latest posterity. This will fix, or at least help to settle, the volatile genius and fickle spirit of the kingdom; put us in mind that we are not born for ourselves only, and be a means of rendering men less distrustful, and inspiring them with a true love for their country, and a tender affection for the ground itself, than which nothing is more necessary to aggrandize a nation. Forms of government may alter; religions and even languages may change, but Great Britain, or at least (if that likewise might lose its name) the island itself will remain, and in all human probability, last as long as any part of the globe. All ages have ever paid their kind acknowledgments to their ancestors, for the benefits derived from them; and a Christian who enjoys the multitude of fountains, and vast plenty of water to be met with in the city of St. Peter, is an ungrateful wretch if he never casts a thankful [203]remembrance on old Pagan Rome, that took such prodigious pains to procure it.

It’s the responsibility of the public to address the shortcomings of society and to focus first on what private individuals neglect the most. Opposites are best fixed by opposites, so since leading by example is more effective than just giving advice, lawmakers should commit to significant projects that will take many years and require considerable effort, showing the world that they act with a genuine concern for future generations. This will help stabilize the unpredictable nature and fleeting spirit of the nation, remind us that we aren’t just here for ourselves, and encourage people to be less suspicious, fostering a true love for their country and a deep affection for the land itself, which is essential for building a great nation. Forms of government can change, religions might shift, and even languages can evolve, but Great Britain—or at least the island itself—will endure and likely last longer than any other part of the world. Throughout history, people have always expressed gratitude to their ancestors for the benefits they received; a Christian who enjoys the plentiful water supply in the city of St. Peter is ungrateful if they never take a moment to appreciate ancient Pagan Rome, which worked so hard to provide it.

When this island shall be cultivated, and every inch of it made habitable and useful, and the whole the most convenient and agreeable spot upon earth, all the cost and labour laid out upon it, will be gloriously repaid by the incense of them that shall come after us; and those who burn with the noble zeal and desire after immortality, and took such care to improve their country, may rest satisfied, that a thousand and two thousand years hence, they shall live in the memory and everlasting praises of the future ages that shall then enjoy it.

When this island is cultivated, and every bit of it is made livable and useful, turning it into the most convenient and pleasant place on earth, all the money and effort spent on it will be wonderfully rewarded by the gratitude of those who come after us. Those who are passionate and eager for lasting impact and dedicated to bettering their land can be content knowing that a thousand or two thousand years from now, they will be remembered and celebrated by future generations who will enjoy it.

Here I should have concluded this rhapsody of thoughts; but something comes in my head concerning the main scope and design of this essay, which is to prove the necessity there is for a certain portion of ignorance, in a well-ordered society, that I must not omit, because, by mentioning it, I shall make an argument on my side, of what, if I had not spoke of it, might easily have appeared as a strong objection against me. It is the opinion of most people, and mine among the rest, that the most commendable quality of the present Czar of Muscovy, is his unwearied application, in raising his subjects from their native stupidity, and civilizing his nation: but then we must consider it is what they stood in need of, and that not long ago the greatest part of them were next to brute beasts. In proportion to the extent of his dominions, and the multitudes he commands, he had not that number or variety of tradesmen and artificers, which the true improvement of the country required, and therefore was in the right, in leaving no stone unturned to procure them. But what is that to us who labour under a contrary disease? Sound politics are to the social body, what the art of medicine is to the natural, and no physician would treat a man in a lethargy as if he was sick for want of rest, or prescribe in a dropsy what should be administered in a diabetes. In short, Russia has too few knowing men, and Great Britain too many. [205]

Here I should have wrapped up this stream of thoughts; but something comes to mind regarding the main purpose and design of this essay, which is to highlight the need for a certain amount of ignorance in a well-ordered society. I can't skip over this point, as addressing it will strengthen my argument against what could have otherwise appeared as a strong counterpoint against me. Most people, myself included, believe that the most commendable quality of the current Czar of Muscovy is his tireless effort to raise his subjects from their natural ignorance and to civilize his nation. However, we must recognize that this was something they truly needed, and not long ago, most of them were almost like wild animals. Given the size of his territories and the vast number of people he oversees, he didn't have the necessary number or variety of tradespeople and craftsmen that the true development of the country required, and so he was right to spare no effort in bringing them in. But what does that mean for us, who suffer from the opposite issue? Sound politics are to society what medical practice is to the human body, and no doctor would treat a person in a stupor as if they were simply in need of rest, or prescribe the same treatment for a patient with dropsy as someone with diabetes. In short, Russia has too few educated individuals, while Great Britain has too many. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

A
SEARCH
INTO THE
NATURE OF SOCIETY.

The generality of moralists and philosophers have hitherto agreed that there could be no virtue without self-denial; but a late author, who is now much read by men of sense, is of a contrary opinion, and imagines that men, without any trouble, or violence upon themselves, may be naturally virtuous. He seems to require and expect goodness in his species, as we do a sweet taste in grapes and China oranges, of which, if any of them are sour, we boldly pronounce that they are not come to that perfection their nature is capable of. This noble writer (for it is the Lord Shaftesbury I mean in his Characteristics) fancies, that as a man is made for society, so he ought to be born with a kind affection to the whole, of which he is a part, and a propensity to seek the welfare of it. In pursuance of this supposition, he calls every action performed with regard to the public good, Virtuous; and all selfishness, wholly excluding such a regard, Vice. In respect to our species, he looks upon virtue and vice as permanent realities, that must ever be the same in all countries and all ages, and imagines that a man of sound understanding, by following the rules of good sense, may not only find out that pulchrum et honestum both in morality and the works of art and nature, but likewise govern himself, by his reason, with as much ease and readiness as a good rider manages a well-taught horse by the bridle.

Most moralists and philosophers have long agreed that there can't be virtue without self-denial. However, a recent author, who is now widely read by sensible people, has a different view. He believes that people can be naturally virtuous without struggle or self-imposed hardship. He seems to expect goodness from humanity in the same way we expect grapes and China oranges to taste sweet. If any of them are sour, we confidently say they haven't reached the perfection they could achieve. This esteemed writer—I mean Lord Shaftesbury in his Characteristics—believes that just as a person is made for society, they should be born with a natural affection for the whole of which they are a part and a tendency to seek its welfare. Following this idea, he labels every action aimed at the public good as Virtuous, while all selfish actions that disregard this are labeled Vice. In terms of our species, he views virtue and vice as enduring realities that remain consistent across all countries and ages. He believes that a person of sound judgment, by adhering to the principles of good sense, can discover what is both beautiful and honorable in morality as well as in art and nature, and can also manage their behavior with the same ease and skill as a good rider handles a well-trained horse with the bridle.

The attentive reader, who perused the foregoing part of this book, will soon perceive that two systems cannot be more opposite than his Lordship’s and mine. His notions I confess, are generous and refined: they are a high compliment to human-kind, and capable, by a little enthusiasm, of inspiring us with the most noble sentiments concerning the dignity of our exalted nature. What pity it is that they are not true. I would not advance thus much if I had not already demonstrated, in almost ever page of this treatise, that the solidity of them is inconsistent with our daily experience. [206]But, to leave not the least shadow of an objection that might be made unanswered, I design to expatiate on some things which hitherto I have but slightly touched upon, in order to convince the reader, not only that the good and amiable qualities of men are not those that make him beyond other animals a sociable creature; but, moreover, that it would be utterly impossible, either to raise any multitudes into a populous, rich, and flourishing nation, or, when so raised, to keep and maintain them in that condition, without the assistance of what we call Evil, both natural and moral.

The attentive reader who has gone through the earlier parts of this book will quickly notice that my views and those of his Lordship couldn't be more different. I admit his ideas are noble and refined; they present a flattering view of humanity and, with a bit of enthusiasm, could inspire us with the highest sentiments about our elevated nature. What a shame that they aren't true. I wouldn’t say this if I hadn’t already shown, on almost every page of this work, that their validity contradicts our everyday experiences. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] However, to leave no possible objections unanswered, I intend to expand on a few points that I have only briefly mentioned so far, in order to convince the reader that the good and kind qualities in people are not what make them more sociable than other animals. Furthermore, it would be completely impossible to build a populous, wealthy, and thriving nation, or to sustain it once established, without the help of what we refer to as Evil, both natural and moral.

The better to perform what I have undertaken, I shall previously examine into the reality of the pulchrum et honestum, the τὸ κάλον that the ancients have talked of so much: the meaning of this is to discuss, whether there be a real worth and excellency in things, a pre-eminence of one above another; which every body will always agree to that well understands them; or, that there are few things, if any, that have the same esteem paid them, and which the same judgment is passed upon in all countries and all ages. When we first set out in quest of this intrinsic worth, and find one thing better than another, and a third better than that, and so on, we begin to entertain great hopes of success; but when we meet with several things that are all very good or all very bad, we are puzzled, and agree not always with ourselves, much less with others. There are different faults as well as beauties, that as modes and fashions alter and men vary in their tastes and humours, will be differently admired or disapproved of.

To better accomplish what I’ve set out to do, I will first look into the reality of the pulchrum et honestum, the τὸ κάλον that the ancients discussed extensively. This means discussing whether there is real value and excellence in things, a ranking of one above another, which anyone who understands them will agree upon. Alternatively, it considers whether there are few things, if any, that receive the same level of esteem and judgment across all cultures and ages. As we begin our search for this intrinsic worth and find one thing better than another, and a third better than that, we start to feel optimistic about our success. However, when we encounter several things that are either all very good or all very bad, we become confused and do not always agree with ourselves, much less with others. Just as tastes and fashions change, so do faults and beauties, which will be admired or disapproved of differently.

Judges of painting will never disagree in opinion, when a fine picture is compared to the daubing of a novice; but how strangely have they differed as to the works of eminent masters! There are parties among connoisseurs; and few of them agree in their esteem as to ages and countries; and the best pictures bear not always the best prices: a noted original will be ever worth more than any copy that can be made of it by an unknown hand, though it should be better. The value that is set on paintings depends not only on the name of the master, and the time of his age he drew them in, but likewise in a great measure on the scarcity of his works; but, what is still more unreasonable, the quality of the persons in whose possession they are, as well as the length of time they have been in great families; and if the Cartons, now at Hampton-Court, were done by a less famous hand than [207]that of Raphael, and had a private person for their owner, who would be forced to sell them, they would never yield the tenth part of the money which, with all their gross faults, they are now esteemed to be worth.

Judges of painting will always agree that a great artwork stands far above a beginner's attempt; however, they often disagree passionately when it comes to the works of well-known masters. There are factions among art aficionados, and few see eye to eye on their preference for different periods and styles; moreover, the best artworks don't always command the highest prices. A famous original is always worth more than any copy made by an unknown artist, even if that copy is technically better. The value of paintings depends not just on the artist’s name and the period when they were created, but also significantly on how rare the artist's works are. Even more irrationally, the value is influenced by the status of the people who own them and how long they’ve been in prominent families. If the Cartoons currently at Hampton Court had been created by a less renowned artist than Raphael and owned by a private individual who needed to sell them, they would probably fetch only a fraction of what they are currently valued at, despite any flaws they may have.

Notwithstanding all this, I will readily own, that the judgment to be made of painting might become of universal certainty, or at least less alterable and precarious than almost any thing else. The reason is plain; there is a standard to go by that always remains the same. Painting is an imitation of nature, a copying of things which men have every where before them. My good humoured reader I hope will forgive me, if, thinking on this glorious invention, I make a reflection a little out of season, though very much conducive to my main design; which is, that valuable as the art is I speak of, we are beholden to an imperfection in the chief of our senses for all the pleasures and ravishing delight we receive from this happy deceit. I shall explain myself. Air and space are no objects of sight, but as soon as we can see with the least attention, we observe that the bulk of the things we see is lessened by degrees, as they are further remote from us, and nothing but experience, gained from these observations, can teach us to make any tolerable guesses at the distance of things. If one born blind should remain so till twenty, and then be suddenly blessed with sight, he would be strangely puzzled as to the difference of distances, and hardly able, immediately, by his eyes alone, to determine which was nearest to him, a post almost within the reach of his stick, or a steeple that should be half a mile off. Let us look as narrowly as we can upon a hole in a wall that has nothing but the open air behind it, and we shall not be able to see otherwise, but that the sky fills up the vacuity, and is as near us as the back part of the stones that circumscribe the space where they are wanting. This circumstance, not to call it a defect, in our sense of seeing, makes us liable to be imposed upon, and every thing, but motion, may, by art, be represented to us on a flat, in the same manner as we see them in life and nature. If a man had never seen this art put into practice, a looking-glass might soon convince him that such a thing was possible, and I cannot help thinking, but that the reflections from very smooth and well-polished bodies made upon our eyes, must have given the first handle to the inventions of drawings and painting. [208]

Despite all this, I’ll admit that judging painting could become universally certain, or at least more consistent and stable than almost anything else. The reason is clear: there’s a standard to follow that always stays the same. Painting imitates nature, copying things that people can see everywhere. I hope my good-natured reader can forgive me if I reflect on this amazing invention a bit out of context, even though it greatly contributes to my main point: that as valuable as this art is, we depend on an imperfection in our main sense for all the pleasures and delightful enjoyment we get from this happy illusion. Let me explain. Air and space aren’t visible objects, but as soon as we focus, we notice that the size of things we see gradually shrinks as they get farther away, and only experience from these observations can teach us to make reasonable guesses about distances. If someone who was born blind remained so until they were twenty and then suddenly gained sight, they would be incredibly confused about the differences in distances, hardly able to tell, just by looking, which was closer—a post within reach of their cane or a steeple half a mile away. If we closely examine a hole in a wall with nothing but open air behind it, we can only perceive that the sky fills the emptiness and is as near to us as the back of the stones surrounding the gap. This situation, not to call it a flaw, in our sense of sight makes us susceptible to being tricked, and everything except motion can be represented to us flatly, just like we see it in life and nature. If someone had never seen this art in action, a mirror could quickly convince them that such a thing is possible, and I can’t help but think that reflections from very smooth and polished surfaces must have inspired the early inventions of drawing and painting. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

In the works of nature, worth, and excellency, are as uncertain: and even in human creatures, what is beautiful in one country, is not so in another. How whimsical is the florist in his choice! Sometimes the tulip, sometimes the auricula, and at other times the carnation shall engross his esteem, and every year a new flower, in his judgment, beats all the old ones, though it is much inferior to them both in colour and shape. Three hundred years ago men were shaved as closely as they are now: Since that they have wore beards, and cut them in vast variety of forms, that were all as becoming, when fashionable, as now they would be ridiculous. How mean and comically a man looks, that is otherwise well dressed, in a narrow brimmed hat, when every body wears broad ones; and again, how monstrous is a very great hat, when the other extreme has been in fashion for a considerable time? experience has taught us, that these modes seldom last above ten or twelve years, and a man of threescore must have observed five or six revolutions of them at least! yet the beginnings of these changes, though we have seen several, seem always uncouth, and are offensive a-fresh whenever they return. What mortal can decide which is the handsomest, abstract from the mode in being, to wear great buttons or small ones? the many ways of laying out a garden judiciously are almost innumerable; and what is called beautiful in them, varies according to the different tastes of nations and ages. In grass plats, knots and parterres, a great diversity of forms is generally agreeable; but a round may be as pleasing to the eye as a square: an oval cannot be more suitable to one place, than it is possible for a triangle to be to another; and the pre-eminence an octogon has over an hexagon is no greater in figures, than at hazard eight has above six among the chances.

In nature, worth and excellence are pretty uncertain; even among humans, what is beautiful in one country may not be in another. The choices of a florist can be quite whimsical! Sometimes it’s the tulip, other times the auricula, and then the carnation that captures their attention, with each year bringing a new flower that they think outshines all the previous ones, even if it’s inferior in color and shape. Three hundred years ago, men were shaved as closely as they are today. Since then, they’ve sported beards in various styles, which looked just as good when they were in fashion as they would seem ridiculous now. A man who is otherwise well-dressed looks quite silly in a narrow-brimmed hat when everyone else is wearing wide ones; conversely, a very large hat can seem absurd when the trend has favored smaller ones for a while. Experience has shown us that these fashions don’t typically last more than ten to twelve years, and a man at sixty must have witnessed at least five or six shifts in style! Yet, the start of these changes, though we’ve seen several, always seems awkward and is annoying whenever they resurface. Who can truly decide what looks best, independent of the current style—big buttons or small ones? There are countless ways to design a garden wisely, and what is considered beautiful varies with the tastes of different nations and eras. In lawns, flowerbeds, and gardens, a great variety of shapes can be quite pleasing; a round shape can be just as attractive as a square. An oval can fit a space just as well as a triangle can; and the advantage an octagon has over a hexagon is no more significant in design than rolling an eight is over a six in games of chance.

Churches, ever since Christians have been able to build them, resemble the form of a cross, with the upper end pointing toward the east; and an architect, where there is room, and it can be conveniently done, who should neglect it, would be thought to have committed an unpardonable fault; but it would be foolish to expect this of a Turkish mosque or a Pagan temple. Among the many beneficial laws that have been made these hundred years, it is not easy to name one of greater utility, and, at the same time, more exempt from all inconveniences, than that which regulated the dresses of the dead. Those who were old enough to take notice of [209]things when that act was made, and are yet alive, must remember the general clamour that was made against it. At first, nothing could be more shocking to thousands of people than that they were to be buried in woollen, and the only thing that made that law supportable was, that there was room left for people of some fashion to indulge their weakness without extravagancy; considering the other expences of funerals where mourning is given to several, and rings to a great many. The benefit that accrues to the nation from it is so visible, that nothing ever could be said in reason to condemn it, which, in few years, made the horror conceived against it lessen every day. I observed then that young people, who had seen but few in their coffins, did the soonest strike in with the innovation; but that those who, when the act was made, had buried many friends and relations, remained averse to it the longest, and I remember many that never could be reconciled to it to their dying day. By this time, burying in linen being almost forgot, it is the general opinion that nothing could be more decent than woollen, and the present manner of dressing a corps; which shows that our liking or disliking of things chiefly depends on mode and custom, and the precept and example of our betters, and such whom one way or other we think to be superior to us.

Churches, ever since Christians started building them, typically have a cross shape, with the top pointing toward the east. An architect who ignores this design, when it’s feasible, would be seen as making a serious mistake; but it would be unreasonable to expect the same from a Turkish mosque or a Pagan temple. Among the many helpful laws established in the last hundred years, few can match the usefulness and lack of downsides of the law regulating burial attire. Those who were old enough to notice things when that law was passed, and are still around, likely remember the widespread outcry against it. Initially, the idea of being buried in wool felt shocking to thousands, and the only reason people accepted that law was that it allowed fashionable individuals to indulge their preferences without being overly extravagant, especially considering the other funeral expenses like mourning attire for several and rings for many. The benefits to the nation from this law are so clear that there’s really no reasonable argument against it, which over a few years reduced the initial horror people felt about it. I noticed that young people, who had seen few bodies in coffins, adapted to the change quickly, while those who had buried many friends and relatives when the law was enacted held onto their aversion the longest; I remember some who never accepted it until they passed away. By now, the idea of burying in linen is almost forgotten, and most people believe that nothing is more respectable than being buried in wool and the current way of dressing the deceased. This shows that our preferences for things largely depend on trends, customs, and the guidance of those we consider our betters, whether through status or some other perceived superiority.

In morals there is no greater certainty. Plurality of wives is odious among Christians, and all the wit and learning of a great genius in defence of it, has been rejected with contempt: But polygamy is not shocking to a Mahometan. What men have learned from their infancy enslaves them, and the force of custom warps nature, and, at the same time, imitates her in such a manner, that it is often difficult to know which of the two we are influenced by. In the east, formerly sisters married brothers, and it was meritorious for a man to marry his mother. Such alliances are abominable; but it is certain that, whatever horror we conceive at the thoughts of them, there is nothing in nature repugnant against them, but what is built upon mode and custom. A religious Mahometan that has never tasted any spirituous liquor, and has often seen people drunk, may receive as great an aversion against wine, as another with us of the least morality and education may have against lying with his sister, and both imagine that their antipathy proceeds from nature. Which is the best religion? is a question that has caused more mischief [210]than all other questions together. Ask it at Pekin, at Constantinople, and at Rome, and you will receive three distinct answers extremely different from one another, yet all of them equally positive and peremptory. Christians are well assured of the falsity of the Pagan and Mahometan superstitions: as to this point, there is a perfect union and concord among them; but inquire of the several sects they are divided into, Which is the true church of Christ? and all of them will tell you it is theirs, and to convince you, go together by the ears.

In morals, there’s no greater certainty. Having multiple wives is repulsive to Christians, and all the intelligence and expertise of a brilliant individual defending it has been dismissed with disdain. But polygamy doesn’t shock a Muslim. What people learn from childhood enslaves them, and the influence of custom distorts nature, while at the same time mimicking it in a way that often makes it hard to tell which one we're really influenced by. In the East, it used to be common for sisters to marry brothers, and it was seen as virtuous for a man to marry his mother. Such relationships are disgusting; however, it’s clear that, despite the horror we feel at the thought of them, there’s nothing inherently wrong with them in nature, only what is shaped by social norms and customs. A devout Muslim who has never tasted alcohol, witnessing others drunk, can develop as strong a disgust for wine as someone here with minimal morals and education might have for sleeping with their sister, both believing their aversion comes from nature. The question of which religion is the best has caused more trouble [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] than all other questions combined. Ask it in Beijing, Constantinople, and Rome, and you’ll get three totally different answers, yet all of them equally definitive and assertive. Christians are very sure of the falsehood of pagan and Muslim beliefs; on this point, there’s perfect agreement among them. But if you ask about the various denominations they are split into, “Which is the true church of Christ?” each one will claim it’s theirs and, to prove it, they’ll argue with each other.

It is manifest, then, that the hunting after this pulchrum & honestum, is not much better than a wild-goose-chase that is but little to be depended on: But this is not the greatest fault I find with it. The imaginary notions that men may be virtuous without self-denial, are a vast inlet to hypocrisy; which being once made habitual, we must not only deceive others, but likewise become altogether unknown to ourselves; and in an instance I am going to give, it will appear, how, for want of duly examining himself, this might happen to a person of quality, of parts, and erudition, one every way resembling the author of the Characteristics himself.

It’s clear, then, that the pursuit of this pulchrum & honestum is not much better than a wild-goose chase that isn’t very reliable. But that’s not the biggest issue I have with it. The belief that people can be virtuous without self-denial opens the door to hypocrisy; once this becomes a habit, we not only deceive others but also become completely unknown to ourselves. In the example I’m about to give, it will show how, due to a lack of self-examination, this could happen to a person of high status, talent, and education, someone very much like the author of the Characteristics himself.

A man that has been brought up in ease and affluence, if he is of a quiet indolent nature, learns to shun every thing that is troublesome, and chooses to curb his passions, more because of the inconveniences that arise from the eager pursuit after pleasure, and the yielding to all the demands of our inclinations, than any dislike he has to sensual enjoyments; and it is possible, that a person educated under a great philosopher, who was a mild and good-natured, as well as able tutor, may, in such happy circumstances, have a better opinion of his inward state than it really deserves, and believe himself virtuous, because his passions lie dormant. He may form fine notions of the social virtues, and the contempt of death, write well of them in his closet, and talk eloquently of them in company, but you shall never catch him fighting for his country, or labouring to retrieve any national losses. A man that deals in metaphysics may easily throw himself into an enthusiasm, and really believe that he does not fear death while it remains out of sight. But should he be asked, why, having this intrepidity either from nature, or acquired by philosophy, he did not follow arms when his country was involved in war; or when he saw the nation daily robbed by those at the helm, and the affairs of the exchequer [211]perplexed, why he did not go to court, and make use of all his friends and interest to be a lord treasurer, that by his integrity and wise management, he might restore the public credit: It is probable he would answer that he loved retirement, had no other ambition than to be a good man, and never aspired to have any share in the government; or that he hated all flattery and slavish attendance, the insincerity of courts and bustle of the world. I am willing to believe him: but may not a man of an indolent temper and unactive spirit, say, and be sincere in all this, and, at the same time, indulge his appetites without being able to subdue them, though his duty summons him to it. Virtue consists in action, and whoever is possessed of this social love and kind affection to his species, and by his birth or quality can claim any post in the public management, ought not to sit still when he can be serviceable, but exert himself to the utmost for the good of his fellow subjects. Had this noble person been of a warlike genius, or a boisterous temper, he would have chose another part in the drama of life, and preached a quite contrary doctrine: For we are ever pushing our reason which way soever we feel passion to draw it, and self-love pleads to all human creatures for their different views, still furnishing every individual with arguments to justify their inclinations.

A man who has grown up in comfort and wealth, if he has a laid-back and lazy nature, tends to avoid anything that feels challenging and prefers to restrain his desires more because of the hassle that comes with chasing after pleasure and giving in to all his cravings, rather than any aversion he has to physical enjoyment. It’s possible that someone educated by a wise and generous philosopher might have a more favorable view of his inner self than it really deserves, believing himself to be virtuous simply because his desires are subdued. He might have grand ideas about social virtues and the indifference to death, writing eloquently about them while alone and speaking passionately about them in gatherings, but you’ll never see him fighting for his country or working to recover any losses for the nation. A person who delves into metaphysics can easily convince himself that he doesn’t fear death as long as it’s out of sight. But if you were to ask him why, with this bravery—either natural or learned through philosophy—he didn’t take up arms when his country was at war, or when he saw the nation being plundered by those in power, and why he didn’t approach the court to leverage his connections to become chancellor and restore public trust through his integrity and smart management, he would likely say he loved solitude, only aimed to be a good man, and never wanted a role in government. He might also claim to despise flattery, obsequiousness, the dishonesty of courts, and the chaos of life. I’m willing to take him at his word, but can’t a person with a lazy disposition and inactive spirit genuinely express this while still giving in to his desires without mastering them, even when duty calls? Virtue is rooted in action, and anyone who has genuine love and kindness towards others, and has the right by birth or status to take on a public role, shouldn’t remain passive when they can help, but should strive to do their best for the benefit of their fellow citizens. If this noble individual had a more combative or exuberant character, he would have chosen a different path in life and preached a completely opposite philosophy. We constantly push our reasoning wherever our passions lead us, and self-love advocates for all humans based on their different desires, continually providing each individual with reasons to justify their inclinations.

That boasted middle way, and the calm virtues recommended in the Characteristics, are good for nothing but to breed drones, and might qualify a man for the stupid enjoyments of a monastic life, or at best a country justice of peace, but they would never fit him for labour and assiduity, or stir him up to great achievements and perilous undertakings. Man’s natural love of ease and idleness, and proneness to indulge his sensual pleasures, are not to be cured by precept: His strong habits and inclinations can only be subdued by passions of greater violence. Preach and demonstrate to a coward the unreasonableness of his fears, and you will not make him valiant, more than you can make him taller, by bidding him to be ten foot high, whereas the secret to raise courage, as I have made it public in Remark on l. 321, is almost infallible.

That self-satisfied middle ground and the calm virtues suggested in the Characteristics are only useful for creating lazy people, and might prepare someone for the dull pleasures of a monastic life, or at best as a country justice of the peace, but they would never get him ready for hard work and persistence, or motivate him to achieve great things and take risks. A person's natural inclination for comfort and laziness, and tendency to indulge in pleasures, can't be fixed by advice. His strong habits and urges can only be overcome by more intense passions. Teach a coward about the irrationality of his fears, and you won’t make him brave, just as you can't make him taller by simply telling him to be ten feet tall. The secret to instilling courage, as I’ve noted in Remark on l. 321, is almost unfailing.

The fear of death is the strongest when we are in our greatest vigour, and our appetite is keen; when we are sharp-sighted, quick of hearing, and every part performs its office. The reason is plain, because then life is most delicious, and [212]ourselves most capable of enjoying it. How comes it, then, that a man of honour should so easily accept of a challenge, though at thirty and in perfect health? It is his pride that conquers his fear: For, when his pride is not concerned, this fear will appear most glaringly. If he is not used to the sea, let him but be in a storm, or, if he never was ill before, have but a sore throat, or a slight fever, and he will show a thousand anxieties, and in them the inestimable value he sets on life. Had man been naturally humble and proof against flattery, the politician could never have had his ends, or known what to have made of him. Without vices, the excellency of the species would have ever remained undiscovered, and every worthy that has made himself famous in the world, is a strong evidence against this amiable system.

The fear of death is strongest when we’re at our peak, feeling alive and energetic; when we’re sharp-eyed, quick to hear, and every part of us is working well. The reason is simple: life is most enjoyable then, and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] we’re most capable of enjoying it. So why would an honorable man easily accept a challenge at thirty years old and in perfect health? It’s his pride that overcomes his fear. When his pride isn’t at stake, that fear becomes very obvious. If he’s not used to the sea, just putting him in a storm, or if he’s never been sick before, just having a sore throat or a mild fever, and he’ll show countless worries, revealing how priceless he considers his life. If people were naturally humble and immune to flattery, politicians wouldn’t have been able to achieve their goals or know how to manipulate them. Without flaws, the greatness of humanity would have always gone unnoticed, and every person who has made a name for themselves in the world serves as strong evidence against this charming idea.

If the courage of the great Macedonian came up to distraction, when he fought alone against a whole garrison, his madness was not less when he fancied himself to be a god, or at least doubted whether he was or not; and as soon as we make this reflection, we discover both the passion and the extravagancy of it, that buoyed up his spirits in the most imminent dangers, and carried him through all the difficulties and fatigues he underwent.

If the bravery of the great Macedonian drove him to distraction when he fought alone against an entire garrison, his madness was just as evident when he believed himself to be a god, or at least questioned if he was one; and once we think about this, we realize both the passion and the craziness of it, which lifted his spirits in the face of the greatest dangers and helped him overcome all the challenges and exhaustion he faced.

There never was in the world a brighter example of an able and complete magistrate than Cicero: When I think on his care and vigilance, the real hazards he slighted, and the pains he took for the safety of Rome; his wisdom and sagacity in detecting and disappointing the stratagems of the boldest and most subtle conspirators, and, at the same time, on his love to literature, arts, and sciences, his capacity in metaphysics, the justness of his reasonings, the force of his eloquence, the politeness of his style, and the genteel spirit that runs through his writings; when I think, I say, on all these things together, I am struck with amazement, and the least I can say of him is, that he was a prodigious man. But when I have set the many good qualities he had in the best light, it is as evident to me on the other side, that had his vanity been inferior to his greatest excellency, the good sense and knowledge of the world he was so eminently possessed of, could never have let him be such a fulsome as well as noisy trumpeter as he was of his own praises, or suffered him rather than not proclaim his own merit, to make a verse [213]that a school boy would have been laughed at for. O! Fortunatam, &c.

There has never been a better example of a skilled and well-rounded public official than Cicero. When I think about his diligence and vigilance, the real dangers he ignored, and the effort he put in for the safety of Rome; his wisdom and insight in uncovering and thwarting the plans of the boldest and most cunning conspirators, along with his passion for literature, the arts, and sciences, his ability in metaphysics, the soundness of his reasoning, the power of his eloquence, the elegance of his style, and the classy spirit that flows through his writings; when I reflect on all these aspects together, I'm amazed, and the least I can say about him is that he was an extraordinary man. However, after highlighting his many positive qualities, it becomes clear to me that if his vanity had been less than his greatest strengths, the good sense and worldly knowledge he had would never have allowed him to be such a boastful and loud promoter of his own achievements, nor would it have led him to write a verse [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that would have made a schoolboy the target of laughter. O! Fortunatam, & c.

How strict and severe was the morality of rigid Cato, how steady and unaffected the virtue of that grand asserter of Roman liberty! but though the equivalent this stoic enjoyed, for all the self-denial and austerity he practised, remained long concealed, and his peculiar modesty hid from the world, and perhaps himself a vast while, the frailty of his heart, that forced him into heroism, yet it was brought to light in the last scene of his life, and by his suicide it plainly appeared that he was governed by a tyrannical power, superior to the love of his country, and that the implacable hatred and superlative envy he bore to the glory, the real greatness and personal merit of Cæsar, had for a long time swayed all his actions under the most noble pretences. Had not this violent motive over-ruled his consummate prudence, he might not only have saved himself, but likewise most of his friends that were ruined by the loss of him, and would in all probability, if he could have stooped to it, been the second man in Rome. But he knew the boundless mind and unlimited generosity of the victor: it was his clemency he feared, and therefore chose death because it was less terrible to his pride, than the thoughts of giving his mortal foe so tempting an opportunity of showing the magnanimity of his soul, as Cæsar would have found in forgiving such an inveterate enemy as Cato, and offering him his friendship; and which, it is thought by the judicious, that penetrating as well as ambitious conqueror would not have slipped, if the other had dared to live.

How strict and severe was the morality of the rigid Cato, how steady and unaffected the virtue of that great defender of Roman liberty! But even though this stoic enjoyed a long-hidden equivalent for all the self-denial and austerity he practiced, his peculiar modesty kept from the world—and perhaps himself—his heart's frailty, which drove him to act heroically. However, this was revealed in the final moments of his life, and through his suicide, it became clear that he was controlled by a tyrannical force that overshadowed his love for his country, and that the relentless hatred and intense envy he felt towards the glory, true greatness, and personal merit of Caesar had for a long time influenced all his actions under the noblest pretenses. If this intense motive hadn’t overridden his exceptional prudence, he might not only have saved himself but also many of his friends, who were ruined by his loss and would have likely become, if he could have accepted it, the second man in Rome. But he understood the boundless mind and unlimited generosity of the victor: he feared Caesar’s clemency and thus chose death, as it felt less humiliating to his pride than the thought of giving his mortal enemy such a tempting opportunity to display the greatness of his spirit, as Caesar would have found in forgiving such a lifelong adversary as Cato and offering him his friendship; and it’s believed by the wise that this perceptive yet ambitious conqueror would not have let that opportunity slip by if Cato had dared to live.

Another argument to prove the kind disposition, and real affection we naturally have for our species, is our love of company, and the aversion men that are in their senses generally have to solitude, beyond other creatures. This bears a fine gloss in the Characteristics, and is set off in very good language to the best advantage: the next day after I read it first, I heard abundance of people cry fresh herrings, which, with the reflexion on the vast shoals of that and other fish that are caught together, made me very merry, though I was alone; but as I was entertaining myself with this contemplation, came an impertinent idle fellow, whom I had the misfortune to be known by, and asked me how I did, though I was, and dare say, looked as healthy and as well as ever I was or did in my life. What I answered him I forgot, but [214]remember that I could not get rid of him in a good while, and felt all the uneasiness my friend Horace complains of, from a persecution of the like nature.

Another argument that shows our kind nature and genuine affection for our species is our love for company and the strong dislike that sane people generally have for solitude, more so than other creatures. This is nicely explained in the Characteristics, presented in very appealing language. The day after I first read it, I heard a lot of people calling out “fresh herrings,” which, combined with the thought of the vast schools of that and other fish being caught together, made me quite cheerful, even though I was alone. However, while I was enjoying this thought, an annoying, idly curious guy, whom I regrettably knew, approached me and asked how I was doing, even though I felt and probably looked as healthy and well as I ever have in my life. I forgot my response to him, but [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] I remember that I couldn't shake him off for quite a while, and I experienced all the discomfort my friend Horace complains about from similar annoying encounters.

I would have no sagacious critic pronounce me a man-hater from this short story; whoever does is very much mistaken. I am a great lover of company, and if the reader is not quite tired with mine, before I show the weakness and ridicule of that piece of flattery made to our species, and which I was just now speaking of, I will give him a description of the man I would choose for conversation, with a promise that before he has finished, what at first he might only take for a digression foreign to my purpose, he shall find the use of it.

I don't want any wise critic to label me a man-hater based on this short story; anyone who thinks that is seriously mistaken. I truly enjoy company, and if the reader isn’t too worn out by my thoughts, before I delve into the flaws and absurdities of that compliment aimed at our kind, which I just mentioned, I'll describe the kind of man I’d like to talk to, promising that by the end, what may seem like a side note unrelated to my point will actually prove useful.

By early and artful instruction, he should be thoroughly imbued with the notions of honour and shame, and have contracted an habitual aversion to every thing that has the least tendency to impudence, rudeness, or inhumanity. He should be well versed in the Latin tongue, and not ignorant of the Greek, and moreover understand one or two of the modern languages besides his own. He should be acquainted with the fashions and customs of the ancients, but thoroughly skilled in the history of his own country, and the manners of the age he lives in. He should besides literature, have studied some useful science or other, seen some foreign courts and universities, and made the true use of travelling. He should at times take delight in dancing, fencing, riding the great horse, and knowing something of hunting and other country sports, without being attached to any, and he should treat them all as either exercises for health, or diversions that should never interfere with business, or the attaining to more valuable qualifications. He should have a smatch of geometry and astronomy, as well as anatomy, and the economy of human bodies; to understand music so as to perform, is an accomplishment: but there is abundance to be said against it; and instead of it, I would have him know so much of drawing as is required to take a landskip, or explain ones meaning of any form or model we would describe, but never to touch a pencil. He should be very early used to the company of modest women, and never be a fortnight without conversing with the ladies.

By early and skillful teaching, he should be fully grounded in the ideas of honor and shame, and develop a strong dislike for anything that even hints at impudence, rudeness, or cruelty. He should be well-versed in Latin and have a decent knowledge of Greek, as well as understand one or two modern languages aside from his own. He should know the traditions and customs of ancient cultures but be thoroughly educated in the history of his own country and the social behaviors of his time. In addition to literature, he should study some practical sciences, have visited foreign courts and universities, and truly benefit from traveling. He should enjoy activities like dancing, fencing, riding horses, and have some knowledge of hunting and other outdoor sports, but not be overly attached to any of them. Instead, he should see them as ways to stay healthy or as leisurely pastimes that shouldn’t interfere with work or the pursuit of more valuable skills. He should have a bit of knowledge in geometry, astronomy, anatomy, and the functioning of the human body. Understanding music well enough to perform is a nice skill, but there are plenty of arguments against it; instead, I would prefer he knows enough about drawing to sketch a landscape or convey the shape of any object we want to describe, but never actually pick up a pencil. He should be accustomed to the company of modest women from a young age and never go two weeks without interacting with ladies.

Gross vices, as irreligion, whoring, gaming, drinking and quarrelling, I will not mention: even the meanest education guards us against them; I would always recommend to him [215]the practice of virtue, but I am for no voluntary ignorance, in a gentleman, of any thing that is done in court or city. It is impossible a man should be perfect, and therefore there are faults I would connive at, if I could not prevent them; and if between the years of nineteen and three-and-twenty, youthful heat should sometimes get the better of his chastity, so it was done with caution; should he on some extraordinary occasion, overcome by the pressing solicitations of jovial friends, drink more than was consistent with strict sobriety, so he did it very seldom and found it not to interfere with his health or temper; or if by the height of his mettle, and great provocation in a just cause, he had been drawn into a quarrel, which true wisdom and a less strict adherence to the rules of honour, might have declined or prevented, so it never befel him above once: if I say he should have happened to be guilty of these things, and he would never speak, much less brag of them himself, they might be pardoned, or at least overlooked at the age I named, if he left off then and continued discreet forever after. The very disasters of youth, have sometimes frightened gentlemen into a more steady prudence, than in all probability they would ever have been masters of without them. To keep him from turpitude and things that are openly scandalous, there is nothing better than to procure him free access in one or two noble families, where his frequent attendance is counted a duty: and while by that means you preserve his pride, he is kept in a continual dread of shame.

I won't even mention major vices like irreligion, promiscuity, gambling, drinking, and fighting; even the lowest level of education helps protect us from them. I'd always encourage him [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] to practice virtue, but I'm against any kind of willful ignorance in a gentleman about what's happening in court or the city. It's impossible for a man to be perfect, so there are faults that I would overlook if I couldn't prevent them. If, between the ages of nineteen and twenty-three, youthful passion sometimes led him to lose his chastity, I hope it was done carefully. If he happened to drink more than he should on rare occasions, due to the urging of fun-loving friends, I would hope that it was infrequent and didn't harm his health or mood. If he got into a fight out of youthful bravado and provocation in a just cause, which a wiser person might have avoided, it should only happen once. If I say he occasionally fell into these behaviors and never talked about them, let alone bragged, they could be forgiven or at least overlooked at that age, as long as he stopped and maintained discretion afterward. The very troubles of youth often push gentlemen toward a steadier wisdom that they likely wouldn't have achieved without those experiences. To keep him away from disgrace and openly shameful acts, nothing is better than to ensure he has regular access to one or two noble families, where his frequent visits are seen as an obligation. This way, you maintain his pride while keeping him constantly aware of the potential for shame.

A man of a tolerable fortune, pretty near accomplished as I have required him to be, that still improves himself and sees the world till he is thirty, cannot be disagreeable to converse with, at least while he continues in health and prosperity, and has nothing to spoil his temper. When such a one, either by chance or appointment, meets with three or four of our equals, and all agree to pass away a few hours together, the whole is what I call good company. There is nothing said in it that is not either instructive or diverting to a man of sense. It is possible they may not always be of the same opinion, but there can be no contest between any, but who shall yield first to the other he differs from. One only speaks at a time, and no louder than to be plainly understood by him who sits the farthest off. The greatest pleasure aimed at by every one of them, is to have the satisfaction of pleasing others, which they all practically know [216]may as effectually be done, by hearkening with attention and an approving countenance, as we said very good things ourselves.

A man with a decent fortune, nearly as accomplished as I expect him to be, who continues to improve himself and travel the world until he's thirty, can't be unpleasant to talk to, at least while he's healthy and doing well, and has nothing to upset his mood. When someone like this randomly or intentionally meets up with three or four of our peers, and they all agree to spend a few hours together, that's what I consider good company. Everything discussed is either informative or entertaining for a sensible person. They might not always agree, but there's no real argument, just a negotiation over who will give in first to the other person's differing view. Only one person speaks at a time, and they do so at a volume that’s easily heard by the person sitting farthest away. The main pleasure that everyone seeks is to genuinely please others, which they all understand can be just as effectively achieved by listening attentively and showing approval as it is by saying very interesting things ourselves.

Most people of any taste would like such a conversation, and justly prefer it to being alone, when they knew not how to spend their time; but if they could employ themselves in something from which they expected, either a more solid or a more lasting satisfaction, they would deny themselves this pleasure, and follow what was of greater consequence to them. But would not a man, though he had seen no mortal in a fortnight, remain alone as much longer, rather than get into company of noisy fellows, that take delight in contradiction, and place a glory in picking a quarrel? Would not one that has books read for ever, or set himself to write upon some subject or other, rather than be every night with party-men who count the island to be good for nothing, while their adversaries are suffered to live upon it? Would not a man be by himself a month, and go to bed before seven a clock, rather than mix with fox-hunters, who having all day long tried in vain to break their necks, join at night in a second attempt upon their lives by drinking, and to express their mirth, are louder in senseless sounds within doors, than their barking and less troublesome companions are only without? I have no great value for a man who would not rather tire himself with walking; or if he was shut up scatter pins about the room in order to pick them up again, than keep company for six hours with half a score common sailors the day their ship was paid off.

Most people with any taste would enjoy such a conversation and would understandably prefer it to being alone when they don’t know how to pass the time. However, if they could engage in something that they expected to bring them either a more meaningful or a more lasting satisfaction, they would choose to give up this pleasure and pursue what was more important to them. But wouldn’t a man, even if he hadn’t seen another person in two weeks, prefer to stay alone rather than join a group of loud individuals who take pleasure in arguing and pride themselves on starting conflicts? Wouldn’t someone who loves reading want to read forever or even write about some topic instead of spending every night with party-goers who think the island is worthless while their opponents are allowed to thrive on it? Wouldn't someone choose to be alone for a month and go to bed before 7 PM rather than hang out with fox-hunters who, after trying all day to injure themselves, continue their reckless behavior at night by drinking and being even louder inside than their barking, less annoying companions are outside? I don't hold much respect for a man who wouldn’t rather exhaust himself by walking or, if he was stuck indoors, scatter pins around the room just to pick them up again, than spend six hours socializing with a handful of common sailors on the day they received their pay.

I will grant, nevertheless, that the greatest part of mankind, rather than be alone any considerable time, would submit to the things I named: but I cannot see, why this love of company, this strong desire after society, should be construed so much in our favour, and alleged as a mark of some intrinsic worth in man, not to be found in other animals. For to prove from it the goodness of our nature, and a generous love in man, extended beyond himself on the rest of his species, by virtue of which he was a sociable creature, this eagerness after company and aversion of being alone, ought to have been most conspicuous, and most violent in the best of their kind; the men of the greatest genius, parts and accomplishments, and those who are the least subject to vice; the contrary of which is true. The weakest minds, who can the least govern their passions, guilty consciences that abhor [217]reflexion, and the worthless, who are incapable of producing any thing of their own that is useful, are the greatest enemies to solitude, and will take up with any company rather than be without; whereas, the men of sense and of knowledge, that can think and contemplate on things, and such as are but little disturbed by their passions, can bear to be by themselves the longest without reluctancy; and, to avoid noise, folly, and impertinence, will run away from twenty companies; and, rather than meet with any thing disagreeable to their good taste, will prefer their closet or a garden, nay, a common or a desert to the society of some men.

I’ll admit, though, that most people, rather than be alone for a long time, would put up with the things I mentioned. But I don’t understand why this love for company, this strong desire for social interaction, should be seen as a positive trait and used as evidence of some inherent worth in humans that isn’t found in other animals. To claim that this indicates the goodness of our nature, and a generous love in humans that extends beyond themselves to the rest of their species, suggesting that we are social beings, this eagerness for company and dislike of being alone should be most obvious and intense in the best among us—those with the greatest intellect, abilities, and virtues, and those who are least inclined to vice. The opposite is actually true. The weakest minds, who struggle the most to control their passions, those with guilty consciences who can’t stand to reflect, and the worthless, who can’t create anything valuable on their own, are the biggest foes of solitude and will settle for any company just to avoid being alone. In contrast, sensible and knowledgeable people who can think deeply and are less disturbed by their emotions can tolerate being by themselves for a long time without discomfort. To escape noise, foolishness, and pointless chatter, they would rather leave twenty gatherings and choose their own room, a garden, or even a common area or deserted place over the company of some people.

But let us suppose the love of company so inseparable from our species, that no man could endure to be alone one moment, what conclusions could be drawn from this? Does not man love company, as he does every thing else, for his own sake? No friendships or civilities are lasting that are not reciprocal. In all your weekly and daily meetings for diversion, as well as annual feasts, and the most solemn carousels, every member that assists at them has his own ends, and some frequent a club which they would never go to unless they were the top of it. I have known a man who was the oracle of the company, be very constant, and as uneasy at any thing that hindered him from coming at the hour, leave his society altogether, as soon as another was added that could match, and disputed superiority with him. There are people who are incapable of holding an argument, and yet malicious enough to take delight in hearing others wrangle; and though they never concern themselves in the controversy, would think a company insipid where they could not have that diversion. A good house, rich furniture, a fine garden, horses, dogs, ancestors, relations, beauty, strength, excellency in any thing whatever; vices as well as virtue, may all be accessary to make men long for society, in hopes that what they value themselves upon will at one time or other become the theme of the discourse, and give an inward satisfaction to them. Even the most polite people in the world, and such as I spoke of at first, give no pleasure to others that is not repaid to their self-love, and does not at last centre in themselves, let them wind it and turn it as they will. But the plainest demonstration that in all clubs and societies of conversable people, every body has the greatest consideration for himself, is, that the disinterested, who rather over-pays than wrangles; the good humoured, that is never [218]waspish nor soon offended; the easy and indolent, that hates disputes and never talks for triumph, is every where the darling of the company: whereas, the man of sense and knowledge, that will not be imposed upon or talked out of his reason; the man of genius and spirit, that can say sharp and witty things, though he never lashes but what deserves it; the man of honour, who neither gives nor takes an affront, may be esteemed, but is seldom so well beloved as a weaker man less accomplished.

But let’s say that the love of company is so ingrained in our nature that no one can stand to be alone for even a moment. What can we conclude from that? Doesn’t everyone love being around others, just like everything else, for their own benefit? No friendships or polite interactions last unless they are mutual. In all your weekly and daily gatherings for fun, along with annual celebrations and the most formal events, every participant has their own motives, and some might attend a club they wouldn’t visit unless they were at the top of it. I've seen a guy who was the star of the group be very consistent and annoyed by anything that kept him from showing up on time, completely leaving the group as soon as someone else who could match him in skill came along and challenged his status. There are people who can't argue but take pleasure in watching others fight; even if they don’t get involved, they’d find a gathering boring if they couldn’t have that entertainment. A nice home, stylish furniture, a beautiful garden, horses, dogs, family heritage, physical beauty, strength, excellence in anything—both flaws and virtues can make people crave social interaction, hoping that what they pride themselves on will eventually become the topic of conversation and give them some inner satisfaction. Even the most refined people, like those I mentioned at the start, don’t give pleasure to others that isn’t ultimately a boost to their own self-esteem, no matter how they try to spin it. The clearest proof that in all clubs and social groups, everyone mainly considers themselves is that the selfless person, who prefers to overpay rather than argue; the easygoing person, who is never prickly or easily offended; and the laid-back person, who dislikes arguments and doesn’t speak just to win, is always the favorite of the group. In contrast, the knowledgeable and sensible person, who won't let others push them around or talk them out of their beliefs; the creative and spirited person, who can make clever and witty remarks, even if they only criticize what deserves it; and the honorable person, who neither gives nor takes offense may be respected but isn’t always as well-liked as someone less capable.

As in these instances, the friendly qualities arise from our contriving perpetually our own satisfaction, so, on other occasions, they proceed from the natural timidity of man, and the solicitous care he takes of himself. Two Londoners, whose business oblige them not to have any commerce together, may know, see, and pass by one another every day upon the Exchange, with not much greater civility than bulls would: let them meet at Bristol they will pull off their hats, and on the least opportunity enter into conversation, and be glad of one another’s company. When French, English, and Dutch, meet in China, or any other Pagan country, being all Europeans, they look upon one another as countrymen, and if no passion interferes, will feel a natural propensity to love one another. Nay, two men that are at enmity, if they are forced to travel together, will often lay by their animosities, be affable, and converse in a friendly manner, especially if the road be unsafe, and they are both strangers in the place they are to go to. These things by superficial judges, are attributed to mans sociableness, his natural propensity to friendship and love of company; but whoever will duly examine things, and look into man more narrowly, will find, that on all these occasions we only endeavour to strengthen our interest, and are moved by the causes already alleged.

Just like in these examples, friendly qualities come from our constant attempt to ensure our own satisfaction. On other occasions, they stem from human timidity and the careful attention we pay to our own well-being. Two Londoners, whose work keeps them from interacting, might see each other daily at the Exchange with not much more politeness than bulls would show. But if they meet in Bristol, they'll take off their hats, and at the first chance, they'll engage in conversation and enjoy each other’s company. When the French, English, and Dutch meet in China or any other non-European country, they see each other as fellow countrymen and, if no strong feelings get in the way, will naturally want to bond. Even two men who are enemies might set aside their quarrels if they have to travel together; they'll often be friendly and chat with each other, especially if the journey is dangerous and they're both in an unfamiliar place. Superficial observers might attribute these behaviors to humanity's sociability and natural desire for friendship and companionship. However, anyone who looks more closely will find that in all these situations, we are really just trying to promote our own interests and are influenced by the reasons already mentioned.

What I have endeavoured hitherto, has been to prove, that the pulchrum et honestum, excellency and real worth of things are most commonly precarious and alterable as modes and customs vary; that consequently the inferences drawn from their certainty are insignificant, and that the generous notions concerning the natural goodness of man are hurtful, as they tend to mislead, and are merely chimerical: the truth of this latter I have illustrated by the most obvious examples in history. I have spoke of our love of company and aversion to solitude, examined thoroughly the various motives of them, [219]and made it appear that they all centre in self-love. I intend now to investigate into the nature of society, and diving into the very rise of it, make it evident, that not the good and amiable, but the bad and hateful qualities of man, his imperfections and the want of excellencies, which other creatures are endued with, are the first causes that made man sociable beyond other animals, the moment after he lost Paradise; and that if he had remained in his primitive innocence, and continued to enjoy the blessings that attended it, there is no shadow of probability that he ever would have become that sociable creature he is now.

What I have tried to show so far is that the beauty and worth of things are often unstable and changeable as customs and trends change; therefore, the conclusions drawn from their certainty are meaningless, and the idealistic beliefs about the inherent goodness of humanity are harmful, as they tend to mislead and are just illusions. I've demonstrated this latter point with clear examples from history. I've discussed our love for companionship and our dislike of being alone, thoroughly exploring the various reasons for these feelings, and I've shown that they all ultimately relate to self-love. Now, I plan to investigate the nature of society and delve into its origins, aiming to demonstrate that it is not the good and admirable qualities of humans, but rather the negative and unlikable traits, their flaws and lack of qualities that other creatures possess, that are the primary reasons humans became more social than other animals right after they lost Paradise. If humanity had remained in its original innocence and continued to enjoy its accompanying blessings, there’s no reasonable chance he would have become the social being he is today.

How necessary our appetites and passions are for the welfare of all trades and handicrafts, has been sufficiently proved throughout the book, and that they are our bad qualities, or at least produce them, nobody denies. It remains then, that I should set forth the variety of obstacles that hinder and perplex man in the labour he is constantly employed in, the procuring of what he wants; and which in other words is called the business of self-preservation: while, at the same time, I demonstrate that the sociableness of man arises only from these two things, viz. the multiplicity of his desires, and the continual opposition he meets with in his endeavours to gratify them.

How necessary our cravings and emotions are for the success of all trades and crafts has been clearly demonstrated throughout the book, and nobody denies that they are our flaws, or at least lead to them. Therefore, I should outline the various obstacles that hinder and confuse people in the constant effort to obtain what they need; this is essentially known as the business of self-preservation. At the same time, I will show that human sociability arises solely from these two factors: the numerous desires we have and the ongoing challenges we face in trying to satisfy them.

The obstacles I speak of, relate either to our own frame, or the globe we inhabit, I mean the condition of it, since it has been cursed. I have often endeavoured to contemplate separately on the two things I named last, but could never keep them asunder; they always interfere and mix with one another; and at last make up together a frightful chaos of evil. All the elements are our enemies, water drowns and fire consumes those who unskilfully approach them. The earth in a thousand places produces plants, and other vegetables that are hurtful to man, while she feeds and cherishes a variety of creatures that are noxious to him; and suffers a legion of poisons to dwell within her: but the most unkind of all the elements is that which we cannot live one moment without: it is impossible to repeat all the injuries we receive from the wind and weather; and though the greatest part of mankind, have ever been employed in defending their species from the inclemency of the air, yet no art or labour have hitherto been able to find a security against the wild rage of some meteors. [220]

The obstacles I'm talking about relate either to our own being or the world we live in, specifically its cursed condition. I’ve often tried to think about these two aspects separately, but I could never keep them apart; they always interfere and mix together, ultimately creating a terrifying chaos of evil. All the elements are our enemies; water drowns and fire consumes those who approach them carelessly. The earth produces harmful plants and other vegetation in many places, while also supporting a variety of creatures that are harmful to us; it even harbors many poisons. But the most unkind element is the one we can't live without for even a moment: it's impossible to list all the injuries we experience from the wind and the weather. Even though most of humanity has always been busy trying to protect itself from the harshness of the air, no skill or effort has been able to find a safe way to guard against the wild fury of some meteors. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hurricanes, it is true, happen but seldom, and few men are swallowed up by earthquakes, or devoured by lions; but while we escape those gigantic mischiefs, we are persecuted by trifles. What a vast variety of insects are tormenting to us; what multitudes of them insult and make game of us with impunity! The most despicable scruple not to trample and graze upon us as cattle do upon a field: which yet is often born with, if moderately they use their fortune; but here again our clemency becomes a vice, and so encroaching are their cruelty and contempt of us on our pity, that they make laystalls of our hands, and devour our young ones if we are not daily vigilant in pursuing and destroying them.

Hurricanes are rare, and few people get caught in earthquakes or attacked by lions; however, while we avoid those massive disasters, we are often bothered by trivial annoyances. There’s a huge range of insects that torment us, and countless numbers of them mock us without fear of consequences! The most insignificant ones don't hesitate to crawl over us like livestock in a field. We often endure this if we handle it moderately, but our kindness turns into a flaw. Their cruelty and disregard for us take advantage of our compassion, turning our hands into rubbish heaps, and they threaten our young ones unless we are constantly alert and ready to chase them down and eliminate them.

There is nothing good in all the universe to the best-designing man, if either through mistake or ignorance he commits the least failing in the use of it; there is no innocence or integrity, that can protect a man from a thousand mischiefs that surround him: on the contrary, every thing is evil, which art and experience have not taught us to turn into a blessing. Therefore how diligent in harvest time is the husbandman, in getting in his crop and sheltering it from rain, without which he could never have enjoyed it! As seasons differ with the climates, experience has taught us differently to make use of them, and in one part of the globe we may see the farmer sow while he is reaping in the other; from all which we may learn how vastly this earth must have been altered since the fall of our first parents. For should we trace man from his beautiful, his divine original, not proud of wisdom acquired by haughty precept or tedious experience, but endued with consummate knowledge the moment he was formed; I mean the state of innocence, in which no animal nor vegetable upon earth, nor mineral under ground was noxious to him, and himself secured from the injuries of the air as well as all other harms, was contented with the necessaries of life, which the globe he inhabited furnished him with, without his assistance. When yet not conscious of guilt, he found himself in every place to be the well obeyed unrivalled lord of all, and unaffected with his greatness, was wholly wrapped up in sublime meditations on the infinity of his Creator, who daily did vouchsafe intelligibly to speak to him, and visit without mischief.

There’s nothing good in the entire universe for the best-intentioned person if, either by accident or ignorance, they make even the smallest mistake in how they use it; there's no innocence or integrity that can shield someone from countless troubles that surround them. On the contrary, everything is harmful unless we have learned through skill and experience how to turn it into a blessing. This is why farmers are so diligent during harvest time, gathering their crops and protecting them from rain, without which they could never enjoy the fruits of their labor! Since seasons vary with different climates, experience has taught us how to utilize them differently. In one part of the world, you can see farmers planting seeds while others are harvesting. From this, we can understand how greatly the Earth must have changed since the fall of our first parents. If we trace humanity back to its beautiful, divine origins—not proud of knowledge gained through arrogant teachings or long experience, but endowed with complete knowledge the moment they were created—I mean the state of innocence in which no animal, plant, or mineral on Earth was harmful to them, and they were protected from harmful elements in the air and other dangers, content with the basics of life that the Earth provided without their help. While still unaware of guilt, they found themselves everywhere as the respected, unrivaled masters of all, and unaffected by their greatness, they were fully absorbed in deep thoughts about the infinity of their Creator, who daily spoke to them clearly and visited without causing harm.

In such a golden age, no reason or probability can be alleged, why mankind ever should have raised themselves into such large societies as there have been in the world, as long [221]as we can give any tolerable account of it. Where a man has every thing he desires, and nothing to vex or disturb him, there is nothing can be added to his happiness; and it is impossible to name a trade, art, science, dignity, or employment, that would not be superfluous in such a blessed state. If we pursue this thought, we shall easily perceive that no societies could have sprung from the amiable virtues and loving qualities of man; but, on the contrary, that all of them must have had the origin from his wants, his imperfections, and the variety of his appetites: we shall find likewise, that the more their pride and vanity are displayed, and all their desires enlarged, the more capable they must be of being raised into large and vastly numerous societies.

In a time like this, there’s no reason or chance to believe that humanity could have formed such large societies as we have today, as long [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]as we can explain it reasonably. When someone has everything they want and nothing to bother or upset them, there’s nothing else that could enhance their happiness; and it’s hard to name any job, skill, field of study, status, or role that wouldn’t be unnecessary in such a perfect situation. If we explore this idea further, we’ll realize that societies couldn’t have emerged from the friendly virtues and loving traits of people; instead, they must have originated from human needs, flaws, and diverse desires. We’ll also see that the more their pride and vanity are shown, and the more their desires grow, the more likely they are to develop into large and very numerous societies.

Was the air always as inoffensive to our naked bodies, and as pleasant as to our thinking it is to the generality of birds in fair weather, and man had not been affected with pride, luxury and hypocrisy, as well as lust, I cannot see what could have put us upon the invention of clothes and houses. I shall say nothing of jewels, of plate, painting, sculpture, fine furniture, and all that rigid moralists have called unnecessary and superfluous: but if we were not soon tired with walking a-foot, and were as nimble as some other animals; if men were naturally laborious, and none unreasonable in seeking and indulging their ease, and likewise free from other vices, and the ground was every where even, solid and clean, who would have thought of coaches or ventured on a horse’s back? What occasion has the dolphin for a ship, or what carriage would an eagle ask to travel in?

Was the air always as pleasant to our bare bodies as it is to the majority of birds in nice weather? If humans hadn't been influenced by pride, luxury, hypocrisy, and lust, I can't understand what made us invent clothes and houses. I won't even mention jewelry, silverware, painting, sculpture, fancy furniture, and all the things strict moralists call unnecessary and excessive: but if we didn't get tired of walking on foot and were as quick as some other animals; if people were naturally hardworking, and no one unreasonable in wanting to enjoy their comfort, and also free from other vices, plus if the ground were always level, solid, and clean, who would have thought of using coaches or riding horses? What does a dolphin need a ship for, or what would an eagle want for transportation?

I hope the reader knows, that by society I understand a body politic, in which man either subdued by superior force, or by persuasion drawn from his savage state, is become a disciplined creature, that can find his own ends in labouring for others, and where under one head or other form of government, each member is rendered subservient to the whole, and all of them by cunning management are made to act as one. For if by society we only mean a number of people, that without rule or government, should keep together, out of a natural affection to their species, or love of company, as a herd of cows or a flock of sheep, then there is not in the world a more unfit creature for society than man; an hundred of them that should be all equals, under no subjection, or fear of any superior upon earth, could never live together awake two hours without quarrelling, and the more knowledge, [222]strength, wit, courage and resolution there was among them, the worse it would be.

I hope the reader understands that by society, I mean a political body where a person, either dominated by a greater force or persuaded from their wild state, has become a disciplined being who can find their own goals by working for others. In this setup, under one leader or form of government, each member is made to serve the entire group, and through clever management, they all act as one. If we only think of society as a group of people who come together without rules or governance, simply out of a natural bond or a love for company, like a herd of cows or a flock of sheep, then there is no creature less suited for society than man. A hundred people, all equal and without any authority or fear of a superior on earth, could never coexist peacefully for more than two hours without fighting, and the more knowledge, strength, intelligence, bravery, and resolve they have, the worse it would be. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

It is probable, that in the wild state of nature, parents would keep a superiority over their children, at least while they were in strength, and that even afterwards, the remembrance of what the others had experienced, might produce in them something between love and fear, which we call reverence: it is probable, likewise, that the second generation following the example of the first; a man with a little cunning would always be able, as long as he lived and had his senses, to maintain a superior sway over all his own offspring and descendants, how numerous soever they might grow. But the old stock once dead, the sons would quarrel, and there could be no peace long before there had been war. Eldership in brothers is of no great force, and the pre-eminence that is given to it, only invented as a shift to live in peace. Man, as he is a fearful animal, naturally not rapacious, loves peace and quiet, and he would never fight, if nobody offended him, and he could have what he fights for without it. To this fearful disposition, and the aversion he has to his being disturbed, are owing all the various projects and forms of government. Monarchy, without doubt, was the first. Aristocracy and democracy were two different methods of mending the inconveniencies of the first, and a mixture of these three an improvement on all the rest.

It’s likely that in the wild state of nature, parents would have an advantage over their children, at least while they were strong, and even later, the memory of their experiences might create a mix of love and fear, which we refer to as reverence. It’s also likely that the second generation would follow the first’s example; a man with a bit of cunning could always maintain control over his offspring and descendants, no matter how many they became, as long as he lived and had his wits about him. However, once the original generation was gone, the sons would argue, and peace wouldn’t last long before there was conflict. Seniority among brothers isn’t that significant, and the importance given to it seems more like a temporary solution for maintaining peace. Humans, being naturally anxious and not overly aggressive, prefer peace and quiet; they wouldn’t fight if no one provoked them and if they could get what they want without conflict. This anxious nature and their dislike of being disturbed are what lead to various types of government. Monarchy was undoubtedly the first. Aristocracy and democracy were two different ways to fix the problems of monarchy, while a mix of the three is seen as an improvement over the others.

But be we savages or politicians, it is impossible that man, mere fallen man, should act with any other view but to please himself while he has the use of his organs, and the greatest extravagancy either of love or despair can have no other centre. There is no difference between will and pleasure in one sense, and every motion made in spite of them must be unnatural and convulsive. Since, then, action is so confined, and we are always forced to do what we please, and at the same time our thoughts are free and uncontrouled, it is impossible we could be sociable creatures without hypocrisy. The proof of this is plain, since we cannot prevent the ideas that are continually arising within us, all civil commerce would be lost, if, by art and prudent dissimulation we had not learned to hide and stifle them; and if all we think was to be laid open to others, in the same manner as it is to ourselves, it is impossible that, endued with speech, we could be sufferable to one another. I am persuaded that every reader feels the truth of what I say; and I tell my antagonist [223]that his conscience flies in his face, while his tongue is preparing to refute me. In all civil societies men are taught insensibly to be hypocrites from their cradle; nobody dares to own that he gets by public calamities, or even by the loss of private persons. The sexton would be stoned should he wish openly for the death of the parishioners, though every body knew that he had nothing else to live upon.

But whether we are savages or politicians, it's impossible for man, simply fallen man, to act with any other aim than to please himself while he can still use his faculties, and the most extreme expressions of love or despair revolve around this same self-interest. In one sense, there’s no difference between will and pleasure, and any action taken against them must be unnatural and forced. Since our actions are so limited and we’re always compelled to do what we want, yet our thoughts remain free and unrestrained, it’s impossible for us to be social beings without being hypocritical. This is evident, as we cannot control the ideas that constantly arise within us; all social interaction would collapse if we hadn’t learned through artful and cautious disguise to hide and suppress them. If all our thoughts were exposed to others just as they are to ourselves, it’s unimaginable that, equipped with speech, we could tolerate each other. I believe every reader understands the truth of what I’m saying, and I tell my opponent [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that his conscience belies him while his tongue tries to argue against me. In all civil societies, people are unconsciously taught to be hypocrites from birth; no one dares admit that they benefit from public disasters or even from the loss of private individuals. The sexton would be ridiculed if he openly wished for the death of the church members, even though everyone knew he had nothing else to survive on.

To me it is a great pleasure, when I look on the affairs of human life, to behold into what various, and often strangely opposite forms, the hope of gain and thoughts of lucre shape men, according to the different employments they are of, and stations they are in. How gay and merry does every face appear at a well ordered ball, and what a solemn sadness is observed at the masquerade of a funeral! but the undertaker is as much pleased with his gains as the dancing-master: both are equally tired in their occupations, and the mirth of the one is as much forced as the gravity of the other is affected. Those who have never minded the conversation of a spruce mercer, and a young lady his customer that comes to his shop, have neglected a scene of life that is very entertaining. I beg of my serious reader, that he would, for a while, abate a little of his gravity, and suffer me to examine these people separately, as to their inside, and the different motives they act from.

To me, it's a great pleasure to see how the hopes of gain and thoughts of profit shape people’s lives in so many different, and often contrasting ways, depending on their jobs and social status. Every face looks so cheerful and happy at a well-organized dance, while there’s such a serious sadness at a funeral. But the undertaker is just as happy about his earnings as the dance instructor is. Both are equally worn out from their work, and the joy of one is as forced as the solemnity of the other is put on. Those who haven’t paid attention to the conversation between a well-dressed fabric seller and a young lady shopping for fabrics are missing out on an entertaining aspect of life. I ask my serious readers to lighten up a bit and let me explore these people individually, looking at their true selves and the different motivations behind their actions.

His business is to sell as much silk as he can at a price by which he shall get what he proposes to be reasonable, according to the customary profits of the trade. As to the lady, what she would be at is to please her fancy, and buy cheaper by a groat or sixpence per yard than the things she wants are commonly sold at. From the impression the gallantry of our sex has made upon her, she imagines (if she be not very deformed) that she has a fine mien and easy behaviour, and a peculiar sweetness of voice; that she is handsome, and if not beautiful, at least more agreeable than most young women she knows. As she has no pretensions to purchase the same things with less money than other people, but what are built on her good qualities, so she sets herself off to the best advantage her wit and discretion will let her. The thoughts of love are here out of the case; so on the one hand, she has no room for playing the tyrant, and giving herself angry and peevish airs, and, on the other, more liberty of speaking kindly, and being affable than she can have almost [224]on any other occasion. She knows that abundance of well-bred people come to his shop, and endeavours to render herself as amiable as virtue and the rules of decency allow of. Coming with such a resolution of behaviour, she cannot meet with any thing to ruffle her temper.

His job is to sell as much silk as he can at a price that he thinks is reasonable, based on the usual profits in the trade. As for the lady, her goal is to indulge her taste and buy things for a penny or a nickel less per yard than what they typically sell for. From the impression that the charm of men has made on her, she believes (unless she's very unattractive) that she has a nice appearance, a pleasant demeanor, and a sweet voice; she thinks she's pretty, and if not beautiful, at least more appealing than most young women she knows. Since she doesn’t expect to buy the same things for less money than others do, her confidence rests on her qualities. So, she presents herself in the best light her wit and judgment allow. Thoughts of love aren't relevant here; thus, she has no reason to play the diva, acting angry and irritable, and she also has more freedom to speak warmly and be friendly than she could almost anywhere else. She knows many well-mannered people visit his shop, and she tries to make herself as likable as her character and the rules of propriety permit. With such a mindset, she can't encounter anything that would upset her mood.

Before her coach is yet quite stopped, she is approached by a gentleman-like man, that has every thing clean and fashionable about him, who in low obeisance pays her homage, and as soon as her pleasure is known that she has a mind to come in, hands her into the shop, where immediately he slips from her, and through a by-way that remains visible only for half a moment, with great address entrenches himself behind the counter: here facing her, with a profound reverence and modish phrase, he begs the favour of knowing her commands. Let her say and dislike what she pleases, she can never be directly contradicted: she deals with a man in whom consummate patience is one of the mysteries of his trade, and whatever trouble she creates she is sure to hear nothing but the most obliging language, and has always before her a cheerful countenance, where joy and respect seem to be blended with good humour, and altogether make up an artificial serenity more engaging than untaught nature is able to produce.

Before her coach has fully stopped, a well-dressed gentleman approaches her, looking sharp and stylish. He bows politely to show his respect, and as soon as she indicates her desire to enter, he helps her into the shop. Once inside, he quickly slips away and, using a hidden path that only appears for a moment, expertly positions himself behind the counter. Facing her with deep respect and fashionable language, he asks how he can assist her. No matter what she says or dislikes, she can never be openly contradicted. She is dealing with a man whose remarkable patience is part of his craft, and no matter what complications she brings, she will only hear the most polite responses. He always has a cheerful expression, where happiness and respect blend with a sense of humor, creating a forced calmness that is more charming than what untrained nature can provide.

When two persons are so well met, the conversation must be very agreeable, as well as extremely mannerly, though they talk about trifles. While she remains irresolute what to take, he seems to be the same in advising her; and is very cautious how to direct her choice; but when once she has made it and is fixed, he immediately becomes positive, that it is the best of the sort, extols her fancy, and the more he looks upon it, the more he wonders he should not before have discovered the pre-eminence of it over any thing he has in his shop. By precept, example, and great application, he has learned unobserved to slide into the inmost recesses of the soul, sound the capacity of his customers, and find out their blind side unknown to them: by all which he is instructed in fifty other stratagems to make her over-value her own judgment as well as the commodity she would purchase. The greatest advantage he has over her, lies in the most material part of the commerce between them, the debate about the price, which he knows to a farthing, and she is wholly ignorant of: therefore he no where more egregiously imposes on her understanding; and though here he has [225]the liberty of telling what lies he pleases, as to the prime cost, and the money he has refused, yet he trusts not to them only; but, attacking her vanity, makes her believe the most incredible things in the world, concerning his own weakness and her superior abilities; he had taken a resolution, he says, never to part with that piece under such a price, but she has the power of talking him out of his goods beyond any body he ever sold to: he protests that he loses by his silk, but seeing that she has a fancy for it, and is resolved to give no more, rather than disoblige a lady he has such an uncommon value for, he will let her have it, and only begs that another time she will not stand so hard with him. In the mean time, the buyer, who knows that she is no fool, and has a voluble tongue, is easily persuaded that she has a very winning way of talking, and thinking it sufficient, for the sake of good-breeding, to disown her merit, and in some witty repartee retort the compliment, he makes her swallow very contentedly, the substance of every thing he tells her. The upshot is, that, with the satisfaction of having saved ninepence per yard, she has bought her silk exactly at the same price as any body else might have done, and often gives sixpence more than, rather than not have sold it, he would have taken.

When two people get along so well, the conversation is bound to be very enjoyable and polite, even if they’re just discussing small things. While she is unsure about what to choose, he appears just as hesitant in guiding her and is careful with how he suggests her options. But once she makes a choice and is set on it, he confidently declares it the best of its kind, praises her taste, and the more he looks at it, the more he wonders why he didn’t notice its superiority over anything else in his shop before. Through teaching, experience, and keen observation, he has learned to subtly dive into the depths of his customers’ minds, gauge their interests, and uncover their blind spots that they themselves are unaware of. All of this equips him with numerous strategies to make her overvalue both her own judgment and the product she wants to buy. His greatest advantage over her lies in the crucial part of their transaction: the price discussion, which he knows down to the last cent while she knows nothing about it. This is where he most blatantly misleads her; and even though he has the freedom to tell whatever lies he wants about the cost and the amount he has turned down, he doesn't rely on that alone. Instead, by appealing to her vanity, he makes her believe the most unbelievable things about his own weaknesses and her superior skills. He claims he has resolved never to sell that piece for less than a certain price, but since she seems really interested, and he doesn't want to offend a lady he values so highly, he will let her have it and only asks that next time she won't negotiate so hard. In the meantime, the buyer, who knows she’s not naive and is quite eloquent, is easily convinced that she has a very charming way of speaking. Thinking it’s courteous to downplay her own skills, she cleverly returns his compliments, making her accept the essence of everything he tells her contentedly. In the end, with the satisfaction of having saved ninepence per yard, she buys her silk at exactly the same price anyone else could have, often paying sixpence more than he would have accepted to make a sale rather than walk away with nothing.

It is possible that this lady, for want of being sufficiently flattered, for a fault she is pleased to find in his behaviour, or perhaps the tying of his neckcloth, or some other dislike as substantial, may be lost, and her custom bestowed on some other of the fraternity. But where many of them live in a cluster, it is not always easily determined which shop to go to, and the reasons some of the fair sex have for their choice, are often very whimsical, and kept as great a secret. We never follow our inclinations with more freedom, than where they cannot be traced, and it is unreasonable for others to suspect them. A virtuous woman has preferred one house to all the rest, because she had seen a handsome fellow in it, and another of no bad character for having received greater civility before it, than had been paid her any where else, when she had no thoughts of buying, and was going to Paul’s church: for among the fashionable mercers, the fair dealer must keep before his own door, and to draw in random customers, make use of no other freedom or importunities than an obsequious air, with a submissive posture, and perhaps [226]a bow to every well dressed female that offers to look towards his shop.

It's possible that this woman, due to not feeling adequately flattered, might find fault in his behavior, or perhaps it's the way he ties his necktie, or some other significant dislike, and she may end up taking her business elsewhere. However, when many of these shops are clustered together, it's often not easy to decide which one to choose, and the reasons some women have for their choices can be quite quirky and kept a closely guarded secret. We tend to follow our instincts more freely when they can't be traced, and it's unreasonable for others to question them. A virtuous woman might prefer one store over all the others simply because she spotted an attractive guy inside, while another might choose a shop that showed her more courtesy than she experienced anywhere else when she wasn’t even planning to shop and was on her way to St. Paul's Church. Among the trendy merchants, a savvy salesperson must attract customers right in front of their store and can only rely on charm, a polite demeanor, and maybe a bow to every well-dressed woman who glances toward their shop.

What I have said last, makes me think on another way of inviting customers, the most distant in the world from what I have been speaking of, I mean that which is practised by the watermen, especially on those whom, by their mien and garb, they know to be peasants. It is not unpleasant to see half a dozen people surround a man they never saw in their lives before, and two of them that can get the nearest, clapping each an arm over his neck, hug him in as loving and familiar a manner, as if he was their brother newly come home from an East India voyage; a third lays hold of his hand, another of his sleeve, his coat, the buttons of it, or any thing he can come at, while a fifth or a sixth, who has scampered twice round him already, without being able to get at him, plants himself directly before the man in hold, and within three inches of his nose, contradicting his rivals with an open mouthed cry, shows him a dreadful set of large teeth, and a small remainder of chewed bread and cheese, which the countryman’s arrival had hindered from being swallowed.

What I just mentioned makes me think of another way to invite customers, which is a lot different from what I’ve been talking about. I’m referring to the way watermen do it, especially with those they can tell are peasants by their appearance and clothing. It’s amusing to see a group of six people gather around a man they’ve never met before, with two of them getting too close, putting their arms around his neck and hugging him as if he were their brother returning from a trip to the East Indies. One person grabs his hand, another holds onto his sleeve, his coat, the buttons on it, or anything else they can grasp, while a fifth or sixth, who has already circled him a couple of times without getting close, stands right in front of him, just inches from his face, shouting over the others, showing off a scary set of large teeth and a bit of chewed bread and cheese that he hasn’t managed to swallow because of the farmer's arrival.

At all this no offence is taken, and the peasant justly thinks they are making much of him; therefore, far from opposing them, he patiently suffers himself to be pushed or pulled which way the strength that surrounds him shall direct. He has not the delicacy to find fault with a man’s breath, who has just blown out his pipe, or a greasy head of hair that is rubbing against his chops: Dirt and sweat he has been used to from his cradle, and it is no disturbance to him to hear half a score people, some of them at his ear, and the furthest not five foot from him, bawl out as if he was hundred yards off: He is conscious that he makes no less noise when he is merry himself, and is secretly pleased with their boisterous usages. The hawling and pulling him about he construes the way it is intended; it is a courtship he can feel and understand: He cannot help wishing them well for the esteem they seem to have for him: He loves to be taken notice of, and admires the Londoners for being so pressing in the offers of their service to him, for the value of threepence or less; whereas, in the country at the shop he uses, he can have nothing but he must first tell them what he wants, and, though he lays out three or four shillings at a time, has hardly a word spoke to him unless it be in answer to a question [227]himself is forced to ask first. This alacrity in his behalf moves his gratitude, and, unwilling to disoblige any, from his heart he knows not whom to choose. I have seen a man think all this, or something like it, as plainly as I could see the nose in his face; and, at the same time, move along very contentedly under a load of watermen, and with a smiling countenance carry seven or eight stone more than his own weight to the water side.

At all this, he takes no offense, and the peasant rightly believes they are making a big deal out of him; therefore, instead of resisting, he patiently allows himself to be pushed and pulled in whatever direction those around him choose. He doesn’t have the sensitivity to complain about someone’s breath after they’ve just finished smoking or a greasy head of hair brushing against him: He’s been accustomed to dirt and sweat since he was born, and it doesn’t bother him to hear a bunch of people, some right next to him and the furthest only a few feet away, yelling as if he were a hundred yards away: He knows he makes just as much noise when he’s having a good time himself, and secretly enjoys their rowdy behavior. He interprets the jostling and pulling as it’s meant to be; it’s a kind of courtship he can feel and understand: He can’t help but wish them well for the respect they seem to show him: He loves the attention, and admires the Londoners for being so eager to offer their help for a mere threepence or less; while in the countryside at the shop he usually goes to, he can get nothing unless he tells them what he wants, and even when he spends three or four shillings at a time, hardly anyone speaks to him unless it’s in response to a question he has to ask first. This eagerness on their part makes him grateful, and since he doesn’t want to upset anyone, he honestly doesn’t know whom to choose. I’ve seen a man think all this, or something like it, as clearly as I could see his nose, while at the same time, he moved along very happily under a burden of watermen, with a smile on his face, carrying seven or eight stone more than his own weight to the waterside.

If the little mirth I have shown, in the drawing of these two images from low life, misbecomes me, I am sorry for it, but I promise not to be guilty of that fault any more, and will now, without loss of time, proceed with my argument in artless dull simplicity, and demonstrate the gross error of those, who imagine that the social virtues, and the amiable qualities that are praise-worthy in us, are equally beneficial to the public as they are to the individual persons that are possessed of them, and that the means of thriving, and whatever conduces to the welfare and real happiness of private families, must have the same effect upon the whole society. This, I confess, I have laboured for all along, and I flatter myself not unsuccessfully: But I hope nobody will like a problem the worse for seeing the truth of it proved more ways than one.

If the little fun I’ve shown in drawing these two characters from low life feels inappropriate, I apologize, but I promise not to do it again. Now, without any delay, I’ll continue with my argument in straightforward terms and show the major mistake of those who think that social virtues and the kind qualities we admire in individuals are equally good for society as a whole. They believe that what helps individual families thrive and promotes their real happiness will have the same positive effect on society in general. I admit I've been working toward this point all along, and I think I’ve done so successfully. However, I hope no one will think less of a problem for having its truth demonstrated in multiple ways.

It is certain, that the fewer desires a man has, and the less he covets, the more easy he is to himself; the more active he is to supply his own wants, and the less he requires to be waited upon, the more he will be beloved, and the less trouble he is in a family; the more he loves peace and concord, the more charity he has for his neighbour, and the more he shines in real virtue, there is no doubt but that in proportion he is acceptable to God and man. But let us be just, what benefit can these things be of, or what earthly good can they do, to promote the wealth, the glory, and worldly greatness of nations? It is the sensual courtier that sets no limits to his luxury; the fickle strumpet that invents new fashions every week; the haughty duchess that in equipage, entertainments, and all her behaviour, would imitate a princess; the profuse rake and lavish heir, that scatter about their money without wit or judgment, buy every thing they see, and either destroy or give it away the next day; the covetous and perjured villain that squeezed an immense treasure from the tears of widows and orphans, and left the prodigals the money to spend: It is these that are the prey and [228]proper food of a full grown Leviathan; or, in other words, such is the calamitous condition of human affairs, that we stand in need of the plagues and monsters I named, to have all the variety of labour performed, which the skill of men is capable of inventing in order to procure an honest livelihood to the vast multitudes of working poor, that are required to make a large society: And it is folly to imagine, that great and wealthy nations can subsist, and be at once powerful and polite without.

It's clear that the fewer desires a person has and the less they crave, the easier life is for them. The more proactive they are in meeting their own needs and the less they rely on others, the more they tend to be liked and the less trouble they cause in a household. The more they value peace and harmony, the more compassionate they are toward others, and the more they genuinely embody virtue. There's no doubt that in proportion to these qualities, they are more acceptable to both God and people. However, let's be honest—what good do these attributes really do to enhance the wealth, glory, and worldly success of nations? It's the indulgent courtier who knows no bounds to his extravagance; the unpredictable mistress who invents new trends each week; the arrogant duchess who tries to mimic a princess in her lavishness, parties, and actions; the wasteful spender and careless heir who throw their money around without thought, buying everything in sight only to ruin or give it away the next day; the greedy and dishonest villain who extracts huge riches from the suffering of widows and orphans, leaving the spendthrifts with money to squander. These are the very figures that feed and sustain a fully grown Leviathan; or, in other words, the unfortunate state of human affairs is such that we rely on these plagues and monsters I've mentioned to carry out all the diverse kinds of labor that human skill can invent to provide a decent living for the large number of working poor who are essential to a big society. It's foolish to think that great and wealthy nations can thrive and remain both powerful and cultured without this.

I protest against Popery as much as ever Luther and Calvin did, or Queen Elizabeth herself; but I believe from my heart, that the Reformation has scarce been more instrumental in rendering the kingdoms and states that have embraced it, flourishing beyond other nations, than the silly and capricious invention of hooped and quilted petticoats. But if this should be denied me by the enemies of priestly power, at least I am sure that, bar the great men who have fought for and against that layman’s blessing, it has, from its beginning to this day, not employed so many hands, honest, industrious, labouring hands, as the abominable improvement on female luxury, I named, has done in few years. Religion is one thing, and trade is another. He that gives most trouble to thousands of his neighbours, and invents the most operose manufactures, is, right or wrong, the greatest friend to the society.

I protest against Catholicism just as much as Luther, Calvin, or Queen Elizabeth ever did; but I genuinely believe that the Reformation has hardly been more effective in making the nations that adopted it prosper more than others than the ridiculous and random trend of hooped and quilted petticoats. But if my critics from the clergy deny this, at least I know that, aside from the great people who have fought for and against that layman's blessing, it has, from the start to now, not involved as many honest, hardworking people as that awful enhancement of women's luxury I mentioned, has done in just a few years. Religion is one thing, and trade is another. The person who causes the most trouble for thousands of their neighbors and creates the most complex products is, right or wrong, the greatest ally to society.

What a bustle is there to be made in several parts of the world, before a fine scarlet or crimson cloth can be produced; what multiplicity of trades and artificers must be employed! Not only such as are obvious, as woolcombers, spinners, the weaver, the cloth worker, the scourer, the dyer, the setter, the drawer, and the packer; but others that are more remote, and might seem foreign to it; as the mill-wright, the pewterer, and the chemist, which yet are all necessary, as well as a great number of other handicrafts, to have the tools, utensils, and other implements belonging to the trades already named: But all these things are done at home, and may be performed without extraordinary fatigue or danger; the most frightful prospect is left behind, when we reflect on the toil and hazard that are to be undergone abroad, the vast seas we are to go over, the different climates we are to endure, and the several nations we must be obliged to for their assistance. Spain alone, it is true, might furnish us with wool to make the finest cloth; but what skill and pains, [229]what experience and ingenuity, are required to dye it of those beautiful colours! How widely are the drugs, and other ingredients, dispersed through the universe that are to meet in one kettle! Allum, indeed, we have of our own; argol we might have from the Rhine, and vitriol from Hungary; all this is in Europe; but then for saltpetre in quantity, we are forced to go as far as the East Indies. Cocheneal, unknown to the ancients, is not much nearer to us, though in a quite different part of the earth: we buy it, it is true, from the Spaniards; but not being their product, they are forced to fetch it for us from the remotest corner of the new world in the East Indies. While so many sailors are broiling in the sun, and sweltered with heat in the east and west of us, another set of them are freezing in the north, to fetch potashes from Russia.

What a hustle and bustle there is in various parts of the world before a fine scarlet or crimson cloth can be made; how many different trades and artisans need to be involved! It’s not just the obvious ones like woolcombers, spinners, weavers, cloth workers, scourers, dyers, setters, drawers, and packers; there are also others that seem more distant and unrelated, like millwrights, pewterers, and chemists, all of which are just as essential, along with many other craftsmen needed to provide the tools, utensils, and other equipment for the trades mentioned. But all of these tasks are done locally and can be accomplished without excessive effort or danger. The most daunting perspective appears when we consider the hard work and risks faced abroad—the vast oceans we must cross, the different climates we must endure, and the various nations we have to rely on for their help. It's true that Spain alone could supply us with wool for the finest cloth, but think of the skill and effort, the experience and creativity required to dye it those beautiful colors! Just how widely spread are the dyes and other ingredients that need to come together in one pot! We indeed have alum from our own land; we could get argol from the Rhine and vitriol from Hungary—these are all in Europe. But for saltpeter in large amounts, we need to go all the way to the East Indies. Cochineal, unknown to the ancients, is not much closer to us, though it comes from a very different part of the world: we do buy it from the Spaniards, but it's not their own production—they have to source it from the farthest reaches of the New World in the East Indies. While so many sailors are baking under the sun in the east and west of us, another group is freezing in the north to bring back potashes from Russia.

When we are thoroughly acquainted with all the variety of toil and labour, the hardships and calamities that must be undergone to compass the end I speak of, and we consider the vast risks and perils that are run in those voyages, and that few of them are ever made but at the expence, not only of the health and welfare, but even the lives of many: When we are acquainted with, I say, and duly consider the things I named, it is scarce possible to conceive a tyrant so inhuman, and void of shame, that, beholding things in the same view, he should exact such terrible services from his innocent slaves; and, at the same time, dare to own, that he did it for no other reason, than the satisfaction a man receives from having a garment made of scarlet or crimson cloth. But to what height of luxury must a nation be arrived, where not only the king’s officers, but likewise the guards, even the private soldiers, should have such impudent desires!

When we fully understand all the different types of work and effort, the hardships and misfortunes that must be endured to achieve the goal I'm talking about, and we think about the huge risks and dangers involved in those journeys, realizing that few are undertaken without costing the health and well-being, or even the lives, of many people: When we are aware of, I say, and seriously consider these things, it's hard to imagine a tyrant so cruel and shameless that, seeing things in the same light, he would demand such horrific sacrifices from his innocent slaves; and, at the same time, dare to admit that he did it simply for the pleasure a man gets from wearing a garment made of scarlet or crimson cloth. But how far must a society have sunk into luxury when not only the king’s officers, but also the guards and even the regular soldiers, can have such shameless desires!

But if we turn the prospect, and look on all those labours as so many voluntary actions, belonging to different callings and occupations, that men are brought up to for a livelihood, and in which every one works for himself, how much soever he may seem to labour for others: If we consider, that even the sailors who undergo the greatest hardships, as soon as one voyage is ended, even after shipwreck, are looking out, and soliciting for employment in another: If we consider, I say, and look on these things in another view, we shall find, that the labour of the poor is so far from being a burden and an imposition upon them, that to have employment is a blessing, which, in their addresses to Heaven, they pray for, and to [230] procure it for the generality of them, is the greatest care of every legislature.

But if we change our perspective and see all those efforts as voluntary actions tied to various jobs and careers that people pursue for a living, where everyone works primarily for their own benefit, even if it seems like they're working for others: If we consider that even the sailors who face the toughest challenges, as soon as one voyage ends, even after a shipwreck, are already seeking and asking for work on the next one: If we take this into account and view these things differently, we will discover that the work of the poor is far from being a burden or an imposition on them; rather, having a job is a blessing that they ask for in their prayers to Heaven, and securing employment for the majority of them is the top priority for every government.

As children, and even infants, are the apes of others, so all youth have an ardent desire of being men and women, and become often ridiculous by their impatient endeavours to appear what every body sees they are not; all large societies are not a little indebted to this folly for the perpetuity, or at least long continuance, of trades once established. What pains will young people take, and what violence will they not commit upon themselves, to attain to insignificant, and often blameable qualifications, which, for want of judgment and experience, they admire in others, that are superior to them in age! This fondness of imitation makes them accustom themselves, by degrees, to the use of things that were irksome, if not intolerable to them at first, till they know not how to leave them, and are often very sorry for having inconsiderately increased the necessaries of life without any necessity. What estates have been got by tea and coffee! What a vast traffic is drove, what a variety of labour is performed in the world, to the maintenance of thousands of families that altogether depend on two silly, if not odious customs; the taking of snuff, and smoking of tobacco; both which, it is certain, do infinitely more hurt than good to those that are addicted to them! I shall go further, and demonstrate the usefulness of private losses and misfortunes to the public, and the folly of our wishes, when we pretend to be most wise and serious. The fire of London was a great calamity; but if the carpenters, bricklayers, smiths, and all, not only that are employed in building, but likewise those that made and dealt in the same manufactures, and other merchandises that were burnt, and other trades again that got by them when they were in full employ, were to vote against those who lost by the fire, the rejoicings would equal, if not exceed the complaints. In recruiting what is lost and destroyed by fire, storms, sea-fights, sieges, battles, a considerable part of trade consists; the truth of which, and whatever I have said of the nature of society, will plainly appear from what follows.

As children, and even infants, imitate others, all young people have a strong desire to be adults and often make fools of themselves with their eager attempts to seem like what everyone clearly sees they are not. Large societies owe a good deal of their longevity, or at least the ongoing existence of established trades, to this silliness. What lengths will young people go to, and what extreme actions will they take upon themselves, to acquire trivial and often questionable traits that they admire in older, more experienced individuals? This tendency to imitate leads them to gradually become accustomed to habits that initially felt unpleasant, if not unbearable, until they can’t imagine giving them up, often regretting how they carelessly added unnecessary burdens to their lives. What fortunes have been made from tea and coffee! What a huge trade is conducted, what a vast range of work is done to support thousands of families that rely on two trivial, if not distasteful, habits: snuff-taking and smoking tobacco, both of which certainly do much more harm than good for those who are hooked on them! I’ll go further and show how private losses and misfortunes can benefit the public, and how foolish our wishes can be when we act like we’re the most wise and serious. The Great Fire of London was a terrible disaster; however, if carpenters, bricklayers, blacksmiths, and everyone else involved in building, as well as those who manufactured and traded in the goods that were destroyed, were to vote on the matter, the celebrations among them would likely equal, if not surpass, the grievances of those who suffered losses in the fire. Restoring what is lost and destroyed by fire, storms, naval battles, sieges, and other conflicts is a significant part of trade; the truth of this, along with my observations about society's nature, will become clear in what follows.

It would be a difficult task to enumerate all the advantages and different benefits, that accrue to a nation, on account of shipping and navigation; but if we only take into consideration the ships themselves, and every vessel great and small that is made use of for water-carriage, from the least [231]wherry to a first rate man of war; the timber and hands that are employed in the building of them; and consider the pitch, tar, rosin, grease; the masts, yards, sails and riggings; the variety of smiths work; the cables, oars, and every thing else belonging to them; we shall find, that to furnish only such a nation as ours with all the necessaries, make up a considerable part of the traffic of Europe, without speaking of the stores and ammunition of all sorts, that are consumed in them, or the mariners, waterman and others, with their families, that are maintained by them.

It would be tough to list all the advantages and benefits a nation gets from shipping and navigation. But if we just look at the ships themselves, from the smallest [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]wherry to a first-rate warship, the timber and people involved in building them, and take into account the pitch, tar, rosin, grease, masts, yards, sails, and rigging; the variety of blacksmithing work; the cables, oars, and everything else that goes with them, we would see that providing everything needed for a nation like ours makes up a significant portion of Europe's trade, not to mention the supplies and ammunition used on them or the sailors, watermen, and others, along with their families, who rely on this industry.

But should we, on the other hand, take a view of the manifold mischiefs and variety of evils, moral as well as natural, that befal nations on the score of seafaring, and their commerce with strangers, the prospect would be very frightful; and could we suppose a large populous island, that should be wholly unacquainted with ships and sea affairs, but otherwise a wise and well-governed people; and that some angel, or their genius, should lay before them a scheme or draught, where they might see on the one side, all the riches and real advantages that would be acquired by navigation in a thousand years; and on the other, the wealth and lives that would be lost, and all the other calamities, that would be unavoidably sustained on account of it during the same time, I am confident, they would look upon ships with horror and detestation, and that their prudent rulers would severely forbid the making and inventing all buildings or machines to go to sea with, of what shape or denomination soever, and prohibit all such abominable contrivances on great penalties, if not the pain of death.

But if we consider the many troubles and various evils, both moral and natural, that afflict nations due to seafaring and trade with outsiders, the outlook would be very grim. Imagine a large, populated island completely unfamiliar with ships and maritime affairs, but inhabited by wise and well-governed people. If some angel or their guiding spirit were to present to them a plan showing, on one side, all the wealth and genuine benefits that could be gained through navigation over a thousand years, and on the other, the riches and lives that would be lost, along with all the other disasters that would inevitably occur because of it during the same period, I’m sure they would view ships with horror and disgust. Their wise leaders would likely forbid the creation and design of any vessels or machinery for sea travel, regardless of their form or purpose, and impose strict penalties, even the possibility of death, for such detestable inventions.

But to let alone the necessary consequence of foreign trade, the corruption of manners, as well as plagues, poxes, and other diseases, that are brought to us by shipping, should we only cast our eyes on what is either to be imputed to the wind and weather, the treachery of the seas, the ice of the north, the vermin of the south, the darkness of nights, and unwholesomeness of climates, or else occasioned by the want of good provisions, and the faults of mariners, and unskilfulness of some, and the neglect and drunkenness of others; and should we consider the losses of men and treasure swallowed up in the deep, the tears and necessities of widows and orphans made by the sea, the ruin of merchants and the consequences, the continual anxieties that parents and wives are in for the safety of their children and husbands, and not forget [232]the many pangs and heart-aches that are felt throughout a trading nation, by owners and insurers, at every blast of wind; should we cast our eyes, I say, on these things, consider with due attention and give them the weight they deserve, would it not be amazing, how a nation of thinking people should talk of their ships and navigation as a peculiar blessing to them, and placing an uncommon felicity in having an infinity of vessels dispersed through the wide world, and always some going to and others coming from every part of the universe?

But aside from the inevitable consequences of foreign trade, the corruption of morals, as well as diseases like plagues and poxes that come to us through shipping, if we just look at what's due to the wind and weather, the dangers of the sea, the ice from the north, the pests from the south, the darkness of night, and unhealthy climates, or what’s caused by a lack of good provisions, the mistakes of sailors, some being unskilled, and the negligence and drunkenness of others; and if we consider the losses of lives and treasure swallowed by the ocean, the tears and needs of widows and orphans created by the sea, the destruction of merchants and its repercussions, the constant anxiety that parents and wives feel for the safety of their children and husbands, and not forget [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the many pains and heartaches felt throughout a trading nation, by owners and insurers, at every gust of wind; if we focus on these things, give them the attention and importance they deserve, wouldn’t it be astonishing how a nation of thoughtful people could talk about their ships and navigation as a unique blessing, and find a special happiness in having countless vessels spread across the globe, always with some traveling out and others coming back from every corner of the world?

But let us once, in our consideration on these things, confine ourselves to what the ships suffer only, the vessels themselves, with their rigging and appurtenances, without thinking on the freight they carry, or the hands that work them, and we shall find that the damage sustained that way only, is very considerable, and must one year with another amount to vast sums; the ships that are foundered at sea, split against rocks and swallowed up by sands, some by the fierceness of tempests altogether, others by that and the want of pilots, experience, and knowledge of the coasts: the masts that are blown down, or forced to be cut and thrown overboard, the yards, sails, and cordage of different sizes that are destroyed by storms, and the anchors that are lost: add to these the necessary repairs of leaks sprung, and other hurts received from the rage of winds, and the violence of the waves: many ships are set on fire by carelessness, and the effects of strong liquors, which none are more addicted to than sailors: sometimes unhealthy climates, at others the badness of provision breed fatal distempers, that sweep away the greatest part of the crew, and not a few ships are lost for want of hands.

But let's focus solely on what the ships endure—the vessels themselves, their rigging, and equipment—without considering the cargo they carry or the crew that operates them. We'll find that the damage they suffer is quite significant and adds up to vast amounts over the years. Ships can be lost at sea, smashed against rocks, or buried in sand; some succumb entirely to fierce storms, while others fall victim to a lack of pilots, experience, and knowledge of the coastlines. Masts can be blown down or have to be cut and thrown overboard, and various sizes of sails, yards, and ropes can be destroyed by storms, along with lost anchors. On top of this, there's the necessary repair for leaks and other damage caused by strong winds and violent waves. Many ships catch fire due to negligence and the effects of strong alcohol, which sailors are often prone to. Additionally, unhealthy climates and poor provisions can lead to deadly diseases that take out a large portion of the crew, and several ships are lost due to a shortage of hands.

These are all calamities inseparable from navigation, and seem to be great impediments that clog the wheels of foreign commerce. How happy would a merchant think himself, if his ships should always have fine weather, and the wind he wished for, and every mariner he employed, from the highest to the lowest, be a knowing experienced sailor, and a careful, sober, good man! Was such a felicity to be had for prayers, what owner of ships is there, or dealer in Europe, nay, the whole world, who would not be all day long teazing Heaven to obtain such a blessing for himself, without regard to what detriment it would do to others? Such a petition would certainly be a very unconscionable one; yet where is the man who imagines not that he has a right to make it? And therefore, [233]as every one pretends to an equal claim to those favours, let us, without reflecting on the impossibility of its being true, suppose all their prayers effectual and their wishes answered, and afterwards examine into the result of such a happiness.

These are all challenges that come with navigation and seem to be significant obstacles that hinder international trade. How happy would a merchant be if his ships always had good weather, the right winds, and every sailor he hired, from the captain to the deckhand, was skilled, experienced, and a reliable, decent person! If such good fortune could be attained through prayer, what owner of ships or trader in Europe, or even in the whole world, wouldn't spend all day begging Heaven for such a blessing without caring about the harm it might cause to others? Such a request would definitely be quite unreasonable; yet who among us doesn't believe they have the right to make it? And so, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]since everyone claims an equal right to these favors, let's, without considering how impossible that could be, assume all their prayers are effective and their wishes granted, and then look into the outcome of such happiness.

Ships would last as long as timber houses to the full, because they are as strongly built, and the latter are liable to suffer by high winds and other storms, which the first, by our supposition, are not to be: so that, before there would be any real occasion for new ships, the master builders now in being, and every body under them, that is set to work about them, would all die a natural death, if they were not starved or come to some untimely end: for, in the first place, all ships having prosperous gales, and never waiting for the wind, they would make very quick voyages both out and home: secondly, no merchandises would be damaged by the sea, or by stress of weather thrown overboard, but the entire lading would always come safe ashore; and hence it would follow, that three parts in four of the merchantmen already made, would be superfluous for the present, and the stock of ships that are now in the world, serve a vast many years. Masts and yards would last as long as the vessels themselves, and we should not need to trouble Norway on that score a great while yet. The sails and rigging, indeed, of the few ships made use of would wear out, but not a quarter part so fast as now they do, for they often suffer more in one hour’s storm, than in ten days fair weather.

Ships would last as long as wooden houses because they are built just as sturdily. Wooden houses are at risk from strong winds and storms, which, according to our assumption, ships would not face. So, before there was any real need for new ships, all the current master builders and everyone working with them would pass away naturally if they weren't starved or met with some sudden misfortune. First, if all ships had favorable winds and never had to wait for them, they would make very quick trips both to and from their destinations. Second, no goods would be damaged by the sea or thrown overboard due to bad weather; the entire cargo would always make it safely to shore. As a result, three out of four of the merchant ships already built would be unnecessary, and the ships currently in the world would last for many years. Masts and yards would last as long as the ships themselves, and we wouldn't need to rely on Norway for supplies for quite some time. The sails and rigging of the few ships still in use would wear out, but not nearly as quickly as they do now, since they often take more damage in one hour of a storm than they do in ten days of fair weather.

Anchors and cables there would be seldom any occasion for, and one of each would last a ship time out of mind: this article alone, would yield many a tedious holiday to the anchor-smiths and the rope-yards. This general want of consumption would have such an influence on the timber-merchants, and all that import iron, sail-cloth, hemp, pitch, tar, &c. that four parts in five of what, in the beginning of this reflection on sea-affairs, I said, made a considerable branch of the traffic of Europe, would be entirely lost.

Anchors and cables would rarely be needed, and just one of each could last a ship forever: this fact alone would give the anchor smiths and rope yards many frustrating holidays. This overall lack of demand would significantly impact timber merchants and anyone who imports iron, sailcloth, hemp, pitch, tar, etc., causing four out of five parts of what I initially mentioned as a significant part of Europe's trade to be completely lost.

I have only touched hitherto on the consequences of this blessing in relation to shipping, but it would be detrimental to all other branches of trade besides, and destructive to the poor of every country, that exports any thing of their own growth or manufacture. The goods and merchandises that every year go to the deep, that are spoiled at sea by salt water, by heat, by vermine, destroyed by fire, or lost to the [234]merchant by other accidents, all owing to storms or tedious voyages, or else the neglect or rapacity of sailors; such goods, I say, and merchandises are a considerable part of what every year is sent abroad throughout the world, and must have employed great multitudes of poor, before they could come on board. A hundred bales of cloth that are burnt or sunk in the Mediterranean, are as beneficial to the poor in England, as if they had safely arrived at Smyrna or Aleppo, and every yard of them had been retailed on the grand Signior’s dominions.

I’ve only touched on how this blessing affects shipping, but it would harm every other part of trade as well and be devastating for the poor in any country that exports its own products. The goods and merchandise that go to the ocean each year, spoiled by saltwater, heat, pests, destroyed by fire, or lost due to various accidents—like storms, long voyages, or the negligence and greed of sailors—are a significant portion of what is sent around the world yearly, and must have employed many poor people before they were loaded onto ships. A hundred bales of cloth that are burned or sunk in the Mediterranean are just as useful to the poor in England as if they had arrived safely in Smyrna or Aleppo, and every yard of it had been sold in the grand Sultan’s territories.

The merchant may break, and by him the clothier, the dyer, the packer, and other tradesmen, the middling people, may suffer; but the poor that were set to work about them can never lose. Day-labourers commonly receive their earnings once a-week, and all the working people that were employed, either in any of the various branches of the manufacture itself, or the several land and water carriages it requires to be brought to perfection, from the sheep’s back, to the vessel it was entered in, were paid, at least much the greatest part of them, before the parcel came on board. Should any of my readers draw conclusions in infinitum, from my assertions, that goods sunk or burnt are as beneficial to the poor, as if they had been well sold and put to their proper uses, I would count him a caviller and not worth answering: should it always rain and the sun never shine, the fruits of the earth would soon be rotten and destroyed; and yet it is no paradox to affirm, that, to have grass or corn, rain is as necessary as the sunshine.

The merchant might go bankrupt, and because of that, the cloth maker, the dyer, the packer, and other tradespeople—those in the middle class—might face hardships; but the poor workers who were employed by them will never lose out. Day laborers usually get paid once a week, and most of the workers involved in the different stages of production, or in transporting goods by land and water to get them ready, from shearing the sheep to loading the products onto a ship, were paid, or at least the vast majority of them were, before the goods were shipped out. If any of my readers try to argue endlessly from my statements that goods that sink or burn are just as helpful to the poor as if they had been sold and used properly, I would consider them a nitpicker and not worth engaging with: if it always rained and never stopped being sunny, the harvest would quickly spoil and be ruined; yet it’s not a contradiction to say that, to grow grass or grain, both rain and sunshine are equally important.

In what manner this blessing of fair winds and fine weather, would affect the mariners themselves, and the breed of sailors, may be easily conjectured from what has been said already. As there would hardly one ship in four be made use of, so the vessels themselves being always exempt from storms, fewer hands would be required to work them, and consequently five in six of the seamen we have might be spared, which in this nation, most employments of the poor being overstocked, would be but an untoward article. As soon as those superfluous seamen should be extinct, it would be impossible to man such large fleets as we could at present: but I do not look upon this as a detriment, or the least inconveniency: for the reduction of mariners, as to numbers being general throughout the world, all the consequence would be, that in case of war, the maritime powers would be [235]obliged to fight with fewer ships, which would be an happiness instead of an evil: and would you carry this felicity to the highest pitch of perfection, it is but to add one desirable blessing more, and no nation shall ever fight at all: the blessing I hint at is, what all good Christians are bound to pray for, viz. that all princes and states would be true to their oaths and promises, and just to one another, as well as their own subjects; that they might have a greater regard for the dictates of conscience and religion, than those of state politics and worldly wisdom, and prefer the spiritual welfare of others to their own carnal desires, and the honesty, the safety, the peace and tranquillity of the nations they govern, to their own love of glory, spirit of revenge, avarice, and ambition.

In what way this blessing of good winds and nice weather would affect the sailors and the sailing community is easy to guess based on what has been mentioned before. Since hardly one ship in four would actually be used, the ships themselves would be free from storms, meaning fewer crew members would be needed to operate them. Consequently, five out of six sailors we currently have could be let go, which, in this nation where most low-paying jobs are already crowded, would not be a good situation. Once those extra sailors are no longer around, it would become impossible to crew the large fleets we could manage now. However, I don’t see this as a downside or even a minor inconvenience: since the reduction of sailors would be widespread around the world, the outcome would simply be that during a war, the maritime nations would have to fight with fewer ships, which would be a blessing rather than a curse. And if you want to take this blessing to the highest level of perfection, you just need to add one more desirable blessing, and no nation would ever go to war at all. The blessing I’m referring to is something all good Christians are encouraged to pray for, namely that all leaders and nations would be true to their oaths and promises, and fair to each other as well as to their own people; that they would place more importance on the guidance of conscience and religion than on political tactics and worldly wisdom, and prioritize the spiritual well-being of others over their own selfish desires, and the honesty, safety, peace, and tranquility of the nations they govern over their own ambitions for glory, revenge, greed, and ambition.

The last paragraph will to many seem a digression, that makes little for my purpose; but what I mean by it, is to demonstrate that goodness, integrity, and a peaceful disposition in rulers and governors of nations, are not the proper qualifications to aggrandize them, and increase their numbers; any more than the uninterrupted series of success that every private person would be blest with, if he could, and which I have shown would be injurious and destructive to a large society, that should place a felicity in worldly greatness, and being envied by their neighbours, and value themselves upon their honour and their strength.

The last paragraph may seem like a digression to many, contributing little to my point; but what I’m trying to show is that qualities like goodness, integrity, and a peaceful attitude in leaders and rulers of nations aren’t the right traits to elevate them or expand their numbers. This is just like how the constant success every individual would desire, if they could attain it, would actually be harmful and destructive to a large society that links happiness to material greatness, seeks envy from their neighbors, and prides itself on its honor and strength.

No man needs to guard himself against blessings, but calamities require hands to avert them. The amiable qualities of man put none of the species upon stirring: his honesty, his love of company, his goodness, content and frugality, are so many comforts to an indolent society, and the more real and unaffected they are, the more they keep every thing at rest and peace, and the more they will every where prevent trouble and motion itself. The same almost may be said of the gifts and munificence of Heaven, and all the bounties and benefits of nature: this is certain, that the more extensive they are, and the greater plenty we have of them, the more we save our labour. But the necessities, the vices, and imperfections of man, together with the various inclemencies of the air and other elements, contain in them the seeds of all arts, industry and labours: it is the extremities of heat and cold, the inconstancy and badness of seasons, the violence and uncertainty of winds, the vast power and treachery of water, the rage and untractableness of fire, and the stubbornness [236]and sterility of the earth, that rack our invention, how we shall either avoid the mischiefs they may produce, or correct the malignity of them, and turn their several forces to our own advantage a thousand different ways; while we are employed in supplying the infinite variety of our wants, which will ever be multiplied as our knowledge is enlarged, and our desires increase. Hunger, thirst, and nakedness, are the first tyrants that force us to stir: afterwards, our pride, sloth, sensuality, and fickleness, are the great patrons that promote all arts and sciences, trades, handicrafts and callings; while the great task-masters, necessity, avarice, envy, and ambition, each in the class that belongs to him, keep the members of the society to their labour, and make them all submit, most of them cheerfully, to the drudgery of their station; kings and princes not excepted.

No one needs to protect themselves from blessings, but we definitely need to take action to avoid disasters. The positive traits of people don’t prompt anyone to take action: their honesty, sociability, kindness, contentment, and frugality bring comfort to a lazy society. The more genuine and sincere these traits are, the more they maintain peace and stability, and the more they prevent trouble and movement altogether. The same can be said about the gifts and generosity from above, as well as the various blessings from nature: it’s clear that the more abundant they are, the less effort we have to expend. However, human needs, flaws, and limitations, along with the unpredictable elements of nature, contain the seeds of all arts, work, and endeavors. The extremes of heat and cold, the unpredictability of seasons, the force and unpredictability of winds, the immense power and deceit of water, the fury and uncontrollability of fire, and the resistance and barrenness of the earth push us to invent ways to either avoid the dangers they might cause or to manage their harmful effects, turning their various forces to our advantage in countless ways. While we strive to meet an endless array of needs, which will keep growing as our knowledge expands and our desires increase. Hunger, thirst, and the need for clothing are the first demands that drive us to act; later on, our pride, laziness, lust, and fickleness become the main supporters of all arts and sciences, trades, crafts, and professions. Meanwhile, the significant driving forces, necessity, greed, envy, and ambition, each in their own way, keep society members working and compel them, most of them willingly, to put in the hard work required by their roles, including kings and princes.

The greater the variety of trades and manufactures the more operose they are, and the more they are divided in many branches, the greater numbers may be contained in a society without being in one another’s way, and the more easily they may be rendered a rich, potent, and flourishing people. Few virtues employ any hands, and therefore they may render a small nation good, but they can never make a great one. To be strong and laborious, patient in difficulties, and assiduous in all business, are commendable qualities; but as they do their own work, so they are their own reward, and neither art nor industry have ever paid their compliments to them; whereas the excellency of human thought and contrivance, has been, and is yet no where more conspicuous than in the variety of tools and instruments of workmen and artificers, and the multiplicity of engines, that were all invented either to assist the weakness of man, to correct his many imperfections, to gratify his laziness, or obviate his impatience.

The more diverse the trades and industries, the more complex they are, and the more they are divided into different branches, the more people can fit into a society without getting in each other’s way. This makes it easier for them to become a wealthy, powerful, and thriving population. A few virtues can keep a small nation virtuous, but they can't make a large one. Being strong and hardworking, patient in tough times, and dedicated in all tasks are commendable traits; however, since they handle their own work, they are their own reward, and neither art nor industry has ever shown them appreciation. In contrast, the brilliance of human thought and invention is most evident in the variety of tools and instruments used by workers and craftsmen, as well as the many machines that were all created to help compensate for human weaknesses, correct our flaws, satisfy our laziness, or ease our impatience.

It is in morality as it is in nature, there is nothing so perfectly good in creatures, that it cannot be hurtful to any one of the society, nor any thing so entirely evil, but it may prove beneficial to some part or other of the creation: so that things are only good and evil in reference to something else, and according to the light and position they are placed in. What pleases us is good in that regard, and by this rule every man wishes well for himself to the best of his capacity, with little respect to his neighbour. There never was any rain yet, though in a very dry season when public [237]prayers had been made for it, but somebody or other who wanted to go abroad, wished it might be fair weather only for that day. When the corn stands thick in the spring, and the generality of the country rejoice at the pleasing object, the rich farmer who kept his last year’s crop for a better market, pines at the sight, and inwardly grieves at the prospect of a plentiful harvest. Nay, we shall often hear your idle people openly wish for the possessions of others, and not to be injurious forsooth add this wise proviso, that it should be without detriment to the owners: but I am afraid they often do it without any such restriction in their hearts.

Morality is like nature; there's nothing so perfectly good in living beings that it can't hurt someone in society, and nothing so completely evil that it can't be beneficial to some part of creation. So, things are only good or evil in relation to something else and based on how they are perceived. What makes us happy is good in that sense, and by this logic, everyone wishes well for themselves as best as they can, caring little for their neighbors. There's never been a time when it rained, even during a dry spell when public prayers were made for it, when someone didn’t hope for nice weather just for their own plans that day. When crops are lush in spring and most people are happy about it, the wealthy farmer who saved last year's harvest for a better price is unhappy and dreads the thought of a bountiful yield. In fact, we often hear lazy people openly wish for what others have and, to not seem harmful, they add a clever condition that it should be without hurting the owners. But I fear they often say this without such a true intention in their hearts.

It is a happiness that the prayers as well as wishes of most people, are insignificant and good for nothing; or else the only thing that could keep mankind fit for society, and the world from falling into confusion, would be the impossibility that all the petitions made to Heaven should be granted. A dutiful pretty young gentleman newly come from his travels, lies at the Briel waiting with impatience for an easterly wind, to waft him over to England, where a dying father, who wants to embrace and give him his blessing before he yields his breath, lies hoaning after him, melted with grief and tenderness: in the mean while a British minister, who is to take care of the Protestant interest in Germany, is riding post to Harwich, and in violent haste to be at Ratisbone before the diet breaks up. At the same time a rich fleet lies ready for the Mediterranean, and a fine squadron is bound for the Baltic. All these things may probably happen at once, at least there is no difficulty in supposing they should. If these people are not atheists, or very great reprobates, they will all have some good thoughts before they go to sleep, and consequently about bed-time, they must all differently pray for a fair wind and a prosperous voyage. I do not say but it is their duty, and it is possible they may be all heard, but I am sure they cannot be all served at the same time.

It's a good thing that the prayers and wishes of most people are pretty much useless; otherwise, the only thing keeping society together and preventing chaos in the world would be the impossibility of having all the requests sent to Heaven granted. A dutiful young gentleman, fresh from his travels, is waiting impatiently at the Briel for an east wind to carry him to England, where his dying father longs to embrace him and give him a blessing before taking his last breath, filled with grief and love. Meanwhile, a British minister hurries to Harwich, desperate to get to Ratisbone before the diet concludes, tasked with looking after Protestant interests in Germany. At the same time, a wealthy fleet is prepared for the Mediterranean, and a fine squadron is heading to the Baltic. All these events could likely happen simultaneously; it's easy to imagine they would. If these people aren't atheists or incredibly wicked, they will likely have some good thoughts before falling asleep, and around bedtime, they'll all be praying for a fair wind and a safe journey. I'm not saying it isn't their duty, and it's possible they could all be heard, but I know they can't all be helped at the same time.

After this, I flatter myself to have demonstrated that, neither the friendly qualities and kind affections that are natural to man, nor the real virtues he is capable of acquiring by reason and self-denial, are the foundation of society; but that what we call evil in this world, moral as well as natural, is the grand principle that makes us sociable creatures, the solid basis, the life and support of all trades and employments without exception: that there we must look for the true [238]origin of all arts and sciences, and that the moment evil ceases, the society must be spoiled, if not totally dissolved.

After this, I like to think I've shown that neither the friendly traits and kind feelings that are natural to people, nor the real virtues they can get through reason and self-control, are the foundation of society; rather, what we consider evil in this world, both moral and natural, is the main principle that makes us social beings, the solid foundation, the lifeblood and support of all trades and jobs without exception: this is where we should look for the true [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]origin of all arts and sciences, and when evil disappears, society is bound to be damaged, if not completely broken apart.

I could add a thousand things to enforce, and further illustrate this truth, with abundance of pleasure; but for fear of being troublesome, I shall make an end, though I confess that I have not been half so solicitous to gain the approbation of others, as I have studied to please myself in this amusement: yet if ever I hear, that by following this diversion I have given any to the intelligent reader, it will always add to the satisfaction I have received in the performance. In the hope my vanity forms of this, I leave him with regret, and conclude with repeating the seeming paradox, the substance of which is advanced in the title page; that private vices, by the dexterous management of a skilful politician, may be turned into public benefits. [239]

I could list countless things to support and further explain this truth, and I would enjoy doing so; but to avoid being a bother, I’ll wrap it up. I admit that I haven’t been nearly as concerned about winning others' approval as I have been about satisfying myself with this pastime. However, if I ever find out that my pursuit of this activity has brought any enjoyment to insightful readers, that will only increase the pleasure I’ve gained from it. With a touch of vanity, I leave you with a sense of regret, concluding with the apparent paradox stated on the title page: that private vices, when skillfully managed by a clever politician, can be transformed into public benefits. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

A
VINDICATION
OF THE
Book, from the Slander contained in a Presentment of the Grand Jury of Middlesex,
And an Abusive Letter to Lord C——

That the reader may be fully instructed in the merits of the cause between my adversaries and myself, it is requisite that, before he sees my defence, he should know the whole charge, and have before him all the accusations against me at large.

That the reader can fully understand the merits of the case between my opponents and me, it's necessary that, before seeing my defense, they know the entire charge and have all the accusations against me laid out clearly.

The Presentment of the Grand Jury is worded thus:

The Grand Jury's presentation is stated as follows:

We the Grand Jury for the county of Middlesex, have, with the greatest sorrow and concern, observed the many books and pamphlets that are almost every week published against the sacred articles of our holy religion, and all discipline and order in the church, and the manner in which this is carried on, seems to us to have a direct tendency to propagate infidelity, and consequently corruption of all morals.

We, the Grand Jury for Middlesex County, have, with deep sorrow and concern, observed the many books and pamphlets being published almost weekly that go against the core principles of our faith and the order and discipline of the church. This appears to us to directly encourage infidelity and, as a result, the decline of all moral standards.

We are justly sensible of the goodness of the Almighty, that has preserved us from the plague, which has visited our neighbouring nation, and for which great mercy, his Majesty was graciously pleased to command, by his proclamation, that thanks should be returned to Heaven; but how provoking must it be to the Almighty, that his mercies and deliverances extended to this nation, and our thanksgiving that was publicly commanded for it, should be attended with such flagrant impieties.

We are rightly aware of the goodness of the Almighty, who has protected us from the plague that has affected our neighboring country. For this great mercy, His Majesty has graciously proclaimed that we should give thanks to Heaven. However, it must be incredibly frustrating for the Almighty that His mercies and deliverances granted to this nation, along with our public expressions of gratitude, are overshadowed by such blatant wrongdoings.

We know of nothing that can be of greater service to his Majesty, and the Protestant succession (which is happily established among us for the defence of the Christian Religion), than the suppression of blasphemy and profaneness, which has a direct tendency to subvert the very foundation on which his Majesty’s government is fixed. [240]

We know of no greater benefit to His Majesty and the Protestant succession (which is happily established among us to safeguard the Christian Religion) than to put an end to blasphemy and disrespect that directly threaten the very foundation of His Majesty’s government. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

So restless have these zealots for infidelity been in their diabolical attempts against religion, that they have,

These zealots for infidelity have been so relentless in their wicked attempts against religion that they have,

First, Openly blasphemed and denied the doctrine of the ever Blessed Trinity, endeavouring, by species pretences, to revive the Arian heresy, which was never introduced into any nation, but the vengeance of Heaven pursued it.

Firstly, openly mocked and rejected the belief in the ever Blessed Trinity, trying, with insincere pretense, to revive the Arian heresy, which has never been accepted in any nation without facing divine wrath.

Secondly, They affirm an absolute fate, and deny the Providence and government of the Almighty in the world.

Secondly, they assert a fixed fate and deny that the Almighty governs and oversees the world.

Thirdly, They have endeavoured to subvert all order and discipline of the church, and by vile and unjust reflections on the clergy, they strive to bring contempt on all religion; that by the libertinism of their opinions they may encourage and draw others into the immoralities of their practice.

Thirdly, they have attempted to undermine the order and discipline of the church, and through nasty and unfair comments about the clergy, they seek to instill disdain for all religion; they aim to promote their reckless views and draw others into their wrongdoing.

Fourthly, That a general libertinism may the more effectually be established, the universities are decried, and all instructions of youth in the principles of the Christian religion are exploded with the greatest malice and falsity.

Fourthly, to foster a general sense of freedom, they criticize universities and completely reject the education of young people in the principles of the Christian religion with malicious intent and falsehood.

Fifthly, The more effectually to carry on these works of darkness, studied artifices, and invented colours, have been made use of to run down religion and virtue as prejudicial to society, and detrimental to the state; and to recommend luxury, avarice, pride, and all kind of vices, as being necessary to public welfare, and not tending to the destruction of the constitution: nay, the very stews themselves have had strained apologies and forced encomiums made in their favour, and produced in print, with design, we conceive, to debauch the nation.

Fifthly, to effectively carry out these dark deeds, they deploy clever tricks and misleading arguments to portray religion and virtue as harmful to society and detrimental to the state; while promoting luxury, greed, pride, and various vices as essential to the public good and not threatening the integrity of the constitution. In fact, even brothels have received strained justifications and forced praises published in print, seemingly aimed at corrupting the nation.

These principles having a direct tendency to the subversion of all religion and civil government, our duty to the Almighty, our love to our country, and regard to our oaths, oblige us to present

These principles are aimed directly at undermining all religion and civil government. Our duty to the Almighty, our love for our country, and our respect for our oaths compel us to present

as the publisher of a book, intituled the Fable of the Bees; or Private Vices Public Benefits. 2d. Edit. 1723.

as the publisher of a book titled The Fable of the Bees; or Private Vices Public Benefits. 2nd Ed. 1723.

And also

And also

as the publisher of a weekly paper, called the British Journal, Numb. 26, 35, 36, and 39.

as the publisher of a weekly paper called the British Journal, Numbers 26, 35, 36, and 39.

[241]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

The Letter I complain of is this:

The letter I'm complaining about is this:

My Lord,

My Lord,

It is welcome news to all the king’s loyal subjects and true friends to the established government and succession in the illustrious house of Hanover, that your Lordship is said to be contriving some effectual means of securing us from the dangers, wherewith his Majesty’s happy government seems to be threatened by Catiline, under the name of Cato; by the writer of a book, intituled, The Fable of the Bees, &c. and by others of their fraternity, who are undoubtedly useful friends to the Pretender, and diligent, for his sake, in labouring to subvert and ruin our constitution, under a specious pretence of defending it. Your Lordship’s wise resolution, totally to suppress such impious writings, and the direction already given for having them presented, immediately, by some of the grand juries, will effectually convince the nation, that no attempts against Christianity will be suffered or endured here. And this conviction will at once rid men’s minds of the uneasiness which this flagitious race of writers has endeavoured to raise in them; will therefore be a firm bulwark to the Protestant religion; will effectually defeat the projects and hopes of the Pretender; and best secure us against any change in the ministry. And no faithful Briton could be unconcerned, if the people should imagine any the least neglect in any single person bearing a part in the ministry, or begin to grow jealous, that any thing could be done, which is not done, in defending their religion from every the least appearance of danger approaching towards it. And, my Lord, this jealousy might have been apt to rise, if no measures had been taken to discourage and crush the open advocates of irreligion. It is no easy matter to get jealousy out of one’s brains, when it is once got into them. Jealousy, my Lord! it is as furious a fiend as any of them all. I have seen a little thin weak woman so invigorated by a fit of jealousy, that five grenadiers could not hold her. My Lord, go on with your just methods of keeping the people clear of this cursed jealousy: for amongst the various kinds and occasions of it, that which concerns their religion, is the most violent, flagrant, frantic sort of all; and accordingly has, in former reigns, produced those various mischiefs, which your Lordship has faithfully determined to prevent, dutifully regarding [242]the royal authority, and conforming to the example of his Majesty, who has graciously given directions (which are well known to your Lordship) for the preserving of unity in the church; and the purity of the Christian faith. It is in vain to think that the people of England will ever give up their religion, or be very fond of any ministry that will not support it, as the wisdom of this ministry has done, against such audacious attacks as are made upon it by the scribblers; for scribbler, your Lordship knows, is the just appellation of every author, who, under whatever plausible appearance of good sense, attempts to undermine the religion, and therefore the content and quiet, the peace and happiness of his fellow-subjects, by subtle and artful, and fallacious arguments and insinuations. May Heaven avert those insufferable miseries, which the Church of Rome would bring upon us! tyranny is the bane of human society, and there is no tyranny heavier than that of the triple crown. And, therefore, this free and happy people has justly conceived an utter abhorrence and dread of Popery, and of every thing that looks like encouragement or tendency to it; but they do also abhor and dread the violence offered to Christianity itself, by our British Catilines, who shelter their treacherous designs against it, under the false colours of regard and good will to our blessed Protestant religion, while they demonstrate, too plainly demonstrate, that the title of Protestants does not belong to them, unless it can belong to those who are in effect protestors against all religion.

It’s great news for all the king’s loyal subjects and true friends of the established government and succession in the prominent house of Hanover that you are reportedly finding effective ways to protect us from the threats against His Majesty’s happy government, posed by Catiline, under the guise of Cato; by the author of a book titled The Fable of the Bees, and others like them, who are undoubtedly allies of the Pretender, working hard to undermine and destroy our constitution while pretending to defend it. Your wise choice to completely suppress such immoral writings, along with your directive to present them immediately to some of the grand juries, will clearly show the nation that attempts against Christianity will not be tolerated here. This reassurance will ease people’s minds from the anxiety that this despicable group of writers has tried to ignite; it will serve as strong support for the Protestant faith; effectively thwart the schemes and hopes of the Pretender; and better secure us from any changes in government. No loyal Briton could remain indifferent if the public suspected even the slightest neglect from anyone in the ministry or began to feel nervous that nothing was being done to safeguard their religion from even the smallest hint of danger. And, my Lord, this anxiety could easily arise if no steps were taken to discourage and crush the open advocates of irreligion. It’s hard to shake off jealousy once it takes root. Jealousy, my Lord! It’s as fierce a demon as any. I’ve seen a frail little woman so inflamed by jealousy that five strong men couldn’t hold her back. My Lord, please continue your rightful efforts to protect the people from this dreadful jealousy: because among the various causes and types of it, the worries regarding their religion are the most intense, extreme, and frantic of all; and as a result, have, in the past, led to various troubles that you have committed to preventing, dutifully respecting the royal authority and following the example of His Majesty, who has kindly given directions (which you are very familiar with) for maintaining unity in the church and the purity of the Christian faith. It’s pointless to think that the people of England will ever abandon their religion or be very fond of any ministry that won’t defend it, as the wisdom of this ministry has done, against such bold attacks as those made by the writers; for, as you know, the term 'writer' accurately describes any author who, under whatever convincing guise of good sense, tries to undermine religion, and therefore the contentment and peace, the happiness of his fellow subjects, with subtle, crafty, and misleading arguments and suggestions. May Heaven protect us from the unbearable miseries that the Church of Rome would impose! Tyranny is the scourge of human society, and there is no tyranny worse than that of the triple crown. Therefore, this free and happy people rightfully harbors a deep hatred and fear of Popery, and of anything that resembles support or inclination toward it; but they also abhor and fear the violence against Christianity itself, by our British Catilines, who conceal their treacherous intentions against it under false pretenses of concern and goodwill toward our cherished Protestant religion, while they clearly show that the title of Protestants does not belong to them, unless it can apply to those who essentially protest against all religion.

And really the people cannot be much blamed for being a little unwilling to part with their religion: for they tell ye that there is a God; and that God governs the world; and that he is wont to bless or blast a kingdom, in proportion to the degrees of religion or irreligion prevailing in it. Your Lordship has a fine collection of books; and, which is a finer thing still, you do certainly understand them, and can turn to an account of any important affair in a trice. I would therefore fain know, whether your Lordship can show, from any writer, let him be as profane as the scribblers would have him, that any one empire, kingdom, country, or province, great or small, did not dwindle and sink, and was confounded, when it once failed of providing studiously for the support of religion.

And honestly, people can’t be blamed too much for being hesitant to let go of their religion. They believe that there is a God who controls the world and that He tends to bless or curse a kingdom based on how much religion or irreligion exists there. Your Lordship has an impressive collection of books, and even better, you truly understand them and can quickly reference important matters. So, I’d like to know if you can show, from any author—regardless of how irreverent the critics claim he is—that any empire, kingdom, country, or province, no matter how large or small, didn’t decline and fall apart when it failed to prioritize the support of religion.

The scribblers talk much of the Roman government, and liberty, and the spirit of the old Romans. But it is undeniable, [243]that their most plausible talk of these things is all pretence, and grimace, and an artifice to serve the purposes of irreligion; and by consequence to render the people uneasy, and ruin the kingdom. For if they did in reality esteem, and would faithfully recommend to their countrymen, the sentiments and principles, the main purposes and practices of the wise and prosperous Romans, they would, in the first place, put us in mind, that old Rome was as remarkable for observing and promoting natural religion, as new Rome has been for corrupting that which is revealed. And as the old Romans did signally recommend themselves to the favour of heaven, by their faithful care of religion; so were they abundantly convinced, and did accordingly acknowledge, with universal consent, that their care of religion was the great means1 of God’s preserving the empire, and crowning it with conquest and success, prosperity and glory. Hence it was, that when their orators were bent upon exerting their utmost in moving and persuading the people, upon any occasion, they ever put them in mind of their religion, if that could be any way affected by the point in debate; not doubting that the people would determine in their favour, if they could but demonstrate, that the safety of religion depended upon the success of their cause. And, indeed, neither the Romans, nor any other nation upon earth, did ever suffer their established religion to be openly ridiculed, exploded, or opposed: and I am sure, your Lordship would not, for all the world, that this thing would be done with impunity amongst us, which was never endured in the world before. Did ever any man, since the blessed revelation of the gospel, run riot upon Christianity, as some men, nay, and some few women too, have lately done? must the devil grow rampant at this rate, and not to be called coram nobis? Why should not he content himself to carry off people in the common way, the way of cursing and swearing, Sabbath breaking and cheating, bribery, and hypocrisy, drunkenness and whoring, and such kind of things as he used to do? never let him domineer in mens mouths and writings, as he does now, with loud, tremendous infidelity, blasphemy and profaneness, enough to frighten the King’s subjects out of their wits. We are now come to a [244]short question: God or the devil? that is the word; and time will show, who and who goes together. Thus much may be said at present, that those have abundantly shown their spirit of opposition to sacred things, who have not only inveighed against the national profession and exercise of religion; and endeavoured, with bitterness and dexterity, to render it odious and contemptible, but are solicitous to hinder multitudes of the natives of this island from having the very seeds of religion sown among them with advantage.

The writers keep talking a lot about the Roman government, freedom, and the spirit of the ancient Romans. But it's clear, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that their most convincing discussions on these topics are all just a facade, a show, and a trick to promote irreligion; which in turn makes the people uneasy and jeopardizes the kingdom. If they truly valued and genuinely wanted to recommend the beliefs and values, the main goals and practices of the wise and successful Romans, they would first remind us that ancient Rome was as notable for observing and promoting natural religion as modern Rome has been for corrupting revealed religion. Just as the old Romans earned the favor of heaven through their genuine concern for religion, they were also firmly convinced, and recognized collectively, that caring for religion was key to God preserving the empire, giving it victories, prosperity, and glory. Thus, when their speakers aimed to persuade the people in any matter, they always reminded them of their religion if it could relate to the topic at hand; confidently sure that the people would side with them if they could show that the safety of their faith depended on the success of their cause. Indeed, neither the Romans nor any other nation on earth has ever allowed their established religion to be openly mocked, rejected, or attacked: and I know your Lordship would not want this to happen without consequence among us, something that has never been tolerated in the world before. Has any man, since the blessed revelation of the gospel, ever behaved as recklessly towards Christianity, as some men—and even some women—have done recently? Should the devil run rampant like this and not be called coram nobis? Why can’t he just stick to leading people astray in the usual ways, like cursing, swearing, breaking the Sabbath, cheating, bribery, hypocrisy, drunkenness, and promiscuity, the same things he used to do? He shouldn't be allowed to dominate people's conversations and writings as he does now, with loud, fearsome disbelief, blasphemy, and profaneness, enough to drive the King’s subjects crazy. We have now come to a [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__] simple question: God or the devil? That's the question; and time will reveal who aligns with whom. It's worth noting that those have clearly demonstrated their opposition to sacred matters who not only rant against the national practice of religion but also work with bitterness and skill to make it seem unattractive and contemptible, while actively trying to prevent many people from gaining the very foundations of religion sown among them properly.

Arguments are urged, with the utmost vehemence, against the education of poor children in the charity schools, though there hath not one just reason been offered against the provision made for that education. The things that have been objected against it are not, in fact, true; and nothing ought to be regarded, by serious and wise men, as a weighty or just argument, if it is not a true one. How hath Catiline the confidence left to look any man in the face, after he hath spent more confidence than most mens whole stock amounts to, in saying, that this pretended charity has, in effect, destroyed all other charities, which were before given to the aged, sick, and impotent.

Arguments are put forward, with great intensity, against the education of poor children in charity schools, yet no valid reason has been provided against that educational support. The objections raised are simply not true; and nothing should be considered a serious or reasonable argument by thoughtful and wise people if it isn't based in truth. How does Catiline still have the nerve to look anyone in the eye after he has spent more confidence than most people have in total, claiming that this so-called charity has actually destroyed all other forms of charity that were previously offered to the elderly, sick, and disabled?

It seems pretty clear, that if those, who do not contribute to any charity school, are become more uncharitable to any other object than formerly they were, their want of charity to the one, is not owing to their contribution to the other. And as to those who do contribute to these schools; they are so far from being more sparing in their relief of other objects, than they were before, that the poor widows, the aged and the impotent do plainly receive more relief from them, in proportion to their numbers and abilities, than from any the same numbers of men under the same circumstances of fortune, who do not concern themselves with charity schools, in any respect, but in condemning and decrying them. I will meet Catiline at the Grecian coffee-house any day in the week, and by an enumeration of particular persons, in as great a number as he pleaseth, demonstrate the truth of what I say. But I do not much depend upon his giving me the meeting, because it is his business, not to encourage demonstrations of the truth, but to throw disguises upon it; otherwise, he never could have allowed himself, after representing the charity schools as intended to breed up children to reading and writing, and a sober behaviour, that they may be qualified to be servants, immediately to [245]add these words, a sort of idle and rioting vermin, by which the kingdom is already almost devoured, and are become every where a public nuisance, &c. What? Is it owing to the charity schools, that servants are become so idle, such rioting vermin, such a public nuisance; that women-servants turn whores, and the men-servants robbers, house-breakers, and sharpers? (as he says they commonly do). Is this owing to the charity schools? or, if it is not, how comes he to allow himself the liberty of representing these schools as a means of increasing this load of mischief, which is indeed too plainly fallen upon the public? The imbibing principles of virtue hath not, usually, been thought the chief occasion of running into vice. If the early knowledge of truth, and of our obligations to it, were the surest means of departing from it, nobody would doubt, that the knowledge of truth was instilled into Catiline very early, and with the utmost care. It is a good pretty thing in him to spread a report, and to lay so much stress upon it as he does, that there is more collected at the church doors in a day, to make these poor boys and girls appear in caps and livery-coats, than for all the poor in a year. O rare Catiline! This point you will carry most swimmingly; for you have no witnesses against you, nor any living soul to contradict you, except the collectors and overseers of the poor, and all other principal inhabitants of most of the parishes, where any charity schools are in England.

It’s quite clear that if those who don’t contribute to any charity schools are becoming less charitable towards other causes than they used to be, their lack of charity towards the schools isn’t because they’re giving to others. And for those who do support these schools, they are far from being more stingy in their help to other causes than they were before; in fact, the poor widows, the elderly, and the disabled clearly receive more assistance from them, relative to their numbers and means, than from any similar number of people in the same financial situation who don’t get involved with charity schools, except to criticize and attack them. I’d be happy to meet Catiline at the Grecian coffee house any day of the week, and by listing specific people, as many as he likes, prove my point. However, I don’t really expect him to want to meet because it’s in his interest to obscure the truth rather than support it; otherwise, he wouldn’t have claimed that charity schools aim to teach kids to read and write, and to behave well so they can become good servants, and then followed it up with the comment about them being a kind of lazy, unruly pests that are already almost consuming the kingdom and have become a public nuisance, etc. What? Is it really due to charity schools that servants have become so lazy, such unruly pests, such a public nuisance, that female servants have become sex workers and male servants thieves, burglars, and con artists? (as he claims they often are). Is this because of charity schools? Or if it isn’t, how can he allow himself to suggest that these schools contribute to this heavy burden of issues that is obviously affecting society? Teaching principles of virtue hasn’t typically been seen as a major cause of falling into vice. If early knowledge of truth and our duties to it were the surest way to stray from it, no one would doubt that Catiline was instilled with knowledge of truth very early on and with great care. It's amusing for him to spread rumors and emphasize that more is collected at church doors in a day to have these poor boys and girls appear in caps and livery coats than is collected for all the poor in a year. Oh, clever Catiline! You handle this point quite effortlessly; after all, you have no witnesses against you and no one to contradict you except the collectors and overseers of the poor, and all the other prominent residents of most parishes where there are charity schools in England.

The jest of it is, my Lord, that these scribblers would still be thought good moral men. But, when men make it their business to mislead and deceive their neighbours, and that in matters of moment, by distorting and disguising the truth, by misrepresentations and false insinuations; if such men are not guilty of usurpation, while they take upon them the character of good moral men, then it is not immoral, in any man, to be false and deceitful, in cases where the law cannot touch him for being so, and morality bears no relation to truth and fair dealing. However, I shall not be very willing to meet one of these moral men upon Hounslow-heath, if I should happen to ride that way without pistols. For I have a notion, that they who have no conscience in one point, do not much abound with it in another. Your Lordship, who judges accurately of men, as well as books, will easily imagine, if you had no other knowledge of the charity schools, that there must be something very excellent in them [246]because such kind of men as these are so warm in opposing them.

The gist of it is, my Lord, that these writers still want to be seen as good moral people. But when people make it their mission to mislead and deceive others, especially on important issues, by twisting and hiding the truth, through misrepresentations and false insinuations; if these people aren't guilty of taking advantage of others while pretending to be good moral individuals, then it’s not wrong for anyone to be dishonest and deceitful in situations where the law can’t penalize them, and where morality has no connection to truth and fair play. However, I wouldn't be very keen to encounter one of these moral individuals on Hounslow Heath if I happened to ride that way without pistols. I have a feeling that those who lack a conscience in one area don’t have much of it in others. Your Lordship, who accurately judges both people and books, can easily understand that even if you knew nothing else about the charity schools, there must be something truly valuable about them because these kinds of people are so passionate about opposing them. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__]

They tell you, that these schools are hindrances to husbandry and to manufacture. As to husbandry; the children are not kept in the schools longer than till they are of age and strength to perform the principal parts of it, or to bear constant labour in it; and even while they are under this course of education, your Lordship may depend upon it, that they shall never be hindered from working in the fields, or being employed in such labour as they are capable of, in any parts of the year, when they can get such employment for the support of their parents and themselves. In this case, the parents, in the several counties, are proper judges of their several situations and circumstances, and at the same time, not so very fond of their children getting a little knowledge, rather than a little money, but that they will find other employment for them than going to school, whenever they can get a penny by so doing. And the case is the same as to the manufactures; the trustees of the charity schools, and the parents of the children bred in them, would be thankful to those gentlemen who make the objection, if they would assist in removing it, by subscribing to a fund for joining the employment of manufacture, to the business of learning to read and write in the charity schools. This would be a noble work: it is already effected by the supporters of some charity schools, and is aimed at, and earnestly desired by all the rest: but Rome was not built in a day. Till this great thing can be brought about, let the masters and managers of the manufactures in the several places of the kingdom, be so charitable as to employ the poor children for a certain number of hours in every day, in the respective manufactures, while the trustees are taking care to fill up their other hours of the day, in the usual duties of the charity schools. It is an easy matter for party-men, for designing and perverted minds, to invent colourable, fallacious arguments, and to offer railing, under the appearance of reasoning, against the best things in the world. But undoubtedly, no impartial man, who is affected with a serious sense of goodness, and a real love of his country, can think this proper and just view of the charity schools, liable to any just weighty objection, or refuse to contribute his endeavours to improve and raise them to that perfection which is proposed in them. In the mean time, let no man be so weak or so wicked as to deny, [247]that when poor children cannot meet with employment in any other honest way, rather than suffer their tender age to be spent in idleness, or in learning the arts of lying, and swearing, and stealing, it is true charity to them, and good service done to our country, to employ them in learning the principles of religion and virtue, till their age and strength will enable them to become servants in families, or to be engaged in husbandry, or manufacture, or any kind of mechanic trade or laborious employment; for to these laborious employments are the charity children generally, if not always turned, as soon as they become capable of them: and therefore Catiline may be pleased to retract his objection concerning shop-keepers, or retailers of commodities, wherein he has affirmed, that their employments, which he says ought to fall to the share of children of their own degree, are mostly anticipated and engrossed by the managers of the charity schools. He must excuse my acquainting your Lordship, that this affirmation is in fact directly false, which is an inconvenience very apt to fall upon his affirmations, as it has particularly done upon one of them more, which I would mention. For he is not ashamed roundly to assert, That the principles of our common people are debauched in our charity schools, who are taught, as soon as they can speak, to blabber out High-church and Ormond, and so are bred up to be traitors before they know what treason signifies. Your Lordship, and other persons of integrity, whose words are the faithful representatives of their meaning, would now think, if I had not given you a key to Catiline’s talk, that he has been fully convinced, that the children in the charity schools are bred up to be traitors.

They say that these schools are obstacles to farming and manufacturing. Regarding farming, the kids don't stay in school longer than they need to be strong enough to do the main tasks or work hard at it. Even during their education, your Lordship can count on the fact that they won't be prevented from working in the fields or engaged in jobs they can handle at any time of the year when they can find work to support themselves and their parents. In this situation, parents in different counties know best about their own circumstances and aren't too keen on their children gaining a bit of knowledge instead of earning some money. They'll look for other work for them instead of sending them to school whenever they can make some cash. The same applies to manufacturing; the trustees of the charity schools and the parents of the kids in them would appreciate those who raise concerns if they would help address them by contributing to a fund that combines manufacturing jobs with education in reading and writing at charity schools. This would be a great initiative: it’s already been achieved by some charity school supporters and is a goal that all the others aspire to; but Rome wasn’t built in a day. Until this important goal is reached, let the masters and managers of manufacturing in different regions of the kingdom be kind enough to employ poor children for a certain number of hours each day in their respective trades while the trustees ensure that the rest of the children's time is filled with the usual tasks of charity schools. It’s easy for politically motivated individuals with twisted agendas to create misleading arguments and pretend to reason against the best ideas. But no fair-minded person who genuinely cares for goodness and loves their country can view the charity schools in the negative light described without valid concerns or refuse to contribute towards making them better and achieving the ideals they aim for. In the meantime, let no one be foolish or wicked enough to deny that when poor children can't find honest work elsewhere, rather than letting their youth be wasted in idleness or in learning deceitful behaviors, it is true charity and a service to our country to have them learn the principles of religion and virtue until they are old and strong enough to work in families or engage in farming, manufacturing, or any trade or hard labor; because these charity children generally, if not always, end up in hard jobs as soon as they are able. Therefore, Catiline might want to take back his complaints about shopkeepers or sellers of goods, claiming their jobs should go to children of their own class, which he argues are often taken by the managers of charity schools. I must inform your Lordship that this claim is simply false, which is a common issue with his assertions, as it has been with another claim of his that I would like to mention. He isn't ashamed to assert boldly that the morals of our common people are corrupted in charity schools, where children are taught, as soon as they can talk, to parrot High-church and Ormond and are raised to become traitors before they even understand what treason means. Your Lordship, and other trustworthy individuals, whose words truly reflect their intentions, might think that if I hadn’t revealed the key to Catiline’s rhetoric, he is thoroughly convinced that the kids in the charity schools are being raised to be traitors.

My Lord, if any one master be suffered by the trustees to continue in any charity school, against whom proof can be brought, that he is disaffected to the government, or that he does not as faithfully teach the children obedience and loyalty to the King, as any other duty in the catechism, then I will gratify Catiline with a licence to pull down the schools, and hang up the masters, according to his heart’s desire.

My Lord, if any single master is allowed by the trustees to stay in any charity school, and there is evidence that he is against the government or that he does not teach the children to be obedient and loyal to the King as faithfully as he teaches any other duty in the catechism, then I will give Catiline permission to shut down the schools and hang the masters, as he wishes.

These, and such things as these, are urged with the like bitterness, and as little truth, in the book mentioned above, viz. The Fable of the Bees; or, Private Vices, Public Benefits, &c. Catiline explodes the fundamental articles of faith, impiously comparing the doctrine of the blessed Trinity to fee-fa-fum: this profligate author of the Fable is not only an [248]auxiliary to Catiline in opposition to faith, but has taken upon him to tear up the very foundations of moral virtue, and establish vice in its room. The best physician in the world did never labour more, to purge the natural body of bad qualities, than this bumble-bee has done to purge the body-politic of good ones. He himself bears testimony to the truth of this charge against him: for when he comes to the conclusion of his book, he makes this observation upon himself and his performance: “After this, I flatter myself to have demonstrated, that neither the friendly qualities and kind affections that are natural to man, nor the real virtues he is capable of acquiring by reason and self-denial, are the foundation of society; but that what we call evil in this world, moral as well as natural, is the grand principle that makes us sociable creatures, the solid basis, the life and support of all trades and employments without exception: that there we must look for the true origin of all arts and sciences, and that the moment evil ceases, the society must be spoiled, if not totally dissolved.

These and similar things are pushed forward with the same bitterness and as little truth in the previously mentioned book, The Fable of the Bees; or, Private Vices, Public Benefits, etc. Catiline rejects the core articles of faith, irreverently comparing the doctrine of the blessed Trinity to a childish rhyme. This reckless author of The Fable is not just a [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__] supporter of Catiline in opposing faith, but has also taken it upon himself to destroy the very foundations of moral virtue and replace them with vice. No physician in the world has ever worked harder to rid the natural body of bad qualities than this bumblebee has to cleanse the body politic of good ones. He himself confirms this accusation: when he concludes his book, he reflects on himself and his work, stating, “After this, I flatter myself to have demonstrated that neither the friendly qualities and kind affections inherent in humans, nor the true virtues that one can acquire through reason and self-denial, are the foundation of society; rather, what we call evil in this world, both moral and natural, is the main principle that makes us social beings, the solid foundation, the life and support of all trades and occupations without exception: here is where we must seek the true origin of all arts and sciences, and when evil ceases, society will be spoiled, if not completely dissolved.”

Now, my Lord, you see the grand design, the main drift of Catiline and his confederates; now the scene opens, and the secret springs appear; now the fraternity adventure to speak out, and surely no band of men ever dared to speak at this rate before; now you see the true cause of all their enmity to the poor charity schools; it is levelled against religion: religion, my Lord, which the schools are instituted to promote, and which this confederacy is resolved to destroy; for the schools are certainly one of the greatest instruments of religion and virtue, one of the firmest bulwarks against Popery, one of the best recommendations of this people to the Divine favour, and therefore one of the greatest blessings to our country of any thing that has been set on foot since our happy Reformation and deliverance from the idolatry and tyranny of Rome. If any trivial inconvenience did arise from so excellent a work, as some little inconvenience attends all human institutions and affairs, the excellency of the work would still be matter of joy, and find encouragement with all the wise and the good, who despise such insignificant objections against it, as other men are not ashamed to raise and defend.

Now, my Lord, you can see the big picture, the main aim of Catiline and his associates; the scene is set, and the hidden motives are revealed; the group is finally bold enough to speak out, and certainly, no group of men has ever dared to speak like this before; now you understand the real reason for their hostility toward the charity schools; it's aimed at religion: religion, my Lord, which the schools were created to support, and which this group is determined to destroy; because the schools are definitely one of the greatest tools for promoting religion and virtue, one of the strongest defenses against Catholicism, one of the best ways to earn Divine favor for this people, and therefore one of the greatest blessings to our country of anything that has been established since our fortunate Reformation and liberation from the idolatry and oppression of Rome. If any minor inconveniences arise from such a remarkable effort, as some minor issues accompany all human institutions and affairs, the greatness of the work would still be a cause for joy and would receive support from all the wise and good, who ignore such trivial objections against it, which others are not ashamed to raise and defend.

Now your Lordship also sees the true cause of the satire, which is continually formed against the clergy, by Catiline and his confederates. Why should Mr. Hall’s conviction [249]and execution be any more an objection against the clergy, than Mr. Layer’s against the gentlemen of the long robe? Why, because the profession of the law does not immediately relate to religion: and therefore Catiline will allow, that if any persons of that profession should be traitors, or otherwise vicious, all the rest may, notwithstanding the iniquity of a brother, be as loyal and virtuous as any other subjects in the King’s dominions: but because matters of religion are the professed concern, and the employment of the clergy; therefore Catiline’s logic makes it out, as clear as the day, that if any of them be disaffected to the government, all the rest are so too; or if any of them be chargeable with vice, this consequence from it is plain, that all or most of the rest are as vicious as the devil can make them. I shall not trouble your Lordship with a particular vindication of the clergy, nor is there any reason that I should, for they are already secure of your Lordship’s good affection to them, and they are able to vindicate themselves wheresoever such a vindication is wanted, being as faithful, and virtuous, and learned, a body of men as any in Europe; and yet they suspend the publication of arguments in a solemn defence of themselves, because they neither expect nor desire approbation and esteem from impious and abandoned men; and, at the same time, they cannot doubt that all persons, not only of great penetration, but of common sense, do now clearly see, that the arrows shot against the clergy are intended to wound and destroy the divine institution of the ministerial offices, and to extirpate the religion which the sacred offices were appointed to preserve and promote. This was always supposed and suspected by every honest and impartial man; but it is now demonstrated by those who before had given occasion to such suspicions, for they have now openly declared, that faith, in the principal articles of it, is not only needless, but ridiculous, that the welfare of human society must sink and perish under the encouragement of virtue, and that immorality is the only firm foundation whereon the happiness of mankind can be built and subsist. The publication of such tenets as these, an open avowed proposal to extirpate the Christian faith and all virtue, and to fix moral evil for the basis of the government, is so stunning, so shocking, so frightful, so flagrant an enormity, that if it should be imputed to us as a national guilt, the Divine vengeance must inevitably fall upon us. And how far this enormity would [250]become a national guilt, if it should pass disregarded and unpunished, a casuist less skilful and discerning than your Lordship may easily guess. And, no doubt, your Lordship’s good judgment, in so plain and important a case, has made you, like a wise and faithful patriot, resolve to use your utmost endeavours in your high station, to defend religion from the bold attacks made upon it.

Now your Lordship can see the real reason behind the ongoing criticism of the clergy from Catiline and his allies. Why should Mr. Hall's conviction [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_4__] and execution be any more of a setback for the clergy than Mr. Layer's troubles for the lawyers? The law profession isn't directly tied to religion, so Catiline thinks that if some lawyers turn out to be traitors or morally corrupt, the rest can still be as loyal and virtuous as any other subjects in the King’s realm. But since religion is the primary focus and duty of the clergy, Catiline argues that if any of them are disloyal to the government, then the rest must be as well; or if one is accused of wrongdoing, it follows that most others must share in that vice. I won't take up your time with a detailed defense of the clergy, nor is it necessary, as they already have your Lordship's support. They are capable of defending themselves wheresoever such defense is needed, being as faithful, virtuous, and knowledgeable as any group in Europe. Yet they choose to hold back on publishing arguments to defend themselves, as they seek neither approval nor respect from godless and depraved individuals. At the same time, they are confident that everyone, from sharp thinkers to those with common sense, understands that the attacks against the clergy aim to undermine and destroy the divine institution of ministerial roles, as well as to eradicate the religion that those roles were established to uphold and promote. This has always been suspected by honest and fair-minded individuals, but now it’s clear, as those who once fueled such suspicions have openly stated that having faith in its fundamental tenets is not just unnecessary but laughable, claiming that the well-being of society would collapse without support for virtue, and that immorality is the only solid ground for human happiness. The very publication of these views—an open proposal to eradicate Christian faith and virtue and to establish moral evil as the foundation of government—is so shocking and appalling that if it were to be considered a national wrongdoing, divine retribution would inevitably fall on us. And how severe this wrongdoing would [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_5__] be as a national crime if allowed to go unchecked and unpunished is something anyone with less insight than your Lordship can easily predict. No doubt, your Lordship’s good judgment in this clear and significant matter inspires you, as a wise and loyal patriot, to do everything you can in your important role to protect religion from these brazen attacks.

As soon as I have seen a copy of the bill, for the better security of his Majesty and his happy government, by the better security of religion in Great Britain, your Lordship’s just scheme of politics, your love of your country, and your great services done to it, shall again be acknowledged by,

As soon as I see a copy of the bill, aimed at better protecting His Majesty and his prosperous government, along with strengthening religion in Great Britain, your Lordship's fair political plan, your love for your country, and the significant contributions you've made to it will once again be recognized by,

My Lord,

My Lord,

Your most faithful humble Servant;

Your most faithful humble Servant;

Theophilus Philo-Britannus.

Theophilus Philo-Britannus.

These violent accusations, and the great clamour every where raised against the book, by governors, masters, and other champions of charity schools, together with the advice of friends, and the reflection on what I owed to myself, drew from me the following answer. The candid reader, in the perusal of it, will not be offended at the repetition of some passages, one of which he may have met with twice already, when he shall consider that, to make my defence by itself to the public, I was obliged to repeat what had been quoted in the Letter, since the paper would unavoidably fall into the hands of many who had never seen either the Fable of the Bees, or the Defamatory Letter wrote against it. The Answer was published in the London Journal of August 10, 1723, in these words:

These harsh accusations and the uproar created everywhere against the book by governors, heads of schools, and other supporters of charity schools, along with advice from friends and reflecting on what I owed to myself, led me to write the following response. The honest reader won’t mind seeing some parts repeated, even if they’ve come across them before, when they realize that to present my defense separately to the public, I had to restate what was mentioned in the Letter, since the document would inevitably reach many people who had never seen either the Fable of the Bees or the slanderous Letter written against it. The Answer was published in the London Journal on August 10, 1723, in these words:

Whereas, in the Evening Post of Thursday July 11, a presentment was inserted of the Grand Jury of Middlesex, against the publisher of a book, intituled, The Fable of the Bees; or, Private Vices, Public Benefits; and since that, a passionate and abusive Letter has been published against the same book, and the author of it, in the London Journal of Saturday, July 27; I think myself indispensably obliged to vindicate the above said book against the black aspersions that undeservedly have been cast upon it, being conscious that I have not had the least ill design in composing it. The accusations [251]against it having been made openly in the public papers, it is not equitable the defence of it should appear in a more private manner. What I have to say in my behalf, I shall address to all men of sense and sincerity, asking no other favour of them, than their patience and attention. Setting aside what in that Letter relates to others, and every thing that is foreign and immaterial, I shall begin with the passage that is quoted from the book, viz. “After this, I flatter myself to have demonstrated, that neither the friendly qualities and kind affections that are natural to man, nor the real virtues he is capable of acquiring by reason and self-denial, are the foundation of society; but that what we call evil in this world, moral as well as natural, is the grand principle that makes us sociable creatures; the solid basis, the life and support of all trades and employments without exception: That there we must look for the true origin of all arts and sciences; and that the moment evil ceases, the society must be spoiled, if not totally dissolved.” These 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 very freely, that, if I had wrote with a design to be understood by the meanest capacities, I would not have chose the subject there treated of; or if I had, I would have amplified and explained every period, talked and distinguished magisterially, and never appeared without the fescue in my hand. As for example; to make the passage pointed at intelligible, I would have bestowed a page or two on the meaning of the word Evil; after that I would have taught them, that every defect, every want, was an evil; that on the multiplicity of those wants depended all those mutual services which the individual members of a society pay to each other; and that consequently, the greater variety there was of wants, the larger number of individuals might find their private interest in labouring for the good of others, and, united together, compose one body. Is there a trade or handicraft but what supplies us with something we wanted? This want certainly, before it was supplied, was an evil, which that trade or handicraft was to remedy, and without which it could never have been thought of. Is there an art or science that was not invented to mend some defect! Had this latter not existed, there could have been no occasion for the former to move it. I say, p. 236. “The excellency of human thought [252]and contrivance has been, and is yet nowhere more conspicuous, than in the variety of tools and instruments of workmen and artificers, and the multiplicity of engines, that were all invented, either to assist the weakness of man, to correct his many imperfections, to gratify his laziness, or obviate his impatience.” Several foregoing pages run in the same strain. But what relation has all this to religion or infidelity, more than it has to navigation or the peace in the north?

Whereas, in the Evening Post on Thursday, July 11, a notice was published from the Grand Jury of Middlesex against the publisher of a book titled The Fable of the Bees; or, Private Vices, Public Benefits; and since then, a provocative and insulting letter has been published against the same book and its author in the London Journal on Saturday, July 27; I feel obligated to defend this book against the unfounded accusations made against it, knowing that my intentions in writing it were not malicious. The accusations [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]against the book have been publicly stated in the papers, so it’s only right that my defense should also be made public. What I want to communicate on my behalf is directed to all reasonable and sincere individuals, asking for nothing more than their patience and attention. I will ignore what in that letter pertains to others and everything irrelevant, and will begin with the quote from the book, namely: “After this, I believe I have demonstrated that neither the friendly qualities and kind affections that are natural to humans, nor the true virtues they can develop through reason and self-discipline, are the foundation of society; rather, what we call evil in this world, both moral and natural, is the key principle that makes us social beings; the solid foundation, the lifeblood and support of all trades and professions without exception: That is where we must look for the true origin of all arts and sciences; and that the moment evil disappears, society must falter, if not completely collapse.” I admit these words are in the book, and being both innocent and true, I intend to keep them in all future editions. However, I also acknowledge that if I had aimed to communicate effectively to the simplest minds, I would not have chosen this complex subject; and if I had, I would have elaborated and clarified every sentence, written authoritatively, and never attempted to stand alone without guidance. For instance, to clarify the quoted passage, I would have dedicated a page or two to explaining the term Evil; afterward, I would have detailed that every flaw and every need is an evil; that the multitude of these needs underpins all the mutual services that individuals in society offer one another; and that consequently, the greater the variety of needs, the more individuals can find their own interests in working for the benefit of others, ultimately forming one cohesive body. Is there a trade or craft that doesn’t provide us something we need? This need, undoubtedly, before it was met, was an evil that trade or craft aimed to resolve, and without which it would not have even occurred to people. Is there any art or science that was not created to address some deficiency? Without this latter needing to exist, there would have been no reason for the former to respond. I say, p. 236. “The excellence of human thought [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__]and invention has been evident, and still is, nowhere more than in the variety of tools and instruments of workers and craftsmen, and the multitude of machines that were invented, either to assist human weakness, to correct numerous imperfections, to satisfy laziness, or to relieve impatience.” Several earlier pages follow this same line of reasoning. But what connection does all of this have to religion or disbelief, any more than it does to navigation or peace in the north?

The many hands that are employed to supply our natural wants, that are really such, as hunger, thirst, and nakedness, are inconsiderable to the vast numbers that are all innocently gratifying the depravity of our corrupt nature, I mean the industrious, who get a livelihood by their honest labour, to which the vain and voluptuous must be beholden for all their tools and implements of ease and luxury. “The short-sighted vulgar, in the chain of causes, seldom can see farther than one link; but those who can enlarge their view, and will give themselves leisure of gazing on the prospect of concatenated events, may, in a hundred places, see good spring up, and pullulate from evil, as naturally as chickens do from eggs.”

The many individuals who work to fulfill our basic needs—such as hunger, thirst, and clothing—are trivial compared to the vast number of those who merely indulge in the faults of our flawed nature. I refer to the diligent individuals who earn their living through honest labor, which the vain and pleasure-seeking depend on for all their tools and comforts. "The short-sighted masses often can only see one link in the chain of causes, but those who can broaden their perspective and take the time to view the bigger picture of interconnected events can witness good emerging from evil in many places, just as naturally as chicks hatch from eggs."

The words are to be found p. 46. in the Remark made on the seeming paradox; that in the grumbling hive,

The words can be found on p. 46 in the remark about the apparent paradox; that in the complaining hive,

The worst of all the multitude

The worst of all the crowd

Did something for the common good.

Did something for the greater good.

Where, in many instances, may be amply discovered, how unsearchable Providence daily orders the comforts of the laborious, and even the deliverances of the oppressed, secretly to come forth, not only from the vices of the luxurious, but likewise the crimes of the flagitious and most abandoned.

Where, in many instances, it can be clearly seen how mysterious Providence daily arranges the comforts of hardworking people and even the relief of the oppressed, often arising not just from the wrongdoings of the wealthy, but also from the crimes of the wicked and the most despicable.

Men of candour and capacity perceive, at first sight, that in the passage censured, there is no meaning hid or expressed that is not altogether contained in the following words: “Man is a necessitous creature on innumerable accounts, and yet from those very necessities, and nothing else, arise all trades and employments.” But it is ridiculous for men to meddle with books above their sphere.

Honest men of skill see immediately that in the criticized passage, there’s no hidden or explicit meaning that isn’t fully captured in the following words: “Man is a needy creature for countless reasons, and yet from those very needs, and nothing else, come all trades and jobs.” Yet, it’s foolish for people to engage with books that are beyond their understanding.

The Fable of the Bees was designed for the entertainment of people of knowledge and education, when they have an idle hour which they know not how to spend better: it is a book of severe and exalted morality, that contains a strict [253]test of virtue, an infallible touchstone to distinguish the real from the counterfeited, and shows many actions to be faulty that are palmed upon the world for good ones: it describes the nature and symptoms of human passions, detects their force and disguises; and traces self-love in its darkest recesses; I might safely add, beyond any other system of ethics: the whole is a rhapsody void of order or method, but no part of it has any thing in it that is sour or pedantic; the style, I confess, is very unequal, sometimes very high and rhetorical, and sometimes very low, and even very trivial; such as it is, I am satisfied that it has diverted persons of great probity and virtue, and unquestionable good sense; and I am in no fear that it will ever cease to do so while it is read by such. Whoever has seen the violent charge against this book, will pardon me for saying more in commendation of it, than a man, not labouring under the same necessity, would do of his own work on any other occasion.

The Fable of the Bees was created for the enjoyment of educated people during their leisure time when they’re seeking something meaningful to do: it's a book with serious and elevated morals, providing a rigorous [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__]test of virtue, an infallible way to distinguish what's real and what’s fake. It reveals many actions that are presented to the world as good but are actually flawed. It explores the nature and signs of human passions, uncovers their power and disguises, and digs into the depths of self-love. I could confidently say it outshines any other ethical system. The entire work may seem chaotic and unorganized, but there’s nothing about it that feels bitter or overly academic. The writing style can be quite inconsistent, sometimes very elevated and rhetorical, other times low and even trivial. Yet, I believe it has entertained people of great integrity and wisdom, and I’m sure it will continue to do so as long as it is read by such individuals. Anyone who has witnessed the harsh criticism directed at this book will understand why I might praise it more than usual—a luxury not often afforded to someone discussing their own work.

The encomiums upon stews complained of in the presentment are no where in the book. What might give a handle to this charge, must be a political dissertation concerning the best method to guard and preserve women of honour and virtue from the insults of dissolute men, whose passions are often ungovernable: As in this there is a dilemma between two evils, which it is impracticable to shun both, so I have treated it with the utmost caution, and begin thus: “I am far from encouraging vice, and should think it an unspeakable felicity for a state, if the sin of uncleanness could be utterly banished from it; but I am afraid it is impossible.” I give my reasons why I think it so; and, speaking occasionally of the music-houses at Amsterdam, I give a short account of them, than which nothing can be more harmless; and I appeal to all impartial judges, whether, what I have said of them is not ten times more proper to give men (even the voluptuous of any state) a disgust and aversion against them, than it is to raise any criminal desire. I am sorry the Grand Jury should conceive that I published this with a design to debauch the nation, without considering, that, in the first place, there is not a sentence nor a syllable that can either offend the chastest ear, or sully the imagination of the most vicious; or, in the second, that the matter complained of is manifestly addressed to magistrates and politicians, or, at least, the more serious and thinking part of mankind; whereas a general corruption of manners as to lewdness, to be produced [254]by reading, can only be apprehended from obscenities easily purchased, and every way adapted to the tastes and capacities of the heedless multitude and unexperienced youth of both sexes: but that the performance, so outrageously exclaimed against, was never calculated for either of these classes of people, is self-evident from every circumstance. The beginning of the prose is altogether philosophical, and hardly intelligible to any that have not been used to matters of speculation; and the running title of it is so far from being specious or inviting, that without having read the book itself, nobody knows what to make of it, while, at the same time, the price is five shillings. From all which it is plain, that if the book contains any dangerous tenets, I have not been very solicitous to scatter them among the people. I have not said a word to please or engage them, and the greatest compliment I have made them has been, Apage vulgus. But as nothing (I say, p. 138) would more clearly demonstrate the falsity of my notions than that, the generality of the people should fall in with them, so I do not expect the approbation of the multitude. I write not to many, nor seek for any well-wishers, but among the few that can think abstractly, and have their minds elevated above the vulgar.” Of this I have made no ill use, and ever preserved such a tender regard to the public, that when I have advanced any uncommon sentiments, I have used all the precautions imaginable, that they might not be hurtful to weak minds that might casually dip into the book. When (p. 137.) I owned, “That it was my sentiment that no society could be raised into a rich and mighty kingdom, or so raised subsist in their wealth and power for any considerable time, without the vices of man,” I had premised, what was true, “That I had never said or imagined, that man could not be virtuous as well in a rich and mighty kingdom, as in the most pitiful commonwealth:” which caution, a man less scrupulous than myself might have thought superfluous, when he had already explained himself on that head in the very same paragraph which begins thus: “I lay down, as a first principle, that in all societies, great or small, it is the duty of every member of it to be good; that virtue ought to be encouraged, vice discountenanced, the laws obeyed, and the transgressors punished.” There is not a line in the book that contradicts this doctrine, and I defy my enemies to disprove what I have advanced, p. 139, “That if I have [255]shown the way to worldly greatness, I have always, without hesitation, preferred the road that leads to virtue.” No man ever took more pains not to be misconstrued than myself: mind p. 138, when I say, “That societies cannot be raised to wealth and power, and the top of earthly glory, without vices; I do not think, that by so saying, I bid men be vicious, any more than I bid them be quarrelsome or covetous, when I affirm, that the profession of the law could not be maintained in such numbers and splendour, if there was not abundance of too selfish and litigious people.” A caution of the same nature I had already given towards the end of the Preface, on account of a palpable evil inseparable from the felicity of London. To search into the real causes of things, imports no ill design, nor has any tendency to do harm. A man may write on poisons, and be an excellent physician. Page 235, I say, “No man needs to guard himself against blessings, but calamities require hands to avert them.” And lower, “It is the extremities of heat and cold, the inconstancy and badness of seasons, the violence and uncertainty of winds, the vast power and treachery of water, the rage and untractableness of fire, and the stubbornness and sterility of the earth, that rack our invention, how we shall either avoid the mischiefs they produce, or correct the malignity of them, and turn their several forces to our own advantage a thousand different ways.” While a man is inquiring into the occupation of vast multitudes, I cannot see why he may not say all this and much more, without being accused of depreciating and speaking slightly of the gifts and munificence of heaven; when, at the same time, he demonstrates, that without rain and sunshine this globe would not be habitable to creatures like ourselves. It is an out-of-the-way subject, and I would never quarrel with the man who should tell me that it might as well have been let alone: yet I always thought it would please men of any tolerable taste, and not be easily lost.

The praises for stews mentioned in the indictment are nowhere to be found in the book. What might have triggered this accusation likely comes from a political essay on the best methods to protect and uphold honorable and virtuous women from the advances of immoral men, whose desires are often uncontrollable. In this situation, there’s a conflict between two evils, which cannot be entirely avoided, so I’ve approached it with utmost care, starting with, “I absolutely do not support vice, and I would consider it a tremendous blessing for society if the sin of immorality could be completely eradicated; however, I fear it is impossible.” I provide my reasons for this belief and, while briefly discussing the music venues in Amsterdam, I give a harmless overview of them; I invite all fair-minded individuals to judge whether my comments about them are more likely to inspire disgust and aversion rather than any illicit desire. I regret that the Grand Jury believes I published this with the intent to corrupt the nation without realizing that, firstly, there isn’t a single sentence or word that could offend the most modest ear or taint the imagination of the most immoral; and secondly, the content in question is clearly directed toward magistrates and politicians, or at least the more serious and thoughtful segment of society. However, a widespread moral decay regarding lewdness resulting from reading can truly only stem from obscenities that are easily accessible and catered to the tastes of an unwary populace and inexperienced youth of both genders. It's clear that the work, which has been so vociferously condemned, was never intended for these groups, as evidenced by every detail. The beginning of the prose is purely philosophical and difficult for anyone not accustomed to speculative matters to grasp; its running title is far from enticing or appealing, and without reading the book itself, no one would know what to expect, especially given that it costs five shillings. From all this, it’s apparent that if the book contains any dangerous ideas, I haven’t shown much enthusiasm in spreading them among the people. I haven’t said anything to please or win them over, and the greatest compliment I’ve given them is, Apage vulgus. But as nothing (I repeat, p. 138) would more clearly reveal the falseness of my beliefs than if the general public were to agree with them, I do not expect approval from the masses. I don’t write for many, nor do I seek supporters, but rather among the few who can think abstractly and elevate their minds above the ordinary.” I have made no misuse of this and have always maintained a careful regard for the public, so that when I’ve put forward any unconventional ideas, I've taken all possible precautions to ensure they wouldn’t harm weaker minds that might casually read the book. When (p. 137) I acknowledged, “That it is my belief that no society can rise into a rich and powerful kingdom, or sustain its wealth and power for any substantial time, without the vices of man,” I prefaced this with a statement that was true, “That I had never claimed or imagined that man could not be virtuous both in a rich and powerful kingdom as well as in the most miserable commonwealth”: which caution a less scrupulous person than myself might have thought unnecessary, considering he had already clarified this point in the same paragraph beginning with: “I assert, as a foundational principle, that in all societies, large or small, it is the duty of every member to be good; that virtue should be encouraged, vice discouraged, laws obeyed, and violators punished.” There isn’t a single line in the book that contradicts this principle, and I challenge my critics to disprove what I stated, p. 139, “That if I have [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__]shown the way to worldly greatness, I have always, without hesitation, preferred the path that leads to virtue.” No one has ever worked harder than I have to avoid being misunderstood: mind p. 138, when I state, “That societies cannot achieve wealth and power, and the pinnacle of earthly glory, without vices; I do not think that by stating this, I am encouraging people to be immoral, any more than I encourage them to be quarrelsome or greedy, when I assert that the legal profession could not exist in such numbers and glamor without a surplus of overly selfish and litigious individuals.” A precaution of the same nature I had already provided towards the end of the Preface, due to a clear evil inseparable from the prosperity of London. Investigating the true causes of things does not imply any ill intent nor risks doing harm. A person can write about poisons and still be an excellent doctor. On page 235, I state, “No one needs to protect themselves from blessings, but calamities require measures to prevent them.” And further down, “It is the extremes of heat and cold, the unpredictability and severity of seasons, the fierce and capricious winds, the enormous power and treachery of water, the fury and unmanageable nature of fire, and the obstinacy and barrenness of the earth that challenge our creativity in figuring out how to either avoid the dangers they cause or mitigate their malignancy and turn their various forces to our advantage in countless ways.” While someone is exploring the work of vast numbers, I see no reason why they can’t express all of this and much more without being accused of downplaying or speaking lightly of the gifts and generosity of heaven; while concurrently demonstrating that without rain and sunshine, this planet would not be livable for beings like us. It’s a niche subject, and I wouldn’t argue with anyone who claimed it could have been left untouched: yet I always believed it would delight individuals with any reasonable taste and wouldn’t easily be overlooked.

My vanity I could never conquer, so well as I could wish; and I am too proud to commit crimes, and as to the main scope, the intent of the book, I mean the view it was wrote with, I protest that it has been with the utmost sincerity, what I have declared of it in the Preface, where you will find these words: “If you ask me, why I have done all this, cui bono? And what good these notions will produce? Truly, besides the reader’s diversion, I believe none at all; but if I was asked, what naturally [256]ought to be expected from them? I would answer, That, in the first place, the people who continually find fault with others, by reading them would be taught to look at home, and examining their own consciences, be made ashamed of always railing at what they are more or less guilty of themselves; and that, in the next, those who are so fond of the ease and comforts of a great and flourishing nation, would learn more patiently to submit to those inconveniences, which no government upon earth can remedy, when they should see the impossibility of enjoying any great share of the first, without partaking likewise of the latter.”

My vanity is something I could never fully overcome, as much as I wish I could; and I'm too proud to commit wrongs. As for the main purpose of the book, the reason it was written, I assure you it comes from a place of complete sincerity, as I've stated in the Preface, where you'll find these words: “If you ask me why I've done all this, cui bono? What good are these ideas? Honestly, aside from entertaining the reader, I don't believe they provide any benefit at all. But if I were asked what one might naturally [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_4__]expect from them, I'd say, first, that people who constantly criticize others would learn to look at their own lives and, by reflecting on their own consciences, feel ashamed of always complaining about what they might also be guilty of; and second, that those who enjoy the ease and comforts of a prosperous nation would learn to tolerate the inconveniences that no government in the world can fix, once they realize the impossibility of gaining a significant share of the former without also experiencing the latter.”

The first impression of the Fable of the Bees, which came out in 1714, was never carped at, or publicly taken notice of; and all the reason I can think on, why this second edition should be so unmercifully treated, though it has many precautions which the former wanted, is an Essay on Charity and Charity Schools, which is added to what was printed before. I confess, that it is my sentiment, that all hard and dirty work, ought, in a well-governed nation, to be the lot and portion of the poor, and that to divert their children from useful labour till they are fourteen or fifteen years old, is a wrong method to qualify them for it when are they grown up. I have given several reasons for my opinion in that Essay, to which I refer all impartial men of understanding, assuring them that they will not meet with such monstrous impiety in it as reported. What an advocate I have been for libertinism and immorality, and what an enemy to all instructions of youth in the Christian faith, may be collected from the pains I have taken on education for above seven pages together: and afterwards again, page 193, where speaking of the instructions the children of the poor might receive at church; from which, I say, “Or some other place of worship, I would not have the meanest of a parish that is able to walk to it, be absent on Sundays,” I have these words: “It is the Sabbath, the most useful day in seven, that is set apart for divine service and religious exercise, as well as resting from bodily labour; and it is a duty incumbent on all magistrates, to take a particular care of that day. The poor more especially, and their children, should be made to go to church on it, both in the fore and the afternoon, because they have no time on any other. By precept and example, they ought to be encouraged to [257]it from their very infancy: the wilful neglect of it ought to be counted scandalous; and if downright compulsion to what I urge might seem too harsh, and perhaps impracticable, all diversions at least ought strictly to be prohibited, and the poor hindered from every amusement abroad, that might allure or draw them from it.” If the arguments I have made use of are not convincing, I desire they may be refuted, and I will acknowledge it as a favour in any one that shall convince me of my error, without ill language, by showing me wherein I have been mistaken: but calumny, it seems, is the shortest way of confuting an adversary, when men are touched in a sensible part. Vast sums are gathered for these charity schools, and I understand human nature too well to imagine, that the sharers of the money should hear them spoke against with any patience. I foresaw, therefore, the usage I was to receive, and having repeated the common cant that is made for charity schools, I told my readers, page 165. “This is the general cry, and he that speaks the least word against it, is an uncharitable, hard-hearted, and inhuman, if not a wicked, profane and atheistical wretch.” For this reason, it cannot be thought, that it was a great surprise to me, when in that extraordinary letter to Lord C. I saw myself called “profligate author; the publication of my tenets, an open and avowed proposal to extirpate the Christian faith and all virtue, and what I had done so stunning, so shocking, so frightful, so flagrant an enormity, that it cried for the vengeance of Heaven.” This is no more than what I have already expected from the enemies to truth and fair dealing, and I shall retort nothing on the angry author of that letter, who endeavours to expose me to the public fury. I pity him, and have charity enough to believe that he has been imposed upon himself, by trusting to fame and the hearsay of others; for no man in his wits can imagine that he should have read one quarter part of my book, and write as he does.

The first impression of the Fable of the Bees, which came out in 1714, was never criticized or publicly acknowledged; and the only reason I can think of that this second edition should be treated so harshly, even though it includes many warnings that the first lacked, is an Essay on Charity and Charity Schools that has been added to the previous content. I admit that I believe all tough and dirty work should, in a well-run society, belong to the poor, and that keeping their children from useful labor until they are fourteen or fifteen is not the right way to prepare them for it as adults. I've provided several reasons for my view in that Essay, which I invite any fair-minded person to read, assuring them that they will not find the outrageous blasphemy being reported. You can see how much of an advocate I’ve been for freedom and morality, and how much I oppose all teachings of youth in the Christian faith, from the effort I've put into education over more than seven pages. Then again on page 193, when discussing the instructions poor children might receive at church; from which I state, “Or some other place of worship, I would not want any poor parishioner capable of walking to be absent on Sundays.” I wrote: “It is the Sabbath, the most useful day of the week, set aside for divine service and religious activities, as well as resting from physical work; it is a duty for all authorities to take special care of that day. The poor, especially their children, should be encouraged to attend church both in the morning and the afternoon, because they have no time to go on other days. By teaching and leading by example, they should be motivated to attend since infancy: the willful neglect of it should be deemed scandalous; and while outright force on my part might seem too severe and perhaps impractical, all distractions should be strictly prohibited, and the poor should be kept from any outdoor entertainment that might entice or pull them away from it.” If the arguments I’ve made are not convincing, I hope they can be challenged, and I would appreciate anyone who can show me where I’ve been wrong, without resorting to insults. But it seems slander is the quickest way to defeat an opponent when someone feels they've been genuinely provoked. Huge amounts of money are collected for these charity schools, and I know human nature well enough to think that those who benefit from the funds should tolerate any criticism of them. I anticipated, therefore, the treatment I would receive, and after repeating the usual chants made in favor of charity schools, I told my readers, on page 165: “This is the general cry, and anyone who says even the slightest word against it is considered uncharitable, cold-hearted, inhumane, if not wicked, profane, and atheistic.” For this reason, it’s not surprising to me that in that extraordinary letter to Lord C., I found myself labeled as a “profligate author; that the publication of my beliefs is an open and avowed attempt to wipe out the Christian faith and all virtue, and that what I have done is so shocking, so outrageous, so horrifying, and so glaringly wrong that it calls for divine retribution.” This is exactly what I expected from those opposed to truth and fair dealings, and I will not retaliate against the angry author of that letter, who tries to incite public outrage against me. I feel sorry for him and have enough charity to believe he must have been misled by relying on rumors and hearsay; for no sane person could think he read even a quarter of my book and write as he has.

I am sorry if the words Private Vices, Public Benefits, have ever given any offence to a well-meaning man. The mystery of them is soon unfolded, when once they are rightly understood; but no man of sincerity will question the innocence of them, that has read the last paragraph, where I take my leave of the reader, “and conclude with repeating the seeming paradox, the substance of which is advanced in the title page; that private vices, by the dexterous management [258]of a skilful politician, may be turned into public benefits.” These are the last words of the book, printed in the same large character with the rest. But I set aside all what I have said in my vindication; and if, in the whole book called the Fable of the Bees, and presented by the grand jury of Middlesex to the judges of the King’s Bench, there is to be found the least title of blasphemy or profaneness, or any thing tending to immorality or the corruption of manners, I desire it may be published; and if this be done without invective, personal reflections, or setting the mob upon me, things I never design to answer, I will not only recant, but likewise beg pardon of the offended public in the most solemn manner: and (if the hangman might be thought too good for the office) burn the book myself, at any reasonable time and place my adversaries shall be pleased to appoint.

I apologize if the phrase "Private Vices, Public Benefits" has ever upset any well-meaning person. The meaning behind it becomes clear once it’s properly understood; however, no sincere person can doubt its innocence after reading the last paragraph, where I bid farewell to the reader and reiterate the seemingly paradoxical idea stated on the title page: that private vices, with the clever handling of a skilled politician, can be transformed into public benefits. These are the final words of the book, printed in the same large font as the rest. But I set aside everything I’ve said in my defense; and if, throughout the entire book called the Fable of the Bees, as presented by the grand jury of Middlesex to the judges of the King’s Bench, there is any indication of blasphemy, profaneness, or anything that could lead to immorality or degrade morals, I ask that it be published. If this is done without insults, personal attacks, or inciting the public against me—things I don’t intend to respond to—I will not only retract my statements, but also sincerely apologize to the offended public in the most formal way possible; and (if burning the book myself isn’t considered too lenient) I’ll do it at any reasonable time and place that my critics choose.

The Author of the Fable of the Bees.

The Author of the Fable of the Bees.

[259]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]


1 Quis est tam vecors qui non intelligat, numine hoc tantum imperium esse natum, actum, et retentum? Cic. Orat. de Harush. Resp. 

1 Who is so foolish that they do not understand that this authority is born, acted upon, and maintained by divine power? Cic. Orat. de Harush. Resp.

THE
FABLE OF THE BEES.

PART II.

Opinionum enim Commenta delet dies; Naturæ judicia confirmat.

Opinion comments fade over time; Nature confirms its judgments.

Cicero de Nat. Deor. Lib. 2.

Cicero on the Nature of the Gods, Book 2.

[261]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

PREFACE.

Considering the manifold clamours, that have been raised from several quarters, against the Fable of the Bees, even after I had published the vindication of it, many of my readers will wonder to see me come out with a second part, before I have taken any further notice of what has been said against the first. Whatever is published, I take it for granted, is submitted to the judgment of all the world that see it; but it is very unreasonable, that authors should not be upon the same footing with their critics. The treatment I have received, and the liberties some gentlemen have taken with me, being well known, the public must be convinced before now, that, in point of civility, I owe my adversaries nothing: and if those, who have taken upon them to school and reprimand me, had an undoubted right to censure what they thought fit, without asking my leave, and to say of me what they pleased, I ought to have an equal privilege to examine their censures, and, without consulting them, to judge in my turn, whether they are worth answering or not. The public must be the umpire between us. From the Appendix that has been added to the first part, ever since the third edition, it is manifest, that I have been far from endeavouring to stifle, either the arguments or the invectives that were made against me; and, not to have left the reader uninformed of any thing extant of either sort, I once thought to have taken this opportunity of presenting him with a list of the adversaries that have appeared in print against me: but as they are in nothing so considerable as they are in their numbers, I was afraid it would have looked like ostentation, unless I would have answered them all, which I shall never attempt. The reason, therefore, of my obstinate silence has been all along, that hitherto I have not been accused of any thing that is criminal or immoral, for which every middling capacity could not have framed a very good answer, from some part or other, either of the vindication or the book itself.

Given the various complaints that have been raised against the Fable of the Bees, even after I published my defense, many of my readers might be surprised to see me releasing a second part before addressing the issues raised against the first. I assume that everything published is open to public judgment, but it seems quite unreasonable that authors shouldn't have the same rights as their critics. The treatment I have received and the liberties some individuals have taken with me are well-known, and the public must realize by now that, in terms of civility, I owe my critics nothing. If those who feel entitled to criticize and reprimand me can do so without my permission and say whatever they wish about me, then I should also have the right to evaluate their criticisms and decide, without consulting them, whether they deserve a response or not. The public should be the judge between us. From the Appendix added to the first part since the third edition, it’s clear that I have not tried to suppress the arguments or insults directed at me; I initially thought of taking this opportunity to provide a list of my critics who have published against me. However, since they aren’t notable for anything other than their numbers, I was concerned it might come across as bragging unless I planned to respond to every one of them, which I will never do. Therefore, my persistent silence has been because, until now, I have not been accused of anything criminal or immoral that a reasonably intelligent person couldn’t answer well using parts of the vindication or the book itself.

However, I have wrote, and had by me near two years, a defence of the Fable of the Bees, in which I have stated and endeavoured to solve all the objections that might reasonably [262]be made against it, as to the doctrine contained in it, and the detriment it might be of to others: for this is the only thing about which I ever had any concern. Being conscious, that I have wrote with no ill design, I should be sorry to lie under the imputation of it: but as to the goodness or badness of the performance itself, the thought was never worth my care; and therefore those critics, that found fault with my bad reasoning, and said of the book, that it is ill wrote, that there is nothing new in it, that it is incoherent stuff, that the language is barbarous, the humour low, and the style mean and pitiful; those critics, I say, are all very welcome to say what they please: In the main, I believe they are in the right; but if they are not, I shall never give myself the trouble to contradict them; for I never think an author more foolishly employed, than when he is vindicating his own abilities. As I wrote it for my diversion, so I had my ends; if those who read it have not had theirs, I am sorry for it, though I think myself not at all answerable for the disappointment. It was not wrote by subscription, nor have I ever warranted, any where, what use or goodness it would be of: on the contrary, in the very preface, I have called it an inconsiderable trifle; and since that, I have publicly owned that it was a rhapsody. If people will buy books without looking into them, or knowing what they are, I cannot see whom they have to blame but themselves, when they do not answer expectations. Besides, it is no new thing for people to dislike books after they have bought them: this will happen sometimes, even when men of considerable figure had given them the strongest assurances, before hand, that they would be pleased with them.

However, I have written, and have had for nearly two years, a defense of the Fable of the Bees, where I have addressed and tried to resolve all the reasonable objections that could be made against it regarding the ideas presented and the harm it might cause others: this is the only thing I ever cared about. Knowing that I wrote with no bad intentions, I would be upset to be seen as having them: but concerning the quality of the work itself, I never cared much. Therefore, those critics who pointed out my faulty reasoning and claimed that the book is poorly written, that there's nothing new in it, that it's incoherent nonsense, that the language is rough, the humor low, and the style shabby; those critics are welcome to say what they want. Generally, I believe they might be right; but if they aren't, I won't bother to contradict them, as I think an author is foolish when they defend their own abilities. I wrote it for my own enjoyment, and I had my reasons; if those who read it didn’t get what they wanted, I feel sorry for them, but I don’t think I’m at all responsible for their disappointment. It wasn’t written by subscription, nor have I ever claimed anywhere what it might be good for: on the contrary, in the preface, I called it a trivial trifle; and since then, I've publicly admitted it was a collection of random thoughts. If people buy books without checking them out or knowing what they are, I can't see who they have to blame but themselves if it doesn't meet their expectations. Additionally, it’s not unusual for people to dislike books after purchasing them: this can happen even when well-respected individuals strongly assured them beforehand that they would enjoy them.

A considerable part of the defence I mentioned, has been seen by several of my friends, who have been in expectation of it for some time. I have stayed neither for types nor paper, and yet I have several reasons, why I do not yet publish it; which, having touched nobody’s money, nor made any promise concerning it, I beg leave to keep to myself. Most of my adversaries, whenever it comes out, will think it soon enough; and nobody suffers by the delay but myself.

A large part of the defense I mentioned has been seen by several of my friends, who have been waiting for it for a while. I haven’t held up for types or paper, yet I have several reasons for not publishing it yet; since I haven’t touched anyone’s money or made any promises about it, I’d like to keep those reasons to myself. Most of my opponents will think it’s about time when it finally comes out, and the only one who suffers from the delay is me.

Since I was first attacked, it has long been a matter of wonder and perplexity to me to find out, why and how men should conceive, that I had wrote with an intent to debauch the nation, and promote all manner of vice: and it was a great while before I could derive the charge from any thing, [263]but wilful mistake and premeditated malice. But since I have seen, that men could be serious in apprehending the increase of rogues and robberies, from the frequent representations of the Beggar’s Opera, I am persuaded, that there really are such wrongheads in the world, as will fancy vices to be encouraged, when they see them exposed. To the same perverseness of judgment it must have been owing, that some of my adversaries were highly incensed with me, for having owned, in the Vindication, that hitherto I had not been able to conquer my vanity, as well as I could have wished. From their censure it is manifest, that they must have imagined, that to complain of a frailty, was the same as to brag of it. But if these angry gentlemen had been less blinded with passion, or seen with better eyes, they would easily have perceived, unless they were too well pleased with their pride, that to have made the same confession themselves, they wanted nothing but sincerity. Whoever boasts of his vanity, and at the same time shows his arrogance, is unpardonable. But when we hear a man complain of an infirmity, and his want of power entirely to cure it, whilst he suffers no symptoms of it to appear, that we could justly upbraid him with, we are so far from being offended, that we are pleased with the ingenuity, and applaud his candour; and when such an author takes no greater liberties with his readers, than what is usual in the same manner of writing, and owns that to be the result of vanity, which others tell a thousand lies about, his confession is a compliment, and the frankness of it ought not to be looked upon otherwise, than as a civility to the public, a condescension he was not obliged to make. It is not in feeling the passions, or in being affected with the frailties of nature, that vice consists; but in indulging and obeying the call of them, contrary to the dictates of reason. Whoever pays great deference to his readers, respectfully submitting himself to their judgment, and tells them at the same time, that he is entirely destitute of pride; whoever, I say, does this, spoils his compliment whilst he is making of it: for it is no better than bragging, that it costs him nothing. Persons of taste, and the least delicacy, can be but little affected with a man’s modesty, of whom they are sure, that he is wholly void of pride within: the absence of the one makes the virtue of the other cease; at least the merit of it is not greater than that of chastity in an eunuch, or humility in a beggar. What glory would it be [264]to the memory of Cato, that he refused to touch the water that was brought him, if it was not supposed that he was very thirsty when he did it?

Since I was first attacked, I've often wondered why and how people believe that I wrote with the intention of corrupting the nation and promoting all kinds of vice. It took me a long time to figure out that the accusation came from nothing but deliberate misunderstanding and malice. However, after seeing that some people genuinely worry about the rise of thieves and robberies due to the frequent portrayals in the Beggar's Opera, I’m convinced there are indeed individuals who think vices are encouraged just by showing them. It must have been the same faulty judgment that got some of my critics upset with me for admitting in the Vindication that I hadn’t been able to conquer my vanity as well as I would have liked. Their criticism shows they must have thought that complaining about a flaw is the same as boasting about it. But if these angry gentlemen had been less blinded by emotion or had clearer insight, they would have easily realized, unless they were too pleased with their own pride, that they needed nothing but honesty to make the same confession. Anyone who boasts about their vanity while showing arrogance is beyond forgiveness. However, when someone admits to a weakness and their inability to fully overcome it, while not showing any signs of that weakness, we’re not offended; instead, we appreciate their honesty and commend their openness. And when such an author doesn’t take more liberties with their readers than is typical in that style of writing, and admits that what others cover up with lies is rooted in vanity, their confession is actually a compliment, and their frankness should be seen as a courteous gesture to the public, a concession they didn’t have to make. Vice isn’t in feeling emotions or being affected by human flaws; it’s in indulging and following those urges against reason’s guidance. Whoever shows great respect for their readers, humbly putting themselves under their judgment, and simultaneously claims to be completely free of pride—whoever does this undermines their own compliment: it’s essentially bragging because it requires no effort. People of taste, and the least sensitivity, aren’t really moved by a person’s modesty when they know that individual lacks pride inside. The absence of one makes the other's virtue meaningless; at least, its merit is no greater than that of chastity in a eunuch or humility in a beggar. What glory would it bring [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] to Cato’s memory that he refused to touch the water brought to him if it wasn’t assumed that he was very thirsty when he did?

The reader will find, that in this second part I have endeavoured to illustrate and explain several things, that were obscure and only hinted at in the first.

The reader will notice that in this second part, I have tried to clarify and explain several things that were unclear and only suggested in the first.

Whilst I was forming this design, I found, on the one hand, that, as to myself, the easiest way of executing it, would be by dialogue; but I knew, on the other, that to discuss opinions, and manage controversies, it is counted the most unfair manner of writing. When partial men have a mind to demolish an adversary, and triumph over him with little expence, it has long been a frequent practice to attack him with dialogues, in which the champion, who is to lose the battle, appears at the very beginning of the engagement, to be the victim that is to be sacrificed, and seldom makes a better figure than cocks on Shrove-Tuesday, that receive blows, but return none, and are visibly set up on purpose to be knocked down. That this is to be said against dialogues, is certainly true; but it is as true, that there is no other manner of writing, by which greater reputation has been obtained. Those, who have most excelled all others in it, were the two most famous authors of all antiquity, Plato and Cicero: the one wrote almost all his philosophical works in dialogues, and the other has left us nothing else. It is evident, then, that the fault of those, who have not succeeded in dialogues; was in the management, and not in the manner of writing; and that nothing but the ill use that has been made of it, could ever have brought it into disrepute. The reason why Plato preferred dialogues to any other manner of writing, he said, was, that things thereby might look, as if they were acted, rather than told: the same was afterwards given by Cicero in the same words, rendered into his own language. The greatest objection that in reality lies against it, is the difficulty there is in writing them well. The chief of Plato’s interlocutors was always his master Socrates, who every where maintains his character with great dignity; but it would have been impossible to have made such an extraordinary person speak like himself on so many emergencies, if Plato had not been as great a man as Socrates.

While I was developing this idea, I realized that, for me, the easiest way to execute it would be through dialogue. However, I also knew that discussing opinions and handling controversies is often seen as the least fair way to write. When biased individuals want to tear down an opponent and come out on top with minimal effort, they frequently resort to dialogues, where the person likely to lose the argument is portrayed from the start as the one destined for defeat, often resembling the way cocks in a Shrove-Tuesday fight take hits without giving any back, clearly there just to be knocked down. It is true that this is a criticism of dialogues, but it's also true that few other forms of writing have led to such great recognition. Those who have outshone all others in this style were two of the most renowned authors from ancient times, Plato and Cicero: one wrote nearly all his philosophical works in dialogues, and the other has left us nothing else. Clearly, the failure of those who haven't succeeded in dialogues lies in their execution, not the format itself; it was only the misuse of it that could have tarnished its reputation. Plato himself preferred dialogues to other forms of writing because they make things seem more like they are being acted out than simply narrated; Cicero later echoed this sentiment in his own way. The main real objection to dialogues is how challenging they are to write well. Plato’s primary conversationalist was always his teacher Socrates, who consistently maintained his character with great dignity. It would have been impossible to make such an exceptional person speak authentically across various situations if Plato hadn't been as remarkable as Socrates.

Cicero, who studied nothing more than to imitate Plato, introduced in his dialogues some of the greatest men in Rome, his contemporaries, that were known to be of different [265]opinions, and made them maintain and defend every one his own sentiments, as strenuously, and in as lively a manner, as they could possibly have done themselves; and in reading his dialogues a man may easily imagine himself to be in company with several learned men of different tastes and studies. But to do this, a man must have Cicero’s capacity. Lucian likewise, and several others among the ancients, chose for their speakers, persons of known characters. That this interests and engages the reader more than strange names, is undeniable; but then, when the personages fall short of those characters, it plainly shows, that the author undertook what he was not able to execute. To avoid this inconveniency, most dialogue-writers among the moderns, have made use of fictitious names, which they either invented themselves or borrowed of others. These are, generally speaking, judicious compounds, taken from the Greek, that serve for short characters of the imaginary persons they are given to, denoting either the party they side with, or what it is they love or hate. But of all these happy compounds, there is not one that has appeared equally charming to so many authors of different views and talents, as Philalethes; a plain demonstration of the great regard mankind generally have to truth. There has not been a paper-war of note, these two hundred years, in which both parties, at one time or other, have not made use of this victorious champion; who, which side soever he has fought on, has hitherto, like Dryden’s Almanzor, been conqueror, and constantly carried all before him. But, as by this means the event of the battle must always be known, as soon as the combatants are named, and before a blow is struck; and as all men are not equally peaceable in their dispositions, many readers have complained, that they had not sport enough for their money, and that knowing so much before hand, spoiled all their diversion. This humour having prevailed for some time, authors are grown less solicitous about the names of the personages they introduce. This careless way, seeming to me at least as reasonable as any other, I have followed; and had no other meaning by the names I have given my interlocutors, than to distinguish them, without the least regard to the derivation of words, or any thing relating to the etymology of them: all the care I have taken about them, that I know of, is, that the pronunciation of them should not be harsh, nor the sounds offensive. [266]

Cicero, who focused primarily on imitating Plato, featured some of the most prominent men in Rome, his contemporaries, within his dialogues. These individuals held diverse opinions and vigorously defended their own beliefs as passionately and vividly as they could have done themselves. Reading his dialogues allows one to feel as if they are among several knowledgeable individuals with various interests and studies. However, to achieve this, one must possess Cicero’s talent. Lucian and many others from ancient times also selected well-known characters for their speakers. It’s clear that this approach engages the reader more than using unfamiliar names. Yet, when the characters don’t live up to their established roles, it reveals that the author attempted something beyond their capabilities. To sidestep this issue, many modern dialogue writers often resort to fictitious names, which they either came up with themselves or borrowed from elsewhere. Generally, these names are clever combinations from Greek, serving as brief identifiers for the imaginary characters, reflecting either their alliances or their likes and dislikes. Among all these clever names, none has been as appealing to so many writers with different perspectives and skills as Philalethes. This signifies the great value that people typically place on truth. Over the past two centuries, in noteworthy debates, both sides have, at one time or another, utilized this formidable figure. Regardless of which side he's fought for, he has consistently proven victorious, much like Dryden’s Almanzor. However, because of this, the outcome of the battle is often predictable once the combatants are named, and before any conflict erupts. Since not everyone is equally patient, many readers have expressed dissatisfaction, claiming that knowing the outcome in advance diminishes their enjoyment. This trend led authors to be less particular about the names of the characters they included. Seeing this casual approach as justifiable, I’ve adopted a similar method; the names I’ve assigned my speakers are simply meant for differentiation, without concern for their origins or etymology. The only consideration I’ve made regarding these names is ensuring that they are easy to pronounce and pleasant-sounding. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

But though the names I have chosen are feigned, and the circumstances of the persons fictitious, the characters themselves are real, and as faithfully copied from nature as I have been able to take them. I have known critics find fault with play-wrights for annexing short characters to the names they gave the persons of the drama; alleging, that it is forestalling their pleasure, and that whatever the actors are represented to be, they want no monitor, and are wise enough to find it out themselves. But I could never approve of this censure: there is a satisfaction, I think, in knowing one’s company; and when I am to converse with people for a considerable time, I desire to be well acquainted with them, and the sooner the better. It is for this reason, I thought it proper to give the reader some account of the persons that are to entertain him. As they are supposed to be people of quality, I beg leave, before I come to particulars, to premise some things concerning the beau monde in general; which, though most people perhaps know them every body does not always attend to. Among the fashionable part of mankind throughout Christendom, there are, in all countries, persons, who, though they feel a just abhorrence to atheism and professed infidelity, yet have very little religion, and are scarce half-believers, when their lives come to be looked into, and their sentiments examined. What is chiefly aimed at in a refined education, is to procure as much ease and pleasure upon earth, as that can afford: therefore men are first instructed in all the various arts of rendering their behaviour agreeable to others, with the least disturbance to themselves. Secondly, they are imbued with the knowledge of all the elegant comforts of life, as well as the lessons of human prudence, to avoid pain and trouble, in order to enjoy as much of the world, and with as little opposition, as it is possible. Whilst thus men study their own private interest, in assisting each other to promote and increase the pleasures of life in general, they find by experience, that to compass those ends, every thing ought to be banished from conversation, that can have the least tendency of making others uneasy; and to reproach men with their faults or imperfections, neglects or omissions, or to put them in mind of their duty, are offices that none are allowed to take upon them, but parents or professed masters and tutors; nor even they before company: but to reprove and pretend to teach others, we have no authority over, is ill manners, even in a clergyman out of the [267]pulpit; nor is he there to talk magisterially, or ever to mention things, that are melancholy or dismal, if he should pass for a polite preacher: but whatever we may vouchsafe to hear at church, neither the certainty of a future state, nor the necessity of repentance, nor any thing else relating to the essentials of Christianity, are ever to be talked of when we are out of it, among the beau monde, upon any account whatever. The subject is not diverting: besides, every body is supposed to know those things, and to take care accordingly; nay, it is unmannerly to think otherwise. The decency in fashion being the chief, if not the only, rule, all modish people walk by, not a few of them go to church, and receive the sacrament, from the same principle that obliges them to pay visits to one another, and now and then to make an entertainment. But as the greatest care of the beau monde is to be agreeable, and appear well-bred, so most of them take particular care, and many against their consciences, not to seem burdened with more religion than it is fashionable to have, for fear of being thought to be either hypocrites or bigots.

But even though the names I’ve chosen are made up, and the circumstances of the characters are fictional, the characters themselves are real and as faithfully represented from life as I could manage. I've noticed critics complaining about playwrights for giving brief descriptions of the characters alongside their names; they argue that it ruins the audience’s enjoyment and that the actors should be able to figure things out on their own. However, I’ve never agreed with this criticism: I think there’s a certain satisfaction in knowing your companions, and when I’m going to spend a decent amount of time conversing with people, I want to know them well—sooner rather than later. For this reason, I felt it was appropriate to give the reader some background on the individuals who will entertain them. Since they are supposed to be people of quality, I’d like to share a few thoughts about the fashionable society in general before getting into specifics; although most people might know this, not everyone pays close attention to it. Among the fashionable folks across Christendom, there are, in every country, individuals who, while they genuinely abhor atheism and open disbelief, still have very little real faith, and are hardly half-believers when you look at their lives and examine their beliefs. The main goal of a refined education is to gain as much comfort and enjoyment on earth as possible; thus, people are first taught various ways to ensure their behavior is pleasing to others with minimal disturbance to themselves. Secondly, they are taught all the elegant comforts of life, along with the lessons of human caution, to avoid pain and trouble so they can enjoy the world with as little resistance as possible. While men focus on their own interests in helping each other enhance the pleasures of life, they find that to achieve those aims, everything that could make others uncomfortable should be avoided in conversation; pointing out people’s faults, imperfections, neglects, or failures, or reminding them of their responsibilities, is a job for parents or designated educators—and not even they should do it in front of others. To reprimand and pretend to teach those we don’t have authority over is considered bad manners, even for a clergyman outside of the pulpit; nor should he speak authoritatively or mention anything sad or gloomy if he wants to be seen as a polite preacher. Regardless of what we might hear in church, neither the certainty of an afterlife, nor the need for repentance, nor anything else related to the essentials of Christianity should be discussed out of it, especially among the beau monde, for any reason. The topic isn't entertaining: besides, everyone is expected to know these things and act accordingly; in fact, it’s considered rude to think otherwise. The prevailing standard of decency is the main—and maybe the only—rule, so fashionable people follow it. Many of them attend church and receive communion for the same reasons that compel them to visit one another and occasionally host gatherings. However, since the biggest concern of the beau monde is to be agreeable and come off as well-mannered, most of them carefully manage, often against their own beliefs, not to appear burdened by more faith than is considered fashionable, for fear of being seen as hypocrites or bigots.

Virtue, however, is a very fashionable word, and some of the most luxurious are extremely fond of the amiable sound; though they mean nothing by it, but a great veneration for whatever is courtly or sublime, and an equal aversion to every thing that is vulgar or unbecoming. They seem to imagine, that it chiefly consists in a strict compliance to the rules of politeness, and all the laws of honour, that have any regard to the respect that is due to themselves. It is the existence of this virtue, that is often maintained with so much pomp of words, and for the eternity of which so many champions are ready to take up arms: whilst the votaries of it deny themselves no pleasure, they can enjoy, either fashionably or in secret, and, instead of sacrificing the heart to the love of real virtue, can only condescend to abandon the outward deformity of vice, for the satisfaction they receive from appearing to be well-bred. It is counted ridiculous for men to commit violence upon themselves, or to maintain, that virtue requires self-denial: all court philosophers are agreed, that nothing can be lovely or desirable, that is mortifying or uneasy. A civil behaviour among the fair in public, and a deportment inoffensive both in words and actions, is all the chastity the polite world requires in men. What liberties soever a man gives himself in private, his reputation shall never [268]suffer, whilst he conceals his amours from all those that are not unmannerly inquisitive, and takes care that nothing criminal can ever be proved upon him. Si non caste, saltem caute, is a precept that sufficiently shows what every body expects; and though incontinence is owned to be a sin, yet never to have been guilty of it is a character which most single men under thirty would not be fond of, even amongst modest women.

Virtue, however, is a very trendy word, and some of the most affluent are really fond of its pleasant sound; although they mean nothing by it, except a great respect for whatever is sophisticated or sublime, and an equal dislike for anything that is common or inappropriate. They seem to think that it mainly consists of strictly following the rules of politeness and all the codes of honor that pertain to the respect they believe they deserve. The existence of this virtue is often boasted about with so much flourish, and many champions are ready to defend it for eternity: while its followers deny themselves no pleasure, whether fashionable or secret, and instead of sacrificing their hearts to a true love of virtue, they can only agree to give up the outward disgrace of vice for the satisfaction they get from appearing well-mannered. It's considered ridiculous for men to harm themselves or to insist that virtue demands self-denial: all polite philosophers agree that nothing can be lovely or desirable if it’s painful or uncomfortable. A polite demeanor from women in public and non-offensive behavior in speech and actions is all the decency the polite world requires of men. Whatever liberties a man takes in private, his reputation will never [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] suffer, as long as he keeps his affairs hidden from those who are not nosy and ensures that nothing illegal can ever be proven against him. Si non caste, saltem caute, is a guideline that clearly shows what everyone expects; and while promiscuity is acknowledged as a sin, never having been guilty of it is a reputation most single men under thirty would not want, even among modest women.

As the world everywhere, in compliment itself, desires to be counted really virtuous, so bare-faced vices, and all trespasses committed in sight of it, are heinous and unpardonable. To see a man drunk in the open street, or any serious assembly at noon-day, is shocking; because it is a violation of the laws of decency, and plainly shows a want of respect, and neglect of duty, which every body is supposed to owe to the public. Men of mean circumstances likewise may be blamed for spending more time or money in drinking, than they can afford; but when these and all worldly considerations are out of the question, drunkenness itself, as it is a sin, an offence to Heaven, is seldom censured; and no man of fortune scruples to own, that he was at such a time in such a company, where they drank very hard. Where nothing is committed, that is either beastly, or otherwise extravagant, societies, that meet on purpose to drink and be merry, reckon their manner of passing away the time as innocent as any other, though most days in the year they spend five or six hours of the four and twenty in that diversion. No man had ever the reputation of being a good companion, that would never drink to excess; and if a man’s constitution be so strong, or himself so cautious, that the dose he takes overnight, never disorders him the next day, the worst that shall be said of him, is, that he loves his bottle with moderation: though every night constantly he makes drinking his pastime, and hardly ever goes to bed entirely sober.

As the world everywhere, in its desire to be seen as truly virtuous, condemns open vices and any wrongdoings committed in its view as terrible and unforgivable. Seeing a man drunk in the street or at a serious gathering in broad daylight is shocking; it goes against the standards of decency and clearly shows a lack of respect and disregard for duty that everyone is expected to owe to the community. People in lower financial situations may also be criticized for spending more time or money on drinking than they can afford; but when these and all worldly factors are set aside, drunkenness itself, as a sin and an offense to heaven, is rarely criticized. No wealthy person hesitates to admit that they were in the company of people who drank heavily at a certain time. When nothing inappropriate or excessively wild is happening, groups that gather specifically to drink and have fun consider their way of spending time as innocent as any other, even though most days they dedicate five or six hours out of twenty-four to that pastime. No one is seen as a good friend who never drinks excessively; and if a person’s body is strong enough or they are careful enough that what they consume at night never affects them the next day, the worst that could be said is that they enjoy their drinks in moderation—even if they make drinking a regular pastime every night and hardly ever go to bed completely sober.

Avarice, it is true, is generally detested; but as men may be as guilty of it by scraping money together, as they can be by hoarding it up, so all the base, the sordid, and unreasonable means of acquiring wealth, ought to be equally condemned and exploded, with the vile, the pitiful, and penurious way of saving it: but the world is more indulgent; no man is taxed with avarice, that will conform with the beau monde, and live every way in splendour, though he should always be raising the rents of his estate, and hardly suffer his [269]tenants to live under him; though he should enrich himself by usury, and all the barbarous advantages that extortion can make of the necessities of others: and though, moreover, he should be a bad paymaster himself, and an unmerciful creditor to the unfortunate; it is all one, no man is counted covetous, who entertains well, and will allow his family what is fashionable for a person in his condition. How often do we see men of very large estates unreasonably solicitous after greater riches! What greediness do some men discover in extending the perquisites of their offices! What dishonourable condescensions are made for places of profit! What slavish attendance is given, and what low submissions and unmanly cringes are made to favourites for pensions, by men that could subsist without them! Yet these things are no reproach to men, and they are never upbraided with them but by their enemies, or those that envy them, and perhaps the discontented and the poor. On the contrary, most of the well-bred people, that live in affluence themselves, will commend them for their diligence and activity; and say of them, that they take care of the main chance; that they are industrious men for their families, and that they know how, and are fit, to live in the world.

Greed, it’s true, is usually reviled; but since people can be just as guilty of it by gathering money as by hoarding it, all the lowly, selfish, and unreasonable ways of making money should be equally condemned as the vile, pitiful, and stingy ways of saving it. However, the world is more forgiving; no one is accused of greed if they fit in with the elite and live lavishly, even if they continuously raise their property rents and barely let their tenants get by. Even if they profit from usury and all the cruel advantages that exploitation can take from others’ needs, and even if they are poor payers and harsh creditors to the unfortunate—it makes no difference; no one is seen as greedy if they entertain well and provide their family with what’s fashionable for their status. How often do we see wealthy individuals unreasonably eager for even more wealth! What eagerness some people show in expanding the benefits of their positions! What dishonorable compromises are made for lucrative jobs! What servile attention and lowly submissions are made to favorites for pensions by people who could manage without them! Yet, these actions don’t bring shame to anyone, and they are criticized only by their enemies, those who envy them, or perhaps the disgruntled and the poor. On the flip side, most of the well-bred individuals who enjoy wealth themselves will praise these people for their hard work and determination; they say that they look out for opportunity, that they are diligent for their families, and that they know how to thrive in the world.

But these kind constructions are not more hurtful to the practice of Christianity, than the high opinion which, in an artful education, men are taught to have of their species, is to the belief of its doctrine, if a right use be not made of it. That the great pre-eminence we have over all other creatures we are acquainted with, consists in our rational faculty, is very true; but it is as true, that the more we are taught to admire ourselves, the more our pride increases, and the greater stress we lay on the sufficiency of our reason: For as experience teaches us, that the greater and the more transcendent the esteem is, which men have for their own worth, the less capable they generally are to bear injuries without resentment; so we see, in like manner, that the more exalted the notions are which men entertain of their better part, their reasoning faculty, the more remote and averse they will be from giving their assent to any thing that seems to insult over or contradict it: And asking a man to admit of any thing he cannot comprehend, the proud reasoner calls an affront to human understanding. But as ease and pleasure are the grand aim of the beau monde, and civility is inseparable from their behaviour, whether they are [270]believers or not, so well-bred people never quarrel with the religion they are brought up in: They will readily comply with every ceremony in divine worship they have been used to, and never dispute with you either about the Old or the New Testament, if, in your turn, you will forbear laying great stress upon faith and mysteries, and allow them to give an allegorical, or any other figurative sense to the History of the Creation, and whatever else they cannot comprehend or account for by the light of nature.

But these kinds of beliefs aren't any more damaging to the practice of Christianity than the inflated view that people get from a clever education is to their faith in its teachings, if it's not used correctly. It's true that our great advantage over all other creatures we know is our ability to think rationally. However, it's also true that the more we're taught to admire ourselves, the more our pride grows, and the more we rely on our reason's adequacy. Experience shows us that the more inflated a person's self-esteem is regarding their worth, the less they can tolerate being wronged without feeling angry. Similarly, the more elevated a person's views are about their reasoning ability, the more resistant they will be to accepting anything they perceive as an insult or contradiction to it. If you ask someone to accept something they can't understand, a proud thinker sees that as an affront to human understanding. However, since comfort and pleasure are the main goals of the beau monde, and politeness is essential to their behavior, whether they are [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]believers or not, well-mannered people don't argue with the religion they were raised in. They'll willingly participate in every ritual of worship they're familiar with and won't dispute with you about the Old or New Testament if you, in turn, won't insist too heavily on faith and mysteries and let them interpret the Creation story and anything else they can't explain through reason in a metaphorical or figurative way.

I am far from believing, that, among the fashionable people, there are not, in all Christian countries, many persons of stricter virtue, and greater sincerity in religion, than I have here described; but that a considerable part of mankind have a great resemblance to the picture I have been drawing, I appeal to every knowing and candid reader. Horatio, Cleomenes, and Fulvia, are the names I have given to my interlocutors: The first represents one of the modish people I have been speaking of, but rather of the better sort of them as to morality, though he seems to have a greater distrust of the sincerity of clergymen, than he has of that of any other profession, and to be of the opinion, which is expressed in that trite and specious, as well as false and injurious saying, priests of all religions are the same. As to his studies, he is supposed to be tolerably well versed in the classics, and to have read more than is usual for people of quality, that are born to great estates. He is a man of strict honour, and of justice as well as humanity; rather profuse than covetous, and altogether disinterested in his principles. He has been abroad, seen the world, and is supposed to be possessed of the greatest part of the accomplishments that usually gain a man the reputation of being very much of a gentleman.

I don't believe that among fashionable people in all Christian countries, there aren't many individuals with stricter morals and greater sincerity in their faith than I’ve described here. However, I argue that a significant portion of humanity closely resembles the picture I've been painting, and I invite any knowledgeable and fair-minded reader to consider this. Horatio, Cleomenes, and Fulvia are the names I've given to my characters. Horatio represents one type of fashionable person I've mentioned, but he's on the more moral side. He tends to be more skeptical of the sincerity of clergymen than of other professions and holds the common but misleading belief that priests of all religions are alike. In terms of education, he is reasonably well-read in the classics and has studied more than is typical for people of high status born into wealth. He is a man of strict honor, justice, and humanity; he is more generous than greedy and is completely principled. He has traveled abroad, seen the world, and is believed to possess many qualities that typically earn a man the reputation of being a true gentleman.

Cleomenes had been just such another, but was much reformed. As he had formerly, for his amusement only, been dipping into anatomy, and several parts of natural philosophy; so, since he was come home from his travels, he had studied human nature, and the knowledge of himself, with great application. It is supposed, that, whilst he was thus employing most of his leisure hours, he met with the Fable of the Bees; and, making a great use of what he read, compared what he felt himself within, as well as what he had seen in the world, with the sentiments set forth in that book, and found the insincerity of men fully as universal, as it was there represented. He had no opinion of the pleas and excuses [271]that are commonly made to cover the real desires of the heart; and he ever suspected the sincerity of men, whom he saw to be fond of the world, and with eagerness grasping at wealth and power, when they pretended that the great end of their labours was to have opportunities of doing good to others upon earth, and becoming themselves more thankful to Heaven; especially, if they conformed with the beau monde, and seemed to take delight in a fashionable way of living: He had the same suspicion of all men of sense, who, having read and considered the gospel, would maintain the possibility that persons might pursue worldly glory with all their strength, and, at the same time, be good Christians. Cleomenes himself believed the Bible to be the word of God, without reserve, and was entirely convinced of the mysterious, as well as historical truths that are contained in it. But as he was fully persuaded, not only of the veracity of the Christian religion, but likewise of the severity of its precepts, so he attacked his passions with vigour, but never scrupled to own his want of power to subdue them, or the violent opposition he felt from within; often complaining, that the obstacles he met with from flesh and blood, were insurmountable. As he understood perfectly well the difficulty of the task required in the gospel, so he ever opposed those easy casuists, that endeavoured to lessen and extenuate it for their own ends; and he loudly maintained, that men’s gratitude to Heaven was an unacceptable offering, whilst they continued to live in ease and luxury, and were visibly solicitous after their share of the pomp and vanity of this world. In the very politeness of conversation, the complacency with which fashionable people are continually soothing each other’s frailties, and in almost every part of a gentleman’s behaviour, he thought there was a disagreement between the outward appearances, and what is felt within, that was clashing with uprightness and sincerity. Cleomenes was of opinion, that of all religious virtues, nothing was more scarce, or more difficult to acquire, than Christian humility; and that to destroy the possibility of ever attaining to it, nothing was so effectual as what is called a gentleman’s education; and that the more dexterous, by this means, men grew in concealing the outward signs, and every symptom of pride, the more entirely they became enslaved by it within. He carefully examined into the felicity that accrues from the applause of others, and the invisible wages which men of [272]sense and judicious fancy received for their labours; and what it was at the bottom that rendered those airy rewards so ravishing to mortals. He had often observed, and watched narrowly the countenances and behaviour of men, when any thing of theirs was admired or commended, such as the choice of their furniture, the politeness of their entertainments, the elegancy of their equipages, their dress, their diversions, or the fine taste displayed in their buildings.

Cleomenes had been just like that, but he had changed a lot. Previously, he had amused himself by exploring anatomy and different aspects of natural philosophy. However, since returning home from his travels, he had dedicated himself to understanding human nature and gaining self-knowledge. It’s believed that while using most of his free time this way, he came across the Fable of the Bees. He made significant use of what he read, comparing his internal feelings and real-world observations with the ideas presented in the book, finding that the insincerity of people was as widespread as described there. He had little faith in the excuses people often made to hide their true desires and always doubted the sincerity of those who were eager to chase wealth and power while claiming their goal was to do good for others and be more grateful to God. This doubt especially applied to those who conformed to high society and seemed to enjoy a fashionable lifestyle. He was similarly suspicious of sensible people who, having read and considered the gospel, would argue that one could pursue worldly glory with all their effort and still be a good Christian. Cleomenes himself fully believed that the Bible was the word of God without question and was completely convinced of the mysterious as well as historical truths it contained. But he was also firmly persuaded of the validity of the Christian faith and the rigor of its teachings, which led him to confront his passions vigorously. Yet, he never hesitated to admit his inability to suppress them and the strong internal resistance he felt, often complaining that the challenges posed by flesh and blood were insurmountable. He clearly understood the difficulty of the gospel’s demands and opposed those easy moralists who tried to downplay and mitigate it for their own agendas. He strongly asserted that people's gratitude to God was an unacceptable offering as long as they lived in comfort and luxury, visibly eager to partake in the world's pomp and vanity. He believed that in the politeness of conversation, the way fashionable people constantly reassured each other about their flaws, and in nearly every aspect of a gentleman's behavior, there was a mismatch between outward appearances and inner feelings that contradicted honesty and sincerity. Cleomenes felt that among all religious virtues, nothing was scarcer or harder to achieve than true Christian humility and that nothing effectively destroyed the possibility of attaining it like what is called a gentleman's education. The more skillful men became at hiding outward signs and every symptom of pride, the more completely they were enslaved by it inside. He closely examined the happiness that came from the praise of others and the unseen rewards that smart and discerning individuals received for their efforts, exploring what fundamentally made those illusory rewards so enticing to people. He frequently observed and scrutinized the expressions and behaviors of individuals when anything of theirs was praised or admired, from their furniture choices and entertaining style to the elegance of their carriages, their clothing, their leisure activities, or the sophisticated taste shown in their buildings.

Cleomenes seemed charitable, and was a man of strict morals, yet he would often complain that he was not possessed of one Christian virtue, and found fault with his own actions, that had all the appearances of goodness; because he was conscious, he said, that they were performed from a wrong principle. The effects of his education, and his aversion to infamy, had always been strong enough to keep him from turpitude; but this he ascribed to his vanity, which he complained was in such full possession of his heart, that he knew no gratification of any appetite from which he was able to exclude it. Having always been a man of unblameable behaviour, the sincerity of his belief had made no visible alteration in his conduct to outward appearances; but in private he never ceased from examining himself. As no man was less prone to enthusiasm than himself, so his life was very uniform; and as he never pretended to high flights of devotion, so he never was guilty of enormous offences. He had a strong aversion to rigorists of all sorts; and when he saw men quarrelling about forms and creeds, and the interpretation of obscure places, and requiring of others the strictest compliance to their own opinions in disputable matters, it raised his indignation to see the generality of them want charity, and many of them scandalously remiss in the plainest and most necessary duties. He took uncommon pains to search into human nature, and left no stone unturned, to detect the pride and hypocrisy of it, and, among his intimate friends, to expose the stratagems of the one, and the exorbitant power of the other. He was sure, that the satisfaction which arose from worldly enjoyments, was something distinct from gratitude, and foreign to religion; and he felt plainly, that as it proceeded from within, so it centered in himself: The very relish of life, he said, was accompanied with an elevation of mind, that seemed to be inseparable from his being. Whatever principle was the cause of this, he was convinced within himself, that the sacrifice of the [273]heart, which the gospel requires, consisted in the utter extirpation of that principle; confessing, at the same time, that this satisfaction he found in himself, this elevation of mind, caused his chief pleasure; and that, in all the comforts of life, it made the greatest part of the enjoyment.

Cleomenes appeared generous and was a man of strong morals, yet he often lamented that he lacked a single Christian virtue, critiquing his own actions that seemed good on the surface. He believed his deeds were rooted in the wrong intentions. The influences of his upbringing and his dislike of disgrace had always been enough to keep him from immoral behavior; however, he attributed this to his pride, which he felt completely dominated his heart, leaving him unable to find joy in any desire without its presence. Though he had always maintained impeccable conduct, the authenticity of his beliefs didn't visibly change his outward behavior; still, he continually reflected on himself in private. Being someone who was less inclined towards enthusiasm than others, his life was quite steady; he never claimed to have grand spiritual insights, nor did he commit serious offenses. He had a strong dislike for strict individuals of any kind, and when he saw people arguing over rituals and beliefs, struggling over obscure interpretations, and demanding strict adherence to their disputed opinions, he felt indignant witnessing their lack of compassion, while many were shockingly negligent in the simplest and most necessary responsibilities. He went to great lengths to understand human nature, leaving no stone unturned to reveal its pride and hypocrisy, and among his close friends, he sought to reveal the tactics of the proud and the excessive influence of hypocrisy. He was certain that the joy stemming from worldly pleasures was distinct from gratitude and separate from religion, and he clearly felt that, since it came from within, it ultimately focused on himself. He claimed that the very essence of life was tied to a mindset that seemed inseparable from his existence. Regardless of the underlying cause of this, he was convinced that the sacrifice of the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] heart that the gospel demands involved completely eradicating that principle; admitting, at the same time, that the satisfaction he found in himself, this uplifted state of mind, provided him with his greatest joy and was a significant part of all life’s comforts.

Cleomenes, with grief, often owned his fears, that his attachment to the world would never cease whilst he lived; the reasons he gave, were the great regard he continued to have for the opinion of worldly men; the stubbornness of his indocile heart, that could not be brought to change the objects of its pride; and refused to be ashamed of what, from his infancy, it had been taught to glory in; and, lastly, the impossibility, he found in himself, of being ever reconciled to contempt, and enduring, with patience, to be laughed at and despised for any cause, or on any consideration whatever. These were the obstacles, he said, that hindered him from breaking off all commerce with the beau monde, and entirely changing his manner of living; without which, he thought it mockery to talk of renouncing the world, and bidding adieu to all the pomp and vanity of it.

Cleomenes, feeling sorrowful, often admitted his fears that his connection to the world would never fade as long as he was alive. He explained that this was largely due to his strong concern for what people in society thought of him; the determination of his unwilling heart, which couldn't let go of what it took pride in; and its refusal to feel ashamed of what it had been taught to take pride in since childhood. Lastly, he found it impossible to accept being looked down upon, or to patiently endure being laughed at or scorned for any reason. These were the barriers, he said, that prevented him from cutting ties with high society and completely changing his way of life; without overcoming these, he believed it was pointless to talk about leaving the world behind and saying goodbye to all its showiness and superficiality.

The part of Fulvia, which is the third person, is so inconsiderable, she just appearing only in the first dialogue, that it would be impertinent to trouble the reader with a character of her. I had a mind to say some things on painting and operas, which I thought might, by introducing her, be brought in more naturally, and with less trouble, than they could have been without her. The ladies, I hope, will find no reason, from the little she does say, to suspect that she wants either virtue or understanding.

Fulvia’s role, as the third character, is so minor—she only shows up in the first dialogue—that it wouldn’t make sense to burden the reader with a description of her. I wanted to discuss some ideas about painting and operas, which I thought could be tied in more naturally and easily with her presence than without it. I hope the ladies won’t find any reason, from her brief lines, to doubt that she possesses either virtue or intelligence.

As to the fable, or what is supposed to have occasioned the first dialogue between Horatio and Cleomenes, it is this. Horatio, who had found great delight in my Lord Shaftsbury’s polite manner of writing, his fine raillery, and blending virtue with good manners, was a great stickler for the social system; and wondered how Cleomenes could be an advocate for such a book as the Fable of the Bees, of which he had heard a very vile character from several quarters. Cleomenes, who loved and had a great friendship for Horatio, wanted to undeceive him; but the other, who hated satire, was prepossessed, and having been told likewise, that martial courage, and honour itself, were ridiculed in that book, he was very much exasperated against the author and his whole scheme: he had two or three times heard Cleomenes discourse [274]on this subject with others; but would never enter into the argument himself; and finding his friend often pressing to come to it, he began to look cooly upon him, and at last to avoid all opportunities of being alone with him: till Cleomenes drew him in, by the stratagem which the reader will see he made use of, as Horatio was one day taking his leave after a short complimentary visit.

As for the fable, or what supposedly led to the first conversation between Horatio and Cleomenes, it goes like this. Horatio, who really enjoyed my Lord Shaftesbury’s polite writing style, his clever humor, and the way he mixed virtue with good manners, was a strong supporter of the social system. He was puzzled about how Cleomenes could endorse a book like the Fable of the Bees, which he had heard described very negatively from various sources. Cleomenes, who cared for Horatio and had a close friendship with him, wanted to set him straight. However, Horatio, who disliked satire, was already biased against it. He’d also been informed that the book ridiculed martial courage and honor, which made him very upset with the author and his entire idea. He had listened to Cleomenes discuss this topic with others a couple of times, but he never wanted to engage in the debate himself. As Cleomenes frequently pressed him to discuss it, Horatio started to look at him coldly and eventually began to avoid being alone with him. Finally, Cleomenes lured him into the conversation with a clever tactic, as you’ll see when Horatio was leaving after a brief friendly visit.

I should not wonder to see men of candour, as well as good sense, find fault with the manner, in which I have chose to publish these thoughts of mine to the world: There certainly is something in it, which I confess I do not know how to justify to my own satisfaction. That such a man as Cleomenes, having met with a book agreeable to his own sentiments, should desire to be acquainted with the author of it, has nothing in it that is improbable or unseemly; but then it will be objected, that, whoever the interlocutors are, it was I myself who wrote the dialogues; and that it is contrary to all decency, that a man should proclaim concerning his own work, all that a friend of his, perhaps, might be allowed to say: this is true; and the best answer which I think can be made to it, is, that such an impartial man, and such a lover of truth, as Cleomenes is represented to be, would be as cautious in speaking of his friend’s merit, as he would be of his own. It might be urged likewise, that when a man professes himself to be an author’s friend, and exactly to entertain the same sentiments with another, it must naturally put every reader upon his guard, and render him as suspicious and distrustful of such a man, as he would be of the author himself. But how good soever the excuses are, that might be made for this manner of writing, I would never have ventured upon it, if I had not liked it in the famous Gassendus, who, by the help of several dialogues and a friend, who is the chief personage in them, has not only explained and illustrated his system, but likewise refuted his adversaries: him I have followed, and I hope the reader will find, that whatever opportunity I have had by this means, of speaking well of myself indirectly, I had no design to make that, or any other ill use of it.

I wouldn’t be surprised if open-minded and sensible people criticize how I’ve chosen to share my thoughts with the world. There’s definitely something about it that I admit I can’t justify to my own satisfaction. It's not at all unlikely or inappropriate that someone like Cleomenes, who finds a book that resonates with his views, would want to know the author. However, it could be argued that, regardless of who the speakers are, I’m the one who wrote the dialogues; and it’s improper for a person to speak about their own work in a way that a friend might be allowed to do. This is true, and I think the best response is that a fair and truth-loving man like Cleomenes would discuss his friend’s merits just as carefully as he would his own. It could also be pointed out that when someone claims to be a friend of the author and shares the same opinions, it inevitably raises a reader’s suspicions, making them as wary of that person as they would be of the author. But no matter how reasonable the justifications for this writing style might be, I would have never attempted it if I hadn’t admired the famous Gassendus, who used several dialogues with a main character to not only explain and illustrate his ideas but also to counter his critics. I’ve followed his example, and I hope readers will see that, while I might have taken opportunities to speak about myself indirectly, I never intended to misuse this approach.

As it is supposed, that Cleomenes is my friend, and speaks my sentiments, so it is but justice, that every thing which he advances should be looked upon and considered as my own; but no man in his senses would think, that I ought to be equally responsible for every thing that Horatio says, who is [275]his antagonist. If ever he offers any thing that favours of libertinism, or is otherwise exceptionable, which Cleomenes does not reprove him for in the best and most serious manner, or to which he gives not the most satisfactory and convincing answer that can be made, I am to blame, otherwise not. Yet from the fate the first part has met with, I expect to see in a little time several things transcribed and cited from this, in that manner, by themselves, without the replies that are made to them, and so shown to the world, as my words and my opinion. The opportunity of doing this will be greater in this part than it was in the former, and should I always have fair play, and never be attacked, but by such adversaries, as would make their quotations from me without artifice, and use me with common honesty, it would go a great way to the refuting of me; and I should myself begin to suspect the truth of several things I have advanced, and which hitherto I cannot help believing.

Since it's assumed that Cleomenes is my friend and shares my views, it seems fair that everything he brings up should be seen as my own. However, no sensible person would think I should be held equally accountable for everything Horatio says, who is [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]his opponent. If he ever puts forth something that suggests libertinism or is otherwise questionable, and Cleomenes doesn’t criticize him seriously or fails to provide a satisfactory and convincing counterargument, then I am at fault; otherwise, I am not. Still, considering the outcome of the first part, I expect that soon there will be various things copied and quoted from this, presented on their own, without the responses to them, and portrayed to the world as my words and opinions. The chance of this happening will be greater in this part than in the previous one, and if I always receive fair treatment and am only attacked by opponents who quote me honestly and fairly, it would greatly aid in refuting me; I would even start to doubt the truth of several things I’ve claimed, which I currently cannot help but believe.

A stroke made in this manner,——which the reader will sometimes meet with in the following dialogues, is a sign, either of interruption, when the person speaking is not suffered to go on with what he was going to say, or else of a pause, during which something is supposed to be said or done, not relating to the discourse.

A stroke made this way—one that the reader will occasionally see in the following conversations—indicates either an interruption, when the speaker isn’t allowed to continue what they were going to say, or a pause, during which something is understood to be said or done that isn't related to the conversation.

As in this part I have not altered the subject, on which a former, known by the name of the Fable of the Bees, was wrote; and the same unbiassed method of searching after truth, and inquiring into the nature of man and society, made use of in that, is continued in this, I thought it unnecessary to look out for another title; and being myself a great lover of simplicity, and my invention none of the most fruitful, the reader, I hope, will pardon the bald, inelegant aspect, and unusual emptiness of the title page.

Since I haven't changed the topic here, which was previously covered in a work called the Fable of the Bees, I continued the same unbiased approach to discovering the truth and examining human nature and society. Therefore, I felt it was unnecessary to find a different title. As someone who appreciates simplicity and whose creativity is not very abundant, I hope the reader will forgive the plain, awkward look and unusual emptiness of the title page.

Here I would have made an end of my Preface, which I know very well is too long already: but the world having been very grossly imposed upon by a false report, that some months ago was very solemnly made, and as industriously spread in most of the newspapers, for a considerable time, I think it would be an unpardonable neglect in me, of the public, should I suffer them; to remain in the error they were led into, when I am actually addressing them; and there is no other person, from whom they can so justly expect to be undeceived. In the London Evening Post of Saturday March 9, [276]1727–8, the following paragraph was printed in small Italic, at the end of the home news.

Here I would wrap up my Preface, which I know has already gotten pretty long: but the world has been seriously misled by a false report that was recently made and widely circulated in almost all the newspapers for quite some time. I believe it would be a serious oversight on my part, and an injustice to the public, if I allowed them to remain in the misunderstanding they were led into while I am specifically addressing them; there’s no one else they can reasonably expect to set the record straight. In the London Evening Post of Saturday, March 9, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]1727–8, the following paragraph was printed in small Italics at the end of the home news.

On Friday evening the first instant, a gentleman, well-dressed, appeared at the bonfire before St. James’s Gate, who declared himself the author of a book, intituled, the Fable of the Bees; and that he was sorry for writing the same: and recollecting his former promise, pronounced these words: I commit my book to the flames; and threw it in accordingly.

On Friday evening of the first instant, a well-dressed gentleman appeared at the bonfire in front of St. James’s Gate. He declared himself the author of a book called The Fable of the Bees and expressed regret for writing it. Remembering his earlier promise, he said, "I commit my book to the flames," and threw it in as he spoke.

The Monday following, the same piece of news was repeated in the Daily Journal, and after that for a considerable time, as I have said, in most of the papers: but since the Saturday mentioned, which was the only time it was printed by itself, it appeared always with a small addition to it, and annexed (with a N. B. before it) to the following advertisement.

The following Monday, the same news was published again in the Daily Journal, and after that, for quite a while, as I mentioned, in most of the newspapers. But since that Saturday, which was the only time it was printed alone, it always appeared with a little added detail and attached (with a note before it) to the following advertisement.

ΑΡΕΤΗ-ΛΟΓΙΑ:

ΑΡΕΤΗ-ΛΟΓΙΑ:

Or an Inquiry into the Original of Moral Virtue, wherein the false notions of Machiavel, Hobbs, Spinosa, and Mr. Bayle, as they are collected and digested by the Author of the Fable of the Bees, are examined and confuted; and the eternal and unalterable nature and obligation of moral virtue is stated and vindicated; to which is prefixed, a Prefatory Introduction, in a Letter to that Author, By Alexander Innes, D. D. Preacher Assistant at St. Margaret’s, Westminster.

Or an Inquiry into the Origin of Moral Virtue, in which the misguided ideas of Machiavelli, Hobbes, Spinoza, and Mr. Bayle, as gathered and analyzed by the Author of the Fable of the Bees, are examined and refuted; and the timeless and unwavering essence and duty of moral virtue is presented and defended; to which is added a Prefatory Introduction in a Letter to that Author, By Alexander Innes, D. D. Preacher Assistant at St. Margaret’s, Westminster.

The small addition which I said was made to that notable piece of news, after it came to be annexed to this advertisement, consisted of these five words (upon reading the above book), which were put in after, “sorry for writing the same.” This story having been often repeated in the papers, and never publicly contradicted, many people, it seems, were credulous enough to believe, notwithstanding the improbability of it. But the least attentive would have suspected the whole, as soon as they had seen the addition that was made to it, the second time it was published; for supposing it to be intelligible, as it follows the advertisement, it cannot be pretended, that the repenting gentleman pronounced those very words. He must have named the book; and if he had said, that his sorrow was occasioned by reading the ΑΡΕΤΗ-ΛΟΓΙΑ, or the new book of the reverend Dr. Innes, how came [277]such a remarkable part of his confession to be omitted in the first publication, where the well-dressed gentleman’s words and actions seemed to be set down with so much care and exactness? Besides, every body knows the great industry, and general intelligence of our news-writers: if such a farce had really been acted, and a man had been hired to pronounce the words mentioned, and throw a book into the fire, which I have often wondered was not done, is it credible at all, that a thing so remarkable, done so openly, and before so many witnesses, the first day of March, should not be taken notice of in any of the papers before the ninth, and never be repeated afterwards, or ever mentioned but as an appendix of the advertisement to recommend Dr. Innes’s book?

The small addition I mentioned that was made to that notable piece of news, after it was added to this advertisement, consisted of these five words (upon reading the above book), which were added after, “sorry for writing the same.” This story has been frequently repeated in the papers and has never been publicly denied, so many people, it seems, were gullible enough to believe it, despite how unlikely it was. However, even the most casual observer would have suspected something was off as soon as they saw the addition made to it the second time it was published; because, if we assume it to be understandable, as it follows the advertisement, it’s hard to argue that the regretting gentleman said those exact words. He must have named the book; and if he had said his sorrow was caused by reading the Αρετή-λογία, or the new book by the reverend Dr. Innes, how is it that such a significant part of his confession was left out in the first publication, where the well-dressed gentleman’s words and actions seemed to be recorded with such care and accuracy? Furthermore, everyone knows the great effort and general knowledge of our news writers: if such a farce had actually occurred, and a man had been paid to say the words mentioned and throw a book into the fire—which I've often wondered why wasn’t done—is it believable at all that something so remarkable, done so publicly and in front of so many witnesses on the first day of March, wouldn’t have been noted in any of the papers before the ninth, and never brought up again, or mentioned only as an appendix to promote Dr. Innes’s book?

However, this story has been much talked of, and occasioned a great deal of mirth among my acquaintance, several of whom have earnestly pressed me more than once to advertise the falsity of it, which I would never comply with for fear of being laughed at, as some years ago poor Dr. Patridge was, for seriously maintaining that he was not dead. But all this while we were in the dark, and nobody could tell how this report came into the world, or what it could be that had given a handle to it, when one evening a friend of mine, who had borrowed Dr. Innes’s book, which till then I had never seen, showed me in it the following lines.

However, this story has been widely discussed and has caused a lot of laughter among my friends, several of whom have urged me repeatedly to deny its truth, which I refused to do for fear of being ridiculed, just like poor Dr. Patridge was years ago for insisting he wasn't dead. But all this time, we were in the dark, and no one could explain how this rumor started or what sparked it. Then one evening, a friend of mine, who had borrowed Dr. Innes’s book, which I had never seen before, showed me the following lines.

But à propos Sir, if I rightly remember, the ingenuous Mr. Law, in his Remarks upon your Fable of the Bees, puts you in mind of a promise you had made, by which you obliged yourself to burn that book at any time or place your adversary should appoint, if any thing should be found in it tending to immorality or the corruption of manners. I have a great respect for that gentleman, though I am not personally acquainted with him, but I cannot but condemn his excessive credulity and good nature, in believing that a man of your principles could be a slave to his word; for my own part, I think, I know you too well to be so easily imposed upon; or if, after all, you should. really persist in your resolution, and commit it to the flames, I appoint the first of March, before St. James’s Gate, for that purpose, it being the birthday of the best and most glorious queen upon earth; and the burning of your book the smallest atonement you can make, for endeavouring to corrupt and debauch his majesty’s subjects in their principles. Now, Sir, if you agree to this, I hope you are not so destitute of friends, but that you may [278]find some charitable neighbour or other, who will lend you a helping hand, and throw in the author at the same time by way of appendix; the doing of which will, in my opinion, complete the solemnity of the day. I am not your patient, but, your most humble servant.

But by the way Sir, if I remember correctly, the honest Mr. Law, in his Remarks on your Fable of the Bees, reminds you of a promise you made to burn that book at any time or place your opponent chooses, if anything in it suggests immorality or corrupts morals. I have a lot of respect for that gentleman, even though I don't know him personally, but I can't help but criticize his excessive gullibility and good nature in believing that someone with your principles could be bound by his word; for my part, I think I know you too well to be so easily fooled; or if, in the end, you really do decide to go through with it and burn the book, I suggest the first of March, in front of St. James’s Gate, for that purpose, as it is the birthday of the best and most glorious queen in the world; burning your book is the least you can do in atonement for trying to corrupt and mislead his majesty’s subjects in their beliefs. Now, Sir, if you agree to this, I hope you’re not so friendless that you can’t [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]find a charitable neighbor or someone who will help you out, and throw in the author at the same time as a sort of appendix; doing this will, in my opinion, complete the solemnity of the day. I am not your patient, but your most humble servant.

Thus ends what, in the ΑΡΕΤΗ-ΛΟΓΙΑ Doctor Innes is pleased to call a Prefatory Introduction, in a Letter to the Author of the Fable of the Bees. It is signed A. I. and dated Tot-hill-fields, Westminster, Jan. 20. 1727–8.

Thus ends what, in the ΑΡΕΤΗ-ΛΟΓΙΑ Doctor Innes happily refers to as a Prefatory Introduction, in a Letter to the Author of the Fable of the Bees. It is signed A. I. and dated Tot-hill-fields, Westminster, Jan. 20. 1727–8.

Now all our wonder ceased. The judicious reader will easily allow me, that, having read thus much, I had an ample dispensation from going on any further; therefore I can say nothing of the book: and as to the reverend author of it, who seems to think himself so well acquainted with my principles, I have not the honour to know either him or his morals, otherwise than from what I have quoted here. Ex pede Herculem.

Now all our amazement came to an end. The thoughtful reader will surely agree that, having read this much, I had more than enough reason to stop here; so I can’t say anything further about the book. As for the esteemed author, who seems to believe he knows my views so well, I don’t have the privilege of knowing him or his ethics, except for what I’ve quoted here. Ex pede Herculem.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE FIRST
DIALOGUE.
BETWEEN
HORATIO, CLEOMENES, and FULVIA.

CLEOMENES.

CLEOMENES.

Always in haste, Horatio?

Always in a rush, Horatio?

Hor. I must beg of you to excuse me, I am obliged to go.

Hor. I really need to ask you to excuse me; I have to leave.

Cleo. Whether you have other engagements than you used to have, or whether your temper is changed, I cannot tell, but something has made an alteration in you, of which I cannot comprehend the cause. There is no man in the world whose friendship I value more than I do yours, or whose company I like better, yet I can never have it. I profess I have thought sometimes that you have avoided me on purpose.

Cleo. I don't know if you have other events now or if your mood has changed, but something about you has shifted, and I can't figure out why. There's no one whose friendship I value more than yours or whose company I enjoy more, yet I can never seem to have it. Honestly, I sometimes think that you've been avoiding me on purpose.

Hor. I am sorry, Cleomenes, I should have been wanting in civility to you; I come every week constantly to pay my respects to you, and if ever I fail, I always send to inquire after your health.

Hor. I'm sorry, Cleomenes, I should have been rude to you; I come every week to pay my respects, and if I ever miss a week, I always check in to see how you're doing.

Cleo. No man outdoes Horatio in civility; but I thought something more was due to our affections and long acquaintance, besides compliments and ceremony: Of late I have never been to wait upon you, but you are gone abroad, or I find you engaged; and when I have the honour to see you here, your stay is only momentary. Pray pardon my rudeness for once: What is it that hinders you now from keeping me company for an hour or two? My cousin talks of going out, and I shall be all alone.

Cleo. No one is more polite than Horatio, but I thought our close friendship and long history deserved more than just pleasantries and formalities. Lately, whenever I try to visit you, you're either out or busy. And when I do have the chance to see you, it's just for a brief moment. Please excuse my boldness this once: What's stopping you from spending an hour or two with me now? My cousin is talking about going out, and I'll be left all by myself.

Hor. I know better than to rob you of such an opportunity for speculation?

Hor. I know better than to take away such a chance for you to make a profit?

Cleo. Speculation! on what, pray?

Cleo. Speculation! About what, exactly?

Hor. That vileness of our species in the refined way of thinking you have of late been so fond of, I call it the scheme of deformity, the partisans of which study chiefly to make every thing in our nature appear as ugly and contemptible [280]as it is possible, and take uncommon pains to persuade men that they are devils.

Hor. The ugliness of our species, in the sophisticated way of thinking you've recently become so fond of, I refer to as the scheme of deformity. The supporters of this idea mainly focus on making everything about our nature seem as ugly and contemptible [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] as possible, going to great lengths to convince people that they are monsters.

Cleo. If that be all, I shall soon convince you.

Cleo. If that's all it takes, I’ll prove it to you in no time.

Hor. No conviction to me, I beseech you: I am determined, and fully persuaded, that there is good in the world as well as evil; and that the words, honesty, benevolence, and humanity, and even charity, are not empty sounds only, but that there are such things in spite of the Fable of the Bees; and I am resolved to believe, that, notwithstanding the degeneracy of mankind, and the wickedness of the age, there are men now living, who are actually possessed of those virtues.

Hor. No judgment on me, I ask you: I’m convinced and completely sure that there’s goodness in the world alongside evil; that the words honesty, kindness, humanity, and even charity aren’t just meaningless terms, but that these qualities truly exist despite the Fable of the Bees. I’m determined to believe that, despite the decline of humanity and the wickedness of our times, there are people alive today who genuinely have those virtues.

Cleo. But you do not know what I am going to say: I am——

Cleo. But you don’t know what I'm about to say: I am——

Hor. That may be, but I will not hear one word; all you can say is lost upon me, and if you will not give me leave to speak out, I am gone this moment. That cursed book has bewitched you, and made you deny the existence of those very virtues that had gained you the esteem of your friends. You know this is not my usual language; I hate to say harsh things: But what regard can, or ought one to have for an author that treats every body de haut en bas, makes a jest of virtue and honour, calls Alexander the Great a madman, and spares kings and princes no more than any one, would the most abject of the people? The business of his philosophy is just the reverse to that of the herald’s office; for, as there they are always contriving and finding out high and illustrious pedigrees for low and obscure people, so your author is ever searching after, and inventing mean contemptible origins for worthy and honourable actions. I am your very humble servant.

Hor. That might be true, but I'm not going to listen to a word. Everything you say is falling on deaf ears, and if you don’t let me speak my mind, I'm leaving right now. That awful book has enchanted you and made you deny the very qualities that earned you the respect of your friends. You know this isn’t how I usually talk; I dislike saying harsh things. But what respect can, or should, anyone have for an author who looks down on everyone, makes a joke out of virtue and honor, calls Alexander the Great a madman, and treats kings and princes no better than the most contemptible of people? His philosophy is the exact opposite of what a herald's office does; just as heralds constantly invent and discover noble lineages for lowly and obscure people, your author is always searching for and creating lowly, contemptible backgrounds for worthy and honorable actions. I am your very humble servant.

Cleo. Stay. I am of your opinion; what I offered to convince you of, was, how entirely I am recovered of the folly which you have so justly exposed: I have left that error.

Cleo. Stay. I agree with you; what I wanted to show you is just how completely I’ve moved past the foolishness you pointed out so accurately: I’ve let that mistake go.

Hor. Are you in earnest?

Are you serious?

Cleo. No man more: There is no greater stickler for the social virtues than myself; and I much question, whether there is any of Lord Shaftsbury’s admirers that will go my lengths!

Cleo. No man more: There is no one who cares more about social virtues than I do; and I seriously doubt that there is any admirer of Lord Shaftsbury who would go as far as I do!

Hor. I shall be glad to see you go my lengths first, and as many more as you please. You cannot conceive, Cleomenes, how it has grieved me, when I have seen how many [281]enemies you made yourself by that extravagant way of arguing. If you are but serious, whence comes this change?

Hor. I'll be happy to see you take the lead, and feel free to go as far as you want. You can't imagine, Cleomenes, how much it has upset me to witness how many [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]enemies you've made with that over-the-top way of debating. If you're being honest, what's behind this change?

Cleo. In the first place, I grew weary of having every body against me: and, in the second, there is more room for invention in the other system. Poets and orators in the social system have fine opportunities of exerting themselves.

Cleo. First of all, I got tired of having everyone against me; and secondly, there's more room for creativity in the other system. Poets and speakers in the social system have great opportunities to express themselves.

Hor. I very much suspect the recovery you boast of: Are you convinced, that the other system was false, which you might have easily learned from seeing every body against you?

Hor. I really doubt the recovery you’re bragging about: Are you sure that the other system was wrong, which you could have easily realized by noticing that everyone was against you?

Cleo. False to be sure; but what you allege is no proof of it: for if the greatest part of mankind were not against that scheme of deformity, as you justly call it, insincerity could not be so general, as the scheme itself supposes it to be: But since my eyes have been opened, I have found out that truth and probability are the silliest things in the world; they are of no manner of use, especially among the people de bon gout.

Cleo. Definitely false; but what you're claiming isn't proof of that: If most people weren't against that ugly idea, as you rightly call it, then insincerity couldn't be as widespread as that idea suggests. But now that I've seen things more clearly, I've realized that truth and probability are the most ridiculous concepts ever; they’re completely useless, especially among people de bon gout.

Hor. I thought what a convert you was: but what new madness has seized you now?

Hor. I thought you were such a convert: but what's this new madness that's taken hold of you now?

Cleo. No madness at all: I say, and will maintain it to the world, that truth, in the sublime, is very impertinent; and that in the arts and sciences, fit for men of taste to look into, a master cannot commit a more unpardonable fault, than sticking to, or being influenced by truth, where it interferes with what is agreeable.

Cleo. No madness at all: I say, and will stand by it to the world, that truth, in its highest form, can be quite arrogant; and that in the arts and sciences, which are meant for people of taste to explore, a master cannot make a more unforgivable mistake than clinging to, or being swayed by, truth when it gets in the way of what is enjoyable.

Hor. Homely truths indeed——

Homely truths for sure——

Cleo. Look upon that Dutch piece of the nativity: what charming colouring there is! What a fine pencil, and how just are the outlines for a piece so curiously finished! But what a fool the fellow was to draw hay, and straw, and water, and a rack as well as a manger: it is a wonder he did not put the bambino into the manger.

Cleo. Check out that Dutch nativity scene: the colors are so vibrant! The brushwork is amazing, and the outlines are so precise for something so intricately done! But what a silly thing for the artist to include hay, straw, water, and a rack along with the manger: it’s surprising he didn’t put the kid in the manger too.

Ful. The bambino? That is the child, I suppose: why it should be in the manger; should it not? Does not the history tell us, that the child was laid in the manger? I have no skill in painting; but I can see whether things are drawn to the life or not: sure nothing can be more like the head of an ox than that there. A picture then pleases me best when the art in such a manner deceives my eye, that, without making any allowance, I can imagine I see the things in reality which the painter has endeavoured to represent. I have always thought it an admirable piece; sure nothing in the world can be more like nature. [282]

Ful. The bambino? That means the child, right? Why should it be in the manger? Doesn't the story say that the child was placed in the manger? I'm not an artist, but I can tell when things are depicted accurately or not: nothing can resemble the head of an ox more than that. A painting impresses me most when the artistry tricks my eye so well that, without any adjustments, I can truly believe I see the things the painter tried to show. I’ve always thought it was an amazing piece; nothing in the world can be truer to nature. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. Like nature! So much the worse: Indeed, cousin, it is easily seen, that you have no skill in painting. It is not nature, but agreeable nature, la belle nature, that is to be represented: all things that are abject, low, pitiful, and mean, are carefully to be avoided, and kept out of sight; because, to men of the true taste, they are as offensive as things that are shocking, and really nasty.

Cleo. Like nature! That's too bad: Honestly, cousin, it's obvious that you don't have any talent for painting. It's not about simply capturing nature, but rather depicting pleasing nature, la belle nature. You should carefully avoid and hide anything that is low, pitiful, or mean, because for people with genuine taste, those things are just as off-putting as shocking and truly disgusting things.

Ful. At that rate, the Virgin Mary’s condition, and our Saviour’s birth, are never to be painted.

Ful. At this rate, the Virgin Mary’s situation, and our Savior’s birth, will never be depicted.

Cleo. That is your mistake; the subject itself is noble: Let us go but in the next room, and I will show you the difference.——Look upon that picture, which is the same history. There is fine architecture, there is a colonnade; can any thing be thought of more magnificent? How skilfully is that ass removed, and how little you see of the ox: pray, mind the obscurity they are both placed in. It hangs in a strong light, or else one might look ten times upon the picture without observing them: Behold these pillars of the Corinthian order, how lofty they are, and what an effect they have, what a noble space, what an area here is! How nobly every thing concurs to express the majestic grandeur of the subject, and strikes the soul with awe and admiration at the same time!

Cleo. That’s your mistake; the subject itself is really impressive. Let’s just go to the next room, and I’ll show you the difference.——Look at that painting, which tells the same story. The architecture is stunning, there’s a colonnade; can you imagine anything more magnificent? Look how cleverly that donkey is hidden, and how little you notice the ox: pay attention to how obscure they both are. It’s brightly lit, or else you could stare at the painting ten times without noticing them. Just look at these Corinthian pillars, how tall they are, and the impact they create, what a grand space, what an area this is! Everything works together beautifully to express the majestic grandeur of the subject, striking the soul with awe and admiration at the same time!

Ful. Pray cousin, has good sense ever any share in the judgment which your men of true taste form about pictures?

Ful. Please, cousin, do people with good taste ever have any influence on the opinions that your sophisticated folks have about paintings?

Hor. Madam!

Hor. Ma'am!

Ful. I beg pardon, Sir, if I have offended: but to me it seems strange to hear such commendations given to a painter, for turning the stable of a country inn into a palace of extraordinary magnificence: This is a great deal worse than Swift’s Metamorphosis of Philemon and Baucis; for there some show of resemblance is kept in the changes.

Ful. I apologize, Sir, if I’ve upset you: but it seems odd to me to hear such praise for a painter who turns the horse stable of a country inn into a palace of incredible luxury. This is far worse than Swift’s Metamorphosis of Philemon and Baucis; in that story, there’s at least some hint of resemblance in the transformations.

Hor. In a country stable, Madam, there is nothing but filth and nastiness, or vile abject things not fit to be seen, at least not capable of entertaining persons of quality.

Hor. In a country stable, Madam, there's nothing but dirt and mess, or disgusting things unworthy of being seen, especially not entertaining for people of refinement.

Ful. The Dutch picture in the next room has nothing that is offensive: but an Augean stable, even before Hercules had cleaned it, would be less shocking to me than those fluted pillars; for nobody can please my eye that affronts my understanding: When I desire a man to paint a considerable history, which every body knows to have been transacted at a country inn, does he not strangely impose upon me, because he understands architecture, to draw me a room that [283]might have served for a great hall, or banqueting-house, to any Roman emperor? Besides, that the poor and abject state in which our Saviour chose to appear at his coming into the world, is the most material circumstance of the history: it contains an excellent moral against vain pomp, and is the strongest persuasive to humility, which, in the Italian, are more than lost.

Ful. The Dutch painting in the next room isn’t offensive at all, but even a filthy stable, like the one Hercules cleaned, would be less upsetting to me than those fluted pillars; because if something offends my understanding, it won't please my eye. When I ask an artist to paint a significant story that everyone knows took place at a country inn, isn’t it strange that he insists on drawing a room that could have served as a grand hall or banquet room for any Roman emperor? Also, the humble and lowly state in which our Savior chose to enter the world is a key part of the story: it carries a powerful message against empty showiness and strongly encourages humility, which, in the Italian style, is more than lost.

Hor. Indeed, Madam, experience is against you; and it is certain, that, even among the vulgar, the representations of mean and abject things, and such as they are familiar with, have not that effect, and either breed contempt, or are insignificant: whereas vast piles, stately buildings, roofs of uncommon height, surprising ornaments, and all the architecture of the grand taste, are the fittest to raise devotion, and inspire men with veneration, and a religious awe for the places that have these excellencies to boast of. Is there ever a meeting-house or barn to be compared to a fine cathedral, for this purpose?

Hor. Truly, Madam, experience is on my side; and it's clear that even among everyday people, depictions of low and disgraceful things, which they know well, don't have that effect—they either inspire contempt or are just seen as unimportant. On the other hand, impressive structures, towering buildings, roofs that reach unusual heights, stunning decorations, and all the elements of grand architecture are the best for evoking devotion and inspiring respect and a sense of reverence for places that can boast these qualities. Is there ever a meeting house or barn that can compare to a beautiful cathedral for this purpose?

Ful. I believe there is a mechanical way of raising devotion in silly superstitious creatures; but an attentive contemplation on the works of God, I am sure——

Ful. I think there’s a mechanical way to inspire devotion in gullible, superstitious people; but really focusing on the works of God, I know——

Cleo. Pray, cousin, say no more in defence of your low taste: The painter has nothing to do with the truth of the history; his business is to express the dignity of the subject, and, in compliment to his judges, never to forget the excellency of our species: All his art and good sense must be employed in raising that to the highest pitch; Great masters do not paint for the common people, but for persons of refined understanding: What you complain o£ is the effect of the good manners and complaisance of the painter. When he had drawn the Infant and the Madona, he thought the least glimpse of the ox and the ass would be sufficient to acquaint you with the history: They who want more fescuing, and a broader explanation, he does not desire his picture should ever be shown to; for the rest, he entertains you with nothing but what is noble and worthy your attention: You see he is an architect, and completely skilled in perspective, and he shows you how finely he can round a pillar, and that both the depth, and the height of a space, may be drawn on a flat, with all the other wonders he performs by his skill in that inconceivable mystery of light and shadows.

Cleo. Please, cousin, stop defending your bad taste: The painter isn’t concerned with the truth of the story; his job is to capture the dignity of the subject, and out of respect for his audience, he should never overlook the greatness of humanity. All his talent and good judgment should aim to elevate that to its highest form. Great masters don't paint for the masses, but for those with refined taste: What you’re complaining about is simply the good manners and courtesy of the painter. When he depicted the Infant and the Madonna, he thought that even a hint of the ox and the donkey would be enough to inform you about the story. Those who need more embellishment or a more detailed explanation, he doesn’t wish for his painting to be shown to. Instead, he offers you only what is noble and deserving of your attention. You can see he is an architect, fully skilled in perspective, and he demonstrates how beautifully he can shape a pillar, illustrating that both the depth and height of a space can be depicted on a flat surface, along with all the other marvelous things he accomplishes through his mastery of the mysterious interplay of light and shadow.

Ful. Why then is it pretended that painting is an imitation of nature? [284]

Ful. Then why is it claimed that painting is an imitation of nature? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. At first setting out a scholar is to copy things exactly as he sees them; but from a great matter, when he is left to his own invention, it is expected he should take the perfections of nature, and not paint it as it is, but as we would wish it to be. Zeuxis, to draw a goddess, took five beautiful women, from which he culled what was most graceful in each.

Cleo. When a scholar first starts out, they copy things exactly as they see them; but from a larger perspective, when they're left to their own creativity, they are expected to capture the best qualities of nature—not just how things are, but how we would like them to be. Zeuxis, to depict a goddess, took five beautiful women and chose the most graceful features from each.

Ful. Still every grace he painted was taken from nature.

Ful. Every quality he depicted was still drawn from nature.

Cleo. That’s true; but he left nature her rubbish, and imitated nothing but what was excellent, which made the assemblage superior to any thing in nature. Demetrius was taxed for being too natural; Dionysus was also blamed for drawing men like us. Nearer our times, Michael Angelo was esteemed too natural, and Lysippus of old upbraided the common sort of sculptors for making men such as they were found in nature.

Cleo. That’s true; but he left nature’s imperfections alone and only imitated what was excellent, which made the collection better than anything in nature. Demetrius was criticized for being too true to nature; Dionysus was also blamed for depicting men like us. In more recent times, Michelangelo was considered too natural, and Lysippus of old criticized ordinary sculptors for creating men as they actually appeared in nature.

Ful. Are these things real?

Ful. Are these for real?

Cleo. You may read it yourself in Graham’s Preface to The Art of Painting: the book is above in the library.

Cleo. You can read it yourself in Graham’s Preface to The Art of Painting; the book is upstairs in the library.

Hor. These things may seem strange to you, Madam, but they are of immense use to the public: the higher we can carry the excellency of our species, the more those beautiful images will fill noble minds with worthy and suitable ideas of their own dignity, that will seldom fail of spurring them on to virtue and heroic actions. There is a grandeur to be expressed in things that far surpasses the beauties of simple nature. You take delight in operas, Madam, I do not question; you must have minded the noble manner and stateliness beyond nature, which every thing there is executed with. What gentle touches, what slight and yet majestic motions are made use of to express the most boisterous passions! As the subject is always lofty, so no posture is to be chosen but what is serious and significant, as well as comely and agreeable; should the actions there be represented as they are in common life, they would ruin the sublime, and at once rob you of all your pleasure.

Hor. These things might seem odd to you, Madam, but they're incredibly valuable to the public: the more we elevate our species' excellence, the more those beautiful images will inspire noble minds with ideas about their own worth, which will often drive them toward virtue and heroic actions. There’s a grandeur to express in things that far exceeds the simple beauty of nature. You enjoy operas, Madam, I have no doubt; you must have noticed the noble manner and the elegance beyond nature in everything there. What gentle touches, what subtle yet majestic movements are used to convey even the most intense emotions! Since the subject is always elevated, no pose should be chosen that isn’t serious and meaningful, as well as beautiful and appealing; if the actions were portrayed as they are in everyday life, they would destroy the sublime and take away all your enjoyment.

Ful. I never expected any thing natural at an opera; but as persons of distinction resort thither, and every body comes dressed, it is a sort of employment, and I seldom miss a night, because it is the fashion to go: besides, the royal family, and the monarch himself, generally honouring them with their presence, it is almost become a duty to attend them, as much as it is to go to court. What diverts me there is the company, the lights, the music, the scenes, and other decorations: [285]but as I understand but very few words of Italian, so what is most admired in the recitativo is lost upon me, which makes the acting part to me rather ridiculous than——

Ful. I never expected anything genuine at an opera; but since people of importance go there, and everyone dresses up, it’s kind of an activity, and I hardly miss a night because it’s the trend to attend. Plus, the royal family and the monarch usually show up, so it feels almost like a duty to go, just like going to court. What entertains me there is the crowd, the lights, the music, the scenes, and other decorations: [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]but since I understand very few words of Italian, a lot of what’s praised in the recitativo goes over my head, which makes the acting seem rather silly to me instead of——

Hor. Ridiculous, Madam! For Heaven’s sake——

Hor. That's ridiculous, Ma'am! For heaven's sake——

Ful. I beg pardon, Sir, for the expression, I never laughed at an opera in my life; but I confess, as to the entertainment itself, that a good play is infinitely more diverting to me; and I prefer any thing that informs my understanding beyond all the recreations which either my eyes or my ears can be regaled with.

Ful. I’m sorry, Sir, for saying this, but I’ve never laughed at an opera in my life; however, I have to admit that a good play is way more entertaining for me. I prefer anything that enhances my understanding over any entertainment my eyes or ears might enjoy.

Hor. I am sorry to hear a lady of your good sense make such a choice. Have you no taste for music, Madam?

Hor. I'm sorry to hear someone as sensible as you make that choice. Don't you enjoy music, ma'am?

Ful. I named that as part of my diversion.

Ful. I mentioned that as part of my entertainment.

Cleo. My cousin plays very well upon the harpsichord herself.

Cleo. My cousin plays the harpsichord really well.

Ful. I love to hear good music; but it does not throw me into those raptures, I hear others speak of.

Ful. I love listening to good music, but it doesn’t make me feel the intense emotions that others talk about.

Hor. Nothing certainly can elevate the mind beyond a fine concert: it seems to disengage the soul from the body, and lift it up to heaven. It is in this situation, that we are most capable of receiving extraordinary impressions: when the instruments cease, our temper is subdued, and beautiful action joins with the skilful voice, in setting before us in a transcendent light, the heroic labours we are come to admire, and which the word Opera imports. The powerful harmony between the engaging sounds and speaking gestures invades the heart, and forcibly inspires us with those noble sentiments, which to entertain, the most expressive words can only attempt to persuade us. Few comedies are tolerable, and in the best of them, if the levity of the expressions does not corrupt, the meanness of the subject must debase the manners; at least to persons of quality. In tragedies the style is more sublime; and the subjects generally great; but all violent passions, and even the representations of them, ruffle and discompose the mind: besides, when men endeavour to express things strongly, and they are acted to the life, it often happens that the images do mischief, because they are too moving, and that the action is faulty for being too natural; and experience teaches us, that in unguarded minds, by those pathetic performances, flames are often raised that are prejudicial to virtue. The playhouses themselves are far from being inviting, much less the companies, at least the greatest part of them that frequent them, some of which are almost of the lowest [286]rank of all. The disgust that persons of the least elegance receive from these people are many; besides, the ill scents, and unseemly sights one meets with, of careless rakes and impudent wenches, that, having paid their money, reckon themselves to be all upon the level with every body there; the oaths, scurrilities, and vile jests one is often obliged to hear, without resenting them; and the odd mixture of high and low that are all partaking of the same diversion, without regard to dress or quality, are all very offensive; and it cannot but be very disagreeable to polite people to be in the same crowd with a variety of persons, some of them below mediocrity, that pay no deference to one another. At the opera, every thing charms and concurs to make happiness complete. The sweetness of voice, in the first place, and the solemn composure of the action, serve to mitigate and allay every passion; it is the gentleness of them, and the calm serenity of the mind, that make us amiable, and bring us the nearest to the perfection of angels; whereas, the violence of the passions, in which the corruption of the heart chiefly consists, dethrones our reason, and renders us more like unto savages. It is incredible, how prone we are to imitation, and how strangely, unknown to ourselves, we are shaped and fashioned after the models and examples that are often set before us. No anger nor jealousy are ever to be seen at an opera, that distort the features; no flames that are noxious, nor is any love represented in them, that is not pure and next to seraphic; and it is impossible for the remembrance to carry any thing away from them, that can sully the imagination. Secondly, the company is of another sort: the place itself is a security to peace, as well as every one’s honour; and it is impossible to name another, where blooming innocence and irresistible beauty stand in so little need of guardians. Here we are sure never to meet with petulancy or ill manners, and to be free from immodest ribaldry, libertine wit, and detestable satire. If you will mind, on the one hand, the richness and splendour of dress, and the quality of the persons that appear in them; the variety of colours, and the lustre of the fair in a spacious theatre, well illuminated and adorned; and on the other, the grave deportment of the assembly, and the consciousness that appears in every countenance, of the respect they owe to each other, you will be forced to confess, that upon earth there cannot be a pastime more agreeable: believe me, Madam, there is no place, [287]where both sexes have such opportunities of imbibing exalted sentiments, and raising themselves above the vulgar, as they have at the opera; and there is no other sort of diversion or assembly, from the frequenting of which, young persons of quality can have equal hopes of forming their manners, and contracting a strong and lasting habit of virtue.

Hor. Nothing can truly elevate the spirit like a great concert; it seems to free the soul from the body and lift it up to heaven. In this state, we are most receptive to extraordinary impressions: when the instruments stop, our mood softens, and beautiful movements combine with skilled voices to present the heroic efforts we’ve come to appreciate, which is what the word Opera means. The powerful harmony between the captivating sounds and expressive gestures touches the heart and deeply inspires us with noble feelings that even the most eloquent words struggle to convey. Few comedies are tolerable, and even in the best of them, if the lightness of the dialogue doesn't corrupt, the inherent simplicity of the subject can lower the standards; especially for those of high status. In tragedies, the style is more elevated, and the subjects are often grand; however, all intense emotions, and even their portrayals, can disturb and unsettle the mind. Moreover, when people try to express strong feelings passionately, and they are acted out realistically, it often happens that the imagery can cause harm because it’s too moving, and the action may falter by being overly natural; experience shows that in unguarded minds, these emotional performances often ignite passions that are harmful to virtue. The theaters themselves are far from inviting, and the crowd is even less so, especially the majority who attend, some of whom belong to the lower [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]classes. The distaste that those with any elegance feel for such company is significant; in addition, the unpleasant odors and unsightly scenes featuring careless rakes and brazen women, who, having paid their way, consider themselves equal to everyone else there; the curses, crude remarks, and disgusting jokes one often has to endure without reacting; and the peculiar mix of high and low social standings all participating in the same entertainment, regardless of attire or status, are all quite off-putting. It’s undoubtedly very displeasing for refined individuals to be in the same crowd with a mix of people, some of whom are below average, who show no respect for one another. At an opera, everything is enchanting and contributes to complete happiness. The sweetness of the singing, first and foremost, and the solemnity of the performance serve to soothe and calm all emotions; it is their gentleness and the peacefulness of the mind that make us admirable, bringing us closer to the perfection of angels; whereas the intensity of passions, which is where the heart's corruption lies, disrupts our reason and makes us more like savages. It’s incredible how inclined we are to imitate, and how strangely, without even realizing it, we are shaped and molded by the examples often presented to us. No anger or jealousy is ever seen at an opera, which distorts features; no harmful flames, nor is any love portrayed that isn’t pure and almost angelic; and it’s impossible for the memory to carry anything away from them that could tarnish the imagination. Secondly, the crowd is of a different type: the venue itself ensures peace and preserves everyone’s dignity; it’s hard to find another place where youthful innocence and irresistible beauty require so little protection. Here, we are guaranteed never to encounter rudeness or bad manners, and to be free from immodest obscenity, libertine humor, and vile satire. If you consider, on one side, the richness and splendor of attire, and the quality of the individuals wearing them; the array of colors, and the brightness of the lovely in a spacious theater, well-lit and decorated; and on the other, the dignified behavior of the audience, and the self-awareness visible on every face regarding the respect owed to one another, you must admit that there cannot be a more enjoyable pastime on earth: believe me, Madam, there’s no place, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]where both genders have such chances of absorbing elevated sentiments and lifting themselves above the ordinary, as they do at the opera; and there’s no other type of entertainment or gathering from which young people of quality can have similar hopes of shaping their character and cultivating a strong and lasting habit of virtue.

Ful. You have said more in commendation of operas, Horatio, than I ever heard or thought of before; and I think every body who loves that diversion is highly obliged to you. The grand gout, I believe, is a great help in panegyric, especially, where it is an incivility strictly to examine and over-curiously to look into matters.

Ful. You've praised operas, Horatio, more than I've ever heard or imagined before; and I think everyone who enjoys that entertainment owes you a big thanks. I believe the grand gout really helps with compliments, especially when it's considered rude to scrutinize things too closely.

Cleo. What say you now, Fulvia, of nature and good sense, are they not quite beat out of doors?

Cleo. What do you think now, Fulvia? Has nature and common sense been completely shut out?

Ful. I have heard nothing yet, to make me out of conceit with good sense; though what you insinuated of nature, as if it was not to be imitated in painting, is an opinion, I must confess, which hitherto I more admire at, than I can approve of it.

Ful. I haven't heard anything yet that makes me doubt good sense; however, what you suggested about nature, as if it shouldn't be imitated in painting, is an opinion that I must admit I admire more than I actually agree with.

Hor. I would never recommend any thing, Madam, that is repugnant to good sense; but Cleomenes must have some design in over-acting the part he pretends to have chosen. What he said about painting is very true, whether he spoke it in jest or in earnest; but he talks so diametrically opposite to the opinion which he is known every where to defend of late, that I do not know what to make of him.

Hor. I would never suggest anything, Madam, that goes against common sense; but Cleomenes must have some intention behind exaggerating the role he claims to have chosen. What he said about painting is absolutely true, whether he said it jokingly or seriously; but he speaks in such stark contrast to the opinion he has been defending everywhere lately that I am at a loss about what to think of him.

Ful. I am convinced of the narrowness of my own understanding, and am going to visit some persons, with whom I shall be more upon the level.

Ful. I'm aware of the limits of my own understanding, and I'm going to meet with some people who I feel will be on the same wavelength as me.

Hor. You will give me leave to wait upon you to your coach, Madam.——Pray, Cleomenes, what is it you have got in your head?

Hor. May I accompany you to your coach, Madam? —— Please, Cleomenes, what's on your mind?

Cleo. Nothing at all: I told you before, that I was so entirely recovered from my folly, that few people went my lengths. What jealousy you entertain of me I do not know; but I find myself much improved in the social system. Formerly I thought, that chief ministers, and all those at the helm of affairs, acted from principles of avarice and ambition; that in all the pains they took, and even in the slaveries they underwent for the public good, they had their private ends, and that they were supported in the fatigue by secret enjoyments they were unwilling to own. It is not a month ago, that I imagined that the inward care and real solicitude of [288]all great men centered within themselves; and that to enrich themselves, acquire titles of honour, and raise their families on the one hand, and to have opportunities on the other of displaying a judicious fancy to all the elegant comforts of life, and establishing, without the least trouble of self-denial, the reputation of being wise, humane, and munificent, were the things, which, besides the satisfaction there is in superiority and the pleasure of governing, all candidates to high offices and great posts proposed to themselves, from the places they sued for: I was so narrow minded, that I could not conceive how a man would ever voluntarily submit to be a slave but to serve himself. But I have abandoned that ill-natured way of judging: I plainly perceive the public good, in all the designs of politicians, the social virtues shine in every action, and I find that the national interest is the compass that all statesmen steer by.

Cleo. Nothing at all: I told you before that I've completely moved on from my past mistakes, and not many people see things the way I do. I don't know why you feel so jealous of me, but I've noticed I'm much better at navigating social situations now. I used to think that leaders and those in charge acted purely out of greed and ambition; I believed they were motivated by their own self-interest, even when they seemingly worked hard and made sacrifices for the public good. I thought they found hidden pleasures in their struggles that they were too ashamed to admit. Just a month ago, I believed that the true concerns of all great figures were self-centered—that they wanted to gain wealth, titles, and elevate their families, while also enjoying the finer things in life and presenting themselves as wise, kind, and generous without any effort to sacrifice their desires. I couldn't understand how someone would willingly endure hardship unless it was for their own benefit. But I've changed my harsh perspective: I now clearly see the public good behind politicians' plans, the social virtues shine through their actions, and I realize that the national interest guides all statesmen in their decisions.

Hor. That is more than I can prove; but certainly there have been such men, there have been patriots, that without selfish views have taken incredible pains for their country’s welfare: nay, there are men now that would do the same, if they were employed; and we have had princes that have neglected their ease and pleasure, and sacrificed their quiet, to promote the prosperity and increase the wealth and honour of the kingdom, and had nothing so much at heart as the happiness of their subjects.

Hor. That's more than I can prove; but there definitely have been men like that—patriots who selflessly worked hard for their country's well-being. In fact, there are still men today who would do the same if given the chance. We've also had rulers who set aside their own comfort and pleasure, sacrificing their peace to boost the prosperity and wealth of the kingdom, putting the happiness of their people above all else.

Cleo. No disaffection, I beg of you. The difference between past and present times, and persons in and out of places, is perhaps clearer to you than it is to me; but it is many years ago, you know, that it has been agreed between us never to enter into party disputes: what I desire your attention to, is my reformation, which you seem to doubt of, and the great change that is wrought in me. The religion of most kings and other high potentates, I formerly had but a slender opinion of, but now I measure their piety by what they say of it themselves to their subjects.

Cleo. Please, don't be upset with me. The differences between the past and the present, and the people in and out of positions, might be clearer to you than to me; but it's been many years since we agreed never to get into political arguments. What I want you to focus on is my change, which you seem to doubt, and the significant transformation that has happened to me. I used to think little of the religious beliefs of most kings and other powerful leaders, but now I judge their faith by how they talk about it to their subjects.

Hor. That is very kindly done.

That's really nice of you.

Cleo. By thinking meanly of things, I once had strange blundering notions concerning foreign wars: I thought that many of them arose from trifling causes, magnified by politicians for their own ends; that the most ruinous misunderstandings between states and kingdoms might spring from the hidden malice, folly, or caprice of one man; that many of them had been owing to the private quarrels, piques, resentments, [289]and the haughtiness of the chief ministers of the respective nations, that were the sufferers; and that what is called personal hatred between princes seldom was more at first, than either an open or secret animosity which the two great favourites of those courts had against one another: but now I have learned to derive those things from higher causes. I am reconciled likewise to the luxury of the voluptuous, which I used to be offended at, because now I am convinced that the money of most rich men, is laid out with the social design of promoting arts and sciences, and that in the most expensive undertakings their principal aim is the employment of the poor.

Cleo. I used to have some odd ideas about foreign wars due to my negative perspective: I believed that many of them started from minor issues that politicians exaggerated for their own purposes; that the worst misunderstandings between countries could come from the hidden malice, foolishness, or whims of just one individual; that many conflicts were fueled by the personal disagreements, grudges, and arrogance of the top ministers of those nations involved; and that what’s often called personal hatred between rulers was mostly just an open or secret rivalry between their main favorites. But now I've learned to see these things as stemming from deeper causes. I’ve also come to accept the extravagant lifestyles of the wealthy, which used to upset me, because I now realize that most rich people's money is spent with the intention of supporting the arts and sciences, and that in their most lavish endeavors, their main goal is to provide employment for the poor.

Hor. These are lengths indeed.

Hor. These are long lengths indeed.

Cleo. I have a strong aversion to satire, and detest it every whit as much as you do: the most instructive writings to understand the world, and penetrate into the heart of man, I take to be addresses, epithets, dedications, and above all, the preambles to patents, of which I am making a large collection.

Cleo. I really dislike satire and hate it just as much as you do. I believe the most insightful writings for understanding the world and getting to the core of human nature are addresses, descriptions, dedications, and especially the introductions to patents, of which I am building a large collection.

Hor. A very useful undertaking!

A very helpful project!

Cleo. But to remove all your doubts of my conversion, I will show you some easy rules I have laid down for young beginners.

Cleo. But to clear up any doubts you have about my change of heart, I’ll share some simple rules I’ve created for beginners.

Hor. What to do?

What should I do?

Cleo. To judge of mens actions by the lovely system of Lord Shaftsbury, in a manner diametrically opposite to that of the Fable of the Bees.

Cleo. To evaluate men's actions based on the beautiful framework of Lord Shaftesbury, in a way that is completely opposite to the Fable of the Bees.

Hor. I do not understand you.

I don't understand you.

Cleo. You will presently. I have called them rules, but they are rather examples from which the rules are to be gathered: as for instance, if we see an industrious poor woman, who has pinched her belly, and gone in rags for a considerable time to save forty shillings, part with her money to put out her son at six years of age to a chimney-sweeper; to judge of her charitably, according to the system of the social virtues, we must imagine, that though she never paid for the sweeping of a chimney in her life, she knows by experience, that for want of this necessary cleanliness the broth has been often spoiled, and many a chimney has been set on fire, and therefore to do good in her generation, as far as she is able, she gives up her all, both offspring and estate, to assist in preventing the several mischiefs that are often occasioned by great quantities of soot disregarded; and, free from selfishness, [290]sacrifices her only son to the most wretched employment for the public welfare.

Cleo. You will soon understand. I’ve referred to them as rules, but they’re really examples from which rules should be inferred. For example, if we see a hardworking poor woman who has gone without food and worn rags for a long time to save forty shillings and then uses that money to send her six-year-old son to be a chimney-sweeper, we have to consider that, even though she’s never paid for chimney sweeping herself, she understands from experience that without proper cleaning, food can be ruined, and chimneys can catch fire. So, in her effort to do good in her time, as much as she can, she gives up everything—her child and her means—to help prevent the various dangers that come from neglecting soot. Selflessly, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] she sacrifices her only son to a grim job for the benefit of others.

Hor. You do not vie I see with Lord Shaftsbury, for loftiness of subjects.

Hor. I can see that you're not competing with Lord Shaftsbury when it comes to the grandeur of your topics.

Cleo. When in a starry night with amazement we behold the glory of the firmament, nothing is more obvious than that the whole, the beautiful all, must be the workmanship of one great Architect of power and wisdom stupendous; and it is as evident, that every thing in the universe is a constituent part of one entire fabric.

Cleo. On a starry night, when we marvel at the beauty of the sky, it’s clear that the whole magnificent scene must be created by one incredible Architect with immense power and wisdom; and it’s just as obvious that everything in the universe is a part of one complete tapestry.

Hor. Would you make a jest of this too.

Hor. Are you going to joke about this as well?

Cleo. Far from it: they are awful truths, of which I am as much convinced as I am of my own existence; but I was going to name the consequences, which Lord Shaftsbury draws from them, in order to demonstrate to you, that I am a convert, and a very punctual observer of his Lordship’s instructions, and that, in my judgment on the poor woman’s conduct, there is nothing that is not entirely agreeable to the generous way of thinking set forth and recommended in the Characteristics.

Cleo. Not at all: these are harsh truths, and I believe in them as strongly as I believe in my own existence. But I was about to mention the consequences that Lord Shaftsbury outlines to show you that I've adopted his views and am a diligent follower of his Lordship's guidance. In my thoughts about the poor woman's actions, I see nothing that doesn't align perfectly with the generous mindset discussed and encouraged in the Characteristics.

Hor. Is it possible a man should read such a book, and make no better use of it! I desire you would name the consequences you speak of.

Hor. Is it possible for someone to read such a book and not use it wisely? Please tell me the consequences you’re talking about.

Cleo. As that infinity of luminous bodies, however different in magnitude, velocity, and the figures they describe in their courses, concur all of them to make up the universe, so this little spot we inhabit is likewise a compound of air, water, fire, minerals, vegetables, and living creatures, which, though vastly differing from one another in their nature, do altogether make up the body of this terraqueous globe.

Cleo. Just like the countless bright bodies in the universe, each varying in size, speed, and shape, all come together to form a whole, the small space we live in is also made up of air, water, fire, minerals, plants, and living beings. Although they are vastly different in nature, they all combine to create the body of this earth and water globe.

Hor. This is very right, and in the same manner as our whole species is composed of many nations of different religions, forms of government, interests and manners that divide and share the earth between them; so the civil society in every nation consists in great multitudes of both sexes, that widely differing from each other in age, constitution, strength, temper, wisdom and possessions, all help to make up one body politic.

Hor. This is absolutely true, and just as our entire species is made up of many nations with different religions, types of government, interests, and customs that share the earth among them; civil society in every nation consists of large groups of both men and women, who differ greatly from each other in age, health, strength, temperament, intelligence, and wealth, all contributing to form one political community.

Cleo. The same exactly which I would have said: now, pray Sir, is not the great end of men’s forming themselves into such societies, mutual happiness; I mean, do not all individual persons, from being thus combined, propose to themselves a more comfortable condition of life, than human creatures, [291]if they were to live like other wild animals, without tie or dependance, could enjoy in a free and savage state?

Cleo. That's exactly what I would have said: now, please, sir, isn't the main purpose of people coming together in societies mutual happiness? I mean, don't all individuals, by being connected, aim for a more comfortable life than human beings could have if they lived like wild animals, without ties or dependencies, in a free and savage state? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. This certainly is not only the end, but the end which is every where attained to by government and society, in some degree or other.

Hor. This is definitely not just the end, but the end that is reached by government and society, to some extent or another, everywhere.

Cleo. Hence it must follow, that it is always wrong for men to pursue gain or pleasure, by means that are visibly detrimental to the civil society, and that creatures who can do this must be narrow-souled, short-sighted, selfish people; whereas, wise men never look upon themselves as individual persons, without considering the whole, of which they are but trifling parts in respect to bulk, and are incapable of receiving any satisfaction from things that interfere with the public welfare. This being undeniably true, ought not all private advantage to give way to this general interest; and ought it not to be every one’s endeavour, to increase this common stock of happiness; and, in order to it, do what he can to render himself a serviceable and useful member of that whole body which he belongs to?

Cleo. Therefore, it follows that it's always wrong for people to seek profit or pleasure in ways that clearly harm society. Those who do so must be small-minded, shortsighted, and selfish individuals. In contrast, wise people never see themselves as just individuals; they consider the bigger picture, of which they are merely minor parts, and they cannot find satisfaction in actions that disrupt the public good. Given that this is undeniably true, shouldn't all personal gain take a backseat to the common good? Shouldn't everyone strive to contribute to the shared happiness of the community and do their best to become a helpful and valuable member of the society they belong to?

Hor. What of all this?

Hor. What’s all this about?

Cleo. Has not my poor woman, in what I have related of her, acted in conformity to this social system?

Cleo. Hasn't my poor woman, in what I've shared about her, acted according to this social system?

Hor. Can any one in his senses imagine, that an indigent thoughtless wretch, without sense or education, should ever act from such generous principles?

Hor. Can anyone in their right mind believe that a poor, careless person, lacking sense or education, would ever act on such generous principles?

Cleo. Poor I told you the woman was, and I will not insist upon her education; but as for her being thoughtless and void of sense, you will give me leave to say, that it is an aspersion for which you have no manner of foundation; and from the account I have given of her, nothing can be gathered but that she was a considerate, virtuous, wise woman, in poverty.

Cleo. I mentioned before how poor the woman was, and I won’t go into her education; but to say she was thoughtless and lacking in intelligence is simply untrue, and I hope you’ll agree that there’s no basis for that claim. From what I've told you about her, it’s clear she was a thoughtful, virtuous, and wise woman, despite her poverty.

Hor. I suppose you would persuade me that you are in earnest.

Hor. I guess you want me to believe that you’re serious.

Cleo. I am much more so than you imagine; and say once, more, that, in the example I have given, I have trod exactly in my Lord Shaftsbury’s steps, and closely followed the social system. If I have committed any error, show it me.

Cleo. I’m actually more so than you think; and I’ll say again that, in the example I provided, I’ve walked exactly in Lord Shaftsbury’s footsteps and closely followed the social system. If I’ve made any mistakes, point them out to me.

Hor. Did that author ever meddle with any thing so low and pitiful.

Hor. Did that author ever get involved with anything so petty and miserable?

Cleo. There can be nothing mean in noble actions, whoever the persons are that perform them. But if the vulgar [292]are to be all excluded from the social virtues, what rule or instruction shall the labouring poor, which are by far the greatest part of the nation, have left them to walk by, when the Characteristics have made a jest of all revealed religion, especially the Christian? but if you despise the poor and illiterate, I can, in the same method, judge of men in higher stations. Let the enemies to the social system behold the venerable counsellor, now grown eminent for his wealth, that at his great age continues sweltering at the bar to plead the doubtful cause, and, regardless of his dinner, shorten his own life in endeavouring to secure the possessions of others. How conspicuous is the benevolence of the physician to his kind, who, from morning till night, visiting the sick, keeps several sets of horses to be more serviceable to many, and still grudges himself the time for the necessary functions of life! In the same manner the indefatigable clergyman, who, with his ministry, supplies a very large parish already, solicits with zeal to be as useful and beneficent to another, though fifty of his order, yet unemployed, offer their service for the same purpose.

Cleo. There’s nothing petty about noble actions, no matter who performs them. But if we’re going to exclude the common people [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] from social virtues, what guidelines or teachings will the working poor, who make up the majority of the nation, have left to follow, especially when the Characteristics have mocked all revealed religion, particularly Christianity? If you look down on the poor and uneducated, I can just as easily judge those in higher positions. Let the critics of the social system see the respected advisor, now thriving in wealth, who at his advanced age still toils at the bar to argue uncertain cases, neglecting his meals and shortening his own life to protect the properties of others. How clear is the kindness of the doctor, who spends his days visiting the sick, keeping multiple sets of horses to help many, while barely allowing himself the time for essential personal needs! Similarly, the tireless clergyman, who already serves a large parish, ardently seeks to be of help and support to another, even though fifty other clergy members, still available, are eager to do the same.

Hor. I perceive your drift: from the strained panegyrics you labour at, you would form arguments ad absurdum: the banter is ingenious enough, and, at proper times, might serve to raise a laugh; but then you must own likewise, that those studied encomiums will not bear to be seriously examined into. When we consider that the great business as well as perpetual solicitude of the poor, are to supply their immediate wants, and keep themselves from starving, and that their children are a burden to them, which they groan under, and desire to be delivered from by all possible means, that are not clashing with the low involuntary affection which nature forces them to have for their offspring: when, I say, we consider this, the virtues of your industrious make no great figure. The public spirit likewise, and the generous principles, your sagacity has found out in the three faculties, to which men are brought up for a livelihood, seem to be very far fetched. Fame, wealth, and greatness, every age can witness: but whatever labour or fatigue they submit to, the motives of their actions are as conspicuous as their calling themselves.

Hor. I see what you're getting at: from the forced compliments you’re working on, you're trying to make arguments ad absurdum: the jokes are clever enough, and at the right moments, they could get a laugh; but you have to admit that those overly crafted praises won't hold up under serious scrutiny. When we consider that the main concern and constant worry of the poor is to meet their basic needs and avoid starvation, and that their children are a burden they struggle with and want to be free from by any means possible—while still battling the natural affection they feel for their kids—when we think about this, the virtues of hardworking people don’t stand out much. The public spirit and noble ideals you’ve identified in the three professions people take up to make a living seem pretty far-fetched too. Fame, wealth, and status are things every era can attest to: but regardless of the hard work or effort they put in, the reasons behind their actions are as clear as the jobs they hold.

Cleo. Are they not beneficial to mankind, and of use to the public? [293]

Cleo. Aren't they helpful to humanity and useful for the public? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. I do not deny that; we often receive inestimable benefits from them, and the good ones in either profession are not only useful, but very necessary to the society: but though there are several that sacrifice their whole lives, and all the comforts of them, to their business, there is not one of them that would take a quarter of the pains he now is at, if, without taking any, he could acquire the same money, reputation, and other advantages that may accrue to him from the esteem or gratitude of those whom he has been serviceable to; and I do not believe, there is an eminent man among them that would not own this if the question was put to him. Therefore, when ambition and the love of money are avowed principles men act from, it is very silly to ascribe virtues to them, which they themselves pretend to lay no manner of claim to. But your encomium upon the parson is the merriest jest of all: I have heard many excuses made, and some of them very frivolous, for the covetousness of priests; but what you have picked out in their praise is more extraordinary than any thing I ever met with; and the most partial advocate and admirer of the clergy never yet discovered before yourself a great virtue in their hunting after pluralities, when they were well provided for themselves, and many others for want of employ were ready to starve.

Hor. I can’t deny that; we often gain invaluable benefits from them, and the good ones in either profession are not just useful, but essential to society. However, even though some dedicate their entire lives and comforts to their work, none of them would put in as much effort if they could easily gain the same money, reputation, and other benefits from the respect or gratitude of those they've helped, without any work. I doubt there’s an outstanding person among them who wouldn’t admit this if we asked. So, when ambition and the desire for money are openly accepted motivations for their actions, it’s quite foolish to attribute virtues to them that they themselves claim they don’t possess. But your praise for the minister is the funniest joke of all: I’ve heard plenty of excuses made—some very trivial—for the greed of priests, but what you’ve highlighted as their virtue is more astonishing than anything I’ve ever encountered. Not even the most biased supporter or admirer of the clergy has ever suggested before you that there’s a great virtue in their pursuit of multiple positions while they’re already well-off, especially when many others are struggling to survive without work.

Cleo. But if there be any reality in the social system, it would be better for the public, if men, in, all professions, were to act from those generous principles; and you will allow, that the society would be the gainers, if the generality in the three faculties would mind others more, and themselves less than they do now.

Cleo. But if there's any truth to the social system, it would benefit the public if men in all professions acted according to those generous principles. You have to agree that society would benefit if the majority in the three fields focused more on others and less on themselves than they currently do.

Hor. I do not know that; and considering what slavery some lawyers, as well as physicians, undergo, I much question whether it would be possible for them to exert themselves in the same manner though they would, if the constant baits and refreshments of large fees did not help to support human nature, by continually stimulating this darling passion.

Hor. I don’t know about that; and looking at the kind of hardship some lawyers and doctors go through, I seriously doubt they could work as hard if it weren't for the constant temptation and perks of big fees that help keep people motivated by feeding that deep desire.

Cleo. Indeed, Horatio, this is a stronger argument against the social system, and more injurious to it than any thing that has been said by the author whom you have exclaimed against with so much bitterness.

Cleo. Truly, Horatio, this is a more compelling argument against the social system and more damaging to it than anything that has been said by the author you've criticized so harshly.

Hor. I deny that: I do not conclude from the selfishness in some, that there is no virtue in others. [294]

Hor. I disagree with that: I don’t believe that just because some people are selfish, it means there’s no virtue in others. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. Nor he neither, and you very much wrong him if you assert that he ever did.

Cleo. Neither did he, and you really misunderstand him if you claim that he ever did.

Hor. I refuse to commend what is not praise-worthy; but as bad as mankind are, virtue has an existence as well as vice, though it is more scarce.

Hor. I won't praise what doesn't deserve it; but even though people can be pretty terrible, virtue exists alongside vice, even if it's harder to find.

Cleo. What you said last, nobody ever contradicted; but I do not know what you would be at: does not the Lord Shaftsbury endeavour to do good, and promote the social virtues, and am I not doing the very same? suppose me to be in the wrong in the favourable constructions I have made of things, still it is to be wished for at least, that men had a greater regard to the public welfare, less fondness for their private interest, and more charity for their neighbours, than the generality of them have.

Cleo. What you said last, no one has ever disagreed with; but I don't really understand what you mean: Isn't Lord Shaftsbury trying to do good and encourage social virtues, and am I not doing the same? Even if I’m wrong in my positive views about things, it would still be nice if people cared more about the public good, had less attachment to their own interests, and showed more kindness toward their neighbors than most of them do.

Hor. To be wished for, perhaps, it may be, but what probability is there that this ever will come to pass?

Hor. It might be something to hope for, but what are the chances that this will actually happen?

Cleo. And unless that can come to pass, it is the idlest thing in the world to discourse upon, and demonstrate the excellency of virtue; what signifies it to set forth the beauty of it, unless it was possible that men should fall in love with it?

Cleo. And unless that can happen, it's the most pointless thing in the world to talk about and prove the greatness of virtue; what does it matter to highlight its beauty if it's not possible for people to fall in love with it?

Hor. If virtue was never recommended, men might grow worse than they are.

Hor. If virtue was never encouraged, people might become worse than they already are.

Cleo. Then, by the same reason, if it was recommended more, men might grow better than they are. But I see perfectly well the reason of these shifts and evasions you make use of against your opinion: You find yourself under a necessity of allowing my panegyrics, as you call them, to be just; or finding the same fault with most of my Lord Shaftsbury’s; and you would do neither if you could help it: From mens preferring company to solitude, his Lordship pretends to prove the love and natural affection we have for our own species: If this was examined into with the same strictness as you have done every thing I have said in behalf of the three faculties, I believe that the solidity of the consequences would be pretty equal in both. But I stick to my text, and stand up for the social virtues: The noble author of that system had a most charitable opinion of his species, and extolled the dignity of it in an extraordinary manner, and why my imitation of him should be called a banter, I see no reason. He certainly wrote with a good design, and endeavoured to inspire his readers with refined notions, and a public spirit abstract from religion: The world enjoys the fruits [295]of his labours; but the advantage that is justly expected from his writings, can never be so universally felt, before that public spirit, which he recommended, comes down to the meanest tradesmen, whom you would endeavour to exclude from the generous sentiments and noble pleasures that are already so visible in many. I am now thinking on two sorts of people that stand very much in need of, and yet hardly ever meet with one another: This misfortune must have caused such a chasm in the band of society, that no depth of thought, or happiness of contrivance, could have filled up the vacuity, if a most tender regard for the commonwealth, and the height of benevolence did not influence and oblige others, mere strangers to those people, and commonly men of small education, to afflict them with their good offices, and stop up the gap. Many ingenious workmen, in obscure dwellings, would be starved in spite of industry, only for want of knowing where to sell the product of their labour, if there were not others to dispose of it for them: And again, the rich and extravagant are daily furnished with an infinite variety of superfluous knicknacks and elaborate trifles, every one of them invented to gratify either a needless curiosity, or else wantonness and folly; and which they could never have thought of, much less wanted, had they never seen or known where to buy them. What a blessing, then, to the public, is the social toyman, who lays out a considerable estate to gratify the desires of these two different classes of people? He procures food and raiment for the deserving poor, and searches with great diligence after the most skilful artificers, that no man shall be able to produce better workmanship than himself: with studied civilities, and a serene countenance, he entertains the greatest strangers; and, often speaking to them first, kindly offers to guess at their wants: He confines not his attendance to a few stated hours, but waits their leisure all day long in an open shop, where he bears the summer’s heat, and winter’s cold, with equal cheerfulness. What a beautiful prospect is here of natural affection to our kind! For, if he acts from that principle, who only furnishes us with necessaries of life, certainly he shows a more superlative love and indulgence to his species, who will not suffer the most whimsical of it to be an hour destitute of what he shall fancy, even things the most unnecessary.

Cleo. So, by the same logic, if it were suggested more often, people could become better than they are. But I clearly see the reason for the excuses and dodges you use against your viewpoint: You feel compelled to acknowledge my praises, as you refer to them, as valid; or you would have to find the same fault in most of Lord Shaftesbury’s ideas; and you wouldn't do either if you could get away with it. From people preferring company over solitude, his Lordship tries to prove the love and natural affection we have for our own kind: If this were examined with the same rigor as you have for everything I have said on behalf of the three faculties, I believe the strength of the conclusions would be pretty similar in both cases. But I stick to my point and advocate for the social virtues: The noble author of that system had a very generous view of humanity and praised its dignity in an amazing way, and I see no reason why my imitation of him should be seen as mockery. He certainly wrote with good intentions and tried to inspire his readers with refined ideas and a sense of public spirit separate from religion: The world enjoys the benefits [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] of his efforts; but the benefits that are rightly expected from his writings can never be universally appreciated until the public spirit he promoted reaches even the lowest tradespeople, whom you would try to exclude from the noble sentiments and pleasures that many already experience. I am currently thinking of two groups of people who are in great need of each other but rarely come together: This separation must have caused such a rift in society that no depth of thought or clever solutions could bridge the gap, if it weren’t for the deep care for the community and the height of kindness that compel others, who are strangers to those people and often of little education, to help them with their kindness and fill the void. Many skilled workers in hidden places would starve despite their hard work, just because they don’t know where to sell their products, if there weren't others to do it for them: And on the other hand, the wealthy and extravagant are constantly supplied with countless unnecessary trinkets and elaborate items, each designed to satisfy either a pointless curiosity or sheer silliness; and they could never have thought of, much less wanted, these things had they not seen or known where to buy them. What a blessing to the public is the social merchant, who spends a significant fortune to meet the needs of these two different groups? He provides food and clothing for the deserving poor, diligently searches for the most skilled craftsmen, ensuring no one can produce better work than he does: With thoughtful kindness and a pleasant demeanor, he engages with the most important customers; and often taking the initiative to talk to them first, he kindly offers to anticipate their needs: He doesn’t limit his service to a few set hours but waits for their convenience all day long in an open shop, enduring the summer heat and winter chill with equal cheerfulness. What a wonderful picture of natural affection for our kind this is! For if he acts out of that principle, who merely supplies us with life’s necessities, surely he demonstrates a deeper love and care for his fellow humans by ensuring that even the most whimsical among them never has to go without what they fancy, even the most unnecessary things.

Hor. You have made the most of it indeed, but are you not tired yet with these fooleries yourself? [296]

Hor. You’ve really gone all out, but aren’t you tired of these silly antics yet? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. What fault do you find with these kind constructions; do they detract from the dignity of our species?

Cleo. What problem do you have with these kinds of buildings; do they take away from the dignity of our species?

Hor. I admire your invention, and thus much I will own, that, by overacting the part in that extravagant manner, you have set the social system in a more disadvantageous light than ever I had considered it before: But the best things, you know, may be ridiculed.

Hor. I really appreciate your creativity, and I have to admit that by taking your role to such an extreme, you’ve shown the social system in a worse light than I ever thought possible. But, you know, even the best things can be made fun of.

Cleo. Whether I know that or not, Lord Shaftsbury has flatly denied it; and takes joke and banter to be the best and surest touchstone to prove the worth of things: It is his opinion, that no ridicule can be fastened upon what is really great and good. His Lordship has made use of that test to try the Scriptures and the Christian religion by, and exposed them because it seems they could not stand it.

Cleo. Regardless of whether I agree or not, Lord Shaftsbury has outright denied it; he believes that humor and teasing are the best ways to determine the value of things. He thinks that nothing truly great and good can be ridiculed. His Lordship has used this method to evaluate the Scriptures and the Christian faith, and he has criticized them because they seem to fail under this scrutiny.

Hor. He has exposed superstition, and the miserable notions the vulgar were taught to have of God; but no man ever had more sublime ideas of the Supreme Being, and the universe, than himself.

Hor. He has revealed the foolishness of superstition and the sad ideas that ordinary people were taught to have about God; yet no one has ever had more profound thoughts about the Supreme Being and the universe than he does.

Cleo. You are convinced, that what I charge him with is true.

Cleo. You really believe that what I'm accusing him of is true.

Hor. I do not pretend to defend every syllable that noble Lord has wrote. His style is engaging, his language is polite, his reasoning strong; many of his thoughts are beautifully expressed, and his images, for the greatest part, inimitably fine. I may be pleased with an author, without obliging myself to answer every cavil that shall be made against him. As to what you call your imitation of him, I have no taste in burlesque: but the laugh you would raise might be turned upon you with less trouble than you seem to have taken. Pray, when you consider the hard and dirty labours that are performed to supply the mob with the vast quantities of strong beer they swill, do not you discover social virtue in a drayman?

Hor. I'm not trying to defend every single word that noble Lord has written. His style is captivating, his language is polite, and his reasoning is solid; many of his ideas are beautifully put, and his imagery is mostly incredibly fine. I can appreciate an author without feeling the need to respond to every criticism that comes up against him. As for what you call your imitation of him, I don't have a taste for parody: but the joke you want to make could easily be turned back on you with less effort than you seem to have invested. Please, when you think about the tough and messy work that goes into providing the crowd with the huge amounts of strong beer they consume, don’t you see social value in a drayman?

Cleo. Yes, and in a dray-horse too; at least as well as I can in some great men, who yet would be very angry should we refuse to believe, that the most selfish actions of theirs, if the society received but the least benefit from them, were chiefly owing to principles of virtue, and a generous regard to the public. Do you believe that, in the choice of a Pope, the greatest dependence of the Cardinals, and what they principally rely upon, is the influence of the Holy Ghost?

Cleo. Yes, and in a draft horse too; at least as well as I can in some prominent figures who would be really upset if we didn't believe that their most selfish actions, even if society benefited slightly from them, were mainly due to virtuous principles and a genuine concern for the public good. Do you think that, when choosing a Pope, the Cardinals rely most on the influence of the Holy Spirit?

Hor. No more than I do transubstantiation. [297]

Hor. Just as little as I do transubstantiation. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. But if you had been brought up a Roman Catholic, you would believe both.

Cleo. But if you had been raised Roman Catholic, you would believe both.

Hor. I do not know that.

I don’t know that.

Cleo. You would, if you was sincere in your religion, as thousands of them are, that are no more destitute of reason and good sense than you or I.

Cleo. You would, if you were sincere in your faith, just like thousands of others who are just as reasonable and sensible as you or I.

Hor. I have nothing to say as to that: there are many things incomprehensible, that yet are certainly true: These are properly the objects of faith; and, therefore, when matters are above my capacity, and really surpass my understanding, I am silent, and submit with great humility: but I will swallow nothing which I plainly apprehend to be contrary to my reason, and is directly clashing with my senses.

Hor. I don’t have anything to say about that: there are many things that are hard to understand but are definitely true. These are really the things we have to believe in. So, when things are beyond my ability to grasp and truly exceed my understanding, I stay quiet and accept them with a lot of humility. However, I won’t accept anything that I clearly see as going against my reason and that directly conflicts with my senses.

Cleo. If you believe a Providence, what demonstration can you have, that God does not direct men in an affair of higher importance to all Christendom, than any other you can name?

Cleo. If you believe in a higher power, what proof do you have that God isn’t guiding people in a matter of greater significance for all of Christianity than any other you can mention?

Hor. This is an ensnaring, and a very unfair question. Providence superintends and governs every thing without exception. To defend my negative, and give a reason for my unbelief, it is sufficient, if I prove, that all the instruments, and the means they make use of in those elections, are visibly human and mundane, and many of them unwarrantable and wicked.

Hor. This is a tricky and really unfair question. Fate oversees and controls everything without exception. To support my disagreement and explain my disbelief, it's enough to show that all the tools and methods used in those elections are clearly human and worldly, many of which are unjust and immoral.

Cleo. Not all the means; because every day they have prayers, and solemnly invoke the Divine assistance.

Cleo. Not all the methods; because every day they pray and earnestly seek Divine help.

Hor. But what stress they lay upon it may be easily gathered from the rest of their behaviour. The court of Rome is, without dispute, the greatest academy of refined politics, and the best school to learn the art of caballing: there ordinary cunning, and known stratagems, are counted rusticity, and designs are pursued through all the mazes of human subtlety. Genius there must give way to finesse, as strength does to art in wrestling; and a certain skill some men have in concealing their capacities from others, is of far greater use with them, than real knowledge, or the soundest understanding. In the sacred college, where every thing is auro venale, truth and justice bear the lowest price: Cardinal Palavicini, and other Jesuits, that have been the stanch advocates of the Papal authority, have owned with ostentation the Politia religiosa della chiésa, and not hid from us the virtues and accomplishments, that were only valuable among the Purpurati, in whose judgment over-reaching, at any rate, is the highest honour, and to be outwitted, though by the basest [298]artifice, the greatest shame. In conclaves, more especially, nothing is carried on without tricks and intrigue; and in them the heart of man is so deep, and so dark an abyss, that the finest air of dissimulation is sometimes found to have been insincere, and men often deceive one another, by counterfeiting hypocrisy. And is it credible, that holiness, religion, or the least concern for spirituals, should have any share in the plots, machinations, brigues, and contrivances of a society, of which each member, besides the gratification of his own passions, has nothing at heart but the interest of his party, right or wrong, and to distress every faction that opposes it?

Hor. But you can easily tell how much they emphasize this from their actions. The court of Rome is, without a doubt, the top place for sophisticated politics and the best school for mastering the art of scheming. There, common tricks and known strategies are considered naive, and plans are carried out through the complex twists of human cunning. In that environment, natural talent must yield to cleverness, just as brute strength has to adapt to skill in wrestling; and having a knack for hiding one's true abilities is far more valuable to them than actual knowledge or sound judgment. In the sacred college, where everything is auro venale, truth and justice are worth the least: Cardinal Palavicini and other Jesuits, who have been fierce supporters of Papal authority, have openly claimed the Politia religiosa della chiésa and have not hidden from us the virtues and skills that hold value only among the Purpurati, where outsmarting others is regarded as the highest honor, while being outwitted—even by the most pitiful [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] trick—is seen as the greatest shame. In conclaves, especially, nothing happens without schemes and manipulation; there, the human heart is such a deep and dark abyss that even the most skillful pretense can turn out to be insincere, and people often deceive one another by faking hypocrisy. Can it really be believed that holiness, religion, or even the slightest concern for spiritual matters plays any role in the schemes, plots, intrigues, and tricks of a society where each member, aside from satisfying his own desires, cares only about his party's interests—right or wrong—and aims to undermine every opposing faction?

Cleo. These sentiments confirm to me what I have often heard, that renegadoes are the most cruel enemies.

Cleo. These feelings confirm what I've often heard, that turncoats are the most ruthless enemies.

Hor. Was ever I a Roman Catholic?

Hor. Was I ever a Roman Catholic?

Cleo. I mean from the social system, of which you have been the most strenuous assertor; and now no man can judge of actions more severely, and indeed less charitably, than yourself, especially of the poor cardinals. I little thought, if once I quitted the scheme of deformity, to have found an adversary in you; but we have both changed sides it seems.

Cleo. I’m talking about the social system, which you have been its strongest supporter; now, no one judges actions more harshly—and less kindly—than you, especially when it comes to the poor cardinals. I never expected that once I left the pursuit of ugliness, I would face an opponent in you; but it seems we've both switched sides.

Hor. Much alike, I believe.

Hor. I think it's quite similar.

Cleo. Nay, what could any body think to hear me making the kindest interpretations of things that can be imagined, and yourself doing quite the reverse?

Cleo. No, what could anyone think to hear me making the most generous interpretations of things imaginable, while you do just the opposite?

Hor. What ignorant people, that knew neither of us, might have done, I do not know: but it has been very manifest from our discourse, that you have maintained your cause, by endeavouring to show the absurdity of the contrary side, and that I have defended mine by letting you see, that we were not such fools as you would represent us to be. I had taken a resolution never to engage with you on this topic, but you see I have broke it: I hate to be thought uncivil; it was mere complaisance drew me in; though I am not sorry that we talked of it so much as we did, because I found your opinion less dangerous than 1 imagined: you have owned the existence of virtue, and that there are men who act from it as a principle, both which I thought you denied: but I would not have you flatter yourself that you deceived me, by hanging out false colours.

Hor. I’m not sure what ignorant people who don’t know either of us might have done, but it’s clear from our conversation that you’ve defended your position by trying to show how ridiculous the other side is, while I’ve defended mine by proving we’re not the fools you make us out to be. I had decided not to engage with you on this topic, but as you can see, I’ve broken that promise. I dislike being seen as rude; it was just politeness that got me involved. However, I’m not upset that we discussed it as much as we did, because I found your opinions less dangerous than I thought. You acknowledged the existence of virtue and that some people act on it as a principle, which I believed you denied. But don’t think you fooled me by pretending otherwise.

Cleo. I did not lay on the disguise so thick, as not to have you see through it, nor would I ever have discoursed upon this subject with any body, who could have been so easily [299]imposed upon. I know you to be a man of very good sense and sound judgment; and it is for that very reason I so heartily wish you would suffer me to explain myself, and demonstrate to you, how small the difference is between us, which you imagine to be so considerable: There is not a man in the world, in whose opinion I would less pass for an ill man than in yours; but I am so scrupulously fearful of offending you, that I never dared to touch upon some points, unless you had given me leave. Yield something to our friendship, and condescend for once to read the Fable of the Bees for my sake: It is a handsome volume: you love books: I have one extremely well bound; do; let me, suffer me to make you a present of it.

Cleo. I didn’t put on such a thick disguise that you wouldn’t see through it, nor would I ever have talked about this with anyone who could be so easily fooled. I know you’re a man of good sense and sound judgment, which is why I really hope you’ll let me explain myself and show you how small the difference is between us that you think is so large. There’s no one whose opinion I value less as a bad person than yours; but I’m so worried about offending you that I never dared to bring up certain subjects unless you gave me permission. Please, for the sake of our friendship, consider reading the Fable of the Bees for my sake: It’s a beautiful book, and you love books. I have one that's really well bound; let me gift it to you.

Hor. I am no bigot, Cleomenes; but I am a man of honour, and, you know, of strict honour: I cannot endure to hear that ridiculed, and the least attempt of it chafes my blood: Honour is the strongest and noblest tie of society by far, and therefore, believe me, can never be innocently sported with. It is a thing so solid and awful, as well as serious, that it can at no time become the object of mirth or diversion; and it is impossible for any pleasantry to be so ingenious, or any jest so witty, that I could bear with it on that head. Perhaps I am singular in this, and, if you will, in the wrong; be that as it will, all I can say is, Je ne’entens pas Raillerie la dessus; and therefore, no Fable of the Bees for me, if we are to remain friends: I have heard enough of that.

Hor. I'm not a bigot, Cleomenes, but I am a man of honor, and you know I'm strict about it. I can't stand to hear it mocked, and even the slightest attempt at it gets under my skin. Honor is by far the strongest and noblest bond in society, so believe me, it should never be treated lightly. It's something solid and serious, and it can never be a source of laughter or fun. It's impossible for any joke or witty comment to be clever enough that I could tolerate it in that context. Maybe I'm alone in this, and if you think I'm wrong, that's okay; all I can say is, Je ne’entends pas Raillerie la dessus; so no Fable of the Bees for me if we’re going to stay friends: I’ve heard enough of that.

Cleo. Pray, Horatio, can there be honour without justice?

Cleo. Please, Horatio, can there be honor without justice?

Hor. No: Who affirms there can?

Hor. No: Who says there can?

Cleo. Have you not owned, that you have thought worse of me, than now you find me to deserve? No men, nor their works, ought to be condemned upon hearsays and bare surmises, much less upon the accusations of their enemies, without being examined into.

Cleo. Haven't you admitted that you've thought worse of me than I actually deserve? No person or their deeds should be judged based on rumors and mere assumptions, even less on the accusations of their enemies, without being properly investigated.

Hor. There you are in the right: I heartily beg your pardon, and to atone for the wrong I have done you, say what you please, I will hear it with patience, be it never so shocking; but I beg of you be serious.

Hor. You're right: I sincerely apologize, and to make up for the wrong I've done to you, say whatever you want; I'll listen patiently, no matter how shocking it is. But please, take it seriously.

Cleo. I have nothing to say to you that is distasteful, much less shocking: all I desire is, to convince you, that I am neither so ill-natured nor uncharitable, in my opinion of mankind, as you take me to be: and that the notions I entertain of the worth of things, will not differ much from yours, [300]when both come to be looked into. Do but consider what we have been doing: I have endeavoured to set every thing in the handsomest light I could think of; you say, to ridicule the social system; I own it; now reflect on your own conduct, which has been to show the folly of my strained panegyrics, and replace things in that natural view, which all just, knowing men would certainly behold them in. This is very well done: but it is contrary to the scheme you pretended to maintain; and if you judge of all actions in the same manner, there is an end of the social system; or, at least, it will be evident, that it is a theory never to be put into practice. You argue for the generality of men, that they are possessed of these virtues, but when we come to particulars, you can find none. I have tried you every where: you are as little satisfied with persons of the highest rank, as you are with them of the lowest, and you count it ridiculous to think better of the middling people. Is this otherwise than standing up for the goodness of a design, at the same time you confess, that it never was, or ever can be executed? What sort of people are they, and where must we look for them, whom you will own to act from those principles of virtue?

Cleo. I have nothing unpleasant to say to you, let alone anything shocking: all I want is to convince you that I’m not as negative or unkind in my views of humanity as you think I am. The value I place on things isn’t that different from yours, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] once we both take a closer look. Just think about what we’ve been discussing: I’ve tried to present everything in the best possible light; you aim to criticize the social system, and I’ll admit that. Now reflect on your own actions, which have been to highlight the flaws in my overly positive views and to show things in a more realistic way that fair-minded, knowledgeable people would surely see. That’s well done, but it goes against the agenda you claimed to support; and if you view actions this way, the social system falls apart, or at the very least, it’ll be clear that it’s a theory that can never be put into practice. You argue that most people possess these virtues, but when we get into specifics, you can’t find any. I’ve examined this everywhere: you’re just as dissatisfied with those at the top as you are with those at the bottom, and you think it’s absurd to regard average people any better. Isn’t that just defending a good idea while admitting it has never been or can ever be realized? What kind of people are you talking about, and where must we look for those who you would agree act based on those principles of virtue?

Hor. Are there not in all countries men of birth and ample fortune, that would not accept of places, though they were offered, that are generous and beneficent, and mind nothing but what is great and noble?

Hor. Aren't there, in every country, people of high birth and great wealth who wouldn't take on positions, even if they were offered, that are generous and altruistic, and only care about what is grand and noble?

Cleo. Yes: But examine their conduct, look into their lives, and scan their actions with as little indulgence as you did those of the cardinals, or the lawyers and physicians, and then see what figure their virtues will make beyond those of the poor industrious woman. There is, generally speaking, less truth in panegyrics, than there is in satires. When all our senses are soothed, when we have no distemper of body or mind to disturb us, and meet with nothing that is disagreeable, we are pleased with our being: it is in this situation that we are most apt to mistake outward appearances for realities, and judge of things more favourably than they deserve. Remember, Horatio, how feelingly you spoke half an hour ago in commendation of operas: Your soul seemed to be lifted up whilst you was thinking on the many charms you find in them. I have nothing to say against the elegancy of the diversion, or the politeness of those that frequent them: but I am afraid you lost yourself in the contemplation [301]of the lovely idea, when you asserted that they were the most proper means to contract a strong and lasting habit of virtue; do you think, that among the same number of people, there is more real virtue at an opera, than there is at a bear-garden?

Cleo. Yes: But look at their behavior, check their lives, and analyze their actions with as little leniency as you did with the cardinals, or the lawyers and doctors, and then see how their virtues compare to those of the hardworking poor woman. Generally speaking, there’s less truth in praise than in criticism. When all our senses are pleased, when we have no physical or mental issues bothering us, and we encounter nothing unpleasant, we feel good about our existence: it’s in this state that we’re most likely to confuse appearances with reality and judge things more positively than they truly are. Remember, Horatio, how passionately you spoke half an hour ago praising operas: Your spirit seemed to soar as you thought about the many charms you find in them. I have nothing against the elegance of the entertainment or the politeness of those who attend it: but I worry you got lost in the lovely idea when you claimed that they are the best way to develop a strong and lasting sense of virtue; do you really think that among the same group of people, there’s more genuine virtue at an opera than at a bear garden?

Hor. What a comparison!

Hor. What a difference!

Cleo. I am very serious.

Cleo. I'm really serious.

Hor. The noise of dogs, and bulls, and bears, make a fine harmony!

Hor. The sounds of dogs, bulls, and bears create a great harmony!

Cleo. It is impossible you should mistake me, and you know very well, that it is not the different pleasures of those two places I would compare together. The things you mentioned are the least to be complained of: the continual sounds of oaths and imprecations, the frequent repetitions of the word lie, and other more filthy expressions, the loudness and dissonance of many strained and untuneful voices, are a perfect torment to a delicate ear. The frowsiness of the place, and the ill scents of different kinds, are a perpetual nuisance; but in all mob meetings——

Cleo. It’s impossible for you to mistake me, and you know very well that I’m not comparing the different pleasures of those two places. The things you mentioned aren’t even the worst: the constant swearing and curses, the frequent use of the word lie, and other even worse expressions, along with the loud and discordant noise of many strained and untuned voices, are a perfect torment for a sensitive ear. The messiness of the place and the bad smells from various sources are a constant annoyance; but in all mob meetings——

Hor. L’odorat souffre beaucoup.

Hor. The sense of smell suffers a lot.

Cleo. The entertainment in general is abominable, and all the senses suffer. I allow all this. The greasy heads, some of them bloody, the jarring looks, and threatening, wild, and horrid aspects, that one meets with in those ever-restless assemblies, must be very shocking to the sight, and so indeed is every thing else that can be seen among a rude and ragged multitude, that are covered with dirt, and have in none of their pastimes one action that is inoffensive: but, after all, vice and what is criminal, are not to be confounded with roughness and want of manners, no more than politeness and an artful behaviour ought to be with virtue or religion. To tell a premeditated falsehood in order to do mischief, is a greater sin, than to give a man the lie, who speaks an untruth; and it is possible, that a person may suffer greater damage, and more injury to his ruin, from slander in the low whisper of a secret enemy, than he could have received from all the dreadful swearing and cursing, the most noisy antagonist could pelt him with. Incontinence, and adultery itself, persons of quality are not more free from all over Christendom, than the meaner people: but if there are some vices, which the vulgar are more guilty of than the better sort, there are others the reverse. Envy, detraction, and the spirit of revenge, are more raging and mischievous in courts than they [302]are in cottages. Excess of vanity and hurtful ambition are unknown among the poor; they are seldom tainted with avarice, with irreligion never; and they have much less opportunity of robbing the public than their betters. There are few persons of distinction, whom you are not acquainted with: I desire, you would seriously reflect on the lives of as many as you can think of, and next opera night on the virtues of the assembly.

Cleo. The entertainment overall is terrible, and all the senses suffer. I accept all of this. The greasy heads, some of them bloody, the harsh looks, and intimidating, wild, and horrific sights that one encounters in those constantly restless gatherings must be very shocking to the eyes, and so indeed is everything else visible among a rude and ragged crowd, covered in dirt and engaged in no pastime that is harmless: but still, vice and crime should not be confused with roughness and a lack of manners, any more than politeness and cunning behavior should be equated with virtue or religion. Telling a premeditated lie to cause harm is a greater sin than calling out someone who speaks a falsehood; and it's possible for someone to suffer greater damage and more harm to their ruin from slander in the low whisper of a secret enemy than from all the dreadful swearing and shouting that a noisy opponent could throw at him. People of quality are no more free from incontinence and adultery across Christendom than the common folk are: but while there are some vices that the lower classes may be more guilty of than the upper classes, there are others that are the opposite. Envy, slander, and the urge for revenge are more rampant and destructive in courts than in cottages. Extreme vanity and harmful ambition are unknown among the poor; they are seldom tainted by greed, and never by irreligion; and they have far less opportunity to rob the public than those of higher status. There are few people of distinction whom you do not know; I urge you to seriously consider the lives of as many as you can think of, and next opera night, reflect on the virtues of the gathering.

Hor. You make me laugh. There is a good deal in what you say; and I am persuaded, all is not gold that glisters. Would you add any more?

Hor. You crack me up. There’s a lot of truth in what you’re saying; I really believe that not everything that shines is valuable. Is there anything else you want to add?

Cleo. Since you have given me leave to talk, and you are such a patient hearer, I would not slip the opportunity of laying before you some things of high concern, that perhaps you never considered in the light, which you shall own yourself they ought to be seen in.

Cleo. Since you’ve allowed me to speak, and you’re such a patient listener, I want to take this chance to share some important things with you that you might not have thought about in the way they deserve to be considered.

Hor. I am sorry to leave you; but I have really business that must be done to-night: it is about my law-suit, and I have stayed beyond my time already: but if you will come and eat a bit of mutton with me to-morrow, I will see nobody but yourself, and we will converse as long as you please.

Hor. I'm sorry to leave you; but I really have something I need to take care of tonight: it's about my lawsuit, and I've already stayed longer than I intended. But if you join me for some mutton tomorrow, I'll see no one but you, and we can talk as long as you want.

Cleo. With all my heart. I will not fail to wait on you.

Cleo. I truly care. I won’t miss the chance to be there for you.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE SECOND
DIALOGUE
BETWEEN
HORATIO AND CLEOMENES

HORATIO.

HORATIO.

The discourse we had yesterday, has made a great impression upon me; you said several things that were very entertaining, and some which I shall not easily forget: I do not remember I ever looked into myself so much as I have done since last night after I left you. [303]

The conversation we had yesterday really stuck with me; you shared some entertaining thoughts and a few that I won’t forget anytime soon. I honestly don’t remember reflecting on myself as much as I have since last night after I left you. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. To do that faithfully, is a more difficult and a severer talk than is commonly imagined. When, yesterday, I asked you where and among what sort of people we were to look for those whom you would allow to act from principles of virtue, you named a class, among whom I have found very agreeable characters of men, that yet all have their failings. If these could be left out, and the best were picked and culled from the different good qualities that are to be seen in several, the compound would make a very handsome picture.

Cleo. Being truly faithful to that is a much harder and more serious task than most people think. When I asked you yesterday where and among what kind of people we should look for those you would allow to act based on virtue, you mentioned a group of people. Among them, I've noticed some really nice guys, but they all have their flaws. If we could overlook those flaws and choose the best qualities from different individuals, the result would create a really nice overall picture.

Hor. To finish it well every way would be a great masterpiece.

Hor. To nail it in every aspect would be a fantastic achievement.

Cleo. That I shall not attempt: but I do not think it would be very difficult to make a little sketch of it, that yet should exceed nature, and be a better pattern for imitation than any can be shown alive. I have a mind to try; the very thought enlivens me. How charming is the portrait of a complete gentleman, and how ravishing is the figure which a person of great birth and fortune, to whom nature has been no niggard, makes, when he understands the world, and is thoroughly well-bred!

Cleo. I'm not going to try that: but I don't think it would be too hard to create a little sketch that surpasses reality and serves as a better model for imitation than anything living. I'm tempted to give it a shot; just the idea excites me. How delightful is the image of a true gentleman, and how stunning is the presence of someone noble and wealthy, who has been generously gifted by nature, especially when they truly understand the world and are incredibly well-mannered!

Hor. I think them so, I can assure you, whether you are in jest or in earnest.

Hor. I truly believe that, trust me, whether you’re joking or serious.

Cleo. How entirely well hid are his greatest imperfections! though money is his idol, and he is covetous in his heart, yet his inward avarice is forced to give way to his outward liberality, and an open generosity shines through all his actions.

Cleo. How well hidden are his biggest flaws! Although money is his idol and he’s greedy at heart, his inner greed is overshadowed by his outward generosity, and a true kindness shows in everything he does.

Hor. There lies your fault: it is this I cannot endure in you.

Hor. That's where your mistake is: this is what I can't stand about you.

Cleo. What is the matter?

Cleo. What's the problem?

Hor. I know what you are about, you are going to give me the caricatura of a gentleman, under pretence of drawing his portrait.

Hor. I see what you’re doing; you’re going to make a mockery of a gentleman while pretending to draw his portrait.

Cleo. You wrong me, I have no such thought.

Cleo. You're mistaken, I don't think that at all.

Hor. But why is it impossible for human nature ever to be good? instead of leaving out, you put in failings without the least grounds or colour. When things have a handsome appearance every way, what reason have you to suspect them still to be bad? How came you to know, and which way have you discovered imperfections that are entirely well hid; and why should you suppose a person to be covetous in his heart, and that money is his idol, when you own yourself [304]that he never shews it, and that an open generosity shines through all his actions? This is monstrous.

Hor. But why is it impossible for human nature to ever be good? Instead of leaving things out, you just add flaws without any justification. When something looks good in every way, what reason do you have to think it's still bad? How did you come to know about flaws that are completely hidden, and why would you assume someone is greedy at heart and worships money, when you admit [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that he never shows it, and that genuine generosity comes through in all his actions? This is outrageous.

Cleo. I have made no such supposition of any man, and I protest to you, that, in what I said, I had no other meaning than to observe, that whatever frailties and natural infirmities persons might be conscious of within, good sense and good manners were capable, and, without any other assistance, sufficient to keep them out of sight: but your questions are very reasonable, and since you have started this, I will be very open to you, and acquaint you before hand with my design of the description I am going to make; and the use I intend it for; which in short is, to demonstrate to you, that a most beautiful superstructure may be raised upon a rotten and despicable foundation. You will understand me better presently.

Cleo. I haven't assumed anything about anyone, and I assure you, when I spoke, my intention was simply to highlight that, despite any weaknesses or flaws someone might be aware of, common sense and good manners are enough on their own to keep them hidden. However, your questions are very fair, and since you've brought this up, I'll be completely honest with you and let you know the purpose of the description I'm about to give and what I plan to use it for. In short, my goal is to show you that a beautiful structure can be built on a weak and worthless foundation. You'll understand what I mean more clearly soon.

Hor. But how do you know a foundation to be rotten that supports the building, and is wholly concealed from you?

Hor. But how can you tell if the foundation that supports the building is rotten when it's completely hidden from you?

Cleo. Have patience, and I promise you, that I shall take nothing for granted, which you shall not allow of yourself.

Cleo. Be patient, and I promise you that I won't take anything for granted that you don't allow yourself.

Hor. Stick close to that, and I desire no more: now say what you will.

Hor. Stick with that, and I don’t need anything else: now say whatever you want.

Cleo. The true object of pride or vain glory is the opinion of others; and the most superlative wish, which a man possessed, and entirely filled with it can make, is, that he may be well thought of, applauded, and admired by the whole world, not only in the present but all future ages. This passion is generally exploded; but it is incredible, how many strange and widely different miracles are, and may be performed by the force of it; as persons differ in circumstances and inclinations. In the first place, there is no danger so great, but by the help of his pride a man may slight and confront it; nor any manner of death so terrible, but with the same assistance he may court, and if he has a firm constitution, undergo it with alacrity. In the second, there are no good offices or duties, either to others or ourselves, that Cicero has spoke of, nor any instance of benevolence, humanity, or other social virtue, that Lord Shaftsbury has hinted at, but a man of good sense and knowledge may learn to practise them from no better principle than vain glory, if it be strong enough to subdue and keep under all other passions that may thwart and interfere with his design.

Cleo. The true source of pride or vain glory is what others think of us; and the ultimate wish one can have, completely consumed by it, is to be well-regarded, praised, and admired by the entire world, not just now but throughout all future times. This desire is often discredited; however, it’s astonishing how many strange and varied miracles can be achieved through it, as people vary in their situations and desires. First, there’s no danger too great that a person won't face, driven by their pride; nor any kind of death too frightening that, with the same motivation, they won't embrace, and if they have a strong constitution, handle it with enthusiasm. Secondly, there are no good deeds or responsibilities, whether to others or ourselves, that Cicero mentions, nor any examples of kindness, compassion, or social virtue that Lord Shaftsbury refers to, but a sensible and knowledgeable person can learn to practice them from no better motivation than vain glory, as long as it’s powerful enough to suppress and control all other emotions that could obstruct their goals.

Hor. Shall I allow all this?

Hor. Should I let this happen?

Cleo. Yes. [305]

Cleo. Yes. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. When?

Hor. When's that?

Cleo. Before we part.

Cleo. Before we say goodbye.

Hor. Very well.

Hor. Sounds good.

Cleo. Men of tolerable parts in plentiful circumstances, that were artfully educated, and are not singular in their temper, can hardly fail of a genteel behaviour: the more pride they have, and the greater value they set on the esteem of others, the more they will make it their study to render themselves acceptable to all they converse with; and they will take uncommon pains to conceal and stifle in their bosoms, every thing which their good sense tells them ought not to be seen or understood.

Cleo. Men with decent qualities and good resources, who have been well-educated and are not overly unique in their personalities, usually display refined behavior. The more pride they have and the more they value how others see them, the harder they will work to make a good impression on everyone they interact with. They will go to great lengths to hide and suppress anything that their good judgment suggests should not be revealed or understood.

Hor. I must interrupt you, and cannot suffer you to go on thus. What is all this but the old story over again, that every thing is pride, and all we see hypocrisy, without proof or argument? Nothing in the world is more false than what you have advanced now; for, according to that, the most noble, the most gallant, and the best bred man would be the proudest; which is so clashing with daily experience, that the very reverse is true. Pride and insolence are no where more common than among upstarts; men of no family, that raise estates out of nothing, and the most ordinary people, that having had no education, are puffed up with their fortune whenever they are lifted up above mediocrity, and from mean stations advanced to posts of honour: whereas, no men upon earth, generally speaking, are more courteous, humane, or polite, than persons of high birth, that enjoy the large possessions and known seats of their ancestors; men illustrious by descent, that have been used to grandeur and titles of honour from their infancy, and received an education suitable to their quality. I do not believe there ever was a nation, that were not savages, in which the youth of both sexes were not expressly taught never to be proud or haughty: did you ever know a school, a tutor, or a parent, that did not continually inculcate to those under their care to be civil and obliging; nay, does not the word mannerly itself import as much?

Hor. I have to interrupt you; I can't let you continue like this. What you’re saying is just the same old story—that everything is about pride and everything we see is hypocrisy, without any proof or discussion. Nothing is more incorrect than your claim; because if that were true, the most noble, courageous, and well-mannered person would actually be the proudest, which completely contradicts what we see every day; the opposite is usually the case. Pride and arrogance are most commonly found among those who have risen from nothing—people without a family background who build their wealth from scratch, and ordinary folks who, lacking education, become boastful when they achieve any level of success, moving from low positions to places of honor. In contrast, no group of people is generally more courteous, kind, or polite than those of high birth, who have inherited large estates and hold the respected positions of their ancestors; individuals distinguished by their lineage who have been accustomed to luxury and titles since childhood and have received an education that fits their status. I doubt there has ever been a civilized society where young people, regardless of gender, were not specifically taught never to be proud or arrogant. Have you ever come across a school, a tutor, or a parent who didn’t constantly emphasize the importance of being polite and considerate? Even the term 'mannerly' itself suggests as much.

Cleo. I beg of you, let us be calm, and speak with exactness. The doctrine of good manners furnishes us with a thousand lessons, against the various appearances and outward symptoms of pride, but it has not one precept against the passion itself.

Cleo. Please, let’s stay calm and talk clearly. The rules of good manners teach us countless lessons about the different signs and behaviors of pride, but there isn’t a single rule that addresses the feeling itself.

Hor. How is that? [306]

How's that? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. No, not one against the passion itself; the conquest of it is never attempted, nor talked of in a gentleman’s education, where men are to be continually inspired and kept warm with the sense of their honour, and the inward value they must put upon themselves on all emergencies.

Cleo. No, not one against the passion itself; trying to conquer it is never pursued or discussed in a gentleman’s education, where men are meant to be constantly motivated and reminded of their honor, and the internal worth they must uphold in all situations.

Hor. This is worth consideration, and requires time to be examined into; but where is your fine gentleman, the picture you promised?

Hor. This is worth thinking about and needs time to examine, but where is your charming gentleman, the one you promised?

Cleo. I am ready, and shall begin with his dwelling: Though he has several noble seats in different countries, yet I shall only take notice of his chief mansion-house that bears the name, and does the honours of the family: this is amply magnificent, and yet, commodious to admiration. His gardens are very extensive, and contain an infinite variety of pleasing objects: they are divided into many branches for divers purposes, and every where filled with improvements of art upon nature; yet a beautiful order and happy contrivance are conspicuous through every part; and though nothing is omitted to render them stately and delightful; the whole is laid out to the best advantage. Within doors, every thing bespeaks the grandeur and judgment of the master; and as no cost is spared any where to procure beauty or conveniency, so you see none impertinently lavished. All his plate and furniture are completely fine, and you see nothing but what is fashionable. He has no pictures but of the most eminent hands: the rarities he shows are really such; he hoards up no trifles, nor offers any thing to your sight that is shocking: but the several collections he has of this sort, are agreeable as well as extraordinary, and rather valuable than large: but curiosities and wealth are not confined to his cabinet; the marble and sculpture that are displayed up and down are a treasure themselves; and there is abundance of admirable gilding and excellent carving to be seen in many places. What has been laid out on the great hall, and one gallery, would be a considerable estate; and there is a salloon and a stair-case not inferior to either; these are all very spacious and lofty; the architecture of them is of the best taste, and the decorations surprising. Throughout the whole there appears a delicate mixture and astonishing variety of lively embellishments, the splendour of which, joined to a perfect cleanliness, no where neglected, are highly entertaining to the most careless and least observing eye; whilst the exactness of the workmanship bestowed on every part of the meanest [307]utensil, gives a more solid satisfaction, and is ravishing to the curious. But the greatest excellency in this model of perfection is this; that as in the most ordinary rooms there is nothing wanting for their purpose, and the least passage is handsomely finished; so in those of the greatest eclat there is nothing overcharged, nor any part of them encumbered with ornaments.

Cleo. I'm ready, and I'll start with his residence. Although he has several impressive estates in different regions, I'll focus on his main mansion, which represents the family: it’s impressively grand yet surprisingly comfortable. His gardens are vast and feature a wide variety of delightful elements: they’re organized into different sections for various purposes, filled with artistic enhancements of nature; yet a beautiful layout and clever design are evident throughout. Nothing is overlooked in making them stately and enjoyable, and the entire space is arranged for maximum appeal. Inside, everything reflects the elegance and discernment of the owner; no expense is spared in pursuing beauty or convenience, but there's no extravagant waste. All his silverware and furnishings are top-notch, and everything is stylish. He only possesses artwork by the most celebrated artists; the rarities he showcases are genuinely extraordinary; he doesn’t hoard worthless items or present anything offensive: his collections in this regard are both pleasing and unique, and more valuable than extensive. But treasures and wealth aren’t limited to his cabinet; the marble and sculptures displayed throughout are treasures in their own right, along with plenty of beautiful gilding and excellent carvings visible in various places. The amount spent on the grand hall and one gallery would equal a significant fortune; there’s also a salon and a staircase that are equally impressive; all these spaces are spacious and lofty; they boast architecture of the finest taste, with astonishing decorations. Across the entire place, there’s a delicate blend and incredible variety of vibrant embellishments, the brilliance of which, combined with impeccable cleanliness, catches the eye of even the most indifferent observer; while the precision of the craftsmanship given to even the simplest [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] utensil provides deeper satisfaction and captivates the curious. However, the greatest excellence in this model of perfection lies in the fact that even in the most ordinary rooms, nothing is lacking for their function, and the smallest passageways are beautifully finished; while in those rooms of the most grandeur, nothing is excessive, nor is any area cluttered with decorations.

Hor. This is a studied piece; but I do not like it the worse for it, pray go on.

Hor. This is a well-crafted piece, but I don’t think that makes it any less appealing. Please continue on.

Cleo. I have thought of it before, I own. His equipage is rich and well chosen, and there is nothing to be seen about him that art or expence, within the compass of reason, could make better. At his own table his looks are ever jovial; and his heart seems to be as open as his countenance. His chief business there is to take care of others, without being troublesome; and all his happiness seems to consist in being able to please his friends: in his greatest mirth, he is wanting in respect to no man; and never makes use of abbreviations in names, or unhandsome familiarities with the meanest of his guests. To every one that speaks to him, he gives an obliging attention, and seems never to disregard any thing but what is said in commendation of his fare: he never interrupts any discourse but what is made in his praise, and seldom assents to any encomiums, though the most equitable that are made on any thing that is his. When he is abroad he never spies faults; and whatever is amiss, he either says nothing, or, in answer to the complaints and uneasiness of others, gives every thing the best-natured turn it can bear; but he seldom leaves a house before he finds out something to extol in it, without wronging his judgment. His conversation is always facetious and good-humoured, but as solid as it is diverting. He never utters a syllable that has the least tincture of obscenity or profaneness; nor ever made a jest that was offensive.

Cleo. I've thought about this before, I admit. His setup is luxurious and well-chosen, and there's nothing about him that art or expense, within reason, could improve. At his own table, he always looks cheerful; his heart seems as open as his face. His main role there is to take care of others without being a bother, and all his happiness appears to come from being able to please his friends: even in his greatest joy, he shows respect for everyone; he never shortens names or uses inappropriate familiarity with the least of his guests. He listens attentively to everyone who speaks to him and seems to ignore everything except compliments about his food: he never interrupts conversations unless they’re about him, and rarely agrees to any praise, even the most reasonable. When he’s out, he never points out flaws; and whatever's wrong, he either stays silent or gives it a positive spin in response to others' complaints and discomfort. He rarely leaves a place before finding something to praise in it, without compromising his judgment. His conversation is always entertaining and good-natured, but just as substantial as it is enjoyable. He never says anything that even hints at obscenity or profanity; nor does he ever make an offensive joke.

Hor. Very fine!

Hor. Awesome!

Cleo. He seems to be entirely free from bigotry and superstition, avoids all disputes about religion; but goes constantly to church, and is seldom absent from his family devotions.

Cleo. He appears to be completely free from prejudice and superstition, steers clear of any arguments about religion; however, he regularly attends church and rarely misses his family prayers.

Hor. A very godly gentleman!

A very righteous gentleman!

Cleo. I expected we should differ there.

Cleo. I figured we would have different views on that.

Hor. I do not find fault. Proceed, pray.

Hor. I have no objections. Go ahead, please.

Cleo. As he is a man of erudition himself, so he is a promoter of arts and sciences; he is a friend to merit, a rewarder [308]of industry, and a professed enemy to nothing but immorality and oppression. Though no man’s table is better furnished, nor cellars better stored; he is temperate in his eating, and never commits excess in drinking: though he has an exquisite palate, he always prefers wholesome meats to those that are delicious only, and never indulges his appetite in any thing that might probably be prejudicial to his health.

Cleo. He is knowledgeable himself and supports the arts and sciences; he values talent, rewards hard work, and opposes only immorality and oppression. His dining table is well-stocked, and his cellars are full; however, he practices moderation in his eating and never overindulges in drinking. Even though he has a refined taste, he always chooses healthy foods over those that are simply tasty, and he never gives in to anything that could harm his health.

Hor. Admirably good!

Hor. Awesome!

Cleo. As he is in all other things, so he is elegant in his clothes, and has often new ones: neatness he prefers to finery in his own dress; but his retinue is rich. He seldom wears gold or silver himself, but on very solemn occasions, in compliment to others; and to demonstrate that these pompous habits are made for no other purpose, he is never seen twice in the same; but having appeared in them one day, he gives them away the next. Though of every thing he has the best of the sort, and might be called curious in apparel; yet he leaves the care of it to others; and no man has his clothes put on better that seem so little to regard them.

Cleo. Just like in everything else, he is stylish in his clothing and often has new outfits. He prefers looking neat over flashy in his own attire, but his entourage is well-dressed. He rarely wears gold or silver himself, only on very special occasions to honor others; and to show that these extravagant habits serve no other purpose, he is never seen in the same outfit twice—after wearing something one day, he gives it away the next. Although he has the best of everything and could be considered particular about fashion, he leaves the management of his clothes to others, and no one puts on garments better that seems to care so little about them.

Hor. Perfectly right; to be well dressed is a necessary article, and yet to be solicitous about it is below a person of quality.

Hor. Absolutely; being well-dressed is essential, but worrying too much about it is beneath someone of high standing.

Cleo. Therefore he has a domestic of good taste, a judicious man, who saves him that trouble; and the management likewise of his lace and linen, is the province of a skilful woman. His language is courtly, but natural and intelligible; it is neither low nor bombastic, and ever free from pedantic and vulgar expressions. All his motions are genteel without affectation; his mien is rather sedate than airy, and his manner noble: for though he is ever civil and condescending, and no man less arrogant, yet in all his carriage there is something gracefully majestic; and as there is nothing mean in his humility, so his loftiness has nothing disobliging.

Cleo. So, he has a good taste in household matters, a wise man who saves him that hassle; and the care of his lace and linens is handled by a skilled woman. His speech is refined but natural and easy to understand; it’s neither cheap nor overly grandiose, and it’s always free from pretentious or crude language. All his movements are elegant without being forced; his demeanor is more serious than carefree, and he carries himself nobly: even though he is always polite and approachable, and no one is less arrogant, there’s something gracefully imposing about his presence; and while there’s nothing basic about his humility, his dignity doesn’t come off as unfriendly.

Hor. Prodigiously good!

Hor. Amazing!

Cleo. He is charitable to the poor; his house is never shut to strangers; and all his neighbours he counts to be his friends. He is a father to his tenants; and looks upon their welfare as inseparable from his interest. No man is less uneasy at little offences, or more ready to forgive all trespasses without design. The injuries that are suffered from other landlords, he turns into benefits; and whatever damages, great or small, are sustained on his account, either from his [309]diversions or otherwise, he doubly makes good. He takes care to be early informed of such losses, and commonly repairs them before they are complained of.

Cleo. He is generous to those in need; his home is always open to strangers, and he considers all his neighbors to be his friends. He acts as a father to his tenants and sees their well-being as tied to his own interests. No one is less bothered by minor offenses, or more willing to forgive unintentional wrongs. He turns the grievances caused by other landlords into opportunities, and any damages suffered due to him, whether big or small, he compensates for twofold. He makes sure to find out about such losses early on and usually addresses them before anyone even complains.

Hor. Oh rare humanity; hearken ye foxhunters!

Hor. Oh, rare humanity; listen up, foxhunters!

Cleo. He never chides any of his people; yet no man is better served; and though nothing is wanting in his housekeeping, and his family is very numerous, yet the regularity of it is no less remarkable than the plenty they live in. His orders he will have strictly obeyed; but his commands are always reasonable, and he never speaks to the meanest footman without regard to humanity. Extraordinary diligence in servants, and all laudable actions he takes notice of himself, and often commends them to their faces; but leaves it to his steward to reprove or dismiss those he dislikes.

Cleo. He never scolds any of his staff; yet no one is better taken care of. Even though his household is abundant and his family is quite large, the orderliness of it is just as impressive as the wealth they enjoy. He expects his instructions to be followed strictly, but his demands are always fair, and he treats even the lowest servant with respect. He pays attention to the hard work of his employees and acknowledges their good deeds directly, often praising them to their faces; however, he lets his steward handle reprimanding or firing those he doesn’t like.

Hor. Well judged.

Hor. Well done.

Cleo. Whoever lives with him is taken care of in sickness as well as in health. The wages he gives are above double those of other masters; and he often makes presents to those that are more than ordinary observing and industrious to please: but he suffers nobody to take a penny of his friends or others, that come to his house, on any account whatever. Many faults are connived at, or pardoned for the first time, but a breach of this order is ever attended with the loss of their places as soon as it is found out; and there is a premium for the discovery.

Cleo. Anyone who lives with him is well taken care of in both sickness and health. He pays more than double what other employers do, and he often gives gifts to those who are especially observant and hardworking to please him. However, he doesn’t allow anyone to take a single penny from his friends or guests for any reason. Many mistakes are overlooked or forgiven the first time, but breaking this rule always results in immediate job loss once it’s discovered, and there’s a reward for reporting it.

Hor. This is the only exceptionable thing, in my opinion, that I have heard yet.

Hor. This is the only thing I find questionable, in my opinion, that I've heard so far.

Cleo. I wonder at that: why so, pray?

Cleo. I'm curious about that: why is that, may I ask?

Hor. In the first place, it is very difficult to enforce obedience to such a command; secondly, if it could be executed, it would be of little use; unless it could be made general, which is impossible: and therefore I look upon the attempt of introducing this maxim to be singular and fantastical. It would please misers and others, that would never follow the example at home; but it would take away from generous men a handsome opportunity of showing their liberal and beneficent disposition: besides, it would manifestly make ones house too open to all sorts of people.

Hor. First of all, it's really hard to enforce obedience to such a command; secondly, even if it could be put into action, it wouldn’t be very useful unless it could be applied universally, which is impossible. Therefore, I see the effort to introduce this idea as odd and unrealistic. It might appeal to stingy people and others who would never actually adopt it at home; but it would take away from generous individuals a great chance to show their kindness and willingness to help. Plus, it would clearly make one's home too accessible to all kinds of people.

Cleo. Ways might be found to prevent that; but then it would be a blessing, and do great kindness to men of parts and education, that have little to spare, to many of whom this money to servants is a very grievous burden. [310]

Cleo. There could be ways to stop that; but then it would be a blessing and a great kindness to educated and talented people who have little to give, as for many of them, this money for servants is a heavy burden. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. What you mention is the only thing that can be said for it, and I own, of great weight: but I beg your pardon for interrupting you.

Hor. What you're saying is the only valid point, and I admit it carries a lot of weight: but I'm sorry for interrupting you.

Cleo. In all his dealings he is punctual and just. As he has an immense estate, so he has good managers to take care of it: but though all his accounts are very neatly kept, yet he makes it part of his business to look them over himself. He suffers no tradesman’s bill to lie by unexamined; and though he meddles not with his ready cash himself, yet he is a quick and cheerful, as well as an exact paymaster; and the only singularity he is guilty of, is, that he never will owe any thing on a new-year’s day.

Cleo. In all his business dealings, he is prompt and fair. Since he owns a large estate, he has skilled managers to oversee it. Even though all his accounts are very well organized, he makes it a point to review them himself. He doesn't let any tradesman's bill go unpaid without checking it first; although he doesn’t handle his cash directly, he is a quick, cheerful, and precise payer. The only unusual thing about him is that he never owes anything on New Year's Day.

Hor. I like that very well.

I really like that.

Cleo. He is affable with discretion, of easy access, and never ruffled with passion. To sum up all, no man seems to be less elevated with his condition than himself; and in the full enjoyment of so many personal accomplishments, as well as other possessions, his modesty is equal to the rest of his happiness; and in the midst of the pomp and distinction he lives in, he never appears to be entertained with his greatness, but rather unacquainted with the things he excels in.

Cleo. He is friendly and approachable, never overly emotional. In short, no one seems less affected by his status than he is; despite having many personal achievements and possessions, his modesty matches his happiness. Even surrounded by luxury and distinction, he doesn’t seem to take pride in his greatness but rather seems unaware of his own talents.

Hor. It is an admirable character, and pleases me exceedingly; but I will freely own to you, that I should have been more highly delighted with the description, if I had not known your design, and the use you intend to make of it; which, I think, is barbarous: to raise so fine, so elegant, and so complete an edifice, in order to throw it down, is taking great pains to show one’s skill in doing mischief. I have observed the several places where you left room for evasions, and lapping the foundation you have built upon. His heart seems to be as open; and he never appears to be entertained with his greatness, I am persuaded, that wherever you have put in this seeming and appearing, you have done it designedly, and with an intent to make use of them as so many back doors to creep out at. I could never have taken notice of these things, if you had not acquainted me with your intention before hand.

Hor. It's a fantastic character, and I really like it; but I’ll be honest with you, I would have enjoyed the description even more if I hadn't known your plan and how you intend to use it, which I think is cruel: to create such a beautiful, elegant, and complete structure just to tear it down is a lot of effort to show off your talent for causing trouble. I've noticed the various places where you left room for excuses and the flaws in the foundation you’ve built. His heart seems to be wide open, and he never appears to be preoccupied with his status. I'm convinced that wherever you've used this seeming and appearing, you’ve done so intentionally, with the idea of using them as so many escape routes. I wouldn't have noticed these things if you hadn't told me your intention beforehand.

Cleo. I have made use of the caution you speak of: but with no other view than to avoid just censure and prevent your accusing me of incorrectness, or judging with too much precipitation; if it should be proved afterwards, that this gentleman had acted from an ill principle, which is the thing I own I purposed to convince you of; but seeing, that it [311]would be unpleasant to you, I will be satisfied with having given you some small entertainment of the description, and for the rest, I give you leave to think me in the wrong.

Cleo. I’ve been careful, as you mentioned, but only to avoid unfair judgment and to prevent you from accusing me of being wrong or too hasty in my conclusions; if it turns out later that this guy acted with bad intentions, which is what I intended to prove to you. But since that would upset you, I’ll just take it as a win that I provided you with some light entertainment, and for the rest, I’ll let you think I’m mistaken.

Hor. Why so? I thought the character was made and contrived on purpose for my instruction.

Hor. Why's that? I thought the character was created and designed just to teach me something.

Cleo. I do not pretend to instruct you: I would have offered something, and appealed to your judgment; but I have been mistaken, and plainly see my error. Both last night and now, when we began our discourse, I took you to be in another disposition of thinking than I perceive you are. You spoke of an impression that had been made upon you, and of looking into yourself, and gave some other hints, which too rashly I misconstrued in my favour; but I have found since, that you are as warm as ever against the sentiments I profess myself to be of; and therefore I will desist. I expect no pleasure from any triumph, and I know nothing that would vex me more, than the thoughts of disobliging you. Pray let us do in this as we do in another matter of importance, never touch upon it: friends in prudence should avoid all subjects in which they are known essentially to differ. Believe me, Horatio, if it was in my power to divert or give you any pleasure, I would grudge no pains to compass that end: but to make you uneasy, is a thing that I shall never be knowingly guilty of, and I beg a thousand pardons for having said so much both yesterday and to-day. Have you heard any thing from Gibraltar?

Cleo. I'm not trying to teach you anything: I would have offered something and asked for your opinion, but I've realized I've made a mistake. Both last night and now, when we started our conversation, I assumed you were thinking differently than I see now. You talked about an impression made on you, about looking inward, and hinted at some other things that I mistakenly took as favorable to me; but I've since realized that you feel just as strongly as ever against the views I hold. So, I will stop. I'm not interested in any victory, and nothing would bother me more than the thought of upsetting you. Let's handle this like we do with other important matters: let's not bring it up. Friends should wisely avoid topics where they know they fundamentally disagree. Believe me, Horatio, if I could distract you or make you happy, I wouldn’t hesitate to put in the effort; but making you uncomfortable is something I would never intentionally do, and I apologize for having talked so much yesterday and today. Have you heard anything from Gibraltar?

Hor. I am ashamed of my weakness and your civility: you have not been mistaken in the hints you speak of; what you have said has certainly made a great impression upon me, and I have endeavoured to examine myself: but, as you say, it is a severe task to do it faithfully. I desired you to dine with me on purpose, that we might talk of these things. It is I that have offended, and it is I that ought to ask pardon for the ill manners I have been guilty of; but you know the principles I have always adhered to; it is impossible to recede from them at once. I see great difficulties, and now and then a glimpse of truth, that makes me start: I sometimes feel great struggles within; but I have been so used to derive all actions that are really good from laudable motives, that as soon as I return to my accustomed way of thinking, it carries all before it. Pray bear with my infirmities. I am in love with your fine gentleman, and I confess, I cannot see how a person so universally good, so far remote [312]from all selfishness, can act in such an extraordinary manner every way, but from principles of virtue and religion. Where is there such a landlord in the world? If I am in an error, I shall be glad to be undeceived. Pray inform me, and say what you will, I promise you to keep my temper, and I beg of you speak your mind with freedom.

Hor. I'm embarrassed by my weakness and your kindness: you weren't wrong about the hints you mentioned; what you've said has really affected me, and I've tried to look at myself honestly. But, as you said, it's tough to do that sincerely. I invited you to dinner on purpose so we could talk about these matters. I've been the one to mess up, and it's me who should ask for forgiveness for my bad behavior; but you know the principles I've always stuck to; I can’t just abandon them all at once. I see a lot of challenges, and sometimes a flash of truth that catches me off guard: I often feel a lot of inner turmoil; but I'm so used to believing that all truly good actions come from admirable motives that when I fall back into my usual way of thinking, it overwhelms everything else. Please be patient with my flaws. I'm infatuated with your charming friend, and I admit, I can't understand how someone who is so universally good, so far removed [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] from all selfishness, can behave in such an unusual way unless it's guided by principles of virtue and religion. Where else can you find a landlord like that in the world? If I'm wrong, I’d be happy to be corrected. Please tell me, and say whatever you want; I promise to stay calm, and I ask you to speak your mind freely.

Cleo. You have bid me before say what I would, and when I did, you seemed displeased; but since you command me I will try once more.——Whether there is or ever was such a man as I have described, in the world, is not very material: but I will easily allow, that most people would think it less difficult to conceive one, than to imagine that such a clear and beautiful stream could flow from so mean and muddy a spring, as an excessive thirst after praise, and an immoderate desire of general applause from the most knowing judges; yet it is certain, that great parts and extraordinary riches may compass all this in a man, who is not deformed, and has had a refined education; and that there are many persons naturally no better than a thousand others, who by the helps mentioned, might attain to those good qualities and accomplishments, if they had but resolution and perseverance enough, to render every appetite and every faculty subservient to that one predominant passion, which, if continually gratified, will always enable them to govern, and, if required, to subdue all the rest without exception, even in the most difficult cases.

Cleo. You’ve asked me before to express what I want, and when I did, you seemed unhappy with it; but since you’re telling me to do it again, I’ll give it another try. Whether or not such a man as I’ve described actually exists in the world isn’t really important. However, I’ll readily agree that most people would find it easier to imagine someone like that than to believe that a clear and beautiful stream could flow from such a lowly and murky source as an excessive thirst for praise and an overwhelming desire for approval from the most discerning critics. Yet it's true that great talent and extraordinary wealth can enable a person who is not disfigured and has received a good education to embody these qualities. There are many people who are naturally no better than thousands of others, but with the right support, they could achieve those good qualities and accomplishments if they had enough determination and perseverance to make every desire and ability serve that one dominant passion, which, if consistently satisfied, will always allow them to control and, when needed, subdue all other desires without exception, even in the toughest situations.

Hor. To enter into an argument concerning the possibility of what you say, might occasion a long dispute; but the probability, I think, is very clear against you, and if there was such a man, it would be much more credible, that he acted from the excellency of his nature, in which so many virtues and rare endowments were assembled, than that all his good qualities sprung from vicious motives. If pride could be the cause of all this, the effect of it would sometimes appear in others. According to your system, there is no scarcity of it, and there are men of great parts and prodigious estates all over Europe: why are there not several such patterns to be seen up and down, as you have drawn as one; and why is it so very seldom, that many virtues and good qualities are seen to meet in one individual?

Hor. Getting into a debate about whether your point is possible could lead to a long argument; however, I believe the evidence strongly supports my view. If there were such a person, it would be much more believable that they acted based on the greatness of their character, which combines many virtues and rare gifts, rather than that all their good traits came from immoral motives. If pride were the cause of all this, we would occasionally see its effects in others. According to your theory, pride is everywhere, and there are talented people with vast fortunes all over Europe; so why aren't there more examples like the one you've described? And why do we rarely see so many virtues and good qualities in one person?

Cleo. Why so few persons, though there are so many men of immense fortune, ever arrive at any thing like this high pitch of accomplishments; there are several reasons that are [313]very obvious. In the first place, men differ in temperament: some are naturally of an active, stirring; others of an indolent, quiet disposition; some of a bold, others of a meek spirit. In the second, it is to be considered, that this temperament in men come to maturity is more or less conspicuous, according as it has been either checked or encouraged by education. Thirdly, that on these two depend the different perception men have of happiness, according to which the love of glory determines them different ways. Some think it the greatest felicity to govern and rule over others: some take the praise of bravery and undauntedness in dangers to be the most valuable: others, erudition, and to be a celebrated author: so that, though they all love glory, they set out differently to acquire it. But a man who hates a bustle, and is naturally of a quiet easy temper, and which has been encouraged in him by education, it is very likely might think nothing more desirable than the character of a fine gentleman; and if he did, I dare say that he would endeavour to behave himself pretty near the pattern I have given you; I say pretty near, because I may have been mistaken in some things, and as I have not touched upon every thing, some will say, that I have left out several necessary ones: but in the main I believe, that in the country and age we live in, the qualifications I have named would get a man the reputation I have supposed him to desire.

Cleo. Why do so few people, even with so many wealthy men around, reach such a high level of accomplishment? There are a few obvious reasons. First, people have different temperaments: some are naturally active and dynamic, while others are more laid-back and calm; some are bold, while others are more reserved. Second, it's important to note that this temperament becomes more or less pronounced based on whether it has been supported or stifled by education. Third, these two factors influence how differently individuals perceive happiness, which in turn shapes their pursuit of glory. Some believe the greatest happiness comes from governing others; some value the praise for bravery and fearlessness in danger; others prize knowledge and aspire to be distinguished authors. While they all seek glory, their approaches to achieving it vary. However, a person who prefers a quiet life and has been encouraged in that direction through education may see the traits of a refined gentleman as the most appealing. If that’s the case, I’d wager he would strive to emulate the model I provided. I say "pretty near" because I might have made some errors, and since I haven't covered everything, some might argue I've missed important aspects. But overall, I believe that in our current country and era, the qualities I mentioned would earn a man the recognition he desires.

Hor. Without doubt, I make no manner of scruple about what you said last; and I told you before that it was an admirable character, and pleased me exceedingly. That I took notice of your making your gentleman so very godly as you did, was because it is not common; but I intended it not as a reflection. One thing, indeed, there was in which I differed from you; but that was merely speculative; and, since I have reflected on what you have answered me, I do not know but I may be in the wrong, as I should certainly believe myself to be, if there really was such a man, and he was of the contrary opinion: to such a fine genius I would pay an uncommon deference, and with great readiness submit my understanding to his superior capacity. But the reasons you give why those effects which you ascribe to pride, are not more common, the cause being so universal, I think are insufficient. That men are prompted to follow different ends, as their inclinations differ, I can easily allow; but there are great numbers of rich men that are likewise of [314]a quiet and indolent disposition, and moreover very desirous of being thought fine gentlemen. How comes it, that among so many persons of high birth, princely estates, and the most refined education, as there are in Christendom, that study, travel, and take great pains to be well accomplished, there is not one, to whom all the good qualities, and every thing you named, could be applied without flattery?

Hor. Without a doubt, I don't have any reservations about what you said last. I mentioned before that it was an excellent character and I really liked it. The reason I pointed out how religious your character was is that it's not something you see often, but I didn’t mean it as a criticism. There’s one thing we disagreed on, but that was only theoretical; and after thinking about your response, I’m not sure I’m not mistaken. I would certainly think I was wrong if such a person existed and held an opposing view. I would show great respect for such a brilliant mind and readily let my understanding yield to his greater insight. However, I find your arguments about why pride doesn’t lead to more common outcomes, given that it’s a universal cause, to be lacking. I can easily accept that people pursue different goals based on their preferences, but there are plenty of wealthy individuals who are also quite laid-back and eager to be seen as gentlemen. Why is it that among all the people of noble birth, vast wealth, and elite education throughout Christendom—who study, travel, and work hard to be well-rounded—there isn’t a single one to whom all the admirable traits you mentioned could be applied without it sounding like flattery?

Cleo. It is very possible that thousands may aim at this, and not one of them succeed to that degree: in some, perhaps the predominant passion is not strong enough entirely to subdue the rest: love or covetousness may divert others: drinking, gaming, may draw away many, and break in upon their resolution; they may not have strength to persevere in a design, and steadily to pursue the same ends; or they may want a true taste or knowledge of what is esteemed by men of judgment; or, lastly, they may not be so thoroughly well-bred, as is required to conceal themselves on all emergencies: for the practical part of dissimulation is infinitely more difficult than the theory: and any one of these obstacles is sufficient to spoil all, and hinder the finishing of such a piece.

Cleo. It's very likely that thousands might strive for this, but not one of them will succeed to that extent: in some cases, the dominant passion may not be strong enough to completely overpower the others: love or greed might distract some; drinking and gambling could pull many away and interfere with their determination; they might lack the strength to stick with a plan and consistently pursue the same goals; or they might not have a true understanding or appreciation of what is respected by those with good judgment; or, finally, they might not be as well-mannered as necessary to hide themselves in all situations: because the practical aspects of deception are far more challenging than the theory; and any one of these obstacles is enough to sabotage everything and prevent the completion of such an endeavor.

Hor. I shall not dispute that with you: but all this while you have proved nothing; nor given the least reason why you should imagine, that a man of a character, to all outward appearance so bright and beautiful, acted from vicious motives. You would not condemn him without so much as naming the cause why you suspect him.

Hor. I won’t argue with you about that, but up until now, you haven’t proven anything or given any reason to think that a person who seems so good and admirable on the outside is acting for bad reasons. You wouldn’t judge him without even mentioning what makes you suspicious.

Cleo. By no means; nor have I advanced any thing that is ill natured or uncharitable: for I have not said, that if I found a gentleman in possession of all the things I mentioned, I would give his rare endowments this turn, and think all his perfections derived from no better stock, than an extraordinary love of glory. What I argue for, and insist upon, is, the possibility that all these things might be performed by a man from no other views, and with no other helps, than those I have named: nay, I believe moreover, that a gentleman so accomplished, all his knowledge and great parts notwithstanding, may himself be ignorant, or at least not well assured of the motive he acts from.

Cleo. Not at all; and I haven't suggested anything mean-spirited or unkind. I haven't claimed that if I met a gentleman with all the qualities I mentioned, I would assume his exceptional talents came solely from an extraordinary desire for glory. What I'm arguing for, and what I insist on, is the possibility that all these things could be achieved by a person motivated by nothing more than the reasons I've listed, and with no other aids. In fact, I also believe that such a well-rounded gentleman, despite his extensive knowledge and talents, may actually be unaware, or at least uncertain, of the true motivations behind his actions.

Hor. This is more unintelligible than any thing you have said yet; why will you heap difficulties upon one another, without solving any? I desire you would clear up this last paradox, before you do any thing else. [315]

Hor. This is even more confusing than anything you've said so far; why do you keep piling on problems without addressing any of them? I’d like you to explain this last paradox before you do anything else. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. In order to obey you, I must put you in mind of what happens in early education, by the first rudiments of which, infants are taught in the choice of actions to prefer the precepts of others to the dictates of their own inclinations; which, in short, is no more than doing as they are bid. To gain this point, punishments and rewards are not neglected, and many different methods are made use of; but it is certain, that nothing proves more often effectual for this purpose, or has a greater influence upon children, than the handle that is made of shame; which, though a natural passion, they would not be sensible of so soon, if we did not artfully rouse and stir it up in them, before they can speak or go: by which means, their judgment being then weak, we may teach them to be ashamed of what we please, as soon as we can perceive them to be any ways affected with the passion itself: but as the fear of shame is very insignificant, where there is but little pride, so it is impossible to augment the first, without increasing the latter in the same proportion.

Cleo. To follow your wishes, I need to remind you of what happens in early education. Infants are taught, through basic lessons, to prioritize the guidance of others over their own desires, which essentially means just doing what they're told. To achieve this, both punishments and rewards are used, along with various methods; however, it’s clear that nothing is more effective or has a greater impact on children than the tactic of invoking shame. Although shame is a natural feeling, children wouldn’t become aware of it so quickly if we didn't skillfully provoke it in them before they can speak or walk. This way, since their judgment is still weak, we can teach them to feel ashamed of whatever we want as soon as we notice they are affected by that emotion. But since the fear of shame is minimal when there's little pride, it's impossible to increase one without simultaneously boosting the other.

Hor. I should have thought that this increase of pride would render children more stubborn and less docile.

Hor. I would have expected that this increase in pride would make children more stubborn and less willing to listen.

Cleo. You judge right; it would so, and must have been a great hinderance to good manners, till experience taught men, that though pride was not to be destroyed by force, it might be governed by stratagem, and that the best way to manage it, is by playing the passion against itself. Hence it is, that in an artful education, we are allowed to place as much pride as we please in our dexterity of concealing it. I do not suppose, that this covering ourselves, notwithstanding the pride we take in it, is performed without a difficulty that is plainly felt, and perhaps very unpleasant at first; but this wears off as we grow up; and when a man has behaved himself with so much prudence as I have described, lived up to the strictest rules of good-breeding for many years, and has gained the esteem of all that know him, when this noble and polite manner is become habitual to him, it is possible he may in time forget the principle he set out with, and become ignorant, or at least insensible of the hidden spring that gives life and motion to all his actions.

Cleo. You’re right; it would be a significant obstacle to good manners until experience taught people that while pride can't be eliminated by force, it can be managed through clever tactics, and the best way to handle it is by turning the emotion against itself. This is why, in a smart upbringing, we're allowed to take as much pride as we want in our skill at hiding it. I don't think this act of covering ourselves, even though we take pride in it, happens without some noticeable difficulty that can be quite uncomfortable at first; however, this discomfort fades as we grow older. When a person has acted with the caution I described, followed the strictest rules of etiquette for many years, and earned the respect of everyone around him, once this noble and polite behavior becomes second nature, it's possible he might eventually forget the principle he started with and become unaware, or at least indifferent to, the underlying motivation that drives all his actions.

Hor. I am convinced of the great use that may be made of pride, if you will call it so; but I am not satisfied yet, how a man of so much sense, knowledge, and penetration, one that understands himself so entirely well, should be ignorant of his own heart, and the motives he acts from. [316]What is it that induces you to believe this, besides the possibility of his forgetfulness?

Hor. I'm sure there's a lot of value in pride, if you want to call it that, but I'm still puzzled about how a person who is so sensible, knowledgeable, and perceptive—someone who understands himself so thoroughly—can be unaware of his own heart and the reasons behind his actions. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]What makes you think this, aside from the chance that he might just be forgetful?

Cleo. I have two reasons for it, which I desire may be seriously considered. The first is, that in what relates to ourselves, especially our own worth and excellency, pride blinds the understanding in men of sense and great parts as well as in others, and the greater value we may reasonably set upon ourselves, the fitter we are to swallow the grossest flatteries, in spite of all our knowledge and abilities in other matters: witness Alexander the Great, whose vast genius could not hinder him from doubting seriously, whether he was a god or not. My second reason will prove to us, that if the person in question was capable of examining himself, it is yet highly improbable, that he would ever set about it: for, it must be granted, that, in order to search into ourselves, it is required we should be willing as well as able; and we have all the reason in the world to think, that there is nothing which a very proud man of such high qualifications would avoid more carefully than such an inquiry: because, for all other acts of self-denial, he is repaid in his darling passion; but this alone is really mortifying, and the only sacrifice of his quiet for which he can have no equivalent. If the hearts of the best and sincerest men are corrupt and deceitful, what condition must theirs be in, whose whole life is one continued scene of hypocrisy! therefore inquiring within, and boldly searching into ones own bosom, must be the most shocking employment, that a man can give his mind to, whose greatest pleasure consists in secretly admiring himself. It would be ill manners, after this, to appeal to yourself; but the severity of the task——

Cleo. I have two reasons for this that I want you to seriously consider. The first is that when it comes to ourselves, especially our own worth and excellence, pride can cloud the judgment of even the most sensible and talented people, just like it does for everyone else. The more we value ourselves, the more likely we are to accept the most ridiculous flattery, regardless of our knowledge and skills in other areas. Take Alexander the Great, for example; his immense genius couldn't stop him from seriously questioning whether he was a god or not. My second reason will show that if the person in question was capable of self-examination, it’s still highly unlikely that he would actually do it. For self-reflection, we need to be both willing and able, and we have every reason to believe that a very proud person with such high qualifications would go out of their way to avoid that kind of introspection. While he may find satisfaction in other forms of self-denial, this particular inquiry is genuinely humiliating and requires sacrificing his comfort, for which there is no compensation. If even the hearts of the best and most sincere people are corrupt and deceptive, what must be the state of those whose entire lives are just one ongoing act of deceit? Therefore, looking within and boldly examining one’s own heart must be the most disturbing thing a person can do, especially when their greatest pleasure comes from secretly admiring themselves. It would be rude to turn inward after this, but the difficulty of the task—

Hor. Say no more, I yield this point, though I own I cannot conceive what advantage you can expect from it: for, instead of removing, it will rather help to increase the grand difficulty, which is to prove, that this complete person you have described, acts from a vicious motive: and if that be not your design, I cannot see what you drive at.

Hor. Don't say anything more, I give in on this point, but I honestly can't understand what benefit you expect from it. Instead of solving the issue, it seems like it will only make the main problem worse, which is to prove that this ideal person you've described acts out of a bad motive. If that's not your goal, I really can't see where you're going with this.

Cleo. I told you it was.

Cleo. I said it was.

Hor. You must have a prodigious sagacity in detecting abstruse matters before other men.

Hor. You must have an incredible ability to figure out complex issues before others do.

Cleo. You wonder, I know, which way I arrogate to myself such a superlative degree of penetration, as to know an artful cunning man better than he does himself, and how I dare pretend to enter and look into a heart, which I have [317]owned to be completely well concealed from all the world; which in strictness is an impossibility, and consequently not to be bragged of but by a coxcomb.

Cleo. You’re probably wondering how I have the audacity to understand a clever, cunning man better than he knows himself, and how I can claim to see inside a heart that I’ve [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]acknowledged is completely hidden from everyone. In truth, it's impossible and really something only a fool would brag about.

Hor. You may treat yourself as you please, I have said no such thing; but I own that I long to see it proved, that you have this capacity. I remember the character very well: Notwithstanding the precautions you have taken, it is very full: I told you before, that where things have a handsome appearance every way, there can be no just cause to suspect them. I will stick close to that; your gentleman is all of a piece: You shall alter nothing, either by retracting any of the good qualities you have given him, or making additions that are either clashing with, or unsuitable to what you have allowed already.

Hor. Do whatever you want; I never said otherwise. But I really want to see it proven that you have this talent. I remember the character well: Despite all the precautions you've taken, it stands out quite clearly. I mentioned before that when something looks good in every way, there’s no reason to doubt it. I’ll stick to that; your character is consistent throughout. You can’t change anything, whether that means taking back any of the good traits you’ve given him or adding anything that conflicts with or doesn’t fit what you’ve already established.

Cleo. I shall attempt neither: And without that decisive trials may be made, by which it will plainly appear whether a person acts from inward goodness, and a principle of religion, or only from a motive of vain glory; and, in the latter case, there is an infallible way of dragging the lurking fiend from his darkest recesses into a glaring light, where all the world shall know him.

Cleo. I won't try to do either. But without that, we can still conduct tests that will clearly show if someone acts out of genuine goodness and a sense of belief, or just for the sake of vanity. In the second case, there's a sure way to expose the hidden evil from its darkest corners into the open, where everyone will see it.

Hor. I do not think myself a match for you in argument; but I have a great mind to be your gentleman’s advocate against all your infallibility: I never liked a cause better in my life. Come, I undertake to defend him in all the suppositions you can make that are reasonable and consistent with what you have said before.

Hor. I don't think I'm as skilled as you in a debate; however, I'm really eager to be your advocate against all your certainty: I've never liked a cause more in my life. Come on, I'll take on defending him against all the reasonable and consistent points you can come up with based on what you've said before.

Cleo. Very well: let us suppose what may happen to the most inoffensive, the most prudent, and best-bred man; that our fine gentleman differs in opinion before company, with another, who is his equal in birth and quality, but not so much master over his outward behaviour, and less guarded in his conduct; let this adversary, mal á propos, grow warm, and seem to be wanting in the respect that is due to the other, and reflect on his honour in ambiguous terms. What is your client to do?

Cleo. Alright: let’s imagine what could happen to the most harmless, cautious, and well-bred man; our fine gentleman disagrees in front of others with someone who is his equal in status and background but lacks control over his behavior and is less careful in how he acts. Let’s say this opponent, mal à propos, gets heated and appears to disrespect the other, making vague remarks about his honor. What should your client do?

Hor. Immediately to ask for an explanation.

Hor. Right away, ask for an explanation.

Cleo. Which, if the hot man disregards with scorn, or flatly refuses to give, satisfaction must be demanded, and tilt they must.

Cleo. If the handsome man dismisses it with contempt or outright refuses to provide it, then satisfaction must be sought, and they must clash.

Hor. You are too hasty: it happened before company; in such cases, friends, or any gentlemen present, should interpose and take care, that if threatening words ensue, they [318]are, by the civil authority, both put under arrest; and before they came to uncourteous language, they ought to have been parted by friendly force, if it were possible. After that, overtures may be made of reconciliation with the nicest regard to the point of honour.

Hor. You're being too quick to judge: it happened in front of others; in such cases, friends or any gentlemen present should step in and ensure that if threatening words are exchanged, they [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] are both detained by the authorities. Before they resorted to rude language, they should have been separated by friendly force if possible. After that, we can discuss reconciliation with careful consideration of honor.

Cleo. I do not ask for directions to prevent a quarrel; what you say may be done, or it may not be done: The good offices of friends may succeed, and they may not succeed. I am to make what suppositions I think fit within the verge of possibility, so they are reasonable and consistent with the character I have drawn: can we not suppose these two persons in such a situation that you yourself would advise your friend to send his adversary a challenge?

Cleo. I don't ask for directions to avoid an argument; what you suggest might happen or it might not. Friends can try to help, but it may work or it may not. I’m meant to come up with whatever possibilities I think fit, as long as they’re reasonable and align with the character I’ve created. Can we not imagine these two people in a situation where you would actually tell your friend to challenge his opponent?

Hor. Without doubt such a thing may happen.

Hor. There's no doubt something like that could happen.

Cleo. That is enough. After that a duel must ensue, in which, without determining any thing, the fine gentleman, we will say, behaves himself with the utmost gallantry.

Cleo. That's enough. After that, a duel has to happen, in which, without resolving anything, the gentleman, we’ll say, acts with the utmost gallantry.

Hor. To have suspected or supposed otherwise would have been unreasonable.

Hor. To think anything different would have been unreasonable.

Cleo. You see, therefore, how fair I am. But what is it, pray, that so suddenly disposes a courteous sweet-tempered man, for so small an evil, to seek a remedy of that extreme violence? But above all, what is it that buoys up and supports him against the fear of death? for there lies the greatest difficulty.

Cleo. You can see how fair I am. But what, may I ask, makes a polite, kind-hearted man react so strongly to such a minor issue? And more importantly, what gives him the courage to face the fear of death? That's where the real challenge lies.

Hor. His natural courage and intrepidity, built on the innocence of his life, and the rectitude of his manners.

Hor. His natural bravery and fearlessness, rooted in the purity of his life and the integrity of his character.

Cleo. But what makes so just and prudent a man, that has the good of society so much at heart, act knowingly against the laws of his country?

Cleo. But why would such a fair and sensible man, who cares so deeply for the well-being of society, intentionally go against the laws of his country?

Hor. The strict obedience he pays to the laws of honour, which are superior to all others.

Hor. He strictly follows the laws of honor, which are above all others.

Cleo. If men of honour would act confidently, they ought all to be Roman Catholics.

Cleo. If honorable men were to act with confidence, they should all be Roman Catholics.

Hor. Why, pray?

Why, please?

Cleo. Because they prefer oral tradition to all written laws: for nobody can tell when, in what king’s or emperor’s reign, in what country, or by what authority these laws of honour were first enacted: it is very strange they should be of such force.

Cleo. Because they value oral tradition over any written laws: no one can say when, during which king's or emperor's reign, in which country, or by what authority these honor laws were first established: it's quite odd that they hold so much power.

Hor. They are wrote and engraved in every ones breast that is a man of honour: there is no denying of it; you are conscious of it yourself; every body feels it within. [319]

Hor. They are written and engraved in the hearts of every honorable person: there’s no denying it; you know it yourself; everyone feels it inside. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. Let them be wrote or engraved wherever you please, they are directly opposite to and clashing with the laws of God; and if the gentleman I described was as sincere in his religion as he appeared to be, he must have been of an opinion contrary to yours; for Christians of all persuasions are unanimous in allowing the divine laws to be far above all other; and that all other considerations ought to give way to them. How, and under what pretence can a Christian, who is a man of sense, submit or agree to laws that prescribe revenge, and countenance murder; both which are so expressly forbid by the precepts of his religion?

Cleo. Let them be written or engraved wherever you like; they are completely opposed to and in conflict with God's laws. If the gentleman I mentioned was as sincere in his faith as he seemed, he must have held views that are different from yours. Christians of all beliefs agree that divine laws take precedence over all others and that all other considerations should come second to them. How can a sensible Christian agree to laws that promote revenge and justify murder, both of which are clearly forbidden by the teachings of his faith?

Hor. I am no casuist: but you know, that what I say is true; and that, among persons of honour, a man would be laughed at, that should make such a scruple. Not but that I think killing a man to be a great sin, where it can be helped; and that all prudent men ought to avoid the occasion, as much as it is in their power. He is highly blameable who is the first aggressor, and gives the affront; and whoever enters upon it out of levity, or seeks a quarrel out of wantonness, ought to be hanged. Nobody would choose it, who is not a fool; and yet, when it is forced upon one, all the wisdom in the world cannot teach him how to avoid it. It has been my case you know: I shall never forget the reluctancy I had against it; but necessity has no law.

Hor. I’m not one to make moral arguments, but you know what I’m saying is true; among honorable people, a man would be ridiculed for having such doubts. That said, I do believe that killing someone is a serious sin when it can be avoided, and all sensible people should avoid situations that could lead to it as much as possible. The person who starts the conflict and gives the offense is very much to blame, and anyone who engages in a fight out of impulsiveness or seeks out a quarrel for fun deserves serious punishment. No one would choose this unless they were foolish, and yet, when a situation is forced upon someone, all the wisdom in the world can’t show them how to avoid it. It happened to me, as you know: I’ll never forget how reluctant I was, but when necessity calls, there’s no ignoring it.

Cleo. I saw you that very morning, and you seemed to be sedate and void of passion: you could have no concern.

Cleo. I saw you that morning, and you looked calm and lacking in passion: you didn't seem worried at all.

Hor. It is silly to show any at such times; but I know best what I felt; the struggle I had within was unspeakable: it is a terrible thing. I would then have given a considerable part of my estate, that the thing which forced me into it had not happened; and yet, upon less provocation, I would act the same part again to-morrow.

Hor. It's foolish to show any at times like these; but I know what I felt; the inner struggle I went through was unbearable: it’s a terrible thing. I would have given up a large part of my fortune to avoid what led me here; and still, with less incentive, I would play the same role again tomorrow.

Cleo. Do you remember what your concern was chiefly about?

Cleo. Do you remember what your main concern was?

Hor. How can you ask? It is an affair of the highest importance that can occur in life; I was no boy; it was after we came from Italy; I was in my nine and twentieth year, had very good acquaintance, and was not ill received: a man of that age, in health and vigour, who has seven thousand a-year, and the prospect of being a peer of England, has no reason to quarrel with the world, or wish himself out of it. It is a very great hazard a man runs in a duel; besides the remorse and uneasiness one must feel as long as he lives, if he [320]has the misfortune of killing his adversary. It is impossible to reflect on all these things, and at the same time resolve to run those hazards (though there are other considerations of still greater moment), without being under a prodigious concern.

Hor. How can you ask? This is one of the most important things that can happen in life; I wasn't a kid anymore; it was after we returned from Italy. I was in my late twenties, had a good social circle, and was generally well-received: a man at that age, in good health and full of energy, who makes seven thousand a year and has the chance to become a peer of England, has no reason to complain about life or wish he weren't part of it. A man really risks a lot in a duel; besides the guilt and anxiety he’ll feel for the rest of his life if he has the misfortune of killing his opponent. It's impossible to think about all of this and still decide to take those risks (though there are even bigger issues to consider) without feeling extremely worried.

Cleo. You say nothing about the sin.

Cleo. You don't say anything about the sin.

Hor. The thoughts of that, without doubt, are a great addition; but the other things are so weighty of themselves, that a man’s condition at such a time, is very perplexed without further reflection.

Hor. Thinking about that, for sure, is a big help; but the other things are so heavy on their own that a person's situation at times like that is really confusing without more thought.

Cleo. You have now a very fine opportunity, Horatio, of looking into your heart, and with a little of my assistance, examining yourself. If you can condescend to this, I promise you that you shall make great discoveries, and be convinced of truths you are now unwilling to believe. A lover of justice and probity, as you are, ought not to be fond of a road of thinking, where he is always forced to skulk, and never dares to meet with light or reason. Will you suffer me to ask you some questions, and will you answer them directly and in good humour?

Cleo. Horatio, you have a great chance now to look into your heart and, with a little help from me, examine yourself. If you can be open to this, I promise you’ll make important discoveries and realize truths you’re currently reluctant to accept. As someone who values justice and honesty, you shouldn’t follow a line of thinking that makes you hide away and avoids facing light or reason. Can I ask you a few questions, and will you answer them directly and with good humor?

Hor. I will, without reserve.

I'll do it, no problem.

Cleo. Do you remember the storm upon the coast of Genoa?

Cleo. Do you remember the storm along the coast of Genoa?

Hor. Going to Naples? Very well; it makes me cold to think of it.

Hor. Going to Naples? Okay; just thinking about it gives me chills.

Cleo. Was you afraid?

Cleo. Were you afraid?

Hor. Never more in my life: I hate that fickle element; I cannot endure the sea.

Hor. Never again in my life: I can’t stand that unpredictable force; I can't take the ocean.

Cleo. What was you afraid of?

Cleo. What were you afraid of?

Hor. That is a pretty question: do you think a young fellow of six-and-twenty, as I was then, and in my circumstances, had a great mind to be drowned? The captain himself said we were in danger.

Hor. That's an interesting question: do you really think a 26-year-old guy like I was back then, in my situation, wanted to drown? The captain himself said we were in trouble.

Cleo. But neither he nor any body else discovered half so much fear and anxiety as you did.

Cleo. But neither he nor anyone else showed as much fear and anxiety as you did.

Hor. There was nobody there, yourself excepted, that had half a quarter so much to lose as I had: besides, they are used to the sea; storms are familiar to them. I had never been at sea before, but that fine afternoon we crossed from Dover to Calais.

Hor. There was no one there, except for you, who had as much to lose as I did; plus, they're used to the sea; storms are nothing new to them. I had never been at sea before, but that beautiful afternoon we crossed from Dover to Calais.

Cleo. Want of knowledge or experience may make men apprehend danger where there is none; but real dangers, when they are known to be such, try the natural courage of [321]all men; whether they have been used to them or not: sailors are as unwilling to lose their lives as other people.

Cleo. Lack of knowledge or experience can lead people to see danger where there is none; however, real dangers, when recognized as such, test the natural courage of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] everyone, whether they are used to facing them or not: sailors are just as reluctant to lose their lives as anyone else.

Hor. I am not ashamed to own, that I am a great coward at sea: give me terra firma, and then—

Hor. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a huge coward at sea: give me terra firma, and then—

Cleo. Six or seven months after you fought that duel, I remember you had the small-pox; you was then very much afraid of dying.

Cleo. Six or seven months after you had that duel, I remember you got smallpox; you were then very scared of dying.

Hor. Not without a cause.

Not without reason.

Cleo. I heard your physicians say, that the violent apprehension you was under, hindered your sleep, increased your fever, and was as mischievous to you as the distemper itself.

Cleo. I heard your doctors say that the intense anxiety you were experiencing was keeping you from sleeping, raising your fever, and was just as harmful to you as the illness itself.

Hor. That was a terrible time; I am glad it is over: I had a sister died of it. Before I had it, I was in perpetual dread of it, and many times to hear it named only has made me uneasy.

Hor. That was an awful time; I’m glad it’s behind us: I lost a sister to it. Before I got it, I was constantly afraid of it, and just hearing it mentioned made me anxious many times.

Cleo. Natural courage is a general armour against the fear of death, whatever shape that appears in, Si fractus illabatur erbis. It supports a man in tempestuous seas, and in a burning fever, whilst he is in his senses, as well as in a siege before a town, or in a duel with seconds.

Cleo. Natural courage is like a shield against the fear of death, no matter what form it takes, Si fractus illabatur erbis. It helps a person in stormy seas and during a high fever, as long as he is in his right mind, just as it does during a siege of a city or in a duel with witnesses.

Hor. What! you are going to show me, that I have no courage.

Hor. What! Are you really going to prove to me that I have no courage?

Cleo. Far from it; it would be ridiculous to doubt a man’s bravery, that has shown it in such an extraordinary manner as you have done more than once: what I question, is the epithet you joined to it at first, the word natural; for there is a great difference between that and artificial courage.

Cleo. Not at all; it would be silly to question a man’s bravery when he has demonstrated it in such an exceptional way more than once: what I’m questioning is the label you attached to it at first, the word natural; because there’s a big difference between that and artificial courage.

Hor. That is a chicane I will not enter into: but I am not of your opinion, as to what you said before. A gentleman is not required to show his bravery, but where his honour is concerned; and if he dares to fight for his king, his friend, his mistress, and every thing where his reputation is engaged, you shall think of him what you please for the rest. Besides, that in sickness and other dangers, as well as afflictions, where the hand of God is plainly to be seen, courage and intrepidity are impious as well as impertinent. Undauntedness in chastisements is a kind of rebellion: it is waging war with Heaven, which none but atheists and freethinkers would be guilty of; it is only they that can glory in impenitence, and talk of dying hard. All others that have any sense of religion, desire to repent before they go out of the world: the best of us do not always live, as we could wish to die. [322]

Hor. That’s a gamble I won’t take: but I don’t agree with what you said earlier. A gentleman doesn’t need to prove his bravery except when his honor is at stake; if he fights for his king, his friend, his lover, or anything that affects his reputation, you can think whatever you want about him after that. Also, in sickness and other dangers, as well as suffering, where it’s clear that the hand of God is present, being brave and fearless is not only disrespectful but also inappropriate. Being unafraid in punishment is a form of rebellion; it’s like waging war against Heaven, which only atheists and free thinkers would do. They are the only ones who can boast about lacking remorse and talk about dying stubbornly. Anyone with a sense of faith wishes to repent before leaving this world: the best of us don’t always live in a way that reflects how we’d like to die. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. I am very glad to hear you are so religious: but do not you perceive yet, how inconsistent you are with yourself: how can a man sincerely wish to repent, that wilfully plunges himself into a mortal sin, and an action where he runs a greater and more immediate hazard of his life, than he could have done in almost any other, without force or necessity?

Cleo. I'm really glad to hear you're so religious, but don't you see how inconsistent you are? How can someone truly want to repent if they deliberately put themselves into a serious sin and an action where they're risking their life more than they would in almost any other situation, without being forced or needing to?

Hor. I have over and over owned to you that duelling is a sin; and, unless a man is forced to it by necessity, I believe, a mortal one: but this was not my case, and therefore I hope God will forgive me: let them look to it that make a sport of it. But when a man comes to an action with the utmost reluctancy, and what he does is not possibly to be avoided, I think he then may justly be said to be forced to it, and to act from necessity. You may blame the rigorous laws of honour, and the tyranny of custom, but a man that will live in the world must, and is bound to obey them. Would not you do it yourself?

Hor. I've repeatedly told you that dueling is a sin, and unless someone is forced into it by necessity, I believe it’s a deadly sin: but that wasn't my situation, so I hope God will forgive me. Those who make a game of it should consider their actions. But when a person approaches an action with extreme reluctance, and what they do is unavoidable, I think it's fair to say they're being forced into it and acting out of necessity. You can criticize the strict rules of honor and the oppression of tradition, but anyone who wants to live in this world has to follow them. Wouldn't you do the same?

Cleo. Do not ask me what I would do: the question is, what every body ought to do. Can a man believe the Bible, and at the same time apprehend a tyrant more crafty or malicious, more unrelenting or inhuman than the devil, or a mischief worse than hell, and pains either more exquisite or more durable than torments unspeakable and yet everlasting? You do not answer. What evil is it? Think of it, and tell me what dismal thing it is you apprehend, should you neglect these laws, and despise that tyrant: what calamity could befall you? Let me know the worst that can be feared.

Cleo. Don’t ask me what I would do: the real question is, what should everyone do. Can a person believe the Bible and at the same time see a tyrant who is more cunning or wicked, more unyielding or inhumane than the devil, or a harm worse than hell, and sufferings that are either more intense or longer-lasting than unspeakable and eternal torments? You don’t respond. What evil could it be? Think about it and tell me what dreadful thing you fear if you ignore these laws and defy that tyrant: what disaster could happen to you? Let me know the worst that can be imagined.

Hor. Would you be posted for a coward?

Hor. Would you be labeled as a coward?

Cleo. For what? For not daring to violate all human and divine laws?

Cleo. For what? For not having the courage to break all human and divine laws?

Hor. Strictly speaking you are in the right, it is unanswerable; but who will consider things in that light?

Hor. Technically, you’re right; it can’t be argued against. But who’s going to see it that way?

Cleo. All good Christians.

Cleo. All good Christians.

Hor. Where are they then? For all mankind in general would despise and laugh at a man, who should move those scruples. I have heard and seen clergymen themselves in company show their contempt of poltrons, whatever they might talk or recommend in the pulpit. Entirely to quit the world, and at once to renounce the conversation of all persons that are valuable in it, is a terrible thing to resolve upon. Would you become a town and table-talk? Could you submit to be the jest and scorn of public-houses, stage-coaches, and market-places? Is not this the certain fate of a [323]man, who should refuse to fight, or bear an affront without resentment? be just, Cleomenes; is it to be avoided? Must he not be made a common laughing-stock, be pointed at in the streets, and serve for diversion to the very children; to link-boys and hackney-coachmen? Is it a thought to be born with patience?

Hor. Where are they then? Because everyone would definitely look down on and laugh at a man who brings up those doubts. I've heard and seen clergymen themselves show disdain for cowards when they're in company, no matter what they preach in the pulpit. Completely leaving the world and immediately giving up the company of all the people who are valuable in it is a tough choice to make. Do you want to become a topic for gossip? Could you handle being the joke and target of mockery in bars, coaches, and marketplaces? Isn’t this the inevitable fate of a [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] man who refuses to fight or take an insult without reacting? Be honest, Cleomenes; can this be avoided? Mustn't he become a common laughingstock, be pointed at in the streets, and be entertainment for children, linkboys, and cab drivers? Is this something to bear with patience?

Cleo. How come you now to have such an anxious regard for what may be the opinion of the vulgar, whom at other times you so heartily despise?

Cleo. Why do you suddenly care so much about what the common people think, when you usually look down on them so much?

Hor. All this is reasoning, and you know the thing will not bear it: how can you be so cruel?

Hor. This is all just logic, and you know it won't hold up: how can you be so heartless?

Cleo. How can you be so backward in discovering and owning the passion, that is so conspicuously the occasion of all this, the palpable and only cause of the uneasiness we feel at the thoughts of being despised?

Cleo. How can you be so oblivious to recognizing and embracing the passion that is clearly responsible for all this—the obvious and only reason for the discomfort we feel at the idea of being looked down upon?

Hor. I am not sensible of any; and I declare to you, that I feel nothing that moves me to speak as I do, but the sense and principle of honour within me.

Hor. I'm not aware of any; and I promise you, that I feel nothing that makes me speak as I do, except the sense and principle of honor within me.

Cleo. Do you think that the lowest of the mob, and the scum of the people, are possessed of any part of this principle?

Cleo. Do you think that the lowest people in the crowd, and the dregs of society, have any understanding of this principle?

Hor. No, indeed.

No way.

Cleo. Or that among the highest quality, infants can be affected with it before they are two years old?

Cleo. Or that among the highest quality, infants can be affected by it before they turn two years old?

Hor. Ridiculous.

Hor. Absurd.

Cleo. If neither of these are affected with it, then honour should be either adventitious, and acquired by culture; or, if contained in the blood of those that are nobly born, imperceptible until the years of discretion; and neither of them can be said of the principle, the palpable cause I speak of. For we plainly see on the one hand, that scorn and ridicule are intolerable to the poorest wretches, and that there is no beggar so mean or miserable, that contempt will never offend him: on the other, that human creatures are so early influenced by the sense of shame; that children, by being laughed at and made a jest of, may be set a crying before they can well speak or go. Whatever, therefore, this mighty principle is, it is born with us, and belongs to our nature: are you unacquainted with the proper, genuine, homely name of it?

Cleo. If neither of these are affected by it, then honor must either come from outside and be gained through education, or, if it exists in the blood of those who are born into nobility, it remains unnoticed until someone reaches maturity; and neither of these can be applied to the principle, the obvious cause I’m referring to. For we can clearly see that on one hand, scorn and ridicule are unbearable to even the poorest of people, and there’s no beggar so low or unfortunate that they won’t be hurt by contempt: on the other hand, human beings are affected by the feeling of shame from an early age; children can be driven to tears by being laughed at and turned into a joke long before they are capable of speaking or walking well. Whatever this powerful principle is, it is something we are born with and part of our nature: do you not know its proper, true, everyday name?

Hor. I know you call it pride. I will not dispute with you about principles and origins of things; but that high value which men of honour set upon themselves as such, and [324]which is no more than what is due to the dignity of our nature, when well cultivated, is the foundation of their character, and a support to them in all difficulties, that is of great use to the society. The desire, likewise, of being thought well of, and the love of praise and even of glory are commendable qualities, that are beneficial to the public. The truth of this is manifest in the reverse; all shameless people that are below infamy, and matter not what is said or thought of them, these, we see nobody can trust; they stick at nothing, and if they can but avoid death, pain, and penal laws, are always ready to execute all manner of mischief, their selfishness or any brutal appetite shall prompt them to, without regard to the opinion of others: such are justly called men of no principles, because they have nothing of any strength within, that can either spur them on to brave and virtuous actions, or restrain them from villany and baseness.

Hor. I know you call it pride. I won’t argue with you about the principles and origins of things, but the high regard that honorable people have for themselves—which is just what’s deserved by our nature when nurtured—is the foundation of their character and a support during tough times, benefiting society greatly. The desire to be well-regarded, along with the love of compliments and even glory, are admirable qualities that serve the public good. This is clear in the opposite case; all the shameless individuals who fall short of disgrace and don’t care what others say or think are ones we can’t trust. They will stop at nothing, and as long as they can avoid death, pain, and punishment, they’re always ready to engage in all sorts of wrongdoing, driven by their selfishness or any brutal desire they have, with no regard for others’ opinions. Such people are rightly called individuals with no principles because there’s nothing robust within them to motivate them toward brave and virtuous actions or to hold them back from wickedness and disgrace.

Cleo. The first part of your assertion is very true, when that high value, that desire, and that love are kept within the bounds of reason: But, in the second, there is a mistake; those whom we call shameless, are not more destitute of pride, than their betters. Remember what I have said of education, and the power of it; you may add inclinations, knowledge, and circumstances; for, as men differ in all these, so they are differently influenced and wrought upon by all the passions. There is nothing that some men may not be taught to be ashamed of. The same passion that makes the well-bred man, and prudent officer, value and secretly admire themselves for the honour and fidelity they display, may make the rake and scoundrel brag of their vices, and boast of their impudence.

Cleo. The first part of your statement is definitely true when that high value, desire, and love stay within the limits of reason. But in the second part, there's a mistake; those we call shameless aren't any less proud than those we consider better. Remember what I said about education and its power; you can add inclinations, knowledge, and circumstances to that. Just as men differ in all these aspects, they are influenced and affected by all the passions in different ways. There’s nothing that some people can’t be taught to feel ashamed of. The same passion that makes a well-bred person and a wise officer value and quietly admire themselves for their honor and loyalty can lead a rogue and scoundrel to brag about their vices and boast about their audacity.

Hor. I cannot comprehend, how a man of honour, and one that has none, should both act from the same principle.

Hor. I can’t understand how a man of honor and one without any can both act on the same principle.

Cleo. This is not more strange, than that self-love may make a man destroy himself, yet nothing is more true; and it is as certain, that some men indulge their pride in being shameless. To understand human nature, requires study and application, as well as penetration and sagacity. All passions and instincts in general, were given to all animals for some wise end, tending to the preservation and happiness of themselves, or their species: It is our duty to hinder them from being detrimental or offensive to any part of the society; but why should we be ashamed of having them? The instinct of high value, which every individual has for himself, [325]is a very useful passion: but a passion it is, and though I could demonstrate, that we should be miserable creatures without it, yet, when it is excessive, it often is the cause of endless mischiefs.

Cleo. This isn't any stranger than the fact that self-love can lead a person to ruin themselves, and that's absolutely true; it's also true that some people take pride in being unashamed. Understanding human nature takes study and effort, along with insight and cleverness. All passions and instincts were given to animals for a good reason, which supports their own preservation and happiness or that of their species. It's our responsibility to ensure they don't become harmful or unpleasant to society; but why should we feel ashamed of having them? The instinct to value oneself, which everyone has, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] is a very useful passion: but it is still a passion, and while I could prove that we would be miserable without it, excessive self-value often leads to endless problems.

Hor. But in well-bred people it never is excessive.

Hor. But among well-mannered people, it’s never too much.

Cleo. You mean the excess of it never appears outwardly: But we ought never to judge of its height or strength from what we can discover of the passion itself, but from the effects it produces: It often is most superlative, where it is most concealed; and nothing increases and influences it more, than what is called a refined education, and a continual commerce with the beau monde: The only thing that can subdue, or any ways curb it, is a strict adherence to the Christian religion.

Cleo. You mean that its excess often isn't obvious on the surface: But we should never judge its intensity or power based solely on what we can see of the passion itself, but rather from the effects it creates: It can be at its peak where it is most hidden; and nothing enhances and drives it more than what’s called a refined education and constant interaction with the beau monde: The only thing that can restrain or somewhat control it is a strong commitment to the Christian faith.

Hor. Why do you so much insist upon it, that this principle, this value men set upon themselves, is a passion? And why will you choose to call it pride rather than honour?

Hor. Why do you keep insisting that this principle, this value people place on themselves, is just a passion? And why do you prefer to call it pride instead of honor?

Cleo. For very good reasons. Fixing this principle in human nature, in the first place, takes away all ambiguity: Who is a man of honour, and who is not, is often a disputable point; and, among those that are allowed to be such, the several degrees of strictness, in complying with the rules of it, make great difference in the principle itself. But a passion that is born with us is unalterable, and part of our frame, whether it exerts itself or not: The essence of it is the same, which way soever it is taught to turn. Honour is the undoubted offspring of pride, but the same cause produces not always the same effect. All the vulgar, children, savages, and many others that are not affected with any sense of honour, have all of them pride, as is evident from the symptoms. Secondly, it helps us to explain the phenomena that occur in quarrels and affronts, and the behaviour of men of honour on these occasions, which cannot be accounted for any other way. But what moves me to it most of all, is the prodigious force and exorbitant power of this principle of self esteem, where it has been long gratified and encouraged. You remember the concern you was under, when you had that duel upon your hands, and the great reluctancy you felt in doing what you did; you knew it to be a crime, and, at the same time, had a strong aversion to it; what secret power was it that subdued your will, and gained the victory over that great reluctancy you felt against it? You call it honour, and the too strict, though [326]unavoidable adherence to the rules of it: But men never commit violence upon themselves, but in struggling with the passions that are innate and natural to them. Honour is acquired, and the rules of it are taught: Nothing adventitious, that some are possessed, and others destitute of, could raise such intestine wars and dire commotions within us; and therefore, whatever is the cause that can thus divide us against ourselves, and, as it were, rend human nature in twain, must be part of us; and, to speak without disguise, the struggle in your breast was between the fear of shame and the fear of death: had this latter not been so considerable, your struggle would have been less: Still the first conquered, because it was strongest; but if your fear of shame had been inferior to that of death, you would have reasoned otherwise, and found out some means or other to have avoided fighting.

Cleo. For very good reasons. Establishing this principle in human nature, first of all, removes any ambiguity: Who is a person of honor and who isn’t is often debated; and among those recognized as such, various levels of strictness in following the rules create significant differences in the principle itself. However, a passion that is innate is unchangeable and a part of who we are, regardless of whether it is expressed or not: Its essence remains the same, no matter how it is taught to manifest. Honor is undeniably rooted in pride, but the same cause doesn’t always lead to the same outcome. All common people, children, savages, and many others who don’t have any sense of honor still possess pride, as shown by their behaviors. Secondly, it helps us understand the dynamics in conflicts and insults, and the actions of honorable men in these situations, which can’t be explained any other way. But what moves me most of all is the astonishing strength and overwhelming power of this principle of self-esteem, especially where it has been long nurtured and supported. You remember how anxious you felt when you were faced with that duel, and the great reluctance you experienced in doing what you did; you knew it was wrong, yet simultaneously felt a strong aversion to it; what hidden force ultimately subdued your will and overcame that significant reluctance? You call it honor, and the overly strict yet unavoidable adherence to its rules: However, people never harm themselves without battling the passions that are inherent and natural to them. Honor is acquired, and its rules are taught: Nothing external that some possess and others lack could create such inner conflicts and extreme turmoil within us; therefore, whatever cause can divide us against ourselves and, so to speak, tear human nature in half must be a part of us; and to be clear, the struggle within you was between the fear of shame and the fear of death: if the latter hadn’t been so significant, your struggle would have been less intense: Ultimately, the first prevailed because it was stronger; but if your fear of shame had been less intense than your fear of death, you might have reasoned differently and found a way to avoid fighting.

Hor. This is a strange anatomy of human nature.

Hor. This is a bizarre insight into human nature.

Cleo. Yet, for want of making use of it, the subject we are upon is not rightly understood by many; and men have discoursed very inconsistently on duelling. A divine who wrote a dialogue to explode that practice, said, that those who were guilty of it, had mistaken notions of, and went by false rules of honour; for which my friend justly ridiculed him, saying, You may as well deny, that it is the fashion what you see every body wear, as to say, that demanding and giving satisfaction, is against the laws of true honour. Had that man understood human nature, he could not have committed such a blunder: But when once he took it for granted, that honour is a just and good principle, without inquiring into the cause of it among the passions, it is impossible he should have accounted for duelling, in a Christian pretending to act from such a principle; and therefore, in another place, with the same justice, he said, that a man who had accepted a challenge was not qualified to make his will, because he was not compos mentis: He might, with greater show of reason, have said, that he was bewitched.

Cleo. However, due to a lack of proper understanding, many people misunderstand the topic at hand, and discussions about dueling have been quite contradictory. A religious scholar who wrote a discourse to criticize that practice claimed that those who engage in it have a flawed understanding and follow false rules of honor. My friend rightly mocked him, saying, you might as well deny the current fashion of what everyone wears, as to claim that seeking and giving satisfaction goes against the laws of true honor. If that man had truly understood human nature, he wouldn't have made such a mistake. But once he assumed that honor is a fair and good principle without exploring its roots among human emotions, it’s impossible for him to justify dueling in a Christian claiming to act on that principle. Therefore, at another point, he rightly said that a man who accepts a challenge is not capable of making his will because he is not compos mentis: He could have just as reasonably claimed that he was under a spell.

Hor. Why so?

Hor. Why's that?

Cleo. Because people out of their wits, as they think at random, so commonly they act and talk incoherently; but when a man of known sobriety, and who shows no manner of discomposure, discourses and behaves himself in every thing, as he is used to do; and, moreover, reasons on points of great nicety with the utmost accuracy, it is impossible [327]we should take him to be either a fool or a madman; and when such a person, in an affair of the highest importance, acts so diametrically against his interest, that a child can see it, and with deliberation pursues his own destruction, those who believe that there are malignant spirits of that power, would rather imagine that he was led away by some enchantment, and over-ruled by the enemy of mankind, than they would fancy a palpable absurdity: But even the supposition of that is not sufficient to solve the difficulty, without the help of that strange anatomy. For what spell or witchcraft is there, by the delusion of which a man of understanding shall, keeping his senses, mistake an imaginary duty for an unavoidable necessity to break all real obligations? But let us wave all ties of religion, as well as human laws, and the person we speak of to be a professed Epicure, that has no thoughts of futurity; what violent power of darkness is it, that can force and compel a peaceable quiet man, neither inured to hardship, nor valiant by nature, to quit his beloved ease and security; and seemingly by choice go fight in cold blood for his life, with this comfortable reflection, that nothing forfeits it so certainly as the entire defeat of his enemy?

Cleo. People can act and speak incoherently when they are overwhelmed, thinking randomly. However, when a person known for their calmness shows no signs of distress and behaves as usual, while also discussing important matters with great precision, it’s hard to believe they are a fool or insane. If such a person, in a very important situation, acts completely against their own interest—so obviously that even a child can see it—and deliberately pursues their own ruin, those who think there are evil spirits at work would rather believe he’s been enchanted or manipulated by a force against humanity than accept a clear absurdity. But even that idea doesn’t fully explain the issue without considering that strange situation. What kind of spell or enchantment could make a rational person, while fully aware, confuse a false duty with an unavoidable necessity to break actual obligations? Let's set aside all religious ties and human laws, imagining the person in question is a committed Epicurean, with no thoughts of the future. What dark force could compel a peaceful and comfortable man, who isn’t used to hardship or naturally brave, to abandon his beloved comfort and security, seemingly by choice, to fight for his life in cold blood, all while knowing that nothing jeopardizes it more surely than the total defeat of his enemy?

Hor. As to the law and the punishment, persons of quality have little to fear of that.

Hor. When it comes to the law and punishment, high-status people have little to worry about.

Cleo. You cannot say that in France, nor the Seven Provinces. But men of honour, that are of much lower ranks, decline duelling no more than those of the highest quality. How many examples have we, even here, of gallant men, that have suffered for it either by exile or the hangman! A man of honour must fear nothing: Do but consider every obstacle which this principle of self-esteem has conquered at one time or other; and then tell me whether it must not be something more than magic, by the fascination of which a man of taste and judgment, in health and vigour, as well as the flower of his age, can be tempted, and actually drawn from the embraces of a wife he loves, and the endearments of hopeful children, from polite conversation and the charms of friendship, from the fairest possessions and the happy enjoyment of all worldly pleasures, to an unwarrantable combat, of which the victor must be exposed either to an ignominious death, or perpetual banishment.

Cleo. You can't say that in France or the Seven Provinces. But honorable men, even those of lower ranks, refuse to shy away from dueling just as much as those of the highest status. We have plenty of examples right here of brave men who have faced consequences like exile or execution! A man of honor should fear nothing: Just think about every challenge that this principle of self-respect has overcome at one time or another, and then tell me if it isn’t something more than magic. What kind of fascination could draw a man of taste and judgment, in good health and full of life, away from the arms of his beloved wife and the joys of his hopeful children, away from polite conversation and the pleasures of friendship, from his most cherished possessions and the happiness of enjoying all that life has to offer, into an unjust fight, where the winner risks either a shameful death or a life of permanent exile?

Hor. When things are set in this light, I confess it is very [328]unaccountable: but will your system explain this; can you make it clear yourself?

Hor. When things are viewed this way, I admit it's really puzzling: but can your system clarify this; can you explain it yourself?

Cleo. Immediately, as the sun: If you will but observe two things, that must necessarily follow, and are manifest from what I have demonstrated already. The first is, that the fear of shame, in general, is a matter of caprice, that varies with modes and customs, and may be fixed on different objects, according to the different lessons we have received, and the precepts we are imbued with; and that this is the reason, why this fear of shame, as it is either well or ill placed, sometimes produces very good effects, and at others is the cause of the most enormous crimes. Secondly, that, though shame is a real passion, the evil to be feared from it is altogether imaginary, and has no existence but in our own reflection on the opinion of others.

Cleo. Right away, just like the sun: If you pay attention to two things, you'll see they necessarily follow and are clear from what I’ve already shown. The first is that the fear of shame is often random, changing with different practices and customs, and can focus on various things depending on the lessons we've learned and the values we've absorbed. This explains why the fear of shame, whether it's justified or not, can sometimes lead to very positive outcomes and at other times result in terrible crimes. Secondly, while shame is a genuine emotion, the negativity we fear from it is entirely imagined and exists only in our thoughts about what others think.

Hor. But there are real and substantial mischiefs which a man may draw upon himself, by misbehaving in point of honour; it may ruin his fortune, and all hopes of preferment: An officer may be broken for putting up an affront: Nobody will serve with a coward, and who will employ him?

Hor. But there are serious and significant consequences that a person can bring upon themselves by acting dishonorably; it can destroy their wealth and any chance of advancement: An officer can be dismissed for allowing an insult to go unchallenged: No one wants to work with a coward, so who would hire him?

Cleo. What you urge is altogether out of the question; at least it was in your own case; you had nothing to dread or apprehend but the bare opinion of men. Besides, when the fear of shame is superior to that of death, it is likewise superior to, and outweighs all other considerations; as has been sufficiently proved: But when the fear of shame is not violent enough to curb the fear of death, nothing else can; and whenever the fear of death is stronger than that of shame, there is no consideration that will make a man fight in cold blood, or comply with any of the laws of honour, where life is at stake. Therefore, whoever acts from the fear of shame as a motive, in sending and accepting of challenges, must be sensible, on the one hand, that the mischiefs he apprehends, should he disobey the tyrant, can only be the offspring of his own thoughts; and, on the other, that if he could be persuaded anywise to lessen the great esteem and high value he sets upon himself, his dread of shame would likewise palpably diminish. From all which, it is most evident, that the grand cause of this distraction, the powerful enchanter we are seeking after, is pride, excess of pride, that highest pitch of self-esteem, to which some men may be wound up by an artful education, and the perpetual flatteries bestowed upon our species, and the excellencies of our nature. This is the [329]sorcerer, that is able to divert all other passions from their natural objects, and make a rational creature ashamed of what is most agreeable to his inclination, as well as his duty; both which the duellist owns, that he has knowingly acted against.

Cleo. What you're suggesting is completely out of the question; at least it was for you because you had nothing to fear except for what others might think. Besides, when the fear of shame is stronger than the fear of death, it also takes precedence over and outweighs all other concerns; that has been proven enough. However, when the fear of shame isn't strong enough to control the fear of death, nothing else can, and whenever the fear of death is stronger than the fear of shame, no argument will make a person act calmly or follow the rules of honor when their life is on the line. Therefore, anyone who acts out of fear of shame when sending and accepting challenges must realize, on one hand, that the troubles they fear for disobeying the tyrant stem only from their own thoughts; and on the other, that if they could somehow be convinced to lessen the tremendous esteem and high value they place on themselves, their fear of shame would also noticeably decrease. From all this, it is clear that the main source of this distraction, the powerful influence we are looking for, is pride—excessive pride, that lofty level of self-esteem which some individuals may reach due to manipulative upbringing and the constant flattery aimed at humanity, along with the virtues of our nature. This is the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]sorcerer that can redirect all other passions from their true subjects and cause a rational being to feel ashamed of what is most aligned with their own desires as well as their duties; both of which the duelist admits to knowingly acting against.

Hor. What a wonderful machine, what an heterogenous compound is man! You have almost conquered me.

Hor. What an amazing machine, what a mixed bag humanity is! You’ve nearly defeated me.

Cleo. I aim at no victory, all I wish for is to do you service, in undeceiving you.

Cleo. I'm not looking for victory; all I want is to help you by showing you the truth.

Hor. What is the reason that, in the same person, the fear of death should be so glaringly conspicuous in sickness, or a storm, and so entirely well hid in a duel, and all military engagements? Pray, solve that too.

Hor. Why is it that a person's fear of death is so obvious during illness or a storm, yet completely hidden in a duel or any military conflict? Please, explain that as well.

Cleo. I will as well as I can: On all emergencies, where reputation is thought to be concerned, the fear of shame is effectually roused in men of honour, and immediately their pride rushes in to their assistance, and summons all their strength to fortify and support them in concealing the fear of death; by which extraordinary efforts, the latter, that is the fear of death, is altogether stifled, or, at least, kept out of sight, and remains undiscovered. But in all other perils, in which they do not think their honour engaged, their pride lies dormant. And thus the fear of death, being checked by nothing, appears without disguise. That this is the true reason, is manifest from the different behaviour that is observed in men of honour, according as they are either pretenders to Christianity; or tainted with irreligion; for there are of both sorts; and you shall see, most commonly at least, that your esprits forts, and those who would be thought to disbelieve a future state (I speak of men of honour), show the greatest calmness and intrepidity in the same dangers, where the pretended believers among them, appear to be the most ruffled and pusillanimous.

Cleo. I will do my best: In situations where reputation is at stake, the fear of shame is strongly activated in honorable men, and their pride quickly steps in to help, gathering all their strength to hide their fear of death. Through these extraordinary efforts, the fear of death is completely suppressed, or at least hidden from view and remains undiscovered. However, in other dangers where they don't feel their honor is involved, their pride stays dormant. As a result, the fear of death, unrestrained, becomes completely visible. This is clearly shown in the different ways honorable men behave, whether they pretend to be Christians or are influenced by irreligion; for there are both types, and typically, you will find that your esprits forts, who would have others believe they disbelieve in an afterlife (I am referring to honorable men), display the greatest calmness and fearlessness in the same dangers where the so-called believers among them seem the most agitated and cowardly.

Hor. But why pretended believers? at that rate there are no Christians among the men of honour.

Hor. But why fake believers? At that rate, there are no Christians among honorable men.

Cleo. I do not see how they can be real believers.

Cleo. I don't understand how they can truly believe.

Hor. Why so?

Hor. Why?

Cleo. For the same reason that a Roman Catholic cannot be a good subject, always to be depended upon, in a Protestant, or indeed any other country, but the dominions of his Holiness. No sovereign can confide with safety in a man’s allegiance, who owns and pays homage to another superior power upon earth. I am sure you understand me.

Cleo. For the same reason that a Roman Catholic can't be a reliable subject in a Protestant or any other country, except in the territories of his Holiness. No ruler can trust a person's loyalty when that person pledges allegiance to another authority on earth. I'm sure you understand what I mean.

Hor. Too well. [330]

Hor. Yeah, definitely. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. You may yoke a knight with a prebendary, and put them together into the same stall; but honour, and the Christian religion, make no couple, nec in unâ sede morantur, any more than majesty and love. Look back on your own conduct, and you shall find, that what you said of the hand of God was only a shift, an evasion you made to serve your then present purpose. On another occasion, you had said yesterday yourself, that Providence superintends and governs every thing without exception; you must, therefore, have known, that the hand of God is as much to be seen in one common accident in life, and in one misfortune, as it is in another, that is not more extraordinary. A severe fit of sickness may be less fatal, than a slight skirmish between two hostile parties; and, among men of honour, there is often as much danger in a quarrel about nothing, as there can be in the most violent storm. It is impossible, therefore, that a man of sense, who has a solid principle to go by, should, in one sort of danger, think it impiety not to show fear, and in another be ashamed to be thought to have any. Do but consider your own inconsistency with yourself. At one time, to justify your fear of death, when pride is absent, you become religious on a sudden, and your conscience then is so tenderly scrupulous, that, to be undaunted under chastisements from the Almighty, seems no less to you than waging war with Heaven; and, at another, when honour calls, you dare not knowingly and willingly break the most positive command of God, but likewise to own, that the greatest calamity which, in your opinion, can befal you, is, that the world should believe, or but suspect of you, that you had any scruple about it. I defy the wit of man to carry the affront to the Divine Majesty higher. Barely to deny his being, is not half so daring, as it is to do this after you have owned him to exist. No Atheism——

Cleo. You can team up a knight with a churchman and put them in the same place, but honor and Christian faith don’t mix, nec in unâ sede morantur, any more than dignity and love do. Reflect on your own actions, and you’ll see that what you claimed about the hand of God was just a tactic, an excuse you made to fit your immediate needs. Just yesterday, you said that Providence oversees and governs everything without exception; so you must know that the hand of God can be seen in everyday events and misfortunes just as much as in the extraordinary ones. A serious illness might be less dangerous than a brief fight between two opposing groups; and among honorable people, there’s often just as much risk in a petty argument as there is in a fierce storm. Therefore, it’s impossible for a sensible person with solid principles to think it’s a sin not to be afraid in one kind of danger and then be embarrassed to show fear in another. Just think about your own contradictions. At one moment, to justify your fear of death, when pride isn’t there, you suddenly become religious, and your conscience becomes so delicately sensitive that being fearless under the Almighty’s punishments seems to you like declaring war on Heaven; and in another moment, when honor calls, you can’t knowingly break the most straightforward command of God, but you’re also afraid that the greatest disaster in your view would be for the world to believe or even suspect that you had any doubts about it. I challenge anyone to insult Divine Majesty further. Simply denying His existence isn’t nearly as bold as doing so after you’ve admitted He exists. No atheism—

Hor. Hold, Cleomenes; I can no longer resist the force of truth, and I am resolved to be better acquainted with myself for the future. Let me become your pupil.

Hor. Wait, Cleomenes; I can't ignore the truth any longer, and I've decided to get to know myself better from now on. Let me be your student.

Cleo. Do not banter me, Horatio; I do not pretend to instruct a man of your knowledge; but if you will take my advice, search into yourself with care and boldness, and, at your leisure, peruse the book I recommended.

Cleo. Don't joke around with me, Horatio; I’m not trying to teach someone as knowledgeable as you. But if you want my advice, take a good, brave look inside yourself, and when you have some time, read the book I suggested.

Hor. I promise you I will, and shall be glad to accept of the handsome present I refused: Pray, send a servant with it to-morrow morning. [331]

Hor. I promise I will, and I’d be happy to accept the nice gift I turned down. Please send a servant with it tomorrow morning. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. It is a trifle. You had better let one of yours go with me now; I shall drive home directly.

Cleo. It’s no big deal. You should let one of your people come with me now; I'll head home right away.

Hor. I understand your scruple. It shall be as you please.

Hor. I get your hesitation. It will be as you wish.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE THIRD
DIALOGUE
BETWEEN
HORATIO AND CLEOMENES.

HORATIO.

HORATIO.

I thank you for your book.

Thanks for your book.

Cleo. Your acceptance of it I acknowledge as a great favour.

Cleo. I really appreciate you accepting it; it means a lot to me.

Hor. I confess, that once I thought nobody could have persuaded me to read it; but you managed me very skilfully, and nothing could have convinced me so well as the instance of duelling: The argument, à majori ad minus, struck me, without your mentioning it. A passion that can subdue the fear of death, may blind a man’s understanding, and do almost every thing else.

Hor. I admit, I once thought no one could convince me to read it; but you handled it so well, and nothing could have convinced me better than the example of dueling: The argument, à majori ad minus, hit me, even without you bringing it up. A passion that can overcome the fear of death might cloud a person's judgment and do practically anything else.

Cleo. It is incredible what strange, various, unaccountable, and contradictory forms we may be shaped into by a passion, that is not to be gratified without being concealed, and never enjoyed with greater ecstacy than when we are most fully persuaded, that it is well hid: and therefore, there is no benevolence or good nature, no amiable quality or social virtue, that may not be counterfeited by it; and, in short, no achievement, good or bad, that the human body or mind are capable of, which it may not seem to perform. As to its blinding and infatuating the persons possessed with it to a high degree, there is no doubt of it: for what strength of reason, I pray, what judgment or penetration, has the greatest genius, if he pretends to any religion, to boast of, after he has owned himself to have been more terrified by groundless [332]apprehensions, and an imaginary evil from vain impotent men, whom he has never injured, than he was alarmed with the just fears of a real punishment from an all-wise and omnipotent God, whom he has highly offended?

Cleo. It's incredible how strange, varied, unexplainable, and contradictory the ways we can be shaped by a passion can be. This passion often can't be fulfilled without being hidden away, and we enjoy it the most when we're convinced that it's well concealed. Because of this, there’s no kindness or good nature, no likable quality or social virtue that it can’t fake; in short, there's no accomplishment, whether good or bad, that the human body or mind can't seem to accomplish because of it. As for how it can blind and confuse those who are deeply affected by it, there’s no doubt about that either. What strength of reason, I ask, what judgment or insight does the greatest genius have, if he claims to have any religion, after admitting that he was more terrified by unfounded [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]fears and imaginary threats from powerless men he has never harmed, than he was by the legitimate fears of real punishment from an all-wise and all-powerful God he has seriously offended?

Hor. But your friend makes no such religious reflections: he actually speaks in favour of duelling.

Hor. But your friend doesn’t have those kinds of thoughts: he actually supports dueling.

Cleo. What, because he would have the laws against it as severe as possible, and nobody pardoned, without exception, that offends that way?

Cleo. What, because he wants the laws against it to be as strict as possible, and no one is pardoned, without exception, who offends in that way?

Hor. That indeed seems to discourage it; but he shows the necessity of keeping up that custom, to polish and brighten society in general.

Hor. That really does seem to put a damper on things; but he emphasizes the importance of maintaining that tradition to enhance and uplift society overall.

Cleo. Do not you see the irony there?

Cleo. Don’t you see the irony in that?

Hor. No, indeed: he plainly demonstrates the usefulness of it, gives as good reasons as it is possible to invent, and shows how much conversation would suffer, if that practice was abolished.

Hor. No, definitely: he clearly shows its value, provides solid reasons as possible, and illustrates how much conversation would suffer if that practice was eliminated.

Cleo. Can you think a man serious on a subject, when he leaves it in the manner he does?

Cleo. Can you take a man seriously on a topic when he walks away from it like that?

Hor. I do not remember that.

I don't remember that.

Cleo. Here is the book: I will look for the passage——Pray, read this.

Cleo. Here’s the book: I’ll find the passage——Please, read this.

Hor. It is strange, that a nation should grudge to see, perhaps, half a dozen men sacrificed in a twelvemonth, to obtain so valuable a blessing, as the politeness of manners, the pleasure of conversation, and the happiness of company in general, that is often so willing to expose, and sometimes loses as many thousands in a few hours, without knowing whether it will do any good or not. This, indeed, seems to be said with a sneer: but in what goes before he is very serious.

Hor. It's weird that a nation would begrudge seeing maybe a handful of people sacrificed in a year to gain such a valuable blessing, like good manners, enjoyable conversations, and general happiness in social gatherings, especially when it's often quick to put thousands at risk in just a few hours, not even knowing if it will make a difference. This does come off as sarcastic, but what he mentioned earlier is quite serious.

Cleo. He is so, when he says that the practice of duelling, that is the keeping up of the fashion of it, contributes to the politeness of manners and pleasure of conversation, and this is very true; but that politeness itself, and that pleasure, are the things he laughs at and exposes throughout his book.

Cleo. He’s right when he says that the practice of dueling, meaning the continuation of the trend, adds to the politeness of manners and enjoyment of conversation, and that’s very true; but he mocks and criticizes the very politeness and enjoyment he talks about throughout his book.

Hor. But who knows, what to make of a man, who recommends a thing very seriously in one page, and ridicules it in the next?

Hor. But who knows what to think of a guy who seriously promotes something on one page and then makes fun of it on the next?

Cleo. It is his opinion, that there is no solid principle to go by but the Christian religion, and that few embrace it with sincerity: always look upon him in this view, and you will never find him inconsistent with himself. Whenever at first [333]sight he seems to be so, look again, and upon nearer inquiry you will find, that he is only pointing at, or labouring to detect the inconsistency of others with the principles they pretend to.

Cleo. He believes that the only true principle to follow is the Christian religion, and that not many people accept it genuinely. Always view him through this lens, and you'll never see him as inconsistent. Whenever he seems inconsistent at first glance [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__], take another look, and upon closer examination, you'll realize that he is merely highlighting or trying to uncover the inconsistencies of others with the principles they claim to uphold.

Hor. He seems to have nothing less at heart than religion.

Hor. He doesn't seem to care about religion at all.

Cleo. That is true, and if he had appeared otherwise, he would never have been read by the people whom he designed his book for, the modern deists and all the beau monde: It is those he wants to come at. To the first he sets forth the origin and insufficiency of virtue, and their own insincerity in the practice of it: to the rest he shows the folly of vice and pleasure, the vanity of worldly greatness, and the hypocrisy of all those divines, who, pretending to preach the gospel, give and take allowances that are inconsistent with, and quite contrary to the precepts of it.

Cleo. That’s true, and if he had appeared any differently, he wouldn't have reached the audience he intended, the modern deists and all the beau monde: Those are the people he wants to influence. To the first group, he outlines the origin and shortcomings of virtue and their own dishonesty in practicing it; to the others, he illustrates the foolishness of vice and pleasure, the emptiness of worldly success, and the hypocrisy of those religious leaders who, while claiming to preach the gospel, accept and offer allowances that contradict its teachings.

Hor. But this is not the opinion the world has of the book; it is commonly imagined, that it is wrote for the encouragement of vice, and to debauch the nation.

Hor. But this isn’t how the world sees the book; people generally think it was written to promote wrongdoing and corrupt the nation.

Cleo. Have you found any such thing in it?

Cleo. Have you found anything like that in it?

Hor. To speak my conscience, I must confess, I have not: vice is exposed in it, and laughed at; but it ridicules war and martial courage, as well as honour and every thing else.

Hor. To be honest, I have to admit I haven't: it highlights the flaws in vice and mocks it; but it also makes fun of war, bravery, honor, and everything else.

Cleo. Pardon me, religion is ridiculed in no part of it.

Cleo. Excuse me, but religion isn’t mocked anywhere in it.

Hor. But if it is a good book, why then are so many of the clergy so much against it as they are?

Hor. But if it’s a good book, then why are so many clergy so against it?

Cleo. For the reason I have given you: my friend has exposed their lives, but he has done it in such a manner, that nobody can say he has wronged them, or treated them harshly. People are never more vexed, than when the thing that offends them, is what they must not complain of: they give the book an ill name because they are angry; but it is not their interest, to tell you the the true reason why they are so. I could draw you a parallel case that would clear up this matter, if you would have patience to hear me, which, as you are a great admirer of operas, I can hardly expect.

Cleo. For the reason I just mentioned: my friend has revealed their lives, but he did it in a way that nobody can say he has wronged them or treated them unfairly. People are never more annoyed than when what upsets them is something they can’t openly complain about; they label the book negatively because they are angry, but it’s not in their interest to tell you the real reason for their feelings. I could give you a similar example that would make this clearer, if you are patient enough to listen to me, which I can hardly expect since you’re such a big fan of operas.

Hor. Any thing to be informed.

Hor. Anything to learn.

Cleo. I always had such an aversion to eunuchs, as no fine singing or acting of any of them has yet been able to conquer; when I hear a feminine voice, I look for a petticoat; and I perfectly loath the sight of those sexless animals. Suppose that a man with the same dislike to them had wit at will, and a mind to lash that abominable piece of luxury, by which men are taught in cold blood to spoil males for diversion, [334]and out of wantonness to make waste of their own species. In order to this, we will say, he takes a handle from the operation itself; he describes and treats it in the most inoffensive manner; then shows the narrow bounds of human knowledge, and the small assistance we can have, either from dissection or philosophy, or any part of the mathematics, to trace and penetrate into the cause à priori, why this destroying of manhood should have that surprising effect upon the voice; and afterwards demonstrates, how sure we are à posteriori, that it has a considerable influence, not only on the pharinx, the glands and muscles of the throat, but likewise the windpipe, and the lungs themselves, and in short on the whole mass of blood, consequently all the juices of the body, and every fibre in it. He might say likewise, that no honey, no preparations of sugar, raisins, or spermaceti; no emulsions, lozenges or other medicines, cooling or balsamic; no bleeding, no temperance or choice in eatables; no abstinence from women, from wine, and every thing that is hot, sharp or spirituous, were of that efficacy to preserve, sweeten, and strengthen the voice; he might insist upon it, that nothing could do this so effectually as castration. For a blind to his main scope, and to amuse his readers, he might speak of this practice, as made use of for other purposes; that it had been inflicted as a solemn punishment for analogous crimes; that others had voluntarily submitted to it, to preserve health and prolong life; whilst the Romans, by Cæsar’s testimony, thought it more cruel than death, morte gravius. How it had been used sometimes by way of revenge; and then say something in pity of poor Abelard; at other times for precaution; and then relate the story of Combabus and Stratonice: with scraps from Martial, Juvenal, and other poets, he might interlard it, and from a thousand pleasant things that have been said on the subject, he might pick out the most diverting to embellish the whole. His design being satire, he would blame our fondness for these castrati, and ridicule the age in which a brave English nobleman and a general officer, serves his country at the hazard of his life, a whole twelvemonth, for less pay than an Italian no-man of scoundrel extraction receives, for now and then singing a song in great safety, during only the winter-season. He would laugh at the caresses and the court that are made to them by persons of the first quality, who prostitute their familiarity with these most abject wretches, and [335]misplace the honour and civilities only due to their equals, on things that are no part of the creation, and owe their being to the surgeon; animals so contemptible, that they can curse their maker without ingratitude. If he should call this book, the Eunuch is the Man; as soon as I heard the title, before I saw the book, I should understand by it, that eunuchs were now esteemed, that they were in fashion and in the public favour, and considering that a eunuch is in reality not a man, I should think it was a banter upon eunuchs, or a satire against those, who had a greater value for them than they deserved. But if the gentlemen of the academy of music, displeased at the freedom they were treated with, should take it ill, that a paultry scribbler should interfere and pretend to censure their diversion, as well as they might; if they should be very angry, and study to do him a mischief, and accordingly, not having much to say in behalf of eunuchs, not touch upon any thing the author had said against their pleasure, but represent him to the world as an advocate for castration, and endeavour to draw the public odium upon him by quotations taken from him proper for that purpose, it would not be difficult to raise a clamour against the author, or find a grand jury to present his book.

Cleo. I've always had a strong dislike for eunuchs, a feeling that no amount of beautiful singing or acting from them has been able to change. Whenever I hear a feminine voice, I expect to see a petticoat, and I truly loathe the sight of those genderless beings. Imagine a man who shared this distaste and had the wit to criticize that disgusting luxury, where men are taught to coldly mutilate males for entertainment, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] and out of sheer wantonness to waste their own kind. To make his point, let's say he takes a cue from the very operation itself; he describes and discusses it in a way that’s not offensive, then shows the limited scope of human understanding, and how little we can learn from dissection, philosophy, or even mathematics, to uncover the reasons à priori, why this destruction of manhood has such a surprising effect on the voice; and afterwards demonstrates how certain we are à posteriori, that it significantly impacts not just the pharynx, the glands and muscles of the throat, but also the windpipe, the lungs, and essentially the entire blood supply, along with all the bodily fluids and every single fiber in it. He might also say that no honey, sugar, raisins, or spermaceti; no herbal mixtures, lozenges, or any soothing medications; no bloodletting, no moderation or selective eating; no avoidance of women, wine, or anything hot, spicy, or alcoholic, could preserve, sweeten, and strengthen the voice as effectively as castration. To divert from his main argument and entertain his readers, he might discuss how this practice has been used for other reasons; that it has been applied as a formal punishment for similar offenses; that others have willingly undergone it for health reasons or to prolong life; while the Romans, according to Caesar, thought it a punishment worse than death, morte gravius. He could mention instances where it was used as an act of revenge; then make a sympathetic remark about poor Abelard; at other times for precaution; and then recount the tale of Combabus and Stratonice: interspersing quotes from Martial, Juvenal, and other poets, he could pick the most humorous bits to enhance the narrative. His intent being satire, he would criticize our obsession with these castrati and mock the age where a brave English nobleman or a general officer risks his life for a whole year, for less pay than an Italian “no-man” of questionable background earns for occasionally singing a song in safety during the winter months. He would find humor in the affection and attention they receive from high-ranking individuals, who squander their respect and familiarity on these miserable wretches, and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] misplace the honor and civility rightly reserved for their equals, on beings that are not even part of creation, and owe their existence to the surgeon; creatures so worthless that they can curse their maker without a hint of ingratitude. If he were to call this book, "The Eunuch is the Man"; as soon as I heard the title, without even seeing the book, I’d understand that eunuchs are now valued, that they are in vogue and favored by the public, and considering that a eunuch is not truly a man, I would think it was a joke at the expense of eunuchs, or a satire against those who place more importance on them than they deserve. But if the members of the music academy were upset by the way they were portrayed, they might take offense at a mere scribbler interfering and pretending to criticize their entertainment just as well; if they got very angry and plotted to harm him, they would likely avoid addressing anything the author said about their pleasure, but instead portray him as an advocate for castration, trying to turn public opinion against him using quotes from his work to support that claim. It wouldn't be hard to stir up outrage against the author or find a grand jury willing to indict his book.

Hor. The simile holds very well as to the injustice of the accusation, and the insincerity of the complaint; but is it as true, that luxury will render a nation flourishing, and that private vices are public benefits, as that castration preserves and strengthens the voice?

Hor. The comparison works perfectly when it comes to the unfairness of the accusation and the dishonesty of the complaint; but is it really true that luxury makes a nation thrive, and that personal vices benefit the public, just as castration preserves and strengthens the voice?

Cleo. With the restrictions my friend requires, I believe it is, and the cases are exactly alike. Nothing is more effectual to preserve, mend, and strengthen a fine voice in youth than castration: the question is not, whether this is true, but whether it is eligible; whether a fine voice is an equivalent for the loss, and whether a man would prefer the satisfaction of singing, and the advantages that may accrue from it, to the comforts of marriage, and the pleasure of posterity, of which enjoyments it destroys the possibility. In like manner, my friend demonstrates, in the first place, that the national happiness which the generality wish and pray for, is wealth and power, glory and worldly greatness; to live in ease, in affluence and splendour at home, and to be feared, courted, and esteemed abroad: in the second, that such a felicity is not to be attained to without avarice, profuseness, pride, envy, ambition, and other vices. The latter being [336]made evident beyond contradiction, the question is not, whether it is true, but whether this happiness is worth having at the rate it is only to be had at, and whether any thing ought to be wished for, which a nation cannot enjoy, unless the generality of them are vicious. This he offers to the consideration of Christians, and men who pretend to have renounced the world, with all the pomp and vanity of it.

Cleo. Given the restrictions my friend has in mind, I think it is, and the situations are exactly the same. Nothing preserves, repairs, and enhances a beautiful voice in youth better than castration: the real question isn't whether this is true, but whether it's desirable; whether a beautiful voice is worth the loss, and whether a man would choose the joy of singing, along with the benefits it can bring, over the comforts of marriage and the joys of family, which it makes impossible. Similarly, my friend argues, first, that the national happiness most people desire and pray for is wealth and power, fame and worldly greatness; to live comfortably, in abundance and luxury at home, while being feared, sought after, and respected abroad. Second, he shows that such happiness can't be achieved without greed, extravagance, pride, envy, ambition, and other vices. Once it's [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]clearly proven, the question becomes not whether it's true, but whether this happiness is worth pursuing at the cost it demands, and whether anything should be desired that a nation can only enjoy if most of its people are corrupt. He presents this for the consideration of Christians and those who claim to have renounced the world, along with all its showiness and vanity.

Hor. How does it appear that the author addresses himself to such?

Hor. How does it seem that the author talks to them?

Cleo. From his writing it in English, and publishing it in London. But have you read it through yet?

Cleo. From his writing it in English and publishing it in London. But have you read it all the way through yet?

Hor. Twice: there are many things I like very well, but I am not pleased with the whole.

Hor. Twice: there are a lot of things I really like, but I’m not satisfied with the overall picture.

Cleo. What objection have you against it?

Cleo. What do you have against it?

Hor. It has diminished the pleasure I had in reading a much better book. Lord Shaftsbury is my favourite author: I can take delight in enthusiasm; but the charms of it cease as soon as I am told what it is I enjoy. Since we are such odd creatures, why should we not make the most of it?

Hor. It has taken away the enjoyment I got from reading a much better book. Lord Shaftsbury is my favorite author: I truly love enthusiasm; but the appeal of it disappears as soon as I find out what I'm actually enjoying. Since we are such strange beings, why shouldn't we embrace it fully?

Cleo. I thought you was resolved to be better acquainted with yourself, and to search into your heart with care and boldness.

Cleo. I thought you were determined to get to know yourself better and to explore your heart with care and courage.

Hor. That is a cruel thing; I tried it three times since I saw you last, till it put me into a sweat, and then I was forced to leave off.

Hor. That's a harsh thing; I tried it three times since I last saw you, until it made me sweat, and then I had to stop.

Cleo. You should try again, and use yourself by degrees to think abstractly, and then the book will be a great help to you.

Cleo. You should give it another shot and gradually train yourself to think abstractly, and then the book will really help you.

Hor. To confound me it will: it makes a jest of all politeness and good manners.

Hor. It will confuse me: it mocks all politeness and good manners.

Cleo. Excuse me, Sir, it only tells us, what they are.

Cleo. Excuse me, sir, it only tells us what they are.

Hor. It tells us, that all good manners consist in flattering the pride of others, and concealing our own. Is not that a horrid thing?

Hor. It tells us that all good manners are about boosting other people's pride and hiding our own. Isn't that a terrible thing?

Cleo. But is it not true?

Cleo. But is that not true?

Hor. As soon as I had read that passage, it struck me: down I laid the book, and tried in above fifty instances, sometimes of civility, and sometimes of ill manners, whether it would answer or not, and I profess that it held good in every one.

Hor. As soon as I read that part, it hit me: I put the book down and tried it out over fifty times, sometimes being polite and sometimes being rude, to see if it would work or not, and I have to say it worked every single time.

Cleo. And so it would if you tried till doomsday.

Cleo. And so it would if you tried until the end of time.

Hor. But is not that provoking? I would give a hundred [337]guineas with all my heart, that I did not know it. I cannot endure to see so much of my own nakedness.

Hor. But isn't that annoying? I would happily pay a hundred [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]guineas to not know it. I can't stand seeing so much of my own vulnerability.

Cleo. I never met with such an open enmity to truth in a man of honour before.

Cleo. I've never come across such open hostility toward the truth in an honorable man before.

Hor. You shall be as severe upon me as you please; what I say is fact. But since I am got in so far, I must go through with it now: there are fifty things that I want to be informed about.

Hor. You can be as hard on me as you want; what I’m saying is true. But now that I’ve come this far, I need to finish it: there are fifty things I need to know about.

Cleo. Name them, pray; if I can be of any service to you, I shall reckon it as a great honour; I am perfectly well acquainted with the author’s sentiments.

Cleo. Please name them; if I can help you in any way, it would be a great honor. I'm very familiar with the author's feelings.

Hor. I have twenty questions to ask about pride, and I do not know where to begin. There is another thing I do not understand; which is, that there can be no virtue without self-denial.

Hor. I have twenty questions about pride, and I don't know where to start. There's something else I don't get, which is that there can't be any virtue without self-denial.

Cleo. This was the opinion of all the ancients. Lord Shaftsbury was the first that maintained the contrary.

Cleo. This was the view of all the ancient thinkers. Lord Shaftsbury was the first to argue the opposite.

Hor. But are there no persons in the world that are good by choice?

Hor. But are there really no people in the world who are good by choice?

Cleo. Yes; but then they are directed in that choice by reason and experience, and not by nature, I mean, not by untaught nature: but there is an ambiguity in the word good which I would avoid; let us stick to that of virtuous, and then I affirm, that no action is such, which does not suppose and point at some conquest or other, some victory great or small over untaught nature; otherwise the epithet is improper.

Cleo. Yes; but they make that choice based on reason and experience, not just instinct or unlearned nature. However, I want to avoid the confusion around the word good; let’s focus on virtuous. I assert that no action can be considered virtuous unless it involves some triumph or victory, whether big or small, over unlearned nature; otherwise, the term doesn’t fit.

Hor. But if by the help of a careful education, this victory is obtained, when we are young, may we not be virtuous afterwards voluntarily and with pleasure?

Hor. But if we achieve this victory through careful education when we're young, can we not then be virtuous willingly and happily later on?

Cleo. Yes, if it really was obtained: but how shall we be sure of this, and what reason have we to believe that it ever was? when it is evident, that from our infancy, instead of endeavouring to conquer our appetites, we have always been taught, and have taken pains ourselves to conceal them; and we are conscious within, that whatever alterations have been made in our manners and our circumstances, the passions themselves always remained? The system that virtue requires to self-denial, is, as my friend has justly observed, a vast inlet to hypocrisy: it will, on all accounts, furnish men with a more obvious handle, and a greater opportunity of counterfeiting the love of society, and regard to the public, than ever they could have received from the contrary doctrine, [338]viz. that there is no merit but in the conquest of the passions, nor any virtue without apparent self-denial. Let us ask those that have had long experience, and are well skilled in human affairs, whether they have found the generality of men such impartial judges of themselves, as never to think better of their own worth than it deserved, or so candid in the acknowledgment of their hidden faults and slips, they could never be convinced of, that there is no fear they should ever stifle or deny them. Where is the man that has at no time covered his failings, and screened himself with false appearances, or never pretended to act from principles of social virtue, and his regard to others, when he knew in his heart that his greatest care had been to oblige himself? The best of us sometimes receive applause without undeceiving those who give it; though, at the same time, we are conscious that the actions, for which we suffer ourselves to be thought well of, are the result of a powerful frailty in our nature, that has often been prejudicial to us, and which we have wished a thousand times in vain, that we could have conquered. The same motives may produce very different actions, as men differ in temper and circumstances. Persons of an easy fortune may appear virtuous, from the same turn of mind that would show their frailty if they were poor. I£ we would know the world, we must look into it. You take no delight in the occurrences of low life; but if we always remain among persons of quality, and extend our inquiries no farther, the transactions there will not furnish us with a sufficient knowledge of every thing that belongs to our nature. There are, among the middling people, men of low circumstances, tolerably well educated, that set out with the same stock of virtues and vices, and though equally qualified, meet with very different success; visibly owing to the difference in their temper. Let us take a view of two persons bred to the same business, that have nothing but their parts and the world before them, launching out with the same helps and disadvantages: let there be no difference between them, but in their temper; the one active, and the other indolent. The latter will never get an estate by his own industry, though his profession be gainful, and himself master of it. Chance, or some uncommon accident, may be the occasion of great alterations in him, but without that he will hardly ever raise himself to mediocrity. Unless his pride affects him in an extraordinary manner, he must always be [339]poor, and nothing but some share of vanity can hinder him from being despicably so. If he be a man of sense, he will be strictly honest, and a middling stock of covetousness will never divert him from it. In the active stirring man, that is easily reconciled to the bustle of the world, we shall discover quite different symptoms, under the same circumstances; and a very little avarice will egg him on to pursue his aim with eagerness and assiduity: small scruples are no opposition to him; where sincerity will not serve, he uses artifice; and in compassing his ends, the greatest use he will make of his good sense will be, to preserve as much as is possible, the appearance of honesty; when his interest obliges him to deviate from it. To get wealth, or even a livelihood by arts and sciences, it is not sufficient to understand them: it is a duty incumbent on all men, who have their maintenance to seek, to make known and forward themselves in the world, as far as decency allows of, without bragging of themselves, or doing prejudice to others: here the indolent man is very deficient and wanting to himself; but seldom will own his fault, and often blames the public for not making use of him, and encouraging that merit, which they never were acquainted with, and himself perhaps took pleasure to conceal; and though you convince him of his error, and that he has neglected even the most warrantable methods of soliciting employment, he will endeavour to colour over his frailty with the appearance of virtue; and what is altogether owing to his too easy temper, and an excessive fondness for the calmness of his mind, he will ascribe to his modesty and the great aversion he has to impudence and boasting. The man of a contrary temper trusts not to his merit only, or the setting it off to the best advantage; he takes pains to heighten it in the opinion of others, and make his abilities seem greater than he knows them to be. As it is counted folly for a man to proclaim his own excellencies, and speak magnificently of himself, so his chief business is to seek acquaintance, and make friends on purpose to do it for him: all other passions he sacrifices to his ambition; he laughs at disappointments, is inured to refusals, and no repulse dismays him: this renders the whole man always flexible to his interest; he can defraud his body of necessaries, and allow no tranquillity to his mind; and counterfeit, if it will serve his turn, temperance, chastity, compassion, and piety itself, without one grain of virtue or religion: his endeavours to [340]advance his fortune per fas et nefas are always restless, and have no bounds, but where he is obliged to act openly, and has reason to fear the censure of the world. It is very diverting to see how, in the different persons I speak of, natural temper will warp and model the very passions to its own bias: pride, for example, has not the same, but almost a quite contrary effect on the one to what it has on the other: the stirring active man it makes in love with finery, clothes, furniture, equipages, building, and every thing his superiors enjoy: the other it renders sullen, and perhaps morose; and if he has wit, prone to satire, though he be otherwise a good-natured man. Self-love, in every individual, ever bestirs itself in soothing and flattering the darling inclination; always turning from us the dismal side of the prospect; and the indolent man in such circumstances, finding nothing pleasing without, turns his view inward upon himself; and there, looking on every thing with great indulgence, admires and takes delight in his own parts, whether natural or acquired: hence he is easily induced to despise all others who have not the same good qualifications, especially the powerful, and wealthy, whom yet he never hates or envies with any violence; because that would ruffle his temper. All things that are difficult he looks upon as impossible, which makes him despair of meliorating his condition; and as he has no possessions, and his gettings will but just maintain him in a low station of life, so his good sense, if he would enjoy so much as the appearance of happiness, must necessarily put him upon two things; to be frugal, and pretend to have no value for riches; for, by neglecting either, he must be blown up, and his frailty unavoidably discovered.

Cleo. Yes, if it was really achieved: but how can we be sure of this, and what reason do we have to believe it ever happened? It's clear that from our childhood, instead of trying to control our desires, we have always been taught, and we’ve made efforts ourselves to hide them; and deep down, we know that whatever changes have happened in our behavior and circumstances, our passions have remained unchanged. The system that virtue calls for regarding self-denial, as my friend has pointed out, opens the door wide to hypocrisy: it provides people with a clearer opportunity to fake a love for society and concern for the public than they could ever get from the opposite belief, which is that there’s no worth except in mastering our passions, and no virtue without visible self-denial. Let’s ask those who have long experience and are well-versed in human matters whether they find that the majority of people are such fair judges of themselves, that they never hold a higher opinion of their own worth than they deserve, or are so honest in recognizing their hidden faults that they could never be persuaded they should ever deny or hide them. Where is the person who has never concealed their shortcomings and shielded themselves with false appearances, or never claimed to act from a place of social virtue and concern for others, when deep down they knew their main priority was to benefit themselves? Even the best among us can sometimes receive praise without correcting those who give it; we’re aware that the actions for which we allow ourselves to be thought well of stem from a powerful weakness in our nature that has often led to our downfall, and which we’ve wished countless times we could have prevailed over. The same motivations can lead to very different actions, as people vary in temperament and circumstances. People with comfortable means may seem virtuous, but the same mindset that would expose their weakness if they were poor. If we want to understand the world, we must look into it. You may not be interested in the affairs of the lower class; however, if we only stay around those of higher status and don’t explore beyond that, we won't gather enough knowledge about everything that relates to our nature. Among the average people, there are those with low means, relatively well-educated, who start off with the same mix of virtues and vices, and despite having similar qualifications, experience very different successes, clearly due to their differing temperaments. Let’s consider two individuals trained in the same field, facing the same opportunities and challenges: if we only differentiate them by their temperament, one is active and the other lazy. The latter will never accumulate wealth through his own efforts, even if his profession is profitable and he’s skilled at it. Luck or some rare occurrence may change his situation significantly, but without that, he will hardly ever elevate himself to mediocrity. Unless an unusual sort of pride affects him, he will continually be [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]poor, and only a bit of vanity can prevent him from being utterly so. If he’s sensible, he will be strictly honest, and a moderate level of greed will never deter him from that. In the active, energetic person who is comfortable navigating the hustle of the world, we will notice quite different signs under the same conditions; a little greed will drive him to pursue his goals with enthusiasm and dedication: minor scruples won’t hinder him; where honesty doesn’t suffice, he resorts to deceit; and in achieving his objectives, the main use of his intelligence will be to maintain as much of an appearance of honesty as possible, even when his interests push him to stray from it. To acquire wealth or even just a living through skills and knowledge, understanding alone isn’t enough: it’s a responsibility for all men, seeking their maintenance, to make themselves known and advance in the world, as far as decency permits, without boasting or harming others: here the lazy man falls short and fails himself; yet he rarely admits his flaws, often blaming society for not utilizing him and encouraging the merit that they were never informed of, and which he perhaps took pleasure in concealing; and even if you convince him of his mistake, that he has overlooked the most appropriate ways to seek work, he will attempt to cover his fault with the guise of virtue; and what is entirely due to his too easy-going nature and excessive fondness for inner calm, he will credit to his modesty and his strong dislike for impudence and bragging. The man with the opposite temperament relies not just on his merit or on presenting it in the best light; he works to enhance it in the eyes of others, making his abilities appear greater than they actually are. Just as it is considered foolish for someone to boast about their own abilities, his primary task is to seek acquaintances and make friends for the purpose of self-promotion: he sacrifices all other passions to his ambition; he laughs at setbacks, is used to refusals, and no rejection discourages him: this makes him always adaptable to his interests; he can deprive his body of essentials and permit no peace to his mind; and he can fake, if it serves his purpose, temperance, chastity, compassion, and even religion itself, without an ounce of virtue or faith: his efforts to [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]enhance his fortune per fas et nefas are always restless, with no limits, except where he must act openly and fears the judgment of society. It’s quite entertaining to see how, in the different individuals I’m discussing, natural temperament will twist and shape the very passions to suit its own inclinations: pride, for instance, affects one in a way that is almost the complete opposite for the other: for the active person, it makes him enamored with fine things, clothes, furnishings, vehicles, buildings, and everything his superiors enjoy: for the other, it makes him gloomy, and perhaps morose; and if he possesses wit, prone to satire, even though he is otherwise a friendly person. Self-love, in each individual, constantly stirs to soothe and flatter its favored inclination; it always turns away from us the bleak side of the situation; and the lazy person, finding nothing pleasing outside, directs his gaze inward; there, looking at everything with great indulgence, admires and delights in his own abilities, whether inherent or developed: hence he is easily persuaded to look down on all others who don’t have the same good qualities, especially those who are powerful and wealthy, though he never truly hates or envies them passionately; because that would disturb his calm. He views all challenging situations as impossible, which leads him to despair of improving his circumstances; and since he has no assets, and his earnings will barely keep him at a low standard of living, his good sense, if he wishes to enjoy at least the façade of happiness, must necessarily compel him to be frugal and pretend to disregard wealth; for by neglecting either, he must inflate and his weaknesses will inevitably be exposed.

Hor. I am pleased with your observations, and the knowledge you display of mankind; but pray, is not the frugality you now speak of a virtue?

Hor. I appreciate your insights and the understanding you show of people; but tell me, isn’t the frugality you’re talking about a virtue?

Cleo. I think not.

Cleo. I don't think so.

Hor. Where there is but a small income, frugality is built upon reason; and in this case there is an apparent self-denial, without which an indolent man that has no value for money cannot be frugal; and we see indolent men, that have no regard for wealth, reduced to beggary, as it often happens, it is most commonly for want of this virtue.

Hor. When income is limited, being frugal makes sense; in this situation, there’s a clear sense of self-control, without which a lazy person who doesn't value money can't be frugal. We often see lazy people who don’t care about wealth end up in poverty, as is frequently the case, and it’s usually due to the absence of this virtue.

Cleo. I told you before, that the indolent man, setting out as he did, would be poor; and that nothing but some share of vanity could hinder him from being despicably so. [341]A strong fear of shame may gain so much upon the indolence of a man of sense, that he will bestir himself sufficiently to escape contempt; but it will hardly make him do any more; therefore he embraces frugality, as being instrumental and assisting to him in procuring his summum bonum, the darling quiet of his easy mind; whereas, the active man, with the same share of vanity, would do any thing rather than submit to the same frugality, unless his avarice forced him to it. Frugality is no virtue, when it is imposed upon us by any of the passions, and the contempt of riches is seldom sincere. I have known men of plentiful estates, that, on account of posterity, or other warrantable views of employing their money, were saving, and more penurious, than they would have been, if their wealth had been greater: but I never yet found a frugal man, without avarice or necessity. And again, there are innumerable spendthrifts, lavish and extravagant to a high degree, who seem not to have the least regard to money, whilst they have any to fling away: but these wretches are the least capable of bearing poverty of any, and the money once gone, hourly discover how uneasy, impatient, and miserable they are without it. But what several in all ages have made pretence to, the contempt of riches, is more scarce than is commonly imagined. To see a man of a very good estate, in health and strength of body and mind, one that has no reason to complain of the world or fortune, actually despise both, and embrace a voluntary poverty, for a laudable purpose, is a great rarity. I know but one in all antiquity, to whom all this may be applied with strictness of truth.

Cleo. I told you before that a lazy person, starting out as he did, would end up poor, and that only a bit of vanity could keep him from being completely pathetic. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]A strong fear of shame might push a sensible person to overcome his laziness enough to avoid being looked down upon, but it’s unlikely to make him do much more than that. So, he ends up valuing frugality, as it helps him achieve his summum bonum, the cherished peace of his easy mind; while the active person, driven by the same vanity, would do just about anything to avoid the same frugality unless his greed forced him into it. Frugality isn’t a virtue when it's driven by any of the passions, and the disdain for riches is rarely genuine. I have known wealthy individuals who, for the sake of their heirs or other valid reasons for using their money, were more stingy and miserly than they would have been if they'd had even more wealth. But I have yet to find a frugal person who isn't driven by greed or necessity. Conversely, there are countless spendthrifts who are wildly extravagant and seem to care nothing about money while they still have it to waste; but these unfortunate people are the least capable of handling poverty, and once the money is gone, they quickly reveal how anxious, restless, and miserable they are without it. Despite what many have claimed throughout history, the true disdain for wealth is rarer than most people think. To see a person who is in very good financial standing, healthy, and mentally strong—someone with no real reason to complain about the world or their fortune—actually despise both and willingly accept poverty for a noble cause is extremely rare. I know of only one such person in all of history who perfectly fits this description.

Hor. Who is that, pray?

Hor. Who is that, please?

Cleo. Anaxagoras of Clazomene in Ionia: He was very rich, of noble extraction, and admired for his great capacity: he divided and gave away his estate among his relations, and refused to meddle with the administration of public affairs that was offered him, for no other reason, than that he might have leisure for contemplation of the works of nature, and the study of philosophy.

Cleo. Anaxagoras of Clazomenae in Ionia: He was very wealthy, of noble blood, and respected for his intelligence. He divided and donated his fortune among his relatives and declined any involvement in public administration that was offered to him, simply so he could have time to contemplate the wonders of nature and study philosophy.

Hor. To me it seems to be more difficult to be virtuous without money, than with: it is senseless for a man to be poor, when he can help it, and if I saw any body choose it, when he might as lawfully be rich, I would think him to be distracted. [342]

Hor. I think it’s harder to be virtuous without money than with it. It doesn’t make sense for someone to be poor when they could be rich. If I saw someone choose poverty when they could easily be wealthy, I would think they were out of their mind. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. But you would not think him so, if you saw him sell his estate, and give the money to the poor: you know where that was required.

Cleo. But you wouldn't see him that way if you saw him sell his estate and donate the money to those in need: you know that's where it was necessary.

Hor. It is not required of us.

Hor. We don’t need to do that.

Cleo. Perhaps not: but what say you to renouncing the world, and the solemn promise we have made of it?

Cleo. Maybe not: but what do you think about giving up the world and the serious promise we made about it?

Hor. In a literal sense that is impossible, unless we go out of it; and therefore I do not think, that to renounce the world signifies any more, than not to comply with the vicious, wicked part of it.

Hor. In a literal sense, that's impossible unless we escape it; so I don't think that renouncing the world means anything more than not going along with the immoral, corrupt parts of it.

Cleo. I did not expect a more rigid construction from you, though it is certain, that wealth and power are great snares, and strong impediments to all Christian virtue: but the generality of mankind, that have any thing to lose, are of your opinion; and let us bar saints and madmen, we shall find every where, that those who pretend to undervalue, and are always haranguing against wealth, are generally poor and indolent. But who can blame them? They act in their own defence; nobody that could help it would ever be laughed at; for it must be owned, that of all the hardships of poverty, it is that which is the most intolerable.

Cleo. I didn't expect a more rigid viewpoint from you, but it's true that wealth and power can be major traps and serious obstacles to all Christian virtues. However, the majority of people who have something to lose tend to share your opinion. If we exclude saints and madmen, we can see that those who claim to undervalue wealth and constantly criticize it are usually the poor and lazy. But who can blame them? They're just trying to protect themselves; nobody who could avoid it would want to be ridiculed, because it's undeniable that of all the difficulties that come with poverty, the ridicule is the hardest to bear.

Nil habet infelix paupertas durius in se,

Nil habet infelix paupertas durius in se,

Quam quod ridiculos homines faciat.——

As it makes people ridiculous.

In the very satisfaction that is enjoyed by those who excel in, or are possessed of things valuable, there is interwoven a spice of contempt for others, that are destitute of them, which nothing keeps from public view, but a mixture of pity and good manners. Whoever denies this, let them consult within, and examine whether it is not the same with happiness, as what Seneca says of the reverse, nemo est miser nisi comparatus. The contempt and ridicule I speak of, is, without doubt, what all men of sense and education endeavour to avoid or disappoint. Now, look upon the behaviour of the two contrary tempers before us, and mind how differently they set about this talk, every one suitably to his own inclination. The man of action, you see, leaves no stone unturned to acquire quod oportet habere: but this is impossible for the indolent; he cannot stir; his idol ties him down hand and foot; and, therefore, the easiest, and, indeed the only thing he has left, is to quarrel with the world, and find out arguments to depreciate what others value themselves upon. [343]

In the satisfaction that comes from excelling or having valuable things, there's a hint of contempt for those who lack them, which is kept hidden from public view only by a mix of pity and good manners. Anyone who disagrees should look within and consider whether happiness is similar to what Seneca says about misery, nemo est miser nisi comparatus. The contempt and ridicule I'm talking about is definitely what educated and sensible people try to avoid or dismiss. Now, take a look at how the two opposing temperaments behave and notice how differently they approach this discussion, each one acting according to their own nature. The person of action leaves no stone unturned to achieve quod oportet habere: but this is impossible for the lazy person; he can't move; his idol holds him back completely; so the easiest, and indeed the only thing he can do, is to argue with the world and come up with reasons to belittle what others take pride in. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. I now plainly see, how pride and good sense must put an indolent man, that is poor, upon frugality; and likewise the reason, why they will make him affect to be content, and seem pleased with his low condition: for, if he will not be frugal, want and misery are at the door: and if he shows any fondness for riches, or a more ample way of living, he loses the only plea he has for his darling frailty, and immediately he will be asked, why he does not exert himself in a better manner? and he will be continually told of the opportunities he neglects.

Hor. I can clearly see how pride and common sense force a lazy, poor person to be frugal; and also why they make him pretend to be content and happy with his low status. Because if he isn’t careful with his money, poverty and misery will knock on his door. If he shows any desire for wealth or a more comfortable lifestyle, he loses the one excuse he has for his beloved weakness, and people will start asking why he isn’t trying harder. He’ll constantly be reminded of the opportunities he’s letting slip away.

Cleo. It is evident, then, that the true reasons, why men speak against things, are not always writ upon their foreheads.

Cleo. It’s clear, then, that the real reasons why men criticize things aren’t always obvious at first glance.

Hor. But after all this quiet easy temper, this indolence you talk of, is it not what, in plain English, we call laziness?

Hor. But after all this calm, easygoing nature, this laziness you’re talking about, isn’t it really what we just call laziness?

Cleo. Not at all; it implies no sloth, or aversion to labour: an indolent man may be very diligent, though he cannot be industrious: he will take up with things below him, if they come in his way; he will work in a garret, or any where else, remote from public view, with patience and assiduity, but he knows not how to solicit and teaze others to employ him, or demand his due of a shuffling, designing master, that is either difficult of access, or tenacious of his money: if he be a man of letters, he will study hard for a livelihood, but generally parts with his labours at a disadvantage, and will knowingly sell them at an under-rate to an obscure man, who offers to purchase, rather than bear the insults of haughty booksellers, and be plagued with the sordid language of the trade. An indolent man may, by chance, meet with a person of quality, that takes a fancy to him; but he will never get a patron by his own address; neither will he ever be the better for it, when he has one, further than the unasked-for bounty, and downright generosity of his benefactor make him. As he speaks for himself with reluctancy, and is always afraid of asking favours, so, for benefits received, he shows no other gratitude, than what the natural emotions of his heart suggest to him. The striving, active man studies all the winning ways to ingratiate himself, and hunts after patrons with design and sagacity: whilst they are beneficial to him; he affects a perpetual sense of thankfulness; but all his acknowledgments of past obligations, he turns into solicitations for fresh favours: his complaisance may be engaging, and his flattery ingenious, but the heart is untouched: he has neither leisure, nor the power to love his benefactors: [344]the eldest he has, he will always sacrifice to a new one; and he has no other esteem for the fortune, the greatness, or the credit of a patron, than as he can make them subservient either to raise or maintain his own. From all this, and a little attention on human affairs, we may easily perceive, in the first place, that the man of action, and an enterprising temper, in following the dictates of his nature, must meet with more rubs and obstacles infinitely, than the indolent, and a multitude of strong temptations, to deviate from the rules of strict virtue, which hardly ever come in the other’s way; that, in many circumstances, he will be forced to commit such actions, for which, all his skill and prudence notwithstanding, he will, by some body or other, deservedly be thought to be an ill man; and that to end with a tolerable reputation, after a long course of life, he must have had a great deal of good fortune, as well as cunning. Secondly, that the indolent man may indulge his inclinations, and be as sensual as his circumstances may let him, with little offence or disturbance to his neighbour; that the excessive value he sets upon the tranquillity of his mind, and the grand aversion he has to part with it, must prove a strong curb to every passion, that comes uppermost; none of which, by this means, can ever affect him in any high degree, and consequently, that the corruption of his heart remaining, he may, with little art and no great trouble, acquire many valuable qualities, that shall have all the appearances of social virtues, whilst nothing extraordinary befals him. As to his contempt of the world, the indolent man perhaps will scorn to make his court, and cringe to a haughty favourite, that will browbeat him at first; but he will run with joy to a rich nobleman, that he is sure will receive him with kindness and humanity: With him he will partake, without reluctancy, of all the elegant comforts of life that are offered, the most expensive not excepted. Would you try him further, confer upon him honour and wealth in abundance. If this change in his fortune stirs up no vice that lay dormant before, as it may by rendering him either covetous or extravagant, he will soon conform himself to the fashionable world: Perhaps he will be a kind master, an indulgent father, a benevolent neighbour, munificent to merit that pleases him, a patron to virtue, and a wellwisher to his country; but for the rest, he will take all the pleasure he is capable of enjoying; stifle no passion he can calmly gratify, and, in the midst of a luxuriant [345]plenty, laugh heartily at frugality, and the contempt of riches and greatness he professed in his poverty; and cheerfully own the futility of those pretences.

Cleo. Not at all; it implies no laziness or dislike of hard work: a lazy person can be very diligent, even if he can't be industrious. He will settle for things beneath him if they come his way; he will work in a cramped space or anywhere hidden from public view, with patience and persistence, but he doesn't know how to ask or nag others to employ him, or demand his due from a scheming, difficult boss who is either hard to reach or tight-fisted. If he is a scholar, he will study hard to make a living, but often sells his work for less than it's worth and will knowingly sell it at a bargain to an obscure buyer who offers to purchase, rather than face the insults of arrogant booksellers and deal with the ugly language of the industry. A lazy man might happen to meet a person of high standing who likes him; however, he will never secure a patron through his own efforts; nor will he gain much from it, other than whatever unsolicited generosity his benefactor chooses to give him. He speaks for himself reluctantly and is always afraid of asking for favors; so, in gratitude for received benefits, he shows no more than what his natural feelings suggest to him. The striving, active person studies all the ways to ingratiate himself and searches for patrons with intent and cleverness: as long as they benefit him, he maintains an ongoing sense of gratitude; but all his acknowledgments of past favors are turned into requests for new ones: his charm may be engaging, and his flattery clever, but his heart remains untouched: he neither has the time nor the ability to genuinely care for his benefactors. He will always sacrifice the oldest patron for a new one; and he holds no esteem for a patron's fortune, status, or reputation other than how they can help him advance or sustain his own. From all this, and with a little attention to human behavior, we can easily see, firstly, that an active and ambitious person, by following their natural instincts, will face far more struggles and obstacles than the lazy person, and a multitude of strong temptations that lead them away from the strict rules of virtue, which seldom trouble the latter; that, in many situations, he may be forced to act in ways that, despite all his skill and caution, will lead others to rightly consider him a bad person; and to end a long life with a decent reputation, he will need a good amount of luck as well as cleverness. Secondly, the lazy person can indulge his desires and be as hedonistic as his circumstances allow, with little offense or disruption to his neighbor; the great value he places on his mental peace and his strong reluctance to give it up will serve as a powerful brake on any passion that arises; none of these passions can ever affect him too deeply, and consequently, even with the corruption of his heart, he can, with little effort and no great trouble, develop many admirable traits that will seem like genuine social virtues, as long as nothing extraordinary happens to him. Regarding his disdain for the world, the lazy person might scorn the idea of currying favor with a haughty favorite who would initially bully him; but he would happily flock to a wealthy nobleman whom he knows will treat him kindly and humanely. With him, he will enjoy, without hesitation, all the luxurious comforts of life that are offered, including the most expensive ones. If you want to test him further, bestow upon him honor and wealth in abundance. If this change in fortune does not awaken any vices that were previously dormant, such as making him greedy or extravagant, he will quickly adapt to the fashionable world: perhaps he will become a kind master, an indulgent father, a generous neighbor, lavishly rewarding merit that pleases him, a supporter of virtue, and a friend to his country; but aside from that, he will seek all the pleasure he can enjoy, suppress no desire he can easily satisfy, and, amid an abundance of luxury, laugh heartily at thriftiness and the disdain for wealth and status that he professed in his poverty, readily admitting the futility of those pretenses.

Hor. I am convinced, that, in the opinion of virtue’s requiring self-denial, there is greater certainty, and hypocrites have less latitude than in the contrary system.

Hor. I believe that when it comes to virtue requiring self-denial, there's more certainty, and hypocrites have less freedom than in the opposite approach.

Cleo. Whoever follows his own inclinations, be they never so kind, beneficent, or human, never quarrel with any vice, but what is clashing with his temperament and nature; whereas those who act from a principle of virtue, take always reason for their guide, and combat, without exception, every passion that hinders them from their duty! The indolent man will never deny a just debt; but, if it be large, he will not give himself the trouble which, poor as he is, he might, and ought to take to discharge it, or, at least, satisfy his creditors, unless he is often dunned, or threatened to be sued for it. He will not be a litigious neighbour, nor make mischief among his acquaintance; but he will never serve his friend or his country, at the expence of his quiet. He will not be rapacious, oppress the poor, or commit vile actions for lucre; but then he will never exert himself, and be at the pains another would take on all opportunities, to maintain a large family, make provision for children, and promote his kindred and relations; and his darling frailty will incapacitate him from doing a thousand things for the benefit of the society, which, with the same parts and opportunities, he might, and would have done, had he been of another temper.

Cleo. Anyone who follows their own desires, no matter how kind, helpful, or human, only battles against vices that clash with their personality and nature; on the other hand, those who act based on virtue always let reason guide them and fight against every passion that prevents them from fulfilling their duties! The lazy person will never deny a just debt; however, if the debt is significant, they won’t put in the effort, even if they can and should, to pay it off or at least satisfy their creditors, unless they are repeatedly pursued or threatened with legal action. They won’t be a troublesome neighbor or cause conflict among their friends; but they will never sacrifice their own peace to help a friend or serve their country. They won’t be greedy, take advantage of the poor, or do anything disgraceful for money; but they also won’t put in the effort that others would to support a large family, prepare for their children, or assist their relatives and friends. Their beloved weakness will prevent them from doing countless things for the benefit of society, which, with the same skills and opportunities, they could have and would have done if they had a different temperament.

Hor. Your observations are very curious, and, as far as I can judge from what I have seen myself, very just and natural.

Hor. Your comments are quite interesting, and based on my own experiences, I think they’re accurate and realistic.

Cleo. Every body knows that there is no virtue so often counterfeited as charity, and yet so little regard have the generality of men to truth, that how gross and bare-faced soever the deceit is in pretences of this nature, the world never fails of being angry with, and hating those who detect or take notice of the fraud. It is possible, that, with blind fortune on his side, a mean shopkeeper, by driving a trade prejudicial to his country on the one hand, and grinding, on all occasions, the face of the poor on the other, may accumulate great wealth; which, in process of time, by continual scraping, and sordid saving, may be raised into an exorbitant, an unheard-of estate for a tradesman. Should such a [346]one, when old and decrepit, lay out the greatest part of his immense riches in the building, or largely endowing an hospital, and I was thoroughly acquainted with his temper and manners, I could have no opinion of his virtue, though he parted with the money, whilst he was yet alive; more especially, if I was assured, that, in his last will, he had been highly unjust, and had not only left unrewarded several, whom he had great obligations to, but likewise defrauded others, to whom, in his conscience, he knew that he was, and would die actually indebted. I desire you to tell me what name, knowing all I have said to be true, you would give to this extraordinary gift, this mighty donation!

Cleo. Everyone knows that no virtue is imitated as often as charity, and yet most people have so little regard for the truth that no matter how obvious the deceit is in these pretenses, the world still gets angry with and hates those who expose or acknowledge the fraud. It’s possible that, with blind luck on his side, a mediocre shopkeeper could gain great wealth by engaging in business practices harmful to his country on one hand, and exploiting the poor on the other. Over time, with constant saving and hoarding, he might accumulate an outrageous, unprecedented fortune for a tradesman. If such a [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]man, when old and feeble, were to spend most of his vast wealth on building or generously funding a hospital, and I was well aware of his character and behavior, I wouldn't think any better of his virtue even if he gave away the money while still alive; especially if I knew that, in his final will, he had been deeply unjust, leaving several people he owed rewards unrewarded and also cheating others whom he knew he was, and would die, actually indebted to. I want you to tell me what you would call this extraordinary gift, this massive donation, knowing that everything I've said is true!

Hor. I am of opinion, than when an action of our neighbour may admit of different constructions, it is our duty to side with, and embrace the most favourable.

Hor. I believe that when someone's actions can be interpreted in different ways, it's our responsibility to choose and support the most positive interpretation.

Cleo. The most favourable constructions with all my heart: But what is that to the purpose, when all the straining in the world cannot make it a good one? I do not mean the thing itself, but the principle it came from, the inward motive of the mind that put him upon performing it; for it is that which, in a free agent, I call the action: And, therefore, call it what you please, and judge as charitably of it as you can, what can you say of it?

Cleo. I truly wish for the most understanding interpretations: But what does that matter when no amount of effort can make it a good one? I'm not talking about the action itself, but the principle behind it, the inner motivation of the mind that led him to do it; because that's what I consider the action, especially in someone who has free will. So, call it whatever you want, and judge it as kindly as you can, but what can you really say about it?

Hor. He might have had several motives, which I do not pretend to determine; but it is an admirable contrivance of being extremely beneficial to all posterity in this land, a noble provision that will perpetually relieve, and be an unspeakable comfort to a multitude of miserable people; and it is not only a prodigious, but likewise a well-concerted bounty that was wanting, and for which, in after ages, thousands of poor wretches will have reason to bless his memory, when every body else shall have neglected them.

Hor. He could have had various reasons, which I won’t try to figure out; but it’s an amazing plan that will really help everyone in this land for generations to come, a great gift that will continually provide relief and be a tremendous comfort to countless suffering people. It’s not just a huge act of generosity, but also a well-thought-out one that was needed, and in the future, thousands of poor souls will have every reason to be thankful for him, especially when everyone else has forgotten about them.

Cleo. All that I have nothing against; and if you would add more, I shall not dispute it with you, as long as you confine your praises to the endowment itself, and the benefit the public is like to receive from it. But to ascribe it to, or suggest that it was derived from a public spirit in the man, a generous sense of humanity and benevolence to his kind, a liberal heart, or any other virtue or good quality, which it is manifest the donor was an utter stranger to, is the utmost absurdity in an intelligent creature, and can proceed from no other cause than either a wilful wronging of his own understanding, or else ignorance and folly. [347]

Cleo. I have no issue with what you’ve said, and if you want to say more, I won’t argue with you—as long as you stick to praising the gift itself and the benefits it’ll bring to the public. However, to claim or imply that it came from the man’s public spirit, a generous sense of humanity, kindness, a big heart, or any other virtue or quality that it’s clear he didn’t possess is sheer nonsense from anyone who is thinking clearly. It can only stem from either a deliberate distortion of his own understanding or from ignorance and foolishness. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. I am persuaded, that many actions are put off for virtuous, that are not so; and that according as men differ in natural temper, and turn of mind, so they are differently influenced by the same passions: I believe likewise, that these last are born with us, and belong to our nature; that some of them are in us, or at least the seeds of them, before we perceive them: but since they are in every individual, how comes it that pride is more predominant in some than it is in others? For from what you have demonstrated already, it must follow, that one person is more affected with the passion within than another; I mean, that one man has actually a greater share of pride than another, as well among the artful that are dexterous in concealing it, as among the ill-bred that openly show it.

Hor. I believe that many actions are postponed under the guise of virtue, even when they really aren’t, and that people's different natural temperaments and mindsets affect how they are influenced by the same emotions. I also think that these emotions are inherent to us and part of our nature; some of them exist in us, or at least the seeds of them, before we become aware of them. However, since these emotions are present in everyone, why is it that pride is more prominent in some people than in others? Based on what you’ve already shown, it seems that one person feels this emotion more intensely than another; in other words, one person has a greater amount of pride than someone else, whether they are skilled at hiding it or openly display it.

Cleo. What belongs to our nature, all men may justly be said to have actually or virtually in them at their birth; and whatever is not born with us, either the thing itself, or that which afterwards produces it, cannot be said to belong to our nature: but as we differ in our faces and stature, so we do in other things, that are more remote from sight: but all these depend only upon the different frame, the inward formation of either the solids or the fluids; and there are vices of complexion, that are peculiar, some to the pale and phlegmatic, others to the sanguine and choleric: some are more lustful, others more fearful in their nature, than the generality are: but I believe of man, generally speaking, what my friend has observed of other creatures, that the best of the kind, I mean the best formed within, such as have the finest natural parts, are born with the greatest aptitude to be proud; but I am convinced, that the difference there is in men, as to the degrees of their pride, is more owing to circumstances and education, than any thing in their formation. Where passions are most gratified and least controlled, the indulgence makes them stronger; whereas those persons, that have been kept under, and whose thoughts have never been at liberty to rove beyond the first necessaries of life; such as have not been suffered, or had no opportunity to gratify this passion, have commonly the least share of it. But whatever portion of pride a man may feel in his heart, the quicker his parts are, the better his understanding is; and the more experience he has, the more plainly he will perceive the aversion which all men have to those that discover their pride: and the sooner persons are imbued with good manners, the sooner they grow [348]perfect in concealing that passion. Men of mean birth and education, that have been kept in great subjection, and consequently had no great opportunities to exert their pride, if ever they come to command others, have a sort of revenge mixed with that passion, which makes it often very mischievous, especially in places where they have no superiors or equals, before whom they are obliged to conceal the odious passion.

Cleo. What’s part of human nature is something all people are born with, either actually or potentially; anything that isn’t innate, whether it’s the thing itself or something that later brings it about, doesn’t belong to our nature. Just as we differ in our appearance and height, we also vary in other aspects that are less visible. But all these differences rely solely on the distinct structure and internal makeup of our bodies, whether it’s solids or fluids. There are personality traits tied to our physical makeup that are unique to certain temperaments: some people are more lustful, while others are more fearful than the average person. I believe that, generally speaking, what my friend noted about other creatures applies to humans as well; those who are best formed internally, who have the finest natural abilities, are born with a greater tendency toward pride. However, I’m convinced that the variations in how proud people are stem more from their circumstances and upbringing than from their physical makeup. Where passions are most indulged and least constrained, that indulgence makes them stronger. Conversely, those who have been repressed and whose thoughts have never wandered beyond basic life necessities—who have neither been allowed nor had the chance to satisfy these passions—usually feel them the least. But no matter how much pride someone feels, the sharper their mind and greater their understanding, the more they will clearly recognize the dislike everyone has for those who show their pride. And the sooner people learn good manners, the quicker they become [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] skilled at hiding that feeling. People of low birth and education, who have been kept under strict control and therefore had few chances to express their pride, often mix a sense of revenge with that pride when they gain the power to command others, which can be quite harmful, especially in settings where they have no superiors or equals to whom they must hide their unpleasant feelings.

Hor. Do you think women have more pride from nature than men?

Hor. Do you think women are naturally more proud than men?

Cleo. I believe not: but they have a great deal more from education.

Cleo. I don't think so: but they have much more from education.

Hor. I do not see the reason: for among the better sort, the sons, especially the eldest, have as many ornaments and fine things given them from their infancy, to stir up their pride, as the daughters.

Hor. I don’t see why not: because among the upper class, the sons, especially the oldest, are given just as many fancy things and nice gifts from a young age to boost their pride as the daughters are.

Cleo. But among people equally well-educated, the ladies have more flattery bestowed upon them, than the gentlemen, and it begins sooner.

Cleo. But among people with the same level of education, women receive more flattery than men, and it starts earlier.

Hor. But why should pride be more encouraged in women than in men?

Hor. But why should women be encouraged to be more prideful than men?

Cleo. For the same reason, that it is encouraged in soldiers, more than it is in other people; to increase their fear of shame, which makes them always mindful of their honour.

Cleo. For the same reason that it's encouraged in soldiers more than in others: to heighten their fear of shame, which keeps them always aware of their honor.

Hor. But to keep both to their respective duties, why must a lady have more pride than a gentleman?

Hor. But to stay true to their roles, why does a lady need to have more pride than a gentleman?

Cleo. Because the lady is in the greatest danger of straying from it; she has a passion within, that may begin to affect her at twelve, or thirteen, and perhaps sooner, and she has all the temptations of the men to withstand besides: she has all the artillery of our sex to fear; a seducer of uncommon address and resistless charms, may court her to what nature prompts and solicits her to do; he may add great promises, actual bribes; this may be done in the dark, and when nobody is by dissuade her. Gentlemen very seldom have occasion to show their courage before they are sixteen or seventeen years of age, and rarely so soon: they are not put to the trial, till, by conversing with men of honour, they are confirmed in their pride: in the affair of a quarrel they have their friends to consult, and these are so many witnesses of their behaviour, that awe them to their duty, and in a manner oblige them to obey the laws of honour: all these things conspire to increase their fear of shame; and if they can but [349]render that superior to the fear of death, their business is done; they have no pleasure to expect from breaking the rules of honour, nor any crafty tempter that solicits them to be cowards. That pride which is the cause of honour in men, only regards their courage; and if they can but appear to be brave, and will but follow the fashionable rules of manly honour, they may indulge all other appetites, and brag of incontinence without reproach: the pride likewise that produces honour in women, has no other object than their chastity; and whilst they keep that jewel entire, they can apprehend no shame: tenderness and delicacy are a compliment to them; and there is no fear of danger so ridiculous, but they may own it with ostentation. But notwithstanding the weakness of their frame, and the softness in which women are generally educated, if overcome by chance they have sinned in private, what real hazards will they not run, what torments will they not stifle, and what crimes will they not commit, to hide from the world that frailty, which they were taught to be most ashamed of!

Cleo. Because the lady is at the highest risk of straying from it; she has a desire within her that might start to affect her around twelve or thirteen, maybe even earlier. Plus, she has all the temptations from men to resist. She has to fear all the advances from our gender; a skilled seducer with irresistible charm could woo her into doing what her nature urges her to do; he might make big promises or offer real bribes. This could happen in secret, and when no one is around, he could persuade her otherwise. Gentlemen rarely need to prove their courage before they're sixteen or seventeen; in fact, they usually don’t until they’ve interacted with honorable men who boost their pride. In a quarrel, they have friends to consult, who witness their actions and push them to adhere to the rules of honor, which increases their fear of shame. If they can manage to make that fear greater than the fear of death, their job is done; they gain no pleasure from breaking the rules of honor, nor do they have a cunning tempter urging them to be cowards. The pride that creates honor in men only concerns their bravery. As long as they can appear brave and stick to the conventional rules of manly honor, they can indulge in other desires and boast about their indiscretions without shame. Similarly, the pride that produces honor in women focuses solely on their chastity. As long as they keep that precious virtue intact, they fear no shame. Tenderness and delicacy are their adornments, and there's no ridiculous fear of danger they can't flaunt. However, despite their physical weakness and the softness with which women are usually raised, if by chance they falter in private, what risks won’t they take, what torments won’t they suppress, and what wrongdoings won’t they commit to conceal that frailty they’ve been taught to be most ashamed of!

Hor. It is certain, that we seldom hear of public prostitutes, and such as have lost their shame, that they murder their infants, though they are otherwise the most abandoned wretches: I took notice of this in the Fable of the Bees, and it is very remarkable.

Hor. It's clear that we rarely hear about public prostitutes or those who have completely lost their sense of shame, committing infanticide, even though they are otherwise the most depraved individuals. I pointed this out in the Fable of the Bees, and it’s quite noteworthy.

Cleo. It contains a plain demonstration, that the same passion may produce either a palpable good or a palpable evil in the same person, according as self-love and his present circumstances shall direct; and that the same fear of shame, that makes men sometimes appear so highly virtuous, may at others oblige them to commit the most heinous crimes: that, therefore, honour is not founded upon any principle, either of real virtue or true religion, must be obvious to all that will but mind what sort of people they are, that are the greatest votaries of that idol, and the different duties it requires in the two sexes: in the first place, the worshippers of honour are the vain and voluptuous, the strict observers of modes and fashions, that take delight in pomp and luxury, and enjoy as much of the world as they are able: in the second, the word itself, I mean the sense of it, is so whimsical, and there is such a prodigious difference in the signification of it, according as the attribute is differently applied, either to a man or to a woman, that neither of them shall forfeit [350]their honour, though each should be guilty, and openly boast of what would be the others greatest shame.

Cleo. It clearly shows that the same passion can result in either a clear good or a clear evil in the same person, depending on their self-interest and current situation; and that the same fear of shame that sometimes makes people seem exceptionally virtuous can also lead them to commit the most terrible crimes. Therefore, it's obvious to anyone who considers it that honor isn't based on any real virtue or true religion, especially when looking at those who are the biggest adherents of this idol and the different expectations it places on men and women. First, the followers of honor are often the vain and indulgent, strictly adhering to trends and enjoying extravagance, reveling in as much of the world as they can. Second, the word itself—its meaning—is so quirky, and there's such a massive difference in what it signifies depending on whether it refers to a man or a woman, that neither will lose their honor, even if each is guilty and proudly boasts of what would be the other's greatest shame.

Hor. I am sorry that I cannot charge you with injustice: but it is very strange; that to encourage and industriously increase pride in a refined education, should be the most proper means to make men solicitous in concealing the outward appearances of it.

Hor. I'm sorry I can't accuse you of being unjust: but it's really odd that promoting and actively boosting pride in a sophisticated education should be the best way to make people concerned about hiding the outward signs of it.

Cleo. Yet nothing is more true; but where pride is so much indulged, and yet to be so carefully kept from all human view, as it is in persons of honour of both sexes, it would be impossible for mortal strength to endure the restraint, if men could not be taught to play the passion against itself, and were not allowed to change the natural home-bred symptoms of it, for artificial foreign ones.

Cleo. But nothing is truer; when pride is excessively indulged yet meticulously hidden from everyone, as is often the case with honorable individuals of both genders, it's impossible for anyone to bear such restraint. If people weren't taught to turn their feelings against themselves and didn’t have the option to swap their natural signs of pride for more artificial and foreign ones, it would be unbearable.

Hor. By playing the passion against itself, I know you mean placing a secret pride in concealing the barefaced signs of it: but I do not rightly understand what you mean by changing the symptoms of it.

Hor. By using the passion against itself, I know you mean taking pride in hiding its obvious signs: but I'm not quite sure what you mean by altering the symptoms of it.

Cleo. When a man exults in his pride, and gives a loose to that passion, the marks of it are as visible in his countenance, his mien, his gait and behaviour, as they are in a prancing horse, or a strutting turkey-cock. These are all very odious; every one feeling the same principle within, which is the cause of those symptoms; and man being endued with speech, all the open expressions the same passion can suggest to him, must for the same reason be equally displeasing: these, therefore, have in all societies been strictly prohibited by common consent, in the very infancy of good manners; and men have been taught, in the room of them, to substitute other symptoms, equally evident with the first, but less offensive, and more beneficial to others.

Cleo. When a man shows off his pride and lets that feeling take over, it’s just as obvious in his face, his attitude, his walk, and his behavior as it is in a prancing horse or a strutting turkey. These traits are all quite unpleasant; everyone feels the same underlying principle that causes those signs. Since humans can speak, all the expressions related to that same feeling must also be equally annoying for the same reason. Therefore, these have always been banned by mutual agreement in the early stages of good manners, and people have been taught to replace them with other signs that are just as noticeable but less offensive and more beneficial to others.

Hor. Which are they?

Which ones are they?

Cleo. Fine clothes, and other ornaments about them, the cleanliness observed about their persons, the submissions that is required of servants, costly equipages, furniture, buildings, titles of honour, and every thing that men can acquire to make themselves esteemed by others, without discovering any of the symptoms that are forbid: upon a satiety of enjoying these, they are allowed likewise to have the vapours, and be whimsical, though otherwise they are known to be in health and of good sense. [351]

Cleo. Nice clothes and other adornments, the cleanliness they maintain, the obedience expected from servants, expensive carriages, furniture, buildings, titles of nobility, and everything else people can acquire to gain admiration from others, as long as they don’t show any forbidden signs: after indulging in all this, they are also allowed to feel moody and act eccentric, even if they are otherwise healthy and sensible. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. But since the pride of others is displeasing to us in every shape, and these latter symptoms, you say, are equally evident with the first, what is got by the change?

Hor. But since we find other people's pride unappealing in every way, and you say these later signs are just as clear as the first ones, what do we gain from the change?

Cleo. A great deal: when pride is designedly expressed in looks and gestures, either in a wild or tame man, it is known by all human creatures that see it; it is the same, when vented in words, by every body that understands the language they are spoken in. These are marks and tokens that are all the world over the same: nobody shows them, but to have them seen and understood, and few persons ever display them without designing that offence to others, which they never fail to give: whereas, the other symptoms may be denied to be what they are; and many pretences, that they are derived from other motives, may be made for them, which the same good manners teach us never to refute, nor easily to disbelieve: in the very excuses that are made, there is a condescension that satisfies and pleases us. In those that are altogether destitute of the opportunities to display the symptoms of pride that are allowed of, the least portion of that passion is a troublesome, though often an unknown guest; for in them it is easily turned into envy and malice, and on the least provocation, it sallies out in those disguises, and is often the cause of cruelty; and there never was a mischief committed by mobs or multitudes, which this passion had not a hand in: whereas, the more room men have to vent and gratify the passion in the warrantable ways, the more easy it is for them to stifle the odious part of pride, and seem to be wholly free from it.

Cleo. A lot: when pride is intentionally shown through looks and gestures, whether it’s from an aggressive or subdued person, everyone who sees it recognizes it; the same goes for words, understood by anyone who knows the language. These are signs and symbols that are universally understood: people only express them to be seen and understood, and few do so without intending to offend others, which they inevitably do. On the other hand, other signs can be denied for what they really are, and many excuses can be made that claim they come from different motives, which good manners teach us to neither argue against nor easily disbelieve. Even in the excuses given, there's a kindness that satisfies and pleases us. For those who lack the means to express their pride through common ways, even a little of that feeling can be an unwelcome, though often unacknowledged, visitor; for them, it can easily turn into envy and malice, and at the slightest provocation, it erupts in those forms, often leading to cruelty. There has never been harm caused by crowds or groups that this feeling did not play a part in: whereas, the more opportunities people have to express and fulfill this feeling in acceptable ways, the easier it is for them to suppress the unpleasant side of pride and appear completely free from it.

Hor. I see very well, that real virtues requires a conquest over untaught nature, and that the Christian religion demands a still stricter self-denial: it likewise is evident, that to make ourselves acceptable to an omniscient Power, nothing is more necessary than sincerity, and that the heart should be pure. But setting aside sacred matters, and a future state, do not you think that this complaisance and easy construction of one another’s actions, do a great deal of good upon earth; and do not you believe that good manners and politeness make men more happy, and their lives more comfortable in this world, than any thing else could make them without those arts?

Hor. I see clearly that true virtues require us to overcome our natural instincts, and that the Christian faith calls for even stricter self-control. It's also clear that to be accepted by an all-knowing Power, nothing is more important than being sincere and keeping our hearts pure. But aside from spiritual matters and the afterlife, don’t you think that being accommodating and interpreting each other’s actions positively does a lot of good in the world? And don’t you believe that good manners and politeness make people happier and their lives more comfortable than anything else could, without those qualities?

Cleo. If you will set aside what ought to employ our first care, and be our greatest concern; and men will have no value for that felicity and peace of mind, which can only arise [352]from a consciousness of being good, it is certain, that in a great nation, and among a flourishing people, whose highest wishes seem to be ease and luxury, the upper part could not, without those arts, enjoy so much of the world as that can afford; and that none stand more in need of them than the voluptuous men of parts, that will join worldly prudence to sensuality, and make it their chief study to refine upon pleasure.

Cleo. If you ignore what should be our top priority and biggest concern, and if people don’t value the happiness and peace of mind that can only come from knowing they’re good, it’s clear that in a large nation, and among a thriving people, whose main desires seem to be comfort and luxury, the upper class wouldn’t be able to enjoy as much of what the world offers without those skills. In fact, no one needs them more than those indulgent, capable people who combine worldly wisdom with pleasure and focus on perfecting enjoyment.

Hor. When I had the honour of your company at my house, you said that nobody knew when or where, nor in what king’s or emperor’s reign the laws of honour were enacted; pray, can you inform me when or which way, what we call good manners or politeness came into the world? what moralist or politician was it, that could teach men to be proud of hiding their pride?

Hor. When you visited my home, you mentioned that no one can pinpoint when or where, or under which king or emperor the laws of honor were established. Could you tell me when or how what we refer to as good manners or politeness came about? Which moralist or politician taught people to take pride in concealing their pride?

Cleo. The resistless industry of man to supply his wants; and his constant endeavours to meliorate his condition upon earth, have produced and brought to perfection many useful arts and sciences, of which the beginnings are of uncertain eras, and to which we can align no other causes, than human sagacity in general, and the joint labour of many ages, in which men have always employed themselves in studying and contriving ways and means to sooth their various appetites, and make the best of their infirmities. Whence had we the first rudiments of architecture; how came sculpture and painting to be what they have been these many hundred years; and who taught every nation the respective languages they speak now. When I have a mind to dive into the origin of any maxim or political invention, for the use of society in general, I do not trouble my head with inquiring after the time or country in which it was first heard of, nor what others have wrote or said about it; but I go directly to the fountain head, human nature itself, and look for the frailty or defect in man, that is remedied or supplied by that invention: when things are very obscure, I sometimes make use of conjectures to find my way.

Cleo. The unstoppable effort of humanity to meet its needs and the ongoing attempts to improve life on Earth have led to the development and refinement of many useful arts and sciences. The origins of these advancements are often unclear, and we can attribute them only to human intelligence in general and the collective efforts across many ages, where people have continually worked on finding ways to satisfy their various desires and cope with their limitations. From where did we get the basic principles of architecture? How did sculpture and painting become what they have been for so many centuries? Who taught each nation the languages they speak today? When I want to explore the roots of any principle or political idea for the benefit of society as a whole, I don't concern myself with the specific time or place it originated, nor do I pay much attention to what others have written or said about it. Instead, I go straight to the source—human nature itself—and look for the flaws or shortcomings in humanity that that principle or invention addresses. When things are particularly unclear, I sometimes rely on guesses to guide me.

Hor. Do you argue, or pretend to prove any thing from those conjectures?

Hor. Are you really arguing, or just pretending to prove something with those guesses?

Cleo. No; I never reason but from the plain observations which every body may make on man, the phenomena that appear in the lesser world.

Cleo. No; I only reason based on the simple observations that anyone can make about people, the things that happen in the small world.

Hor. You have, without doubt, thought on this subject [353]before now; would you communicate to me some of your guesses?

Hor. You've definitely thought about this topic [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]before; would you share some of your thoughts with me?

Cleo. With abundance of pleasure.

Cleo. With plenty of pleasure.

Hor. You will give me leave, now and then, when things are not clear to me, to put in a word for information’s sake.

Hor. You'll let me chime in every now and then when I'm unsure about something, right? I just want to clarify things.

Cleo. I desire you would: you will oblige me with it. That self-love was given to all animals, at least, the most perfect, for self-preservation, is not disputed; but as no creature can love what it dislikes, it is necessary, moreover, that every one should have a real liking to its own being, superior to what they have to any other. I am of opinion, begging pardon for the novelty, that if this liking was not always permanent, the love which all creatures have for themselves, could not be so unalterable as we see it is.

Cleo. I hope you will: you’ll do me a favor by sharing it. It’s widely accepted that self-love exists in all animals, at least the most advanced ones, for the sake of self-preservation. However, since no creature can genuinely love what it dislikes, it’s essential that each one has a true affection for its own existence, stronger than for anyone else’s. I believe, with all due respect for the unconventional view, that if this affection weren't consistently present, the love that all creatures have for themselves couldn’t be as enduring as we observe it to be.

Hor. What reason have you to suppose this liking, which creatures have for themselves, to be distinct from self-love; since the one plainly comprehends the other?

Hor. What makes you think that this attraction creatures have for themselves is different from self-love, when one clearly includes the other?

Cleo. I will endeavour to explain myself better. I fancy, that to increase the care in creatures to preserve themselves, nature has given them an instinct, by which every individual values itself above its real worth; this in us, I mean in man, seems to be accompanied with a diffidence, arising from a consciousness, or at least an apprehension, that we do overvalue ourselves: it is that makes us so fond of the approbation, liking, and assent of others; because they strengthen and confirm us in the good opinion we have of ourselves. The reasons why this self-liking, give me leave to call it so, is not plainly to be seen in all animals that are of the same degree of perfection, are many. Some want ornaments, and consequently the means to express it; others are too stupid and listless: it is to be considered likewise, that creatures, which are always in the same circumstances, and meet with little variation in their way of living, have neither opportunity nor temptation to show it; that the more mettle and liveliness creatures have, the more visible this liking is; and that in those of the same kind, the greater spirit they are of, and the more they excel in the perfections of their species, the fonder they are of showing it: in most birds it is evident, especially in those that have extraordinary finery to display: in a horse it is more conspicuous than in any other irrational creature: it is most apparent in the swiftest, the strongest, the most healthy and vigorous; and may be increased in that animal by additional ornaments, and the presence of [354]man, whom he knows, to clean, take care of, and delight in him. It is not improbable, that this great liking which creatures have for their own individuals, is the principle on which the love to their species is built: cows and sheep, too dull and lifeless to make any demonstration of this liking, yet herd and feed together, each with his own species; because no others are so like themselves: by this they seem to know likewise, that they have the same interest, and the same enemies; cows have often been seen to join in a common defence against wolves: birds of a feather flock together; and I dare say, that the screechowl likes her own note better than that of the nightingale.

Cleo. I will try to explain myself better. I believe that, to encourage creatures to take care of themselves, nature has given them an instinct that leads each individual to value itself more than its true worth. In humans, this seems to come with a certain insecurity, as we are aware, or at least fear, that we may overestimate ourselves. This is why we often seek the approval, affection, and agreement of others; it reinforces and validates the positive view we have of ourselves. The reasons why this self-approval, if I may call it that, isn’t obvious in all animals of the same level of development are many. Some lack decorations, and therefore have no way to express it; others are too dull and indifferent. It's also important to note that creatures which always experience the same situations and have little variation in their lives have neither the chance nor the desire to show it; the more spirited and lively the creatures are, the more obvious this approval becomes. Among animals of the same kind, those with more personality and greater abilities tend to show it off more. This is especially clear in many birds, particularly those that have striking features to display. It's even more evident in horses than in any other non-human animal; it's most prominent in the fastest, strongest, healthiest, and most vigorous ones. Their self-showing can be enhanced by extra adornments and by the presence of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]humans, who tend to clean, care for, and take pleasure in them. It isn’t unlikely that this strong sense of self-appreciation among creatures is the foundation for their love for their own kind: cows and sheep, often too dull and lifeless to express this fondness, still herd and graze together, as they are the most alike. In doing this, they seem to recognize that they share similar interests and the same enemies; cows have frequently been observed to band together for defense against wolves. Birds of a feather flock together; and I’d confidently say that the screech owl prefers its own call to that of the nightingale.

Hor. Montaigne seems to have been somewhat of your opinion, when he fancied, that if brutes were to paint the Deity, they would all draw him of their own species. But what you call self-liking is evidently pride.

Hor. Montaigne seems to share your view when he imagined that if animals could depict God, they would all represent Him as their own kind. However, what you refer to as self-admiration is clearly just pride.

Cleo. I believe it is, or at least the cause of it. I believe, moreover, that many creatures show this liking, when, for want of understanding them, we do not perceive it: When a cat washes her face, and a dog licks himself clean, they adorn themselves as much as it is in their power. Man himself, in a savage state, feeding on nuts and acorns, and destitute of all outward ornaments, would have infinitely less temptation, as well as opportunity, of showing this liking of himself, than he has when civilized; yet if a hundred males of the first, all equally free, were together, within less than half an hour, this liking in question, though their bellies were full, would appear in the desire of superiority, that would be shown among them; and the most vigorous, either in strength or understanding, or both, would be the first that would display it: If, as supposed, they were all untaught, this would breed contention, and there would certainly be war before there could be any agreement among them; unless one of them had some one or more visible excellencies above the rest. I said males, and their bellies full; because, if they had women among them, or wanted food, their quarrel might begin on another account.

Cleo. I think it is, or at least the reason for it. I also believe that many animals show this preference, but we don’t notice it because we don’t understand them. When a cat cleans its face and a dog grooms itself, they are trying to present themselves as best as they can. Even humans in a primitive state, living on nuts and acorns without any external adornments, would have much less opportunity or temptation to show this self-regard than they do when civilized. However, if a hundred males were together, all equally free, within less than half an hour, this desire for superiority would emerge among them, even if they were full. The strongest, whether in physical power or intelligence, would be the first to express it. If, as assumed, they were all untrained, this would lead to conflict, and there would definitely be fighting before any agreement could be reached, unless one of them had some clear advantages over the others. I mentioned males and their being full because, if there were females present or if they were hungry, their disagreements might start for different reasons.

Hor. This is thinking abstractly indeed: but do you think that two or three hundred single savages, men and women, that never had been under any subjection, and were above twenty years of age, could ever establish a society, and be united into one body, if, without being acquainted with one another, they should meet by chance! [355]

Hor. This is some deep thinking for sure: but do you really believe that two or three hundred individual savages, men and women, who have never been under any authority and are over twenty years old, could ever form a society and come together as one if they were to randomly meet each other without knowing anyone? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. No more, I believe, than so many horses: but societies never were made that way. It is possible that several families of savages might unite, and the heads of them agree upon some sort of government or other, for their common good: but among them it is certain likewise, that, though superiority was tolerably well settled, and every male had females enough, strength and prowess in this uncivilized state would be infinitely more valued than understanding: I mean in the men; for the women will always prize themselves for what they see the men admire in them: Hence it would follow, that the women would value themselves, and envy one another for being handsome; and that the ugly and deformed, and all those that were least favoured by nature, would be the first, that would fly to art and additional ornaments: seeing that this made them more agreeable to the men, it would soon be followed by the rest, and in a little time they would strive to outdo one another, as much as their circumstances would allow of; and it is possible, that a woman, with a very handsome nose, might envy her neighbour with a much worse, for having a ring through it.

Cleo. I don't think it's any more than a bunch of horses: but societies were never created like that. It's possible that several groups of savages might come together, and their leaders might agree on some kind of government for their shared benefit: but among them, it's also clear that, while some kind of hierarchy would be more or less established, and every man would have enough women, strength and skill in this uncivilized state would be valued way more than intelligence: I mean for the men; because the women will always value themselves for what they see men appreciate in them: This means that women would value themselves and compete with one another for being attractive; and those who are ugly or deformed, along with those least favored by nature, would be the first to turn to makeup and extra adornments: since this made them more appealing to men, it wouldn't take long for the others to follow suit, and soon they would try to outdo each other as much as they could; and it’s possible that a woman with a really nice nose might envy her neighbor with a much worse one just because she has a ring through it.

Hor. You take great delight in dwelling on the behaviour of savages; what relation has this to politeness?

Hor. You really enjoy focusing on how savages act; how is that related to being polite?

Cleo. The seeds of it are lodged in this self-love and self-liking, which I have spoke of, as will soon appear, if we would consider what would be the consequence of them in the affair of self-preservation, and a creature endued with understanding, speech, and risibility. Self-love would first make it scrape together every thing it wanted for sustenance, provide against the injuries of the air, and do every thing to make itself and young ones secure. Self-liking would make it seek for opportunities, by gestures, looks, and sounds, to display the value it has for itself, superior to what it has for others; an untaught man would desire every body that came near him, to agree with him in the opinion of his superior worth, and be angry, as far as his fear would let him, with all that should refuse it: he would be highly delighted with, and love every body whom he thought to have a good opinion of him, especially those, that, by words or gestures, should own it to his face: whenever he met with any visible marks in others of inferiority to himself, he would laugh, and do the same at their misfortunes, as far as his own pity [356]would give him leave, and he would insult every body that would let him.

Cleo. The roots of this are in self-love and self-acceptance, which I've mentioned before, as will soon become clear if we think about how they impact self-preservation in a being that has understanding, speech, and the ability to laugh. Self-love would first lead it to gather everything it needs for survival, protect itself from the dangers of the environment, and do everything necessary to keep itself and its offspring safe. Self-acceptance would drive it to look for ways, through gestures, looks, and sounds, to show how much it values itself, more than it values others; an untrained person would want everyone who approached him to agree with his belief in his superior worth and would feel anger, as much as fear would allow, towards anyone who disagreed. He would feel great joy and affection for anyone he thought held a good opinion of him, especially those who confirmed it to his face with words or gestures. Whenever he noticed signs in others of being inferior to him, he would laugh and also find amusement in their misfortunes, as much as his own pity [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]would permit, and he would taunt anyone who would allow it.

Hor. This self-liking, you say, was given to creatures for self-preservation: I should think rather that it is hurtful to men, because it must make them odious to one another; and I cannot see what benefit they can receive from it, either in a savage or a civilized state: is there any instance of its doing any good?

Hor. You say that this self-liking was given to beings for self-preservation, but I think it’s more harmful to people because it makes them dislike each other. I don’t see any benefit from it, whether in a wild or civilized state. Can you point to any instance where it has done any good?

Cleo. I wonder to hear you ask that question. Have you forgot the many virtues which I have demonstrated, may be counterfeited to gain applause, and the good qualities a man of sense in great fortune may acquire, by the sole help and instigation of his pride?

Cleo. I’m surprised you’re asking that. Have you forgotten the many virtues I’ve shown, which can be faked for praise, and the good traits a sensible person with great wealth can gain just from their own pride?

Hor. I beg your pardon: yet what you say only regards man in the society, and after he has been perfectly well educated: what advantage is it to him as a single creature? Self-love I can plainly see, induces him to labour for his maintenance and safety, and makes him fond of every thing which he imagines to tend to his preservation; but what good does the self-liking to him?

Hor. I’m sorry to interrupt, but what you’re saying only applies to people in society, and only after they’ve been well educated. How does this benefit him as an individual? I clearly see that self-love drives him to work for his survival and safety, and he becomes attached to anything he thinks will help him stay safe; but what good does self-like do for him?

Cleo. If I should tell you, that the inward pleasure and satisfaction a man receives from the gratification of that passion, is a cordial that contributes to his health, you would laugh at me, and think it far fetched.

Cleo. If I told you that the inner pleasure and satisfaction a man gets from fulfilling that desire is like a tonic that helps his health, you would laugh at me and think it's a stretch.

Hor. Perhaps not; but I would set against it the many sharp vexations and heart-breaking sorrows, that men suffer on the score of this passion, from disgraces, disappointments, and other misfortunes, which, I believe, have sent millions to their graves much sooner than they would have gone, if their pride had less affected them.

Hor. Maybe not; but I would counter that with the many harsh frustrations and heartbreaking pains that people experience because of this passion—like humiliations, letdowns, and other misfortunes—which I believe have led millions to their graves much earlier than they would have if their pride hadn’t impacted them so deeply.

Cleo. I have nothing against what you say: but this is no proof that the passion itself was not given to man for self-preservation; and it only lays open to us the precariousness of sublunary happiness, and the wretched condition of mortals. There is nothing created that is always a blessing; the rain and sunshine themselves, to which all earthly comforts are owing, have been the causes of innumerable calamities. All animals of prey, and thousand others, hunt after food with the hazard of their lives, and the greater part of them perish in their pursuits after sustenance. Plenty itself is not less fatal to some, than want is to others; and of our own species, every opulent nation has had great numbers, that in full safety from all other dangers, have destroyed themselves [357]by excesses of eating and drinking: yet nothing is more certain, than that hunger and thirst were given to creatures, to make them solicitous after, and crave those necessaries, without which it would be impossible for them to subsist.

Cleo. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but that doesn't prove that passion was given to people for self-preservation. It just shows us how fragile happiness is in this world, and the unfortunate condition of humans. Nothing created is always a blessing; even rain and sunshine, which provide all earthly comforts, have caused countless disasters. Predatory animals and many others risk their lives to find food, and most of them perish while searching for sustenance. Abundance can be just as deadly for some as scarcity is for others; in our own species, many wealthy nations have had a significant number of people who, safe from all other dangers, have harmed themselves through overeating and drinking. Yet, it's clear that hunger and thirst were given to living beings to make them seek out and crave the necessities essential for survival. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. Still I can see no advantage accruing from their self-liking to man, considered as a single creature, which can induce me to believe, that nature should have given it us for self-preservation. What you have alleged is obscure; can you name a benefit every individual person receives from that principle within him, that is manifest, and clearly to be understood?

Hor. I still don’t see any benefits for a person as an individual that come from liking themselves, which would convince me that nature intended it for our self-preservation. What you’ve said is unclear; can you point out a specific advantage that each person gets from that instinct within them that is obvious and easy to grasp?

Cleo. Since it has been in disgrace, and every body disowns the passion, it seldom is seen in its proper colours, and disguises itself in a thousand different shapes: we are often affected with it, when we have not the least suspicion of it; but it seems to be that which continually furnishes us with that relish we have for life, even when it is not worth having. Whilst men are pleased, self-liking has every moment a considerable share, though unknown, in procuring the satisfaction they enjoy. It is so necessary to the well-being of those that have been used to indulge it, that they can taste no pleasure without it; and such is the deference, and the submissive veneration they pay to it, that they are deaf to the loudest calls of nature, and will rebuke the strongest appetites that should pretend to be gratified at the expence of that passion. It doubles our happiness in prosperity, and buoys us up against the frowns of adverse fortune. It is the mother of hopes, and the end as well as the foundation of our best wishes: it is the strongest armour against despair; and as long as we can like any ways our situation, either in regard to present circumstances, or the prospect before us, we take care of ourselves; and no man can resolve upon suicide, whilst self-liking lasts: but as soon as that is over, all our hopes are extinct, and we can form no wishes but for the dissolution of our frame; till at last our being becomes so intolerable to us, that self-love prompts us to make an end of it, and seek refuge in death.

Cleo. Since it has fallen out of favor, and everyone disowns the feeling, it’s rarely seen in its true form and takes on a thousand different appearances. We often experience it without realizing, but it seems to provide us with a sense of enjoyment for life, even when life isn’t worth much. While people are happy, self-appreciation plays a significant role, even if it's unrecognized, in the satisfaction they feel. It’s so essential for the well-being of those who are used to indulging it that they can’t enjoy anything without it; and they show such respect and submissive admiration for it that they ignore the loudest cries of nature and will resist the strongest urges that threaten to satisfy themselves at the expense of that feeling. It amplifies our happiness in good times and keeps us afloat against the harshness of bad luck. It generates hope and is both the goal and the foundation of our greatest wishes: it is our strongest defense against despair; and as long as we can find anything likable about our situation, whether in the present or in what’s to come, we take care of ourselves; no one can decide to end their life while they still feel self-appreciation. But once that’s gone, all our hopes are extinguished, and we can only wish for the end of our existence; eventually, life becomes so unbearable that self-love drives us to seek an escape in death.

Hor. You mean self-hatred; for you have said yourself, that a creature cannot love what it dislikes.

Hor. You mean self-hatred; because you've said yourself that a person can't love what they dislike.

Cleo. If you turn the prospect, you are in the right: but this only proves to us what I have often hinted at, that man is made up of contrarieties; otherwise nothing seems to be more certain, than that whoever kills himself by choice, must [358]do it to avoid something, which he dreads more than that death which he chooses. Therefore, how absurd soever a person’s reasoning may be, there is in all suicide a palpable intention of kindness to one’s self.

Cleo. If you consider the situation, you're right: but this only highlights what I've often pointed out, that humans are made up of contradictions; otherwise, nothing seems more certain than that anyone who takes their own life intentionally must [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]do it to escape something they fear more than the death they choose. So, no matter how irrational someone’s reasoning might be, there’s an obvious intention of self-kindness in all acts of suicide.

Hor. I must own that your observations are entertaining. I am very well pleased with your discourse, and I see an agreeable glimmering of probability that runs through it; but you have said nothing that comes up to a half proof on the side of your conjecture, if it be seriously considered.

Hor. I have to admit that your comments are entertaining. I'm very pleased with what you've said, and I see a nice hint of truth in it. However, you haven't provided anything that even remotely qualifies as evidence for your theory, if we take a serious look at it.

Cleo. I told you before that I would lay no stress upon, nor draw any conclusions from it: but whatever nature’s design was in bestowing this self-liking on creatures, and whether it has been given to other animals besides ourselves or not, it is certain, that in our own species every individual person likes himself better than he does any other.

Cleo. I mentioned before that I wouldn’t put any pressure on it or draw any conclusions from it: but whatever nature's purpose was in giving this self-love to living beings, and whether it’s been given to other animals too or not, it’s clear that in our own species, every individual prefers themselves over anyone else.

Hor. It may be so, generally speaking: but that it is not universally true, I can assure you, from my own experience; for I have often wished my self to be Count Theodati, whom you knew at Rome.

Hor. That might be true in general, but I can tell you from my own experience that it’s not universally the case. I’ve often wished to be Count Theodati, the one you knew in Rome.

Cleo. He was a very fine person indeed, and extremely well accomplished; and therefore you wished to be such another, which is all you could mean. Celia has a very handsome face, fine eyes, fine teeth; but she has red hair, and is ill made: therefore she wishes for Chloe’s hair and Belinda’s shape; but she would still remain Celia.

Cleo. He was truly a great person and very skilled; that’s all you could mean in wanting to be like him. Celia has a beautiful face, nice eyes, and great teeth; but she has red hair and isn't well-proportioned: so she wishes for Chloe’s hair and Belinda’s figure; but she would still be Celia.

Hor. But I wished that I might have been that person, that very Theodati.

Hor. But I wished I could have been that person, that very Theodati.

Cleo. That is impossible.

Cleo. That's impossible.

Hor. What, is it impossible to wish it?

Hor. What, is it impossible to want that?

Cleo. Yes, to wish it; unless you wished for annihilation at the same time. It is that self we wish well to; and therefore we cannot wish for any change in ourselves, but with a proviso, that τὸ self, that part of us that wishes, should still remain: for take away that consciousness you had of yourself whilst you was wishing, and tell me, pray, what part of you it is that could be the better for the alteration you wished for?

Cleo. Yes, to wish for it; unless you were also wishing for complete destruction at the same time. It's that part of ourselves that we want to prosper; so we can’t really wish for any change in ourselves without a condition: that part of us that wishes should still be there. Because if you take away that awareness you had of yourself while you were wishing, tell me, what part of you could actually benefit from the change you wanted?

Hor. I believe you are in the right. No man can wish but to enjoy something, which no part of that same man could do, if he was entirely another.

Hor. I think you're correct. No one can desire to enjoy something that a different person wouldn't want, since each part of that person wouldn't do so if they were completely different.

Cleo. That he itself, the person wishing, must be destroyed before the change could be entire. [359]

Cleo. The person who desires must be destroyed before the transformation can be complete. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. But when shall we come to the origin of politeness?

Hor. But when will we get to the root of politeness?

Cleo. We are at it now, and we need not look for it any further than in the self-liking, which I have demonstrated every individual man to be possessed of. Do but consider these two things: First, that from the nature of that passion, it must follow, that all untaught men will ever be hateful to one another in conversation, where neither interest nor superiority are considered: for, if of two equals, one only values himself more by half, than he does the other, though that other should value the first equally with himself, they would both be dissatisfied, if their thoughts were known to each other; but if both valued themselves more by half, than they did each other, the difference between them would still be greater, and a declaration of their sentiments would render them both insufferable to each other; which, among uncivilized men, would happen every moment, because, without a mixture of art and trouble, the outward symptoms of that passion are not to be stifled. The second thing I would have you consider, is, the effect which, in all human probability, this inconveniency, arising from self-liking, would have upon creatures endued with a great share of understanding, that are fond of their ease to the last degree, and as industrious to procure it. These two things, I say, do but duly weigh, and you shall find that the disturbance and uneasiness that must be caused by self-liking, whatever strugglings and unsuccessful trials to remedy them might precede, must necessarily produce, at long run, what we call good manners and politeness.

Cleo. We're dealing with this now, and there's no need to look any further than the self-approval that every individual has. Just think about these two things: First, because of the nature of that feeling, it’s clear that all unrefined people will always find each other unpleasant to talk to, especially when there's no interest or sense of superiority at play. For example, if two equals have one valuing themselves just a bit more than the other, even if the other values them equally, they'd both feel dissatisfied if they were aware of each other's thoughts. But if both valued themselves even more, the gap between them would be wider, and sharing their true feelings would make them unbearable to one another. With uncivilized people, this would happen all the time since, without some effort and cleverness, the outward signs of that feeling cannot be hidden. The second thing I want you to think about is how this annoyance from self-approval would impact beings with a good amount of understanding who really value their comfort and work hard to achieve it. If you carefully consider these two aspects, you’ll see that the disturbance and discomfort caused by self-approval, despite any struggles and failures to fix it, will ultimately lead to what we recognize as good manners and politeness over time.

Hor. I understand you, I believe. Every body in this undisciplined state, being affected with the high value he has for himself, and displaying the most natural symptoms which you have described, they would all be offended at the barefaced pride of their neighbours: and it is impossible that this should continue long among rational creatures, but the repeated experience of the uneasiness they received from such behaviour, would make some of them reflect on the cause of it; which, in tract of time, would make them find out, that their own barefaced pride, must be as offensive to others, as that of others is to themselves.

Hor. I get what you're saying. Everyone in this wild state, caught up in their own self-importance and showing the obvious signs you mentioned, would be irritated by the blatant pride of their neighbors. It can't go on like this for long among rational beings; eventually, their ongoing discomfort from such behavior would lead some of them to think about why that is. Over time, they would realize that their own blatant pride is just as irritating to others as the pride of others is to them.

Cleo. What you say is certainly the philosophical reason of the alterations that are made in the behaviour of men, by their being civilized: but all this is done without reflection; and men by degrees, and great length of time, fall as it were into these things spontaneously. [360]

Cleo. What you’re saying is definitely the philosophical reason behind the changes in how people behave as they become civilized. However, this happens without much thought; people gradually, over a long period, seem to just fall into these things naturally. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. How is that possible, when it must cost them trouble, and there is a palpable self-denial to be seen in the restraint they put upon themselves?

Hor. How is that even possible, when it clearly requires effort from them, and you can really see the self-control they practice?

Cleo. In the pursuit of self-preservation, men discover a restless endeavour to make themselves easy, which insensibly teaches them to avoid mischief on all emergencies: and when human creatures once submit to government, and are used to live under the restraint of laws, it is incredible how many useful cautions, shifts, and stratagems they will learn to practise by experience and imitation, from conversing together, without being aware of the natural causes that oblige them to act as they do, viz. the passions within, that, unknown to themselves, govern their will and direct their behaviour.

Cleo. In the quest for self-preservation, people realize a constant drive to make themselves comfortable, which subtly teaches them to avoid trouble in all situations. Once humans accept governance and become accustomed to living under laws, it's astonishing how many useful tips, tricks, and strategies they learn to employ through experience and observation from interacting with each other, often without understanding the underlying reasons that compel them to act as they do—namely, the inner emotions that, unknown to them, control their choices and shape their actions.

Hor. You will make men as mere machines as Cartes does brutes.

Hor. You will treat people like nothing more than machines, just like Descartes did with animals.

Cleo. I have no such design: but I am of opinion, that men find out the use of their limbs by instinct, as much as brutes do the use of theirs; and that, without knowing any thing of geometry or arithmetic, even children may learn to perform actions that seem to bespeak great skill in mechanics, and a considerable depth of thought and ingenuity in the contrivance besides.

Cleo. I don't have any plans like that: I believe that men discover how to use their bodies by instinct, just like animals do; and that, without knowing anything about geometry or arithmetic, even children can learn to do things that seem to show a lot of skill in mechanics, as well as a significant amount of thought and creativity in the design too.

Hor. What actions are they which you judge this from?

Hor. What actions are you basing this on?

Cleo. The advantageous postures which they will choose in resisting force, in pulling, pushing, or otherwise removing weight; from their sleight and dexterity in throwing stones, and other projectiles; and the stupendous cunning made use of in leaping.

Cleo. The strategic positions they will take in resisting force, pulling, pushing, or otherwise moving weight; from their skill and agility in throwing stones and other projectiles; and the amazing cleverness used in jumping.

Hor. What stupendous cunning, I pray?

Hor. What amazing cunning, I ask?

Cleo. When men would leap or jump a great way, you know, they take a run before they throw themselves off the ground. It is certain, that, by this means, they jump farther, and with greater force than they could do otherwise: the reason likewise is very plain. The body partakes of, and is moved by two motions; and the velocity, impressed upon it by leaping, must be added to so much, as it retained of the velocity it was put into by running: Whereas, the body of a person who takes this leap, as he is standing still, has no other motion, than what is received from the muscular strength exerted in the act of leaping. See a thousand boys, as well as men, jump, and they will make use of this stratagem; but you will not find one of them that does it knowingly for that reason. What I have said of that stratagem [361]made use of in leaping, I desire you would apply to the doctrine of good manners, which is taught and practised by millions, who never thought on the origin of politeness, or so much as knew the real benefit it is of to society. The most crafty and designing will every where be the first; that, for interest-sake, will learn to conceal this passion of pride, and, in a little time, nobody will show the least symptom of it, whilst he is asking favours, or stands in need of help.

Cleo. When guys want to jump really far, they typically run up before leaping off the ground. It's clear that this approach helps them jump further and with more power than if they just jumped from a standstill. The explanation is simple: the body is affected by two types of motion, and the speed gained from running adds to the speed generated by leaping. In contrast, someone who jumps while standing still has no additional motion beyond what their muscles produce in that moment. Just watch a bunch of boys and men jump, and you'll see they all use this technique, but they probably don’t realize they’re doing it for this reason. What I've said about this technique used in jumping, I want you to apply to the concept of good manners, which is followed and practiced by many, even though most don’t think about where politeness comes from or understand its real value to society. The most cunning and strategic individuals will always be the first to adapt, as they learn to hide their pride for their own benefit, and soon, no one will show any sign of it when they’re asking for favors or in need of help.

Hor. That rational creatures should do all this, without thinking or knowing what they are about, is inconceivable. Bodily motion is one thing, and the exercise of the understanding is another; and therefore agreeable postures, a graceful mien, an easy carriage, and a genteel outward behaviour, in general, may be learned and contracted perhaps without much thought; but good manners are to be observed every where, in speaking, writing, and ordering actions to be performed by others.

Hor. It's unimaginable that rational beings would act this way without awareness or understanding of their actions. Physical movement is one thing, while exercising our intellect is another. So, sure, we can learn pleasant postures, a graceful appearance, relaxed demeanor, and polite behavior without much thought. However, good manners must be applied consistently—in speaking, writing, and directing the actions of others.

Cleo. To men who never turned their thoughts that way, it certainly is almost inconceivable to what prodigious height, from next to nothing, some arts may be, and have been raised by human industry and application, by the uninterrupted labour and joint experience of many ages, though none but men of ordinary capacity should ever be employed in them. What a noble, as well as beautiful, what a glorious machine is a first rate man of war when she is under sail, well rigged, and well manned! As in bulk and weight it is vastly superior to any other moveable body of human invention, so there is no other that has an equal variety of differently surprising contrivance to boast of. There are many sets of hands in the nation, that, not wanting proper materials, would be able in less than half a-year, to produce, fit out, and navigate a first rate: yet it is certain, that this task would be impracticable, if it was not divided and subdivided into a great variety of different labours; and it is as certain, that none of these labours require any other, than working men of ordinary capacities.

Cleo. For men who have never thought about it, it’s almost unimaginable how incredibly high some skills can reach, starting from almost nothing, through human effort and dedication, and the continuous work and shared experiences of many generations, even though only ordinary men should ever be involved in them. What a magnificent and impressive machine a top-tier warship is when it’s sailing, well-rigged, and fully crewed! In terms of size and weight, it far surpasses any other movable creation by humans, and no other has an equally diverse range of astonishing designs to boast about. There are many laborers in the country who, lacking the right materials, could produce, outfit, and sail a top-tier warship in less than six months; yet it’s clear that this task would be impossible without breaking it down into a wide variety of different jobs. It’s equally clear that none of these jobs require anything more than the work of ordinary skilled workers.

Hor. What would you infer from this?

Hor. What do you think about this?

Cleo. That we often ascribe to the excellency of man’s genius, and the depth of his penetration, what is in reality owing to length of time, and the experience of many generations, all of them very little differing from one another in natural parts and sagacity. And to know what it must have cost to bring that art of making ships for different purposes, [362]to the perfection in which it is now, we are only to consider, in the first place, that many considerable improvements have been made in it within these fifty years and less; and, in the second, that the inhabitants of this island did build, and make use of ships eighteen hundred years ago, and that, from that time to this, they have never been without.

Cleo. We often credit the greatness of human genius and insight to individual talent, when in reality, it's due to the passage of time and the experiences of many generations, all of whom were quite similar in their natural abilities and wisdom. To understand the effort it took to develop the art of shipbuilding for various purposes, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] we need to first recognize that many significant improvements have been made in the last fifty years or so; and secondly, the people of this island have been constructing and using ships for eighteen hundred years, and they have never been without them since that time.

Hor. Which altogether make a strong proof of the slow progress that art has made to be what it is.

Hor. All of this clearly shows the slow progress that art has made to become what it is today.

Cleo. The Chevalier Reneau has wrote a book, in which he shows the mechanism of sailing, and accounts mathematically for every thing that belongs to the working and steering of a ship. I am persuaded, that neither the first inventors of ships and sailing, or those who have made improvements since in any part of them, ever dreamed of those reasons, any more than now the rudest and most illiterate of the vulgar do, when they are made sailors, which time and practice will do in spite of their teeth. We have thousands of them that were first hauled on board, and detained against their wills, and yet, in less than three years time, knew every rope and every pully in the ship, and without the least scrap of mathematics, had learned the management as well as use of them, much better than the greatest mathematician could have done in all his lifetime, if he had never been at sea. The book I mentioned, among other curious things, demonstrates what angle the rudder must make with the keel, to render its influence upon the ship the most powerful. This has its merit; but a lad of fifteen, who has served a year of his time on board of a hoy, knows every thing that is useful in this demonstration, practically. Seeing the poop always answering the motion of the helm, he only minds the latter, without making the least reflection on the rudder, until in a year or two more his knowledge in sailing, and capacity of steering his vessel, become so habitual to him, that he guides her, as he does his own body, by instinct, though he is half asleep, or thinking on quite another thing.

Cleo. The Chevalier Reneau has written a book that explains how sailing works and mathematically accounts for everything involved in operating and steering a ship. I believe that neither the original inventors of ships and sailing nor those who have made improvements since then ever considered these explanations, just as the most uneducated and inexperienced sailors do not when they become seamen, which time and practice will change despite their resistance. We have thousands of them who were first brought on board against their will, yet within less than three years, they knew every rope and pulley on the ship, and without any knowledge of mathematics, they learned how to manage and use them better than the greatest mathematician could in a lifetime if he had never been at sea. The book I mentioned shows, among other interesting things, what angle the rudder should make with the keel to make its effect on the ship the most effective. This is valuable; however, a fifteen-year-old who has spent a year working on a cargo ship knows everything practical about this demonstration. By observing how the stern always responds to the movement of the helm, he focuses only on the helm without considering the rudder until in a year or two more, his sailing skills and ability to steer become so second nature that he guides the ship like he does his own body, instinctively, even when he's half asleep or thinking about something entirely different.

Hor. If, as you said, and which I now believe to be true, the people who first invented, and afterwards improved upon ships and sailing, never dreamed of those reasons of Monsieur Reneau, it is impossible that they should have acted from them, as motives that induced them à priori, to put their inventions and improvements in practice, with knowledge and design, which, I suppose, is what you intended to prove. [363]

Hor. If, as you said, and what I now believe to be true, the people who first invented and later improved upon ships and sailing never considered the reasons given by Monsieur Reneau, then it’s impossible that they acted on them as motivations to put their inventions and improvements into practice with intention and design, which I assume is what you meant to prove. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. It is; and I verily believe, not only that the raw beginners, who made the first essays in either art, good manners as well as sailing, were ignorant of the true cause; the real foundation those arts are built upon in nature; but likewise that, even now both arts are brought to great perfection, the greatest part of those that are most expert, and daily making improvements in them, know as little of the rationale of them, as their predecessors did at first: though I believe, at the same time, Monsieur Reneau’s reasons to be very just, and yours as good as his; that is, I believe, that there is as much truth and solidity in your accounting for the origin of good manners, as there is in his for the management of ships. They are very seldom the same sort of people, those that invent arts and improvements in them, and those that inquire into the reason of things: this latter is most commonly practised by such as are idle and indolent, that are fond of retirement, hate business, and take delight in speculation; whereas, none succeed oftener in the first, than active, stirring, and laborious men, such as will put their hand to the plough, try experiments, and give all their attention to what they are about.

Cleo. It is; and I really believe that not only were the early pioneers who first attempted either art, good manners, or sailing unaware of the true reason behind them—the real foundation those arts are based on in nature—but also that even now, as both arts have reached a high level of perfection, most of the experts who continuously improve them understand just as little about their underlying principles as their predecessors did initially. However, I do believe that Monsieur Reneau’s reasoning is very valid, and yours is just as good as his; that is, I think there is as much truth and solidity in your explanation of the origins of good manners as there is in his for managing ships. Generally, the people who create arts and make advancements in them are not the same as those who seek to understand the reasons behind things. The latter group is usually composed of idle and lazy individuals who enjoy solitude, dislike work, and find pleasure in contemplation; meanwhile, those who often succeed in the former group are active, energetic, and hardworking people who are willing to put in the effort, conduct experiments, and focus all their attention on what they are doing.

Hor. It is commonly imagined, that speculative men are best at invention of all sorts.

Hor. People often think that those who spend a lot of time thinking are the best at coming up with new ideas of all kinds.

Cleo. Yet it is a mistake. Soap-boiling, grain-drying, and other trades and mysteries, are, from mean beginnings, brought to great perfection; but the many improvements that can be remembered to have been made in them, have, for the generality, been owing to persons, who either were brought up to, or had long practised, and been conversant in those trades, and not to great proficients in chemistry, or other parts of philosophy, whom one would naturally expect those things from. In some of these arts, especially grain or scarlet-dying, there are processes really astonishing; and, by the mixture of various ingredients, by fire and fermentation, several operations are performed, which the most sagacious naturalist cannot account for by any system yet known; a certain sign that they were not invented by reasoning à priori. When once the generality begin to conceal the high value they have for themselves, men must become more tolerable to one another. Now, new improvements must be made every day, until some of them grow impudent enough, not only to deny the high value they have for themselves, but likewise to pretend that they have greater [364]value for others, than they have for themselves. This will bring in complaisance; and now flattery will rush in upon them like a torrent. As soon as they are arrived at this pitch of insincerity, they will find the benefit of it, and teach it their children. The passion of shame is so general, and so early discovered in all human creatures, that no nation can be so stupid, as to be long without observing and making use of it accordingly. The same may be said of the credulity of infants, which is very inviting to many good purposes. The knowledge of parents is communicated to their offspring, and every one’s experience in life being added to what he learned in his youth, every generation after this must be better taught than the preceding; by which means, in two or three centuries, good manners must be brought to great perfection.

Cleo. But it’s a mistake. Soap-making, grain-drying, and other trades and crafts have, from humble beginnings, reached great perfection; however, many of the improvements that we can recall have generally come from people who were either trained in or had long experience in those trades, rather than from experts in chemistry or other areas of science, from whom you’d naturally expect such advancements. In some of these fields, especially grain or scarlet-dyeing, there are truly astonishing processes; by mixing various ingredients and using fire and fermentation, several operations are carried out that even the most insightful naturalist can't explain using any known system; this is a clear indication that they weren’t invented through reasoning à priori. Once the general public starts to hide the high regard they have for themselves, people will become more agreeable with one another. Now, new improvements must be made every day, until some people become bold enough not only to deny the high value they have for themselves but also to claim that they have a greater [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] value for others than for themselves. This will lead to civility; and soon flattery will pour in on them like a flood. Once they reach this level of insincerity, they will see its benefits and teach it to their children. The feeling of shame is so common and can be recognized so early in all humans that no nation can be so ignorant as to go long without noticing and using it accordingly. The same can be said for the gullibility of infants, which is very inviting for many good purposes. The knowledge of parents is passed down to their children, and everyone’s life experiences, added to what they learned in their youth, means that each generation must be better educated than the last; as a result, in two or three centuries, good manners will surely reach a high level of perfection.

Hor. When they are thus far advanced, it is easy to conceive the rest: For improvements, I suppose, are made in good manners, as they are in all other arts and sciences. But to commence from savages, men, I believe, would make but a small progress in good manners the first three hundred years. The Romans, who had a much better beginning, had been a nation above six centuries, and were almost masters of the world, before they could be said to be a polite people. What I am most astonished at, and which I am now convinced of, is, that the basis of all this machinery is pride. Another thing I wonder at, is, that you chose to speak of a nation that entered upon good manners before they had any notions of virtue or religion, which, I believe, there never was in the world.

Hor. Once they reach this point, it's easy to imagine how the rest unfolds: I think improvements in good manners develop just like in any other skill or knowledge area. But starting from a savage state, I believe it would take men a few hundred years to make any significant headway in good manners. The Romans, who had a better starting point, had been a nation for over six centuries and were nearly the rulers of the world before they could truly be considered a polite society. What amazes me most, and what I now understand, is that the foundation of all this is pride. Another thing that surprises me is that you chose to discuss a nation that adopted good manners before they had any understanding of virtue or religion, which I believe has never existed in the world.

Cleo. Pardon me, Horatio; I have nowhere insinuated that they had none, but I had no reason to mention them. In the first place, you asked my opinion concerning the use of politeness in this world, abstract from the considerations of a future state: Secondly, the art of good manners has nothing to do with virtue or religion, though it seldom clashes with either. It is a science that is ever built on the same steady principle in our nature, whatever the age or the climate may be in which it is practised.

Cleo. Excuse me, Horatio; I never suggested that they didn’t have any, but I didn’t see a reason to bring them up. First of all, you asked me about the role of politeness in this world, separate from the ideas of an afterlife: Secondly, good manners aren’t related to virtue or religion, although they usually don’t conflict with either. It’s a discipline that’s always based on the same steady principles of our nature, no matter what era or environment it's practiced in.

Hor. How can any thing be said not to clash with virtue or religion, that has nothing to do with either, and consequently disclaims both?

Hor. How can anything be said to conflict with virtue or religion when it has nothing to do with either and therefore disclaims both?

Cleo. This, I confess, seems to be a paradox; yet it is true. The doctrine of good manners teaches men to speak well of [365]all virtues, but requires no more of them in any age or country, than the outward appearance of those in fashion. And as to sacred matters, it is every where satisfied with seeming conformity in outward worship; for all the religions in the universe are equally agreeable to good manners, where they are national; and pray what opinion must we say a teacher to be of, to whom all opinions are probably alike? All the precepts of good manners throughout the world have the same tendency, and are no more than the various methods of making ourselves acceptable to others, with as little prejudice to ourselves as is possible: by which artifice we assist one another in the enjoyments of life, and refining upon pleasure; and every individual person is rendered more happy by it in the fruition of all the good things he can purchase, than he could have been without such behaviour. I mean happy, in the sense of the voluptuous. Let us look back on old Greece, the Roman empire, or the great eastern nations that flourished before them, and we shall find, that luxury and politeness ever grew up together, and were never enjoyed asunder; that comfort and delight upon earth have always employed the wishes of the beau monde; and that, as their chief study and greatest solicitude, to outward appearance, have ever been directed to obtain happiness in this world, so what would become of them in the next, seems, to the naked eye, always to have been the least of their concern.

Cleo. This seems like a contradiction, but it’s true. The idea behind good manners teaches people to speak positively about [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]all virtues, yet it doesn’t demand anything more from them in any era or place than the outward display of what's currently fashionable. When it comes to sacred matters, it is generally satisfied with merely appearing to conform in public worship; all the religions in the world are equally acceptable to good manners as long as they're recognized as national. So, what kind of opinion must we say a teacher holds if all opinions seem equally valid to them? The principles of good manners worldwide have the same goal—they are simply different ways of making ourselves appealing to others, while minimizing any disadvantages to ourselves. Through this approach, we help each other enjoy life and enhance pleasure; every individual benefits more from this, being happier in enjoying all the good things they can acquire, than they would be without such behavior. I mean happy in a hedonistic sense. If we look back at ancient Greece, the Roman Empire, or the great Eastern nations that thrived before them, we see that luxury and politeness always grew together and never apart; comfort and pleasure on earth have always been the main focus of the beau monde; and their primary pursuit and biggest concern have consistently been to achieve happiness in this life, with little regard for what might happen to them in the next.

Hor. I thank you for your lecture: you have satisfied me in several things, which I had intended to ask: But you have said some others, that I must have time to consider; after which I am resolved to wait upon you again; for I begin to believe, that, concerning the knowledge of ourselves, most books are either very defective or very deceitful.

Hor. Thank you for your lecture; you've answered several questions I had in mind. However, you mentioned some things that I need time to think about. After that, I'm planning to come back and talk to you again because I'm starting to believe that when it comes to understanding ourselves, most books are either really lacking or pretty misleading.

Cleo. There is not a more copious, nor a more faithful volume than human nature, to those who will diligently peruse it; and I sincerely believe, that I have discovered nothing to you, which, if you had thought of it with attention, you would not have found out yourself. But I shall never be better pleased with myself, than when I can contribute to any entertainment you shall think diverting. [366]

Cleo. There's no richer, more reliable source than human nature, for those who take the time to really examine it; and I truly believe that I haven't shared anything with you that you couldn't have figured out on your own if you had really considered it. But I'll always be happiest with myself when I can help make your experience more enjoyable. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE FOURTH
DIALOGUE
BETWEEN
HORATIO AND CLEOMENES.

CLEOMENES.

CLEOMENES.

Your servant.

Your servant.

Hor. What say you now, Cleomenes; is it not this without ceremony?

Hor. What do you think now, Cleomenes; isn’t this straightforward?

Cleo. You are very obliging.

Cleo. You're really accommodating.

Hor. When they told me where you was, I would suffer nobody to tell you who it was that wanted you, or to come up with me.

Hor. When they told me where you were, I didn't let anyone tell you who wanted to see you or come up with me.

Cleo. This is friendly, indeed!

Cleo. This is really friendly!

Hor. You see what a proficient I am: In a little time you will teach me to lay aside all good manners.

Hor. You see how skilled I am: Soon you'll teach me to forget all my good manners.

Cleo. You make a fine tutor of me.

Cleo. You’re a great teacher for me.

Hor. You will pardon me, I know: this study of yours is a very pretty place.

Hor. You’ll excuse me, I know: this study of yours is a really nice space.

Cleo. I like it, because the sun never enters it.

Cleo. I like it because the sun never shines in there.

Hor. A very pretty room!

A really nice room!

Cleo. Shall we sit down in it? It is the coolest room in the house.

Cleo. Should we sit in there? It's the coolest room in the house.

Hor. With all my heart.

With all my heart.

Cleo. I was in hopes to have seen you before now: you have taken a long time to consider.

Cleo. I was hoping to see you sooner; it took you a long time to think it over.

Hor. Just eight days?

Just eight days?

Cleo. Have you thought on the novelty I started?

Cleo. Have you thought about the new project I started?

Hor. I have, and think it not void of probability; for that there are no innate ideas, and men come into the world without any knowledge at all, I am convinced of, and therefore it is evident to me, that all arts and sciences must once have had a beginning in somebody’s brain, whatever oblivion [367]that may now be lost in. I have thought twenty times since I saw you last, on the origin of good manners, and what a pleasant scene it would be to a man who is tolerably well versed in the world, to see among a rude nation those first essays they made of concealing their pride from one another.

Hor. I believe this and think it's quite likely; since there are no inherent ideas, and people enter the world without any knowledge, I’m convinced of this, and so it’s clear to me that all arts and sciences must have started in someone's mind, no matter how much has been forgotten [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]. I've pondered many times since I last saw you about the origins of good manners, and how interesting it would be for someone who understands the world reasonably well to witness the initial attempts a rough nation made at hiding their pride from each other.

Cleo. You see by this, that it is chiefly the novelty of things that strikes, as well in begetting our aversion, as in gaining our approbation; and that we may look upon many indifferently, when they come to be familiar to us, though they were shocking when they were new. You are now diverting yourself with a truth, which eight days ago you would have given an hundred guineas not to have known.

Cleo. You see from this that it’s mainly the novelty of things that catches our attention, both in creating our dislike and in earning our approval; and that we can regard many things without strong feeling when they become familiar to us, even if they were shocking when they first appeared. Right now, you’re entertaining yourself with a truth that just eight days ago, you would have paid a hundred guineas to be unaware of.

Hor. I begin to believe there is nothing so absurd, that it would appear to us to be such, is we had been accustomed to it very young.

Hor. I'm starting to think there's nothing so ridiculous that it wouldn't seem normal to us if we got used to it from a young age.

Cleo. In a tolerable education, we are so industriously and so assiduously instructed, from our most early infancy, in the ceremonies of bowing, and pulling off hats, and other rules of behaviour, that even before we are men we hardly look upon a mannerly deportment as a thing acquired, or think conversation to be a science. Thousand things are called easy and natural in postures and motions, as well as speaking and writing, that have caused infinite pains to others as well as ourselves, and which we know to be the product of art. What awkward lumps have I known, which the dancing-master has put limbs to!

Cleo. In a decent education, we are taught from a very young age about the proper ways to bow, remove our hats, and follow other social rules so diligently that by the time we become adults, we hardly see good manners as something we've learned or think of conversation as a skill. Many things are considered easy and natural in how we position our bodies and move, as well as in speaking and writing, that actually take a lot of effort for others as well as ourselves, and we understand that they come from practice. I've seen plenty of clumsy people that the dance instructor has helped to move gracefully!

Hor. Yesterday morning as I sat musing by myself, an expression of yours which I did not so much reflect upon at first, when I heard it, came into my head, and made me smile. Speaking of the rudiments of good manners in an infant nation, when they once entered upon concealing their pride, you said, that improvements would be made every day, “till some of them grew impudent enough, not only to deny the high value they had for themselves, but likewise to pretend that they had greater value for others than they had for themselves.”

Hor. Yesterday morning, as I was lost in thought by myself, a comment of yours that I didn't fully consider at first popped into my mind and made me smile. When talking about the basics of good manners in a young nation, once they started to hide their pride, you said that changes would happen every day "until some of them became bold enough not only to deny the high regard they had for themselves but also to pretend that they valued others more than they valued themselves."

Cleo. It is certain, that this every where must have been the forerunner of flattery.

Cleo. It’s clear that this must have always been a precursor to flattery.

Hor. When you talk of flattery and impudence, what do you think of the first man that had the face to tell his equal, that he was his humble servant? [368]

Hor. When you talk about flattery and boldness, who comes to mind as the first person to have the guts to tell someone on their level that he was their humble servant? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. If that had been a new compliment, I should have wondered much more at the simplicity of the proud man that swallowed, than I would have done at the impudence of the knave that made it.

Cleo. If that had been a new compliment, I would have been much more surprised by the foolishness of the proud man who accepted it than I would have been by the boldness of the trickster who said it.

Hor. It certainly once was new: which pray do you believe more ancient, pulling off the hat, or saying, your humble servant?

Hor. It definitely used to be new: which do you think is older, taking off your hat, or saying, "your humble servant"?

Cleo. They are both of them Gothic and modern.

Cleo. They are both Gothic and modern.

Hor. I believe pulling off the hat was first, it being the emblem of liberty.

Hor. I think taking off the hat was the first thing, since it's a symbol of freedom.

Cleo. I do not think so: for he who pulled of his hat the first time, could not have been understood, if saying your servant had not been practised: and to show respect, a man as well might have pulled off one of his shoes, as his hat; if saying, your servant, had not been an established and well-known compliment.

Cleo. I don't think so: the guy who took off his hat the first time wouldn't have been understood if he hadn't been familiar with saying "your servant." To show respect, a man might as well have taken off one of his shoes as his hat, if saying "your servant" hadn't been a common and recognized compliment.

Hor. So he might, as you say, and had a better authority for the first, than he could have for the latter.

Hor. So he could, as you mentioned, and he had a stronger reason for the first than he could have for the second.

Cleo. And to this day, taking of the hat is a dumb show of a known civility in words: Mind now the power of custom, and imbibed notions. We both laugh at this Gothic absurdity, and are well assured, that it must have had its origin from the basest flattery; yet neither of us, walking with our hats on, could meet an acquaintance with whom we are not very familiar, without showing this piece of civility; nay, it it would be a pain to us not to do it. But we have no reason to think, that the compliment of saying, your servant, began among equals; but rather that, flatterers having given it to princes, it grew afterwards more common: for all those postures and flexions of body and limbs, had in all probability their rise from the adulation that was paid to conquerors and tyrants; who, having every body to fear, were always alarmed at the least shadow of opposition, and never better pleased than with submissive and defenceless postures: and you see, that they have all a tendency that way; they promise security, and are silent endeavours to ease and rid them, not only of their fears, but likewise every suspicion of harm approaching them: such as lying prostrate on our faces, touching the ground with our heads, kneeling, bowing low, laying our hands upon our breasts, or holding them behind us, folding our arms together, and all the cringes that can be made to demonstrate that we neither indulge our ease, nor stand upon our guard. These are evident signs and convincing [369]proofs to a superior, that we have a mean opinion of ourselves in respect to him, that we are at his mercy, and have no thought to resist, much less to attack him; and therefore it is highly probable, that saying, your servant, and pulling off the hat, were at first demonstrations of obedience to those that claimed it.

Cleo. And even today, taking off your hat is just a silly show of politeness: Consider the power of custom and ingrained ideas. We both laugh at this outdated absurdity, and we know it probably started from the worst kind of flattery; yet neither of us, wearing our hats, could greet someone we’re not very close to without showing this polite gesture; in fact, it would be uncomfortable for us not to do so. But we have no reason to believe that the greeting of saying “your servant” began among equals; rather, it seems that flatterers first used it with princes, and later it became more common. All those gestures and movements likely originated from the flattery given to conquerors and tyrants, who had everyone fearing them and were always on edge at even a hint of opposition. They were only pleased with submissive and defenseless postures: and as you see, they all lean that way; they promise safety and are silent attempts to relieve them, not just from their fears but from any suspicion of danger coming their way. These include lying flat on our faces, touching the ground with our heads, kneeling, bowing low, placing our hands on our chests, or holding them behind us, crossing our arms, and all the gestures that show we are not seeking comfort or standing guard. These are clear signs and convincing [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]proofs to someone superior that we have a low opinion of ourselves in relation to him, that we are at his mercy and have no intent to resist, much less to confront him; therefore, it’s very likely that saying “your servant” and taking off the hat were originally signs of obedience to those who demanded it.

Hor. Which in tract of time became more familiar, and were made use of reciprocally in the way of civility.

Hor. Which over time became more familiar and were used mutually as a way of showing civility.

Cleo. I believe so; for as good manners increase, we see, that the highest compliments are made common, and new ones to superiors invented instead of them.

Cleo. I think so; because as good manners become more common, we notice that the highest compliments are used more often, and new ones are created for those in higher positions instead.

Hor. So the word grace, which not long ago was a title, that none but our kings and queens were honoured with, is devolved upon archbishops and dukes.

Hor. So the word grace, which not long ago was a title that only our kings and queens were honored with, has now been passed on to archbishops and dukes.

Cleo. It was the same with highness, which is now given to the children, and even the grandchildren of kings.

Cleo. It was the same with highness, which is now given to the children and even the grandchildren of kings.

Hor. The dignity that is annexed to the signification of the word lord, has been better preserved with us, than in most countries: in Spanish, Italian, high and low Dutch, it is prostituted to almost every body.

Hor. The respect associated with the term "lord" has been better maintained here than in most countries: in Spanish, Italian, and both high and low Dutch, it's used by almost everyone.

Cleo. It has had better fate in France; where likewise the word sire has lost nothing of its majesty, and is only used to the monarch: whereas, with us, it is a compliment of address, that may be made to a cobbler, as well as to a king.

Cleo. It has fared better in France; where the term sire still holds its grandeur and is reserved only for the monarch: whereas, here, it’s a term of respect that can be directed at a shoe repairer just as much as to a king.

Hor. Whatever alterations may be made in the sense of words, by time; yet, as the world grows more polished, flattery becomes less barefaced, and the design of it upon man’s pride is better disguised than it was formerly. To praise a man to his face, was very common among the ancients: considering humility to be a virtue particularly required of Christians, I have often wondered how the fathers of the church could suffer those acclamations and applauses, that were made to them whilst they were preaching; and which, though some of them spoke against them, many of them appear to have been extremely fond of.

Hor. No matter how the meanings of words change over time, as society becomes more refined, flattery becomes less obvious, and its true intent regarding a person's pride is better hidden than it used to be. Complimenting someone directly was quite common among the ancients. Since humility is seen as a key virtue for Christians, I've often wondered how the church fathers tolerated the cheers and praises directed at them while they were preaching; and although some of them spoke out against it, many seemed to enjoy it a lot.

Cleo. Human nature is always the same; where men exert themselves to the utmost, and take uncommon pains, that spend and waste the spirits, those applauses are very reviving the fathers who spoke against them, spoke chiefly against the abuse of them.

Cleo. Human nature is always the same; when people push themselves to their limits and put in a lot of effort, which drains their energy, the praise they receive is really uplifting. The critics, who spoke out against them, mainly opposed the misuse of that praise.

Hor. It must have been very odd to hear people bawling out, as often the greatest part of an audience did, Sophos, divinitus, non potest melius, mirabiliter, acriter, ingeniose: they [370]told the preachers likewise that they were orthodox, and sometimes called them, apostolus decimus tertius.

Hor. It must have been really strange to hear people shouting out, as many in the audience often did, Sophos, divinitus, non potest melius, mirabiliter, acriter, ingeniose: they [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]also told the preachers that they were orthodox and sometimes referred to them as apostolus decimus tertius.

Cleo. These words at the end of a period might have passed, but the repetitions of them were often so loud and so general, and the noise they made with their hands and feet, so disturbing in and out of season, that they could not hear a quarter of the the sermon; yet several fathers owned that it was highly delightful, and soothing human frailty.

Cleo. These words at the end of a period might have faded away, but their repetition was often so loud and widespread, and the noise they made with their hands and feet was so disruptive at all times, that they could hardly hear a quarter of the sermon; still, several fathers admitted that it was very enjoyable and comforting for human weaknesses.

Hor. The behaviour at churches is more decent, as it is now.

Hor. The behavior at churches is more respectful, just like it is today.

Cleo. Since paganism has been quite extinct in the old western world, the zeal of Christians is much diminished from what it was, when they had many opposers: the want of fervency had a great hand in abolishing that fashion.

Cleo. Since paganism has largely disappeared in the ancient western world, the enthusiasm of Christians has significantly decreased from what it used to be when they faced many opponents: the lack of passion played a big role in ending that practice.

Hor. But whether it was the fashion or not, it must always have been shocking.

Hor. But whether it was trendy or not, it must have always been shocking.

Cleo. Do you think, that the repeated acclamations, the clapping, stamping, and the most extravagant tokens of applause, that are now used at our several theatres, were ever shocking to a favourite actor; or that the huzzas of the mob, or the hideous shouts of soldiers, were ever shocking to persons of the highest distinction, to whose honour they were made?

Cleo. Do you think that the constant cheering, clapping, stomping, and over-the-top displays of applause we see at our theaters today ever troubled a favorite actor? Or that the cheers of the crowd, or the loud shouts of soldiers, ever disturbed people of the highest status, to whom those cheers were directed?

Hor. I have known princes that were very much tired with them.

Hor. I’ve known princes who were really fed up with them.

Cleo. When they had too much of them; but never at first. In working a machine, we ought to have regard to the strength of its frame: limited creatures are not susceptible of infinite delight; therefore we see, that a pleasure protracted beyond its due bounds becomes a pain: but where the custom of the country is not broken in upon, no noise, that is palpably made in our praise, and which we may hear with decency, can ever be ungrateful, if it do not outlast a reasonable time; but there is no cordial so sovereign, that it may not become offensive, by being taken to excess.

Cleo. When they had too much of them; but never at first. When operating a machine, we need to consider the strength of its frame: limited beings can’t experience infinite joy; that’s why we notice that pleasure, when extended beyond its appropriate limits, turns into pain. However, as long as we respect the customs of the region, any praise that is clearly made in our honor and that we can hear appropriately will never feel unwelcome, as long as it doesn’t last too long. But there’s no remedy so powerful that it can’t become unpleasant if taken in excess.

Hor. And the sweeter and more delicious liquors are, the sooner they become fulsome, and the less fit they are to sit by.

Hor. The sweeter and more enjoyable drinks are, the quicker they become overwhelming, and the less suitable they are to be around.

Cleo. Your simile is not amiss; and the same acclamations that are ravishing to a man at first, and perhaps continue to give him an unspeakable delight for eight or nine minutes, may become more moderately pleasing, indifferent, cloying, troublesome, and even so offensive as to create pain, all in [371]less than three hours, if they were to continue so long without intermission.

Cleo. Your comparison isn't wrong; the same praises that are captivating to someone at first, and might even give them intense joy for eight or nine minutes, can become less enjoyable, boring, overwhelming, annoying, and even so unpleasant that they cause discomfort, all in [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]less than three hours, if they went on without a break.

Hor. There must be great witchcraft in sounds, that they should have such different effects upon us, as we often see they have.

Hor. There must be some serious magic in sounds since they can have such different effects on us, as we often see they do.

Cleo. The pleasure we receive from acclamations, is not in the hearing; but proceeds from the opinion we form of the cause that produces those sounds, the approbation of others. At the theatres all over Italy you have heard, that, when the whole audience demands silence and attention, which there is an established mark of benevolence and applause, the noise they make comes very near, and is hardly to be distinguished from our hissing, which with us is the plainest token of dislike and contempt: and without doubt the cat-calls to affront Faustina were far more agreeable to Cozzoni, than the most artful sounds she ever heard from her triumphant rival.

Cleo. The joy we get from applause isn't just from the sound; it comes from the opinion we form about what causes that noise—the approval of others. In theaters all across Italy, you've heard that when the entire audience calls for silence and attention, which is a clear sign of support and praise, the noise they make is very similar and hard to tell apart from our hissing, which is our most obvious sign of dislike and contempt. Without a doubt, the cat-calls aimed at Faustina were much more enjoyable to Cozzoni than any of the clever sounds she ever heard from her successful rival.

Hor. That was abominable!

That was awful!

Cleo. The Turks show their respects to their sovereigns by a profound silence, which is strictly kept throughout the seraglio, and still more religiously observed the nearer you come to the Sultan’s apartment.

Cleo. The Turks show their respect for their rulers with a deep silence that is strictly maintained throughout the palace, and it's even more rigorously followed the closer you get to the Sultan’s quarters.

Hor. This latter is certainly the politer way of gratifying one’s pride.

Hor. This approach is definitely the more polite way to boost one's pride.

Cleo. All that depends upon mode and custom.

Cleo. Everything depends on the way things are done and the norms we follow.

Hor. But the offerings that are made to a man’s pride in silence, may be enjoyed without the loss of his hearing, which the other cannot.

Hor. But the gifts offered to a person's pride in silence can be appreciated without losing their hearing, unlike the other.

Cleo. That is a trifle, in the gratification of that passion: we never enjoy higher pleasure, from the appetite we would indulge, than when we feel nothing from any other.

Cleo. That’s a small thing in satisfying that desire: we never experience greater pleasure from the desire we want to fulfill than when we feel nothing from anything else.

Hor. But silence expresses greater homage, and deeper veneration, than noise.

Hor. But silence shows more respect and deeper reverence than noise.

Cleo. It is good to sooth the pride of a drone; but an active man loves to have that passion roused, and as it were kept awake, whilst it is gratified; and approbation from noise is more unquestionable than the other: however, I will not determine between them; much may be said on both sides. The Greeks and Romans used sounds, to stir up men to noble actions, with great success; and the silence observed among the Ottomans has kept them very well in the slavish submission which their sovereigns require of them: perhaps the one does better where absolute power is lodged in one person, and the other where there is some show of liberty. [372]Both are proper tools to flatter the pride of man, when they are understood and made use of as such. I have known a very brave man used to the shouts of war, and highly delighted with loud applause, be very angry with his butler, for making a little rattling with his plates.

Cleo. It's nice to soothe the ego of a lazy person, but an active person loves to have that passion stirred up, almost kept alive, while getting satisfaction; and approval through noise is often more certain than the quiet kind. Still, I won’t take sides; there’s a lot to be said for both. The Greeks and Romans used sounds to inspire people to noble deeds with great success, while the silence practiced by the Ottomans has kept them in the submissive control that their rulers demand. Maybe one approach works better where absolute power is held by one person, and the other where there's some appearance of freedom. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Both methods are effective tools to flatter human pride when they’re understood and used appropriately. I’ve seen a very brave man, used to the cheers of battle and thrilled by loud applause, become really upset with his butler for making a little noise with his plates.

Hor. An old aunt of mine the other day turned away a very clever fellow, for not walking upon his toes; and I must own myself, that the stamping of footmen, and all unmannerly loudness of servants, are very offensive to me; though I never entered into the reason of it before now. In our last conversation, when you described the symptoms of self-liking, and what the behaviour would be of an uncivilized man, you named laughing: I know it is one of the characteristics of our species; pray do you take that to be likewise the result of pride?

Hor. The other day, my elderly aunt dismissed a really clever guy just because he wasn't walking on his toes. I have to admit, the noise from footmen and all the rude loudness from servants really annoys me, even though I never thought about why until now. In our last chat, when you talked about the signs of self-importance and how an uncivilized person would act, you mentioned laughter. I understand that it's a trait of our species; do you think that it's also a sign of pride?

Cleo. Hobbes is of that opinion, and in most instances it might be derived from thence; but there are some phenomena not to be explained by that hypothesis; therefore I would choose to say, that laughter is a mechanical motion, which we are naturally thrown into when we are unaccountably pleased. When our pride is feelingly gratified; when we hear or see any thing which we admire or approve of; or when we are indulging any other passion or appetite, and the reason why we are pleased seems to be just and worthy, we are then far from laughing: but when things or actions are odd and out of the way, and happen to please us when we can give no just reason why they should do so, it is then, generally speaking, that they make us laugh.

Cleo. Hobbes believes this, and it might make sense in most cases; however, there are some things that this idea doesn’t explain. So, I would say that laughter is a physical reaction we naturally have when we feel inexplicably happy. When our pride is genuinely satisfied; when we encounter something we admire or like; or when we are indulging in another passion or desire, and the reason for our pleasure seems fair and valid, we don’t usually laugh. Instead, we tend to laugh when we encounter unusual things or actions that please us, even when we can’t quite figure out why they do.

Hor. I would rather side with what you said was Hobbes’s opinion: for the things we commonly laugh at are such as are some way or other mortifying, unbecoming, or prejudicial to others.

Hor. I’d prefer to agree with what you mentioned is Hobbes’s view: the things we usually laugh at are, in some way, humiliating, inappropriate, or harmful to others.

Cleo. But what will you say to tickling, which will make an infant laugh that is deaf and blind?

Cleo. But what will you say about tickling, which can make a deaf and blind baby laugh?

Hor. Can you account for that by your system?

Hor. Can you explain that using your system?

Cleo. Not to my satisfaction; but I will tell you what might be said for it. We know by experience, that the smoother, the softer, and the more sensible the skin is, the more ticklish persons are, generally speaking: we know likewise, that things rough, sharp, and hard, when they touch the skin, are displeasing to us, even before they give pain and that, on the contrary, every thing applied to the skin that is soft and smooth, and not otherwise offensive, is delightful. [373]It is possible that gentle touches being impressed on several nervous filaments at once, every one of them producing a pleasing sensation, may create that confused pleasure which is the occasion of laughter.

Cleo. Not to my satisfaction; but I can share what might be argued for it. Experience shows us that the smoother, softer, and more sensitive the skin is, the more ticklish people tend to be, generally speaking. We also know that things that are rough, sharp, or hard are unpleasant to us when they touch the skin, even before they cause pain, and conversely, anything that is soft and smooth and not otherwise irritating feels delightful. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] It's possible that gentle touches stimulating several nerve endings at once, each producing a pleasant sensation, could lead to that mixed feeling of pleasure that causes laughter.

Hor. But how came you to think of mechanic motion, in the pleasure of a free agent?

Hor. But how did you come to think about mechanical motion in the enjoyment of a free person?

Cleo. Whatever free agency we may pretend to in the forming of ideas, the effect of them upon the body is independent of the will. Nothing is more directly opposite to laughing than frowning: the one draws wrinkles on the fore-head, knits the brows, and keeps the mouth shut: the other does quite the reverse; exporrigere frontem, you know, is a Latin phrase for being merry. In sighing, the muscles of the belly and breast are pulled inward, and the diaphragm is pulled upward more than ordinary; and we seem to endeavour, though in vain, to squeeze and compress the heart, whilst we draw in our breath in a forcible manner; and when, in that squeezing posture, we have taken in as much air as we can contain, we throw it out with the same violence we sucked it in with, and at the same time give a sudden relaxation to all the muscles we employed before. Nature certainly designed this for something in the labour for self-preservation which she forces upon us. How mechanically do all creatures that can make any sound, cry out, and complain in great afflictions, as well as pain and imminent danger! In great torments, the efforts of nature are so violent that way, that, to disappoint her, and prevent the discovery of what we feel by sounds, and which she bids us make, we are forced to draw our mouth into a purse, or else suck in our breath, bite our lips, or squeeze them close together, and use the most effectual means to hinder the air from coming out. In grief we sigh, in mirth we laugh: in the latter little stress is laid upon the respiration, and this is performed with less regularity than it is at any other time; all the muscles without, and every thing within feel loose, and seem to have no other motion than what is communicated to them by the convulsive shakes of laughter.

Cleo. No matter how much freedom we think we have in forming ideas, their effects on our bodies are beyond our control. Nothing contrasts more with laughter than frowning: one creates wrinkles on the forehead, furrows the brows, and keeps the mouth shut; the other does the opposite. The Latin phrase exporrigere frontem means to be cheerful. When we sigh, the muscles in our belly and chest tighten inward, and the diaphragm rises more than usual; we seem to try, though unsuccessfully, to compress our heart, while we forcibly inhale. Then, in that squeezed position, after taking in as much air as we can, we exhale it with the same force we inhaled it, simultaneously relaxing all the muscles we just used. Nature clearly designed this as a part of the struggle for self-preservation that she enforces upon us. Creatures that can make sounds instinctively cry out and express their pain and fear in distressing situations! In extreme suffering, nature's responses are so intense that to hold back the sounds she urges us to make, we have to purse our lips, suck in our breath, bite our lips, or tightly close them, using all possible methods to prevent air from escaping. In sadness, we sigh; in happiness, we laugh: during laughter, there's little focus on breathing, which becomes less regular than at any other time; all the muscles outside, and everything inside, feel relaxed, moving only with the convulsive shakes of laughter.

Hor. I have seen people laugh till they lost all their strength.

Hor. I’ve seen people laugh so hard that they completely lost their strength.

Cleo. How much is all this the reverse of what we observe in sighing! When pain or depth of woe make us cry out, the mouth is drawn round, or at least into an oval; the lips are thrusted forward without touching each other, and the [374]tongue is pulled in, which is the reason that all nations, when they exclaim, cry, Oh!

Cleo. It's interesting how this is the complete opposite of what we see when we sigh! When we experience pain or deep sorrow, our mouth often shapes itself in a rounded or oval form; our lips push forward without actually making contact with each other, and the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]tongue retracts, which is why, in every culture, when people exclaim, they cry out, "Oh!"

Hor. Why pray!

Why bother!

Cleo. Because whilst the mouth, lips, and tongue, remain in those postures, they can sound no other vowel, and no consonant at all. In laughing, the lips are pulled back, and strained to draw the mouth in its fullest length.

Cleo. Because while the mouth, lips, and tongue are in those positions, they can only produce that one vowel and not any consonants. When laughing, the lips are pulled back and stretched to make the mouth as wide as possible.

Hor. I would not have you lay a great stress upon that, for it is the same in weeping, which is an undoubted sign of sorrow.

Hor. I wouldn't want you to put too much emphasis on that, because it's the same with crying, which is a clear sign of sadness.

Cleo. In great afflictions, where the heart is oppressed, and anxieties which we endeavour to resist, few people can weep; but when they do, it removes the oppression, and sensibly relieves them: for then their resistance is gone; and weeping in distress is not so much a sign of sorrow as it is an indication that we can bear our sorrow no longer; and therefore it is counted unmanly to weep, because it seems to give up our strength, and is a kind of yielding to our grief. But the action of weeping itself is not more peculiar to grief than it is to joy in adult people; and there are men who show great fortitude in afflictions, and bear the greatest misfortunes with dry eyes, that will cry heartily at a moving scene in a play. Some are easily wrought upon by one thing, others are sooner affected with another; but whatever touches us so forcibly, as to overwhelm the mind, prompts us to weep, and is the mechanical cause of tears; and therefore, besides grief, joy, and pity, there are other things no way relating to ourselves, that may have this effect upon us; such as the relations of surprising events and sudden turns of Providence in behalf of merit; instances of heroism, of generosity; in love, in friendship in an enemy; or the hearing or reading of noble thoughts and sentiments of humanity; more especially if these things are conveyed to us suddenly, in an agreeable manner, and unlooked for, as well as lively expressions. We shall observe, likewise, that none are more subject to this frailty of shedding tears on such foreign accounts, than persons of ingenuity and quick apprehension; and those among them that are most benevolent, generous, and open-hearted; whereas, the dull and stupid, the cruel, selfish, and designing, are very seldom troubled with it. Weeping, therefore, in earnest, is always a sure and involuntary demonstration that something strikes and overcomes the mind, whatever that be which affects it. We find likewise, that outward violence, [375]as sharp winds and smoke, the effluvia of onions, and other volatile salts, &c. have the same effect upon the external fibres of the lachrymal ducts and glands that are exposed, which the sudden swelling and pressure of the spirits has upon those within. The Divine Wisdom is in nothing more conspicuous than in the infinite variety of living creatures of different construction; every part of them being contrived with stupendous skill, and fitted with the utmost accuracy for the different purposes they were designed for. The human body, above all, is a most astonishing master piece of art: the anatomist may have a perfect knowledge of all the bones and their ligaments, the muscles and their tendons, and be able to dissect every nerve and every membrane with great exactness; the naturalist, likewise, may dive a great way into the inward economy, and different symptoms of health and sickness: they may all approve of, and admire the curious machine; but no man can have a tolerable idea of the contrivance, the art, and the beauty of the workmanship itself, even in those things he can see, without being likewise versed in geometry and mechanics.

Cleo. In times of great distress, when the heart feels heavy and anxiety tries to take over, not many can cry; but when they do, it lifts the burden and brings noticeable relief: it means their resistance has faded. Crying in sorrow is less a sign of sadness and more a signal that we can’t handle our grief anymore; that’s why people often see crying as weak, as if it shows we are surrendering to our pain. However, crying isn’t exclusively tied to sorrow; adults can also cry from joy. There are men who show incredible strength in tough times, enduring the worst hardships without shedding a tear, yet can be moved to tears by a powerful scene in a play. Some respond easily to certain triggers, while others are affected by different things; whatever strikes us strongly enough to overwhelm our minds leads us to weep, which is the physical cause of tears. Besides sadness, joy, and empathy, other unrelated aspects can also make us cry, like stories of surprising events and unexpected turns of fate that celebrate merit; acts of heroism or generosity in love, friendship, or even rivalry; or when we hear or read noble thoughts that reflect our humanity—especially when these are delivered suddenly, pleasantly, and unexpectedly. We also notice that those who are clever and perceptive are more prone to cry over these external matters, particularly those who are kind, generous, and open-hearted, while the dull, cruel, selfish, and scheming types rarely feel this impulse. Thus, earnest weeping is a clear and involuntary sign that something has deeply affected the mind, regardless of what it is. We also find that external irritations, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]like sharp winds and smoke, the smell of onions, and other volatile substances, cause the same reaction in the outer fibers of the tear ducts and glands as the sudden pressure of emotions does in their deeper parts. The Divine Wisdom is most evident in the vast variety of living creatures, each uniquely designed with incredible skill and precision for their specific functions. The human body, above all, is a remarkable work of art: an anatomist may know all the bones and ligaments, the muscles and tendons, and can dissect every nerve and membrane accurately; a naturalist might deeply understand the body’s inner workings and the signs of health and illness. They can all appreciate and admire this intricate machine, but no one can grasp the design, art, and beauty of the work, even in what they can see, without also understanding geometry and mechanics.

Hor. How long is it ago that mathematics were brought into physic? that art, I have heard, is brought to great certainty by them.

Hor. How long ago was it that mathematics were introduced into physics? I’ve heard that this art has become very reliable because of them.

Cleo. What you speak of is quite another thing. Mathematics never had, nor ever can have, any thing to do with physic, if you mean by it the art of curing the sick. The structure and motions of the body, may perhaps be mechanically accounted for, and all fluids are under the laws of hydrostatics; but we can have no help from any part of the mechanics in the discovery of things, infinitely remote from sight, and entirely unknown as to their shapes and bulks. Physicians, with the rest of mankind, are wholly ignorant of the first principles and constituent parts of things, in which all the virtues and properties of them consist; and this, as well of the blood and other juices of the body, as the simples, and consequently all the medicines they make use of. There is no art that has less certainty than theirs, and the most valuable knowledge in it arises from observation, and is such, as a man of parts and application, who has fitted himself for that study, can only be possessed of after a long and judicious experience. But the pretence to mathematics, or the usefulness of it in the cure of diseases, is a cheat, and as arrant a piece of quackery as a stage and a Merry-Andrew. [376]

Cleo. What you're talking about is something completely different. Mathematics never had, and never will have, anything to do with medicine if by that you mean the art of healing the sick. The structure and movements of the body might be explained mechanically, and all fluids follow the laws of hydrostatics; but we can't rely on mechanics to discover things that are so far removed from sight and completely unknown in their shapes and sizes. Doctors, like everyone else, don't really understand the fundamental principles and components of things, which are essential to their properties and effects; this applies to blood and other bodily fluids, as well as to basic substances, and therefore to all the medicines they use. There is no field with less certainty than theirs, and the most valuable knowledge comes from observation—knowledge that only a talented and dedicated person, who has committed to the study, can attain after extensive and careful experience. However, claiming to use mathematics or its usefulness in treating diseases is a deception and as blatant a form of quackery as a stage show with a clown. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. But since there is so much skill displayed in the bones, muscles, and grosser parts, is it not reasonable to think, that there is no less art bestowed on those that are beyond the reach of our senses?

Hor. But since there’s so much skill evident in the bones, muscles, and outer parts, isn’t it reasonable to think that there’s just as much artistry in those things that we can’t perceive?

Cleo. I nowise doubt it: Microscopes have opened a new world to us, and I am far from thinking, that nature should leave off her work where we can trace her no further. I am persuaded that our thoughts, and the affections of the mind, have a more certain and more mechanical influence upon several parts of the body than has been hitherto or, in all human probability, ever will be discovered. The visible effect they have on the eyes and muscles of the face, must show the least attentive the reason I have for this assertion. When in mens company we are upon our guard, and would preserve our dignity, the lips are shut and the jaws meet; the muscles of the mouth are gently braced, and the rest all over the face are kept firmly in their places: turn away from these into another room, where you meet with a fine young lady that is affable and easy; immediately, before you think on it, your countenance will be strangely altered; and without being conscious of having done any thing to your face, you will have quite another look; and every body that has observed you, will discover in it more sweetness and less severity than you had the moment before. When we suffer the lower jaw to sink down, the mouth opens a little: if in this posture we look straight before us, without fixing our eyes on any thing, we may imitate the countenance of a natural; by dropping, as it were, our features, and laying no stress on any muscle of the face. Infants, before they have learned to swallow their spittle, generally keep their mouths open, and are always drivelling: in them, before they show any understanding, and whilst it is yet very confused, the muscles of the face are, as it were, relaxed, the lower jaw falls down, and the fibres of the lips are unbraced; at least, these phenomena we observe in them, during that time, more often than we do afterwards. In extreme old age, when people begin to doat, those symptoms return; and in most idiots they continue to be observed, as long as they live: Hence it is that we say, that a man wants a slabbering-bib, when he behaves very sillily or talks like a natural fool. When we reflect on all this, on the one hand, and consider on the other, that none are less prone to anger than idiots, and no creatures are less affected with pride, I would ask, [377]whether there is not some degree of self-liking, that mechanically influences, and seems to assist us in the decent wearing of our faces.

Cleo. I have no doubt about it: Microscopes have opened up a new world for us, and I don’t believe that nature would stop her work where we can’t see any further. I’m convinced that our thoughts and emotions have a more definite and mechanical impact on various parts of the body than has previously been discovered or, probably, ever will be. The visible effect they have on our eyes and facial muscles clearly shows anyone the reason I make this claim. When we’re with others, we tend to hold ourselves together and keep our dignity, with our lips shut and jaws aligned; the muscles in our mouths are gently tensed, and the muscles in the rest of our face are held firmly in place. But if we step into another room and meet a lovely young lady who is friendly and relaxed, before you even realize it, your expression will change dramatically; and without being aware of it, your face will take on a completely different appearance, one that everyone around you will notice has more warmth and less sternness than just moments before. When we let our lower jaw drop, our mouths open slightly: if in that position we look straight ahead without focusing on anything, we can mimic a blank expression, almost like a simpleton, by relaxing our features and not engaging any facial muscles. Infants, before they learn to swallow their saliva, usually keep their mouths open and drool; in them, long before they show any understanding, and while their thoughts are still quite muddled, the facial muscles seem relaxed, their lower jaws hang open, and the lip fibers are loose; we often observe these behaviors in them during that time, more than we do later. In extreme old age, when people start to become forgetful, those signs return; and in many individuals with intellectual disabilities, these signs are present for their entire lives. That’s why we say someone needs a bib when they behave very foolishly or talk like a simpleton. When we think about all this, on one hand, and on the other hand consider that no one is less prone to anger than those with intellectual disabilities, and no creatures are less affected by pride, I would ask, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] whether there isn’t some level of self-regard that mechanically influences and appears to help us present ourselves decently.

Hor. I cannot resolve you; what I know very well is, that by these conjectures on the mechanism of man, I find my understanding very little informed: I wonder how we came upon the subject.

Hor. I can't give you an answer; what I do know is that these theories about how people work leave me feeling pretty clueless. I’m surprised we even started talking about this.

Cleo. You inquired into the origin of risibility, which nobody can give an account of, with any certainty; and in such cases every body is at liberty to make guesses, so they draw no conclusions from them to the prejudice of any thing better established. But the chief design I had in giving you these indigested thoughts, was to hint to you, how really mysterious the works of nature are; I mean, how replete they are every where, with a power glaringly conspicuous, and yet incomprehensible beyond all human reach; in order to demonstrate, that more useful knowledge may be acquired from unwearied observation, judicious experience, and arguing from facts à posteriori, than from the haughty attempts of entering into first causes, and reasoning à priori. I do not believe there is a man in the world of that sagacity, if he was wholly unacquainted with the nature of a spring-watch, that he would ever find out by dint of penetration the cause of its motion, if he was never to see the inside: but every middling capacity may be certain, by seeing only the outside, that its pointing at the hour, and keeping to time, proceed from the exactness of some curious workmanship that is hid; and that the motion of the hands, what number of resorts soever it is communicated by, is originally owing to something else that first moves within. In the same manner we are sure, that as the effects of thought upon the body are palpable, several motions are produced by it, by contact, and consequently mechanically: but the parts, the instruments which that operation is performed with, are so immensely far remote from our senses; and the swiftness of the action is so prodigious, that it infinitely surpasses our capacity to trace them.

Cleo. You asked about the source of laughter, which no one can explain with any certainty; and in cases like this, everyone is free to make guesses, so long as they don't jump to conclusions that might challenge more established ideas. But the main reason I’m sharing these scattered thoughts with you is to suggest just how truly mysterious the works of nature are; I mean, how they are filled everywhere with a power that is strikingly obvious yet completely beyond human understanding. This shows that you can gain more useful knowledge from persistent observation, wise experience, and reasoning based on facts à posteriori, than from the arrogant attempts to delve into first causes and reasoning à priori. I don’t believe there is a person in the world, no matter how insightful, who could discover the reason for a spring watch’s movement purely through intuition if they had never seen the inside of it; however, anyone of average intelligence can understand just from looking at the outside that its ability to tell time comes from some intricate mechanism hidden inside; and that the hands' movement, regardless of how many different gears it involves, initially results from something else that first moves within. Similarly, we know that the effects of thought on the body are clear; various movements result from it through contact, and therefore mechanically: but the components, the tools used in this process, are so incredibly far removed from our senses, and the speed of the action is so astonishing, that it far exceeds our ability to trace them.

Hor. But is not thinking the business of the soul? What has mechanism to do with that?

Hor. But isn't thinking about the soul's job? What does mechanics have to do with that?

Cleo. The soul, whilst in the body, cannot be said to think, otherwise than an architect is said to build a house, where the carpenters, bricklayers, &c. do the work, which he chalks out and superintends. [378]

Cleo. The soul, while in the body, can’t really be said to think, just like an architect can’t be said to build a house, since the carpenters, bricklayers, etc., do the work that he outlines and oversees. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. Which part of the brain do you think the soul to be more immediately lodged in; or do you take it to be diffused through the whole?

Hor. Which part of the brain do you think the soul is most directly located in, or do you believe it is spread throughout the entire brain?

Cleo. I know nothing of it more than what I have told you already.

Cleo. I don't know anything about it beyond what I've already told you.

Hor. I plainly feel that this operation of thinking is a labour, or at least something that is transacting in my head, and not in my leg nor my arm: what insight or real knowledge have we from anatomy concerning it?

Hor. I can clearly tell that this process of thinking is a challenge, or at the very least, something that’s happening in my head, not in my leg or my arm: what understanding or true knowledge do we gain from anatomy about it?

Cleo. None at all à priori: the most consummate anatomist knows no more of it than a butcher’s apprentice. We may admire the curious duplicate of coats, and close embroidery of veins and arteries that environ the brain: but when dissecting it we have viewed the several pairs of nerves, with their origin, and taken notice of some glands of various shapes and sizes, which differing from the brain in substance, could not but rush in view; when these, I say, have been taken notice of, and distinguished by different names, some of them not very pertinent, and less polite, the best naturalist must acknowledge, that even of these large visible parts there are but few, the nerves and blood-vessels excepted, at the use of which he can give any tolerable guesses: but as to the mysterious structure of the brain itself, and the more abstruse economy of it, that he knows nothing; but that the whole seems to be a medullary substance, compactly treasured up in infinite millions of imperceptible cells, that, disposed in an unconceivable order, are cluttered together in a perplexing variety of folds and windings. He will add, perhaps, that it is reasonable to think this to be the capacious exchequer of human knowledge, in which the faithful senses deposit the vast treasure of images, constantly, as through their organs they receive them; that it is the office in which the spirits are separated from the blood, and afterwards sublimed and volatilized into particles hardly corporeal; and that the most minute of these are always, either searching for, or variously disposing the images retained, and shooting through the infinite meanders of that wonderful substance, employ themselves, without ceasing, in that inexplicable performance, the contemplation of which fills the most exalted genius with amazement.

Cleo. Not at all à priori: the most skilled anatomist knows no more than a butcher’s apprentice. We can admire the intricate layers and detailed network of veins and arteries surrounding the brain, but when we dissect it, we see the various pairs of nerves, their origins, and notice some glands in different shapes and sizes, which stand out from the brain's substance. Once we've recognized these and given them different names—some of which are not very fitting or polite—the best naturalist must admit that even among these large visible parts, there are only a few, aside from the nerves and blood vessels, that he can make any decent guesses about. As for the mysterious structure of the brain itself and its more complex organization, he knows nothing. All he can say is that it appears to be a medullary substance, tightly packed into countless tiny, invisible cells that are arranged in an unimaginable order, jumbled together in a confusing variety of folds and twists. He might suggest that it’s reasonable to consider this as the vast treasury of human knowledge, where the reliable senses deposit an immense collection of images continuously as they receive them through their organs; that it's the place where the spirits are separated from the blood, then sublimated and turned into hardly tangible particles; and that the smallest of these are always either searching for or arranging the retained images, darting through the infinite twists of that incredible substance, tirelessly engaging in that mysterious activity, the contemplation of which leaves even the most brilliant minds in awe.

Hor. These are very airy conjectures; but nothing of all this can be proved: The smallness of the parts, you will say, is the reason; but if greater improvements were made in optic [379]glasses, and microscopes could be invented that magnified objects three or four millions of times more than they do now, then certainly those minute particles, so immensely remote from the senses you speak of, might be observed, if that which does the work is corporeal at all.

Hor. These are pretty airy guesses, but none of this can actually be proven. You might say it's because the parts are so small; however, if we made better improvements in optics [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] and invented microscopes that could magnify objects three or four million times more than they do now, then those tiny particles, which are far beyond our senses, could definitely be observed, assuming that what does the observing is physical at all.

Cleo. That such improvements are impossible, is demonstrable; but if it was not, even then we could have little help from anatomy. The brain of an animal cannot be looked and searched into whilst it is alive. Should you take the main spring out of a watch, and leave the barrel that contained it standing empty, it would be impossible to find out what it had been that made it exert itself, whilst it showed the time. We might examine all the wheels, and every other part belonging either to the movement or the motion, and, perhaps, find out the use of them, in relation to the turning of the hands; but the first cause of this labour would remain a mystery for ever.

Cleo. It's clear that such improvements are impossible; even if they weren’t, anatomy wouldn’t give us much insight. You can’t examine an animal’s brain while it’s alive. If you took the mainspring out of a watch and left the empty barrel, you wouldn’t be able to figure out what made it work while it was telling time. We could look at all the gears and every other part related to the movement, and maybe understand how they help turn the hands, but the original reason for its operation would always remain a mystery.

Hor. The main spring in us is the soul, which is immaterial and immortal: but what is that to other creatures that have a brain like ours, and no such immortal substance distinct from body? Do not you believe that dogs and horses think?

Hor. The main driving force in us is the soul, which is non-physical and lives on forever: but what does that mean for other creatures that have brains like ours, but don’t possess an immortal essence separate from their bodies? Don't you believe that dogs and horses are capable of thinking?

Cleo. I believe they do, though in a degree of perfection far inferior to us.

Cleo. I think they do, but to a level of perfection that’s much lower than ours.

Hor. What is it that superintends thought in them? where must we look for it? which is the main spring?

Hor. What controls their thoughts? Where should we search for it? What is the driving force?

Cleo. I can answer you no otherwise, than life.

Cleo. The only answer I can give you is life.

Hor. What is life?

What is life?

Cleo. Every body understands the meaning of the word, though, perhaps, nobody knows the principle of life, that part which gives motion to all the rest.

Cleo. Everyone understands what the word means, but maybe no one really knows the principle of life—the part that makes everything else move.

Hor. Where men are certain that the truth of a thing is not to be known, they will always differ, and endeavour to impose upon one another.

Hor. When people are sure that the truth of something can’t be known, they will always disagree and try to impose their views on each other.

Cleo. Whilst there are fools and knaves, they will; but I have not imposed upon you: what I said of the labour of the brain, I told you, was a conjecture, which I recommend no farther to you than you shall think it probable. You ought to expect no demonstration of a thing, that from its nature can admit of none. When the breath is gone, and the circulation ceased, the inside of an animal is vastly different from what it was whilst the lungs played, and the blood and juices were in full motion through every part of it. You [380]have seen those engines that raise water by the help of fire; the steam you know, is that which forces it up; it is as impossible to see the volatile particles that perform the labour of the brain, when the creature is dead, as in the engine it would be to see the steam (which yet does all the work), when the fire is out and the water cold. Yet if this engine was shown to a man when it was not at work, and it was explained to him, which way it raised the water, it would be a strange incredulity, or great dullness of apprehension, not to believe it; if he knew perfectly well, that by heat, liquids may be rarified into vapour.

Cleo. While there are fools and tricksters, they will; but I haven’t deceived you: what I mentioned about the effort of the brain was just a guess, which I advise you to consider only as far as you find it likely. You shouldn’t expect proof of something that, by its nature, can’t provide any. When the breath is gone and the circulation has stopped, the inside of an animal is extremely different from what it was when the lungs were functioning and the blood and fluids were actively moving through every part of it. You [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]have seen those machines that lift water using fire; the steam, as you know, is what pushes it upward; it’s just as impossible to see the tiny particles that do the brain’s work when the creature is dead, as it would be to see the steam (which does all the work) when the fire is out and the water is cold. Yet if this machine were shown to someone when it wasn’t working, and they were explained how it lifted the water, it would be a strange disbelief, or a serious lack of understanding, not to accept it; if they fully understood that heat can turn liquids into vapor.

Hor. But do not you think there is a difference in souls; and are they all equally good or equally bad?

Hor. But don't you think there are differences in souls? Are they all equally good or equally bad?

Cleo. We have some tolerable ideas of matter and motion; or, at least, of what we mean by them, and therefore we may form ideas of things corporeal, though they are beyond the reach of our senses; and we can conceive any portion of matter a thousand times less than our eyes, even by the help of the best microscopes, are able to see it: but the soul is altogether incomprehensible, and we can determine but little about it, that is not revealed to us. I believe that the difference of capacities in men, depends upon, and is entirely owing to the difference there is between them, either in the fabric itself, that is, the greater or lesser exactness in the composure of their frame, or else in the use that is made of it. The brain of a child, newly born, is carte blanche; and, as you have hinted very justly, we have no ideas, which we are not obliged for to our senses. I make no question, but that in this rummaging of the spirits through the brain, in hunting after, joining, separating, changing, and compounding of ideas with inconceivable swiftness, under the superintendency of the soul, the action of thinking consists. The best thing, therefore, we can do to infants after the first month, besides feeding and keeping them from harm, is to make them take in ideas, beginning by the two most useful senses, the sight and hearing; and dispose them to set about this labour of the brain, and by our example encourage them to imitate us in thinking; which, on their side, is very poorly performed at first. Therefore the more an infant in health is talked to and jumbled about, the better it is for it, at least, for the first two years; and for its attendance in this early education, to the wisest matron in the world, I would prefer an active young wench, whose tongue never stands [381]still, that should run about, and never cease diverting and playing with it whilst it was awake; and where people can afford it, two or three of them, to relieve one another when they are tired, are better than one.

Cleo. We have a decent understanding of matter and motion, or at least we know what we mean by them. So, we can form ideas about physical things, even if they’re beyond our sensory perception. We can imagine any piece of matter a thousand times smaller than what our eyes, even with the best microscopes, can see. However, the soul is completely incomprehensible, and we can only grasp a little about it that isn’t revealed to us. I believe that differences in mental capacities among people stem from and are entirely due to differences in their physical makeup—either the greater or lesser precision in how their bodies are constructed, or how they utilize them. The brain of a newborn is menu blanche; and as you've rightly pointed out, we have no ideas that don’t come from our senses. I have no doubt that the process of thinking involves the spirits scouring the brain—searching for, connecting, separating, changing, and combining ideas at an incredible speed, all under the guidance of the soul. Therefore, the best thing we can do for infants after their first month, in addition to feeding and protecting them, is to expose them to ideas, starting with their two most useful senses: sight and hearing. We should encourage them to engage in this mental work, and by our example, inspire them to imitate our thinking, which they will struggle with at first. So, the more an infant is talked to and interacted with in a playful manner during the first two years, the better it will be for them. In this early education, I would prefer a lively young woman who never stops speaking and engages the infant in play while it’s awake, and if possible, having two or three people to take turns when one gets tired is better than having only one.

Hor. Then you think children reap great benefit from the nonsensical chat of nurses?

Hor. So you believe kids really gain a lot from the silly talk of nurses?

Cleo. It is of inestimable use to them, and teaches them to think, as well as speak, much sooner and better, than with equal aptitude of parts they would do without. The business is to make them exert those faculties, and keep infants continually employed about them; for the time which is lost then, is never to be retrieved.

Cleo. It is incredibly beneficial for them and helps them think and speak much sooner and more effectively than they would with the same abilities without it. The key is to encourage them to use those skills and keep young children engaged with them, because the time lost then can never be regained.

Hor. Yet we seldom remember any thing of what we saw or heard, before we were two years old: then what would be lost, if children should not hear all that impertinence?

Hor. Yet we hardly remember anything we saw or heard before we were two years old: so what would be lost if kids didn't have to hear all that nonsense?

Cleo. As iron is to be hammered whilst it is hot and ductile, so children are to be taught when they are young: as the flesh and every tube and membrane about them, are then tenderer, and will yield sooner to slight impressions, than afterwards; so many of their bones are but cartilages, and the brain itself is much softer, and in a manner fluid. This is the reason, that it cannot so well retain the images it receives, as it does afterwards, when the substance of it comes to be of a better consistence. But as the first images are lost, so they are continually succeeded by new ones; and the brain at first serves as a slate to cypher, or a sampler to work upon. What infants should chiefly learn, is the performance itself, the exercise of thinking, and to contract a habit of disposing, and with ease and agility managing the images retained, to the purpose intended; which is never attained better than whilst the matter is yielding, and the organs are most flexible and supple. So they but exercise themselves in thinking and speaking, it is no matter what they think on, or what they say, that is inoffensive. In sprightly infants, we soon see by their eyes the efforts they are making to imitate us, before they are able; and that they try at this exercise of the brain, and make essays to think, as well as they do to hammer out words, we may know from the incoherence of their actions, and the strange absurdities they utter: but as there are more degrees of thinking well, than there are of speaking plain, the first is of the greatest consequence.

Cleo. Just like iron is shaped when it's hot and malleable, children should be taught when they’re young. At that age, their bodies and minds are more tender and easily influenced than they will be later. Their bones are still mostly cartilage, and their brains are softer and more fluid. This is why they can’t hold onto the images they receive as well as they can later when their brains have matured. As they lose their first images, new ones come in constantly, and their brains act like a blank slate or a sampler to practice on. What infants need to learn most is the act of thinking itself—developing the habit of organizing and easily managing the images they hold in mind for their intended purposes. This is best achieved while their minds are still pliable, and their organs are flexible and adaptable. As long as they’re practicing thinking and speaking, it doesn’t matter much what they focus on or say, as long as it’s harmless. We can easily see in lively infants, through their eyes, the effort they’re putting into trying to copy us before they can actually do it. Their attempts to think and form words are evident in the mixed-up things they say and their odd actions. However, there are more levels to thinking well than there are to speaking clearly, making the ability to think the most important.

Hor. I wonder you should talk of teaching, and lay so great a stress on a thing that comes so naturally to us, as [382]thinking: no action is performed with greater velocity by every body: as quick as thought, is a proverb, and in less than a moment a stupid peasant may remove his ideas from London to Japan, as easily as the greatest wit.

Hor. I’m surprised you’re talking about teaching and putting so much emphasis on something that comes so naturally to us, like [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]thinking. No one acts faster than anyone else when it comes to thinking: "as quick as thought" is a saying, and in less than a moment, an ordinary person can move their thoughts from London to Japan just as easily as the smartest person can.

Cleo. Yet there is nothing, in which men differ so immensely from one another, as they do in the exercise of this faculty: the differences between them in height, bulk, strength, and beauty, are trifling in comparison to that which I speak of; and there is nothing in the world more valuable, or more plainly perceptible in persons, than a happy dexterity of thinking. Two men may have equal knowledge, and yet the one shall speak as well off-hand, as the other can after two hours study.

Cleo. Yet there’s nothing that sets men apart so greatly as how they use this ability: the differences in height, size, strength, and looks are minor compared to what I mean; and there’s nothing more valuable, or more obviously noticeable in people, than a natural knack for thinking. Two men might have the same knowledge, but one can speak just as well on the spot as the other can after two hours of preparation.

Hor. I take it for granted, that no man would study two hours for a speech, if he knew how to make it in less; and therefore I cannot see what reason you have to suppose two such persons to be of equal knowledge.

Hor. I assume that no one would spend two hours preparing for a speech if they knew how to do it in less time; so I don’t understand why you think those two people have the same level of knowledge.

Cleo. There is a double meaning in the word knowing, which you seem not to attend to. There is a great difference between knowing a violin when you see it, and knowing how to play upon it. The knowledge I speak of is of the first sort; and if you consider it in that sense, you must be of my opinion; for no study can fetch any thing out of the brain that is not there. Suppose you conceive a short epistle in three minutes, which another, who can make letters and join them together as fast as yourself, is yet an hour about, though both of you write the same thing, it is plain to me, that the slow person knows as much as you do; at least it does not appear that he knows less. He has received the same images, but he cannot come at them, or at least not dispose them in that order, so soon as yourself. When we see two exercises of equal goodness, either in prose or verse, if the one is made ex tempore, and we are sure of it, and the other has cost two days labour, the author of the first is a person of finer natural parts than the other, though their knowledge, for ought we know, is the same. You see, then, the difference between knowledge, as it signifies the treasure of images received, and knowledge, or rather skill, to find out those images when we want them, and work them readily to our purpose.

Cleo. There are two meanings to the word knowing, which you seem to overlook. There’s a big difference between recognizing a violin when you see one and actually knowing how to play it. The knowledge I’m referring to is the first kind; and if you think about it that way, you’ll agree with me, because no amount of studying can pull anything out of your brain that isn’t already there. Imagine you come up with a short letter in three minutes, while someone else, who can write just as fast as you, takes an hour to do the same thing. It’s clear to me that the slower person knows as much as you do; at least, it doesn’t seem like he knows any less. He has the same ideas in his mind, but he just can’t access them, or at least not organize them as quickly as you can. When we see two pieces of writing that are equally good, whether in prose or poetry, if one was created ex tempore, and we know that for sure, while the other took two days of effort, the author of the first is naturally more talented than the other, even though their knowledge might be the same. So, you see, there’s a difference between knowledge as it refers to a collection of ideas received, and knowledge, or rather skill, in retrieving those ideas when needed and using them effectively for our purposes.

Hor. When we know a thing, and cannot readily think of it, or bring it to mind, I thought that was the fault of the memory. [383]

Hor. When we know something but can’t easily recall it or bring it to mind, I thought that was a flaw in our memory. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. So it may be in part: but there are men of prodigious reading, that have likewise great memories, who judge ill, and seldom say any thing a propos, or say it when it is too late. Among the belluones librorum, the cormorants of books, there are wretched reasoners, that have canine appetites, and no digestion. What numbers of learned fools do we not meet with in large libraries; from whose works it is evident, that knowledge must have lain in their heads, as furniture at an upholder’s; and the treasure of the brain was a burden to them instead of an ornament! All this proceeds from a defect in the faculty of thinking; an unskilfulness, and want of aptitude in managing, to the best advantage, the ideas we have received. We see others, on the contrary, that have very fine sense, and no literature at all. The generality of women are quicker of invention, and more ready at repartee, than the men, with equal helps of education; and it is surprising to see, what a considerable figure some of them make in conversation, when we consider the small opportunities they have had of acquiring knowledge.

Cleo. It might be partly true: but there are men who read a lot, have great memories, but still judge poorly, and rarely say anything a propos, or they say it when it's too late. Among the belluones librorum, the book hogs, there are terrible reasoners, who have voracious appetites but no ability to digest information. We encounter many learned fools in big libraries; it's clear from their work that knowledge must have just filled their heads like furniture in a shop, and the treasure of their minds was more of a burden than a decoration! This all comes from a lack of thinking ability; a clumsiness and inability to effectively manage the ideas they've received. On the other hand, we see some people who have excellent insight but no education at all. Most women tend to be quicker at coming up with ideas and more ready with comebacks than men, given the same educational opportunities, and it's surprising to see how well some of them hold their own in conversations, considering the limited chances they've had to gain knowledge.

Hor. But sound judgment is a great rarity among them.

Hor. But good judgment is really rare among them.

Cleo. Only for want of practice, application, and assiduity. Thinking on abstruse matters, is not their province in life; and as the stations they are commonly placed in find them other employment; but there is no labour of the brain which women are not as capable of performing, at least as well as the men, with the same assistance, if they set about, and persevere in it: sound judgment is no more than the result of that labour: he that uses himself to take things to pieces, to compare them together, to consider them abstractly and impartially; that is, he who of two propositions he is to examine seems not to care which is true; he that lays the whole stress of his mind on every part alike, and puts the same thing in all the views it can be seen in: he, I say, that employs himself most often in this exercise, is most likely cæteris paribus to acquire what we call a sound judgment. The workmanship in the make of women seems to be more elegant, and better finished: the features are more delicate, the voice is sweeter, the whole outside of them is more curiously wove, than they are in men; and the difference in the skin between theirs and ours is the same, as there is between fine cloth and coarse. There is no reason to imagine, that nature should have been more neglectful of them out of sight, than she has where we can trace her; and [384]not have taken the same care of them in the formation, of the brain, as to the nicety of the structure, and superior accuracy in the fabric, which is so visible in the rest of their frame.

Cleo. It's just a matter of practice, dedication, and hard work. Thinking about complex issues isn't typically their role in life, and the jobs they usually occupy lead them to different tasks. However, there isn’t any intellectual work that women aren’t just as capable of doing as men, given the same support, if they choose to engage and persist in it. Good judgment is simply the outcome of that effort: the person who regularly deconstructs things, compares them, and considers them abstractly and fairly—someone who doesn’t care which of two statements is true; who focuses equally on every part of an argument and examines it from every angle—is, I believe, the one most likely to develop what we refer to as sound judgment. Women's features appear to be more refined and well-defined: they have more delicate facial features, sweeter voices, and their overall appearance is more intricately crafted than men's; the difference in skin between them and us is similar to that between fine fabric and coarse cloth. There’s no reason to think that nature would have been less careful with them in aspects we can’t see than in those we can, and [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that she hasn’t taken the same care in forming their brains with the same precision and accuracy evident throughout the rest of their bodies.

Hor. Beauty is their attribute, as strength is ours.

Hor. Beauty is their quality, just as strength is ours.

Cleo. How minute soever those particles of the brain are, that contain the several images, and are assisting in the operation of thinking, there must be a difference in the justness, the symmetry, and exactness of them between one person and another, as well as there is in the grosser parts: what the women excel us in, then, is the goodness of the instrument, either in the harmony or pliableness of the organs, which must be very material in the art of thinking, and is the only thing that deserves the name of natural parts, since the aptitude I have spoke of, depending upon exercise, is notoriously acquired.

Cleo. No matter how tiny the particles of the brain are that hold various images and help with thinking, there has to be a difference in their accuracy, symmetry, and precision from one person to another, just like there is with larger parts of the body. What women excel at, then, is the quality of the instrument, either in the harmony or flexibility of their organs, which is very important in the art of thinking. This is the only thing that truly deserves to be called natural parts, since the ability I mentioned depends on practice and is clearly something that is learned.

Hor. As the workmanship in the brain is rather more curious in women than it is in men, so, in sheep and oxen, dogs and horses, I suppose it is infinitely coarser.

Hor. Since the brain's structure is generally more interesting in women than in men, I guess it's much rougher in animals like sheep, oxen, dogs, and horses.

Cleo. We have no reason to think otherwise,

Cleo. We have no reason to believe anything else,

Hor. But after all, that self, that part of us that wills and wishes, that chooses one thing rather than another, must be incorporeal: For if it is matter, it must either be one single particle, which I can almost feel it is not, or a combination of many, which is more than inconceivable.

Hor. But in the end, that self, that part of us that decides and desires, that chooses one thing over another, must be non-physical: Because if it were material, it would have to be either a single particle, which I can almost sense it isn’t, or a mix of many, which is beyond what I can even imagine.

Cleo. I do not deny what you say; and that the principle of thought and action is inexplicable in all creatures I have hinted already: But its being incorporeal does not mend the matter, as to the difficulty of explaining or conceiving it. That there must be a mutual contact between this principle, whatever it is, and the body itself, is what we are certain of à posteriori; and a reciprocal action upon each other, between an immaterial substance and matter, is as incomprehensible to human capacity, as that thought should be the result of matter and motion.

Cleo. I don’t deny what you're saying, and I’ve already hinted that the way thought and action works in all beings is baffling. But just because it’s non-physical doesn’t make it easier to explain or understand. We know for sure à posteriori that there must be some kind of connection between this principle, whatever it is, and the body itself; and the idea of an immaterial substance and matter influencing each other is just as hard for humans to grasp as the notion that thought could come from matter and motion.

Hor. Though many other animals seem to be endued with thought, there is no creature we are acquainted with, besides man, that shows or seems to feel a consciousness of his thinking.

Hor. Although many other animals appear to have thoughts, there is no creature we know of, other than humans, that demonstrates or appears to have an awareness of their own thinking.

Cleo. It is not easy to determine what instincts, properties, or capacities other creatures are either possessed or destitute of, when those qualifications fall not under our senses: But it is highly probable, that the principal and most necessary [385]parts of the machine are less elaborate in animals, that attain to all the perfection they are capable of in three, four, five, or six years at furthest, than they are in a creature that hardly comes to maturity, its full growth and strength in five and twenty. The consciousness of a man of fifty, that he is the same man that did such a thing at twenty, and was once the boy that had such and such masters, depends wholly upon the memory, and can never be traced to the bottom: I mean, that no man remembers any thing of himself, or what was transacted before he was two years old, when he was but a novice in the art of thinking, and the brain was not yet of a due consistence to retain long the images it received: But this remembrance, how far soever it may reach, gives us no greater surety of ourselves, than we should have of another that had been brought up with us, and never above a week or a month out of sight. A mother, when her son is thirty years old, has more reason to know that he is the same whom she brought into the world than himself; and such a one, who daily minds her son, and remembers the alterations of his features from time to time, is more certain of him that he was not changed in the cradle, than she can be of herself. So that all we can know of this consciousness, is, that it consists in, or is the result of the running and rummaging of the spirits through all the mazes of the brain, and their looking there for facts concerning ourselves: He that has lost his memory, though otherwise in perfect health, cannot think better than a fool, and is no more conscious that he is the same he was a-year ago, than he is of a man whom he has known but a fortnight. There are several degrees of losing our memory; but he who has entirely lost it becomes, ipso facto, an idiot.

Cleo. It's not easy to figure out what instincts, traits, or abilities other creatures have or lack when those qualities aren't something we can perceive. However, it's likely that the main and most essential [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]parts of the body are less complex in animals that reach their full potential in three, four, five, or six years at most compared to a creature that barely matures and reaches its full growth and strength at twenty-five. A man's awareness at fifty that he is the same person who did a certain thing at twenty—who was once the boy with particular teachers—depends entirely on memory and can’t be traced back completely. In other words, no one remembers anything about themselves or what happened before they were two years old, when they were just learning to think, and their brains weren't yet developed enough to hold on to the memories they received. However far back this remembering might go, it gives us no more certainty about ourselves than we would have about someone who grew up alongside us and was never out of our sight for more than a week or a month. A mother, when her son is thirty, has more reason to believe he is the same person she brought into the world than he does. And someone who regularly observes her son, noticing the changes in his features over time, is more certain that he wasn’t changed in the cradle than she can be certain about herself. So, the best we can understand about this consciousness is that it involves the movement and exploration of the spirits through all the complexities of the brain, seeking information about ourselves. A person who has lost their memory, even if they are otherwise healthy, cannot think any better than a fool and is no more aware that they are the same person they were a year ago than they would be of someone they met just two weeks ago. There are various degrees of memory loss, but someone who has completely lost it is, ipso facto, an idiot.

Hor. I am conscious of having been the occasion of our rambling a great way from the subject we were upon, but I do not repent of it: What you have said of the economy of the brain, and the mechanical influence of thought upon the grosser parts, is a noble theme for contemplation on the infinite unutterable wisdom with which the various instincts are so visibly planted in all animals, to fit them for the respective purposes they were designed for; and every appetite is so wonderfully interwove with the very substance of their frame. Nothing could be more seasonable, after you had showed me the origin of politeness, and in the management of self-liking, set forth the excellency of our species [386]beyond all other animals so conspicuously in the superlative docility and indefatigable industry, by which all multitudes are capable of drawing innumerable benefits, as well for the ease and comfort, as the welfare and safety of congregate bodies, from a most stubborn and an unconquerable passion, which, in its nature, seems to be destructive to sociableness and society, and never fails, in untaught men, to render them insufferable to one another.

Hor. I realize that we’ve strayed quite a bit from the topic we were discussing, but I don’t regret it. What you’ve shared about how the brain works and the way thoughts affect the physical body is a fascinating subject for reflecting on the vast, indescribable wisdom that has placed various instincts clearly within all animals, designed to help them fulfill their specific purposes. Every desire is intricately connected to the very fabric of their being. This reflection was perfectly timed, especially after you explained the roots of politeness and how managing our self-esteem highlights the superiority of our species [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] compared to other animals, especially in terms of exceptional obedience and relentless industry. These qualities enable groups of people to gain countless benefits for their comfort, safety, and well-being, despite a stubborn and unconquerable tendency that, by nature, seems harmful to social interaction and often makes untrained individuals unbearable to each other.

Cleo. By the same method of reasoning from facts à posteriori, that has laid open to us the nature and usefulness of self-liking, all the rest of the passions may easily be accounted for, and become intelligible. It is evident, that the necessaries of life stand not every where ready dished up before all creatures; therefore they have instincts that prompt them to look out for those necessaries, and teach them how to come at them. The zeal and alacrity to gratify their appetites, is always proportioned to the strength, and the degree of force with which those instincts work upon every creature: But, considering the disposition of things upon earth, and the multiplicity of animals that have all their own wants to supply, it must be obvious, that these attempts of creatures, to obey the different calls of nature, will be often opposed and frustrated, and that, in many animals, they would seldom meet with success, if every individual was not endued with a passion, that, summoning all his strength, inspired him with a transporting eagerness to overcome the obstacles that hinder him in his great work of self-preservation. The passion I describe is called anger. How a creature possessed of this passion and self-liking, when he sees others enjoy what he wants, should be affected with envy, can likewise be no mystery. After labour, the most savage, and the most industrious creature seeks rest: Hence we learn, that all of them are furnished, more or less, with a love of ease: Exerting their strength tires them; and the loss of spirits, experience teaches us, is best repaired by food and sleep. We see that creatures, who, in their way of living, must meet with the greatest opposition, have the greatest share of anger, and are born with offensive arms. If this anger was to employ a creature always, without consideration of the danger he exposed himself to, he would soon be destroyed: For this reason, they are all endued with fear; and the lion himself turns tail, if the hunters are armed, and too numerous. From what we observe in the behaviour of brutes, we have reason to think, [387]that among the more perfect animals, those of the same species have a capacity, on many occasions, to make their wants known to one another; and we are sure of several, not only that they understand one another, but likewise that they may be made to understand us. In comparing our species with that of other animals, when we consider the make of man, and the qualifications that are obvious in him, his superior capacity in the faculties of thinking and reflecting beyond other creatures, his being capable of learning to speak, and the usefulness of his hands and fingers, there is no room to doubt, that he is more fit for society than any other animal we know.

Cleo. Using the same reasoning from facts à posteriori, which has revealed the nature and usefulness of self-liking, we can easily understand all other passions. It's clear that the necessities of life aren’t always readily available for all creatures; hence, they have instincts that guide them in seeking these necessities and show them how to obtain them. The eagerness to fulfill their desires is always proportional to the strength and intensity of these instincts in each creature. However, given the state of things on earth and the variety of animals, each with their own needs, it’s evident that these efforts to respond to nature’s different demands are often challenged and thwarted. Many animals would frequently fail if every individual didn’t possess a passion that, drawing on all their strength, drives them with a fierce determination to overcome the barriers hindering their essential goal of self-preservation. This passion is called anger. It’s also understandable how a creature experiencing this passion and self-liking would feel envy when seeing others enjoy what it desires. After effort, even the fiercest and most diligent creature seeks rest; thus, we learn that all possess, to some degree, a desire for comfort. Exerting their strength tires them, and experience teaches us that replenishing energy is best achieved through food and sleep. We observe that creatures facing the most challenges in their lifestyle exhibit the highest levels of anger and are equipped with defensive capabilities. If this anger compelled a creature continuously, without regard for the dangers involved, it would face destruction quickly. For this reason, they all possess fear; even a lion will retreat if hunters are armed and numerous. From our observations of animal behavior, we can infer that among the more advanced species, those of the same kind can often communicate their needs to each other, and we know of several instances where they not only understand one another but can also be made to comprehend us. In comparing our species to others, when we reflect on human anatomy and the remarkable traits that set him apart—his superior ability to think and reflect, his capacity to learn to speak, and the utility of his hands and fingers—there’s no doubt that he is more suited for society than any other animal we know.

Hor. Since you wholly reject my Lord Shaftsbury’s system, I wish you would give me your opinion at large concerning society, and the sociableness of man; and I will hearken to you with great attention.

Hor. Since you completely dismiss my Lord Shaftsbury’s system, I’d like to hear your thoughts on society and how social humans are. I’ll listen to you closely.

Cleo. The cause of sociableness in man, that is, his fitness for society, is no such abstruse matter: A person of middling capacity, that has some experience, and a tolerable knowledge of human nature, may soon find it out, if his desire of knowing the truth be sincere, and he will look for it without prepossession; but most people that have treated on this subject, had a turn to serve, and a cause in view, which they were resolved to maintain. It is very unworthy of a philosopher to say, as Hobbes did, that man is born unfit for society, and allege no better reason for it, than the incapacity that infants come into the world with; but some of his adversaries have as far overshot the mark, when they asserted, that every thing which man can attain to, ought to be esteemed as a cause of his fitness for society.

Cleo. The reason for sociability in humans, meaning their ability to live in society, isn’t that complicated. A person with average intelligence, some experience, and a decent understanding of human nature can figure it out quickly, as long as they genuinely want to know the truth and approach it without bias. However, most people who have written on this topic had their own agendas and points to prove. It’s quite unworthy of a philosopher to claim, like Hobbes did, that humans are naturally unfit for society, offering no better reasoning than that infants are born helpless. Yet some of his opponents have gone too far in the other direction, arguing that everything humans can achieve should be considered a reason for their ability to live in society.

Hor. But is there in the mind of man a natural affection, that prompts him to love his species beyond what other animals have for theirs; or, are we born with hatred and aversion, that makes us wolves and bears to one another?

Hor. But is there a natural love in the human mind that motivates us to care for our fellow humans more than other animals do for theirs? Or are we born with hatred and aversion, turning us into wolves and bears towards each other?

Cleo. I believe neither. From what appears to us in human affairs, and the works of nature, we have more reason to imagine, that the desire, as well as aptness of man to associate, do not proceed from his love to others, than we have to believe that a mutual affection of the planets to one another, superior to what they feel to stars more remote, is not the true cause why they keep always moving together in the same solar system. [388]

Cleo. I believe neither. Considering what we see in human behavior and nature, we have more reason to think that the desire and ability of people to connect with each other doesn’t come from their love for others, rather than believing that the planets have a mutual attraction to one another, stronger than what they feel for more distant stars, is the real reason they always move together in the same solar system. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. You do not believe that the stars have any love for one another, I am sure: Then why more reason?

Hor. You probably think the stars don't have any affection for each other, right? So why should that be any different?

Cleo. Because there are no phenomena plainly to contradict this love of the planets; and we meet with thousands every day to convince us, that man centres every thing in himself, and neither loves nor hates, but for his own sake. Every individual is a little world by itself, and all creatures, as far as their understanding and abilities will let them, endeavour to make that self happy: This, in all of them, is the continual labour, and seems to be the whole design of life. Hence it follows, that in the choice of things, men must be determined by the perception they have of happiness; and no person can commit, or set about an action, which, at that then present time, seems not to be the best to him.

Cleo. Because there are no clear phenomena that contradict this love of the planets; and we encounter countless individuals every day who show us that people center everything on themselves, and they neither love nor hate except for their own benefit. Every person is a small world on their own, and all beings, to the extent that their understanding and abilities allow, strive to make themselves happy: This is their ongoing effort and seems to be the main purpose of life. Therefore, it follows that when making choices, people are guided by their perception of happiness; and no one can engage in or start an action that, at that moment, doesn’t seem to them to be the best option.

Hor. What will you then say to, video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor?

Hor. What will you say to, I see better things and approve of them, but I follow worse ones?

Cleo. That only shows the turpitude of our inclinations. But men may say what they please: Every motion in a free agent, which he does not approve of, is either convulsive, or it is not his; I speak of those that are subject to the will. When two things are left to a person’s choice, it is a demonstration that he thinks that most eligible which he chooses, how contradictory, impertinent, or pernicious soever his reason for choosing it may be: Without this, there could be no voluntary suicide; and it would be injustice to punish men for their crimes.

Cleo. That just shows how twisted our impulses can be. People can say whatever they want: Every action taken by someone who is free, which they don’t agree with, is either forced or not truly theirs; I’m talking about those who are under the influence of their will. When a person is given a choice between two options, it shows that they believe the one they choose is the best option, no matter how contradictory, irrelevant, or harmful their reasoning might be. Without this understanding, there would be no voluntary suicide, and it would be unfair to punish people for their crimes.

Hor. I believe every body endeavours to be pleased; but it is inconceivable that creatures of the same species should differ so much from one another, as men do in their notions of pleasure; and that some of them should take delight in what is the greatest aversion to others: All aim at happiness; but the question is, Where is it to be found?

Hor. I think everyone tries to find pleasure, but it’s hard to believe that beings of the same kind can be so different from each other in what they find enjoyable. Some people enjoy things that others absolutely dislike. Everyone is looking for happiness, but the real question is, Where can it actually be found?

Cleo. It is with complete felicity in this world, as it is with the philosopher’s stone: Both have been sought after many different ways, by wise men as well as fools, though neither of them has been obtained hitherto: But in searching after either, diligent inquirers have often stumbled by chance on useful discoveries of things they did not look for, and which human sagacity, labouring with design à priori, never would have detected. Multitudes of our species may, in any habitable part of the globe, assist one another in a common defence, and be raised into a politic body, in which men shall live comfortably together for many centuries, without being [389]acquainted with a thousand things, that if known, would every one of them be instrumental to render the happiness of the public more complete, according to the common notions men have of happiness. In one part of the world, we have found great and flourishing nations that knew nothing of ships; and in others, traffic by sea had been in use above two thousand years, and navigation had received innumerable improvements, before they knew how to sail by the help of the loadstone: It would be ridiculous to allege this piece of knowledge, either as a reason why man first chose to go to sea, or as an argument to prove his natural capacity for maritime affairs. To raise a garden, it is necessary that we should have a soil and a climate fit for that purpose. When we have these, we want nothing besides patience, but the seeds of vegetables and proper culture. Fine walks and canals, statues, summer-houses, fountains, and cascades, are great improvements on the delights of nature; but they are not essential to the existence of a garden. All nations must have had mean beginnings; and it is in those, the infancy of them, that the sociableness of man is as conspicuous as it can be ever after. Man is called a sociable creature chiefly for two reasons: First, because it is commonly imagined that he is naturally more fond and desirous of society, than any other creature. Secondly, because it is manifest, that associating in men turns to better account than it possibly could do in other animals, if they were to attempt it.

Cleo. It is with complete happiness in this world, just like the philosopher's stone: Both have been searched for in many different ways, by wise people as well as fools, yet neither has been achieved so far. However, in the pursuit of either, diligent seekers have often stumbled upon useful discoveries by chance—things they weren't looking for, which human ingenuity, working purposefully à priori, would never have found. Many people, in any livable part of the world, can support each other in a common defense and form a political community where individuals can live together comfortably for many centuries, without knowing about a thousand things that, if known, would each contribute to making public happiness more complete, according to common ideas of happiness. In one part of the world, we've found great and thriving nations that knew nothing about ships; in others, sea trade had been practiced for over two thousand years, and navigation had undergone countless improvements before they learned to sail using the magnet. It would be absurd to claim this knowledge as the reason why humans first decided to go to sea or as proof of their natural ability for maritime activities. To cultivate a garden, we must have suitable soil and climate. Once we have these, all we need is patience, vegetable seeds, and proper care. Beautiful pathways, canals, statues, summer houses, fountains, and waterfalls enhance the joys of nature, but they're not essential for a garden's existence. All nations must have had humble beginnings, and it is in those early stages that humanity's sociability is as evident as it ever will be. Humans are called social creatures mainly for two reasons: First, because it's often believed that they are naturally more inclined to seek and enjoy society than any other creature. Second, because it’s clear that human associations lead to better outcomes than could possibly occur among other animals, even if they tried to form groups.

Hor. But why do you say of the first, that it is commonly imagined; is it not true then?

Hor. But why do you say that the first is just a common belief; is it not true then?

Cleo. I have a very good reason for this caution. All men born in society, are certainly more desirous of it than any other animal; but whether man be naturally so, that is a question: But, if he was, it is no excellency, nothing to brag of: The love man has for his ease and security, and his perpetual desire of meliorating his condition, must be sufficient motives to make him fond of society, concerning the necessitous and helpless condition of his nature.

Cleo. I have a very good reason for being cautious. All men born into society clearly want it more than any other creature; however, whether that's in their nature is debatable. But even if it is, that's nothing to be proud of. The love man has for comfort and safety, along with his constant desire to improve his situation, are strong motives that make him appreciate society, considering the needy and vulnerable state of his nature.

Hor. Do not you fall into the same error, which, you say, Hobbes has been guilty of, when you talk of man’s necessitous and helpless condition?

Hor. Don't make the same mistake that you claim Hobbes made when you discuss man's needy and helpless situation?

Cleo. Not at all; I speak of men and women full grown; and the more extensive their knowledge is, the higher their quality, and the greater their possessions are, the more necessitous and helpless they are in their nature. A nobleman of [390]twenty-five or thirty thousand pounds a-year, that has three or four coaches and six, and above fifty people to serve him, is in his person considered singly, abstract from what he possesses, more necessitous than an obscure man that has but fifty pounds a-year, and is used to walk a-foot; so a lady, who never stuck a pin in herself, and is dressed and undressed from head to foot like a jointed baby by her woman, and the assistance of another maid or two, is a more helpless creature than doll the diary-maid, who, all the winter long, dresses herself in the dark in less time than the other bestows in placing of her patches.

Cleo. Not at all; I’m talking about fully grown men and women; and the more they know, the better they are, and the more they own, the more needy and helpless they become by nature. A nobleman with an income of twenty-five or thirty thousand pounds a year, who has three or four coaches and six horses, along with over fifty servants, is, when considered on his own—separate from his wealth—more needy than an unknown man with only fifty pounds a year who walks everywhere. Similarly, a lady who has never put a pin in her own hair and gets dressed and undressed from head to toe like a doll by her maid, with help from another maid or two, is actually more helpless than the maid who, all winter long, dresses herself in the dark in less time than it takes for the lady's maids to apply her makeup.

Hor. But is the desire of meliorating our condition which you named, so general, that no man is without it?

Hor. But is the desire to improve our situation that you mentioned so widespread that no one is without it?

Cleo. Not one that can be called a sociable creature; and I believe this to be as much a characteristic of our species as any can be named: For there is not a man in the world, educated in society, who, if he could compass it by wishing, would not have something added to, taken from, or altered in his person, possessions, circumstances, or any part of the society he belongs to. This is what is not to be perceived in any creature but man; whose great industry in supplying what he calls his wants, could never have been known so well as it is, if it had not been for the unreasonableness, as well as multiplicity of his desires. From all which, it is manifest, that the most civilized people stand most in need of society, and consequently, none less than savages. The second reason for which I said man was called sociable, is, that associating together turned to better account in our species than it would do in any other, if they were to try it. To find out the reason of this, we must search into human nature for such qualifications as we excel all other animals in, and which the generality of men are endued with, taught or untaught: But in doing this, we should neglect nothing that is observable in them, from their most early youth to their extreme old age.

Cleo. Not someone who can be described as social; I believe this is as much a trait of our species as anything can be named. There isn’t a man in the world, educated in society, who wouldn’t want something to be added to, taken from, or changed about his appearance, belongings, circumstances, or any aspect of the society he belongs to, if he could make it happen just by wishing. This is something that can only be seen in humans, whose relentless efforts to meet what they call their needs could never have been as well understood as they are now, without considering the irrationality and variety of their desires. From all of this, it’s clear that the most civilized people require society the most, and therefore, the less civilized need it the least. The second reason I said humans are called social is that forming associations benefits our species more than it would for any other if they attempted it. To understand why, we need to look into human nature for the traits we excel in compared to all other animals, and which most people possess, whether learned or not. However, in doing this, we shouldn’t overlook anything observable in them, from their earliest days to their last.

Hor. I cannot see why you use this precaution, of taking in the whole age of man; would it not be sufficient to mind those qualifications which he is possessed of, when he is come to the height of maturity, or his greatest perfection?

Hor. I don’t understand why you take this extra step of considering the entire span of a person's life; wouldn’t it be enough to focus on the qualities he has when he reaches full maturity or his utmost potential?

Cleo. A considerable part of what is called docility in creatures, depends upon the pliableness of the parts, and their fitness to be moved with facility, which are either entirely lost, or very much impaired, when they are full grown. There is [391]nothing in which our species so far surpasses all others, than in the capacity of acquiring the faculty of thinking and speaking well: that this is a peculiar property belonging to our nature is very certain, yet it is as manifest, that this capacity vanishes, when we come to maturity, if till then it has been neglected. The term of life likewise, that is commonly enjoyed by our species, being longer than it is in most other animals, we have a prerogative above them in point of time; and man has a greater opportunity of advancing in wisdom, though not to be acquired but by his own experience, than a creature that lives but half his age, though it had the same capacity. A man of threescore, cæteris paribus, knows better what is to be embraced or avoided in life, than a man of thirty. What Mitio, in excusing the follies of youth, said to his brother Demea, in the Adelphi, ad omnia alia Ætate sapimus rectius, holds among savages, as well as among philosophers. It is the concurrence of these, with other properties, that together compose the sociableness of man.

Cleo. A large part of what we call docility in creatures depends on how flexible their parts are and how easily they can be moved, which is either completely lost or greatly diminished when they reach adulthood. There is [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] nothing in which our species surpasses all others more than in our ability to think and speak effectively. It's clear that this is a unique trait of our nature, yet it's equally obvious that this ability fades away if it has been neglected by the time we become adults. Additionally, the lifespan commonly enjoyed by our species is longer than that of most other animals, giving us an advantage in terms of time; humans have a greater opportunity to grow in wisdom, though that wisdom can only be gained through personal experience, compared to creatures that live only half as long even if they have the same potential. A sixty-year-old man, cæteris paribus, knows better what to pursue or avoid in life than a thirty-year-old. What Mitio said to his brother Demea in the Adelphi about youth's follies, ad omnia alia Ætate sapimus rectius, applies to both savages and philosophers. It's the combination of these traits, along with others, that makes humans so sociable.

Hor. But why may not the love of our species be named, as one of these properties?

Hor. But why can't the love for our kind be considered one of these qualities?

Cleo. First, because, as I have said already, it does not appear, that we have it beyond other animals: secondly, because it is out of the question: for if we examine into the nature of all bodies politic, we shall find, that no dependance is ever had, or stress laid on any such affection, either for the raising or maintaining of them.

Cleo. First, because, as I’ve mentioned before, it doesn’t seem that we have it more than other animals do; secondly, because it’s out of the question: if we look into the nature of all political bodies, we will find that no reliance is ever placed on such affection, either for their establishment or for their preservation.

Hor. But the epithet itself, the signification of the word, imports this love to one another; as is manifest from the contrary. One who loves solitude, is averse to company, or of a singular, reserved, and sullen temper, is the very reverse of a sociable man.

Hor. But the term itself, the meaning of the word, implies this love for one another; as is clear from the opposite. Someone who loves being alone, is uncomfortable around others, or has a singular, reserved, and moody personality, is the complete opposite of a sociable person.

Cleo. When we compare some men to others, the word, I own, is often used in that sense: but when we speak of a quality peculiar to our species, and say, that man is a sociable creature, the word implies no more, than that in our nature we have a certain fitness, by which great multitudes of us cooperating, may be united and formed into one body; that endued with, and, able to make use of, the strength, skill and prudence of every individual, shall govern itself, and act on all emergencies, as if it was animated by one soul, and actuated by one will. I am willing to allow, that among the motives that prompt man to enter into society, there is a desire which he has naturally after company; but he has it for [392]his own sake, in hopes of being the better for it; and he would never wish for either company or any thing else, but for some advantage or other he proposes to himself from it. What I deny is, that man naturally has such a desire, out of a fondness of his species, superior to what other animals have for theirs. It is a compliment which we commonly pay to ourselves, but there is no more reality in it, than in our being one another’s humble servants; and I insist upon it, that this pretended love of our species, and natural affection we are said to have for one another, beyond other animals, is neither instrumental to the erecting of societies, nor ever trusted to in our prudent commerce with one another when associated, any more than if it had no existence. The undoubted basis of all societies is government: this truth, well examined into, will furnish us with all the reasons of man’s excellency as to sociableness. It is evident from it, that creatures, to be raised into a community, must, in the first place, be governable: This is a qualification that requires fear, and some degree of understanding; for a creature not susceptible of fear, is never to be governed; and the more sense and courage it has, the more refractory and untractable it will be, without the influence of that useful passion: and again, fear without understanding puts creatures only upon avoiding the danger dreaded, without considering what will become of themselves afterwards: so wild birds will beat out their brains against the cage, before they will save their lives by eating. There is a great difference between being submissive, and being governable; for he who barely submits to another, only embraces what he dislikes, to shun what he dislikes more; and we may be very submissive, and be of no use to the person we submit to: but to be governable, implies an endeavour to please, and a willingness to exert ourselves in behalf of the person that governs: but love beginning every where at home, no creature can labour for others, and be easy long, whilst self is wholly out of the question: therefore a creature is then truly governable, when reconciled to submission, it has learned to construe his servitude to his own advantage; and rests satisfied with the account it finds for itself, in the labour it performs for others. Several kind of animals are, or may, with little trouble, be made thus governable; but there is not one creature so tame, that it can be made to serve its own species, but man; yet without this he could never have been made sociable. [393]

Cleo. When we compare some men to others, I admit, the term is often used that way: but when we talk about a quality specific to our species, saying that man is a sociable creature, the term suggests only that in our nature, we have a certain ability that allows great numbers of us to work together, forming one body; that we are endowed with, and can use, the strength, skill, and wisdom of every individual, governing ourselves and responding to all situations as if we were animated by one soul, driven by one will. I agree that one of the reasons prompting man to join society is a natural desire for company; but he seeks it for [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] his own benefit, hoping to gain something from it; and he would never wish for either company or anything else unless he expects some advantage from it. What I reject is the idea that man has this desire naturally, out of a fondness for his species, which is greater than what other animals feel for theirs. It’s a compliment we frequently pay to ourselves, but there’s no more truth in it than in our being one another’s humble servants; and I insist that this so-called love for our species and the natural affection we're said to have for each other, beyond what other animals have, does not contribute to the formation of societies, nor is it relied upon in our practical dealings with each other when associated, just as if it didn't exist. The undeniable foundation of all societies is government: this truth, when closely examined, will provide us with all the reasons for man's superiority in social behavior. It is clear that beings must first be governable to form a community: This requirement demands both fear and a certain level of understanding; for a creature that cannot experience fear cannot be governed; and the more awareness and courage it has, the more defiant and unruly it will be without the influence of that important emotion: conversely, fear without understanding only drives creatures to avoid the feared danger, without considering what will happen to them afterward: wild birds will bang their heads against the cage rather than save their lives by eating. There is a significant difference between being submissive and being governable; for someone who simply submits to another is merely choosing what they dislike less to avoid what they hate more; we can be very submissive and yet be of no help to the person we submit to: but to be governable means striving to please and willingly working on behalf of the one in charge: yet love starts at home, and no creature can work for others and be comfortable for long while completely disregarding itself: therefore, a creature is genuinely governable when, after accepting submission, it learns to see its servitude as beneficial to itself; and finds satisfaction in the benefits it gains through working for others. Various kinds of animals can be made governable with little effort; but there is no creature so tame that it can be made to serve its own kind, except for man; without this, he could never become sociable. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. But was not man by nature designed for society?

Hor. But wasn't man naturally meant for society?

Cleo. We know from revelation that man was made for society.

Cleo. We know from revelation that people were made for community.

Hor. But if it had not been revealed, or you had been a Chinese, or a Mexican, what would you answer me as a philosopher?

Hor. But if it hadn't been revealed, or if you were Chinese or Mexican, what would you say to me as a philosopher?

Cleo. That nature had designed man for society, as she has made grapes for wine.

Cleo. Nature intended for man to be part of society, just like she created grapes for wine.

Hor. To make wine is an invention of man, as it is to press oil from olives and other vegetables, and to make ropes of hemp.

Hor. Making wine is a human invention, just like pressing oil from olives and other plants, and making ropes from hemp.

Cleo. And so it is to form a society of independent multitudes; and there is nothing that requires greater skill.

Cleo. And that's how you create a society of independent individuals; it takes a lot of skill to make it happen.

Hor. But is not the sociableness of man the work of nature, or rather of the author of nature, Divine Providence?

Hor. But isn't human sociability a result of nature, or more accurately, the work of the creator of nature, Divine Providence?

Cleo. Without doubt: But so is the innate virtue and peculiar aptitude of every thing; that grapes are fit to make wine, and barley and water to make other liquors, is the work of Providence; but it is human sagacity that finds out the uses we make of them: all the other capacities of man likewise, as well as his sociableness, are evidently derived from God, who made him: every thing therefore that our industry can produce or compass, is originally owing to the Author of our being. But when we speak of the works of nature, to distinguish them from those of art, we mean such as were brought forth without our concurrence. So nature, in due season produces peas; but in England you cannot have them green in January, without art and uncommon industry. What nature designs, she executes herself: there are creatures, of whom it is visible, that nature has designed them for society, as is most obvious in bees, to whom she has given instincts for that purpose, as appears from the effects. We owe our being and every thing else to the great Author of the universe; but as societies cannot subsist without his preserving power, so they cannot exist without the concurrence of human wisdom: all of them must have a dependance either on mutual compact, or the force of the strong exerting itself upon the patience of the weak. The difference between the works of art, and those of nature, is so immense, that it is impossible not to know them asunder. Knowing, à priori, belongs to God only, and Divine Wisdom acts with an original certainty, of which, what we call demonstration, is but an imperfect borrowed copy. Amongst [394]the works of nature, therefore, we see no trials nor essays; they are all complete, and such as she would have them, at the first production; and, where she has not been interrupted, highly finished, beyond the reach of our understanding, as well as senses. Wretched man, on the contrary is sure of nothing, his own existence not excepted, but from reasoning, à posteriori. The consequence of this is, that the works of art and human invention are all very lame and defective, and most of them pitifully mean at first: our knowledge is advanced by slow degrees, and some arts and sciences require the experience of many ages, before they can be brought to any tolerable perfection. Have we any reason to imagine that the society of bees, that sent forth the first swarm, made worse wax or honey than any of their posterity have produced since? And again the laws of nature are fixed and unalterable: in all her orders and regulations there is a stability, no where to be met with in things of human contrivance and approbation;

Cleo. No doubt about it: But so is the natural goodness and unique ability of everything; that grapes can be turned into wine, and barley and water into other drinks, is the work of Providence; but it's human wisdom that discovers how we use them. All other human abilities, just like our sociability, clearly come from God, our Creator. Therefore, everything our efforts can produce or achieve originally results from the Author of our existence. However, when we talk about the works of nature, distinguishing them from those of art, we mean those that come into being without our involvement. For example, nature produces peas at the right time; but in England, you can’t have green peas in January without art and remarkable effort. Nature carries out what she designs herself: there are creatures, like bees, that clearly show they were meant for social living, given their instincts for that purpose, as seen by their results. We owe our existence and everything else to the great Author of the universe; but just as communities cannot survive without His sustaining power, they also can't exist without the cooperation of human intellect. All societies depend either on mutual agreements or on the strength of the powerful acting upon the patience of the weak. The gap between the works of art and those of nature is so vast that it’s impossible not to tell them apart. Knowing, à priori, belongs only to God, and Divine Wisdom operates with an original certainty that what we call demonstration is just an imperfect imitation. Among [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] the works of nature, we find no trials or experiments; they are all finished and as they should be from the start; and, when left uninterrupted, are highly refined beyond the capacity of our understanding and senses. Poor man, on the other hand, is sure of nothing, not even his own existence, except through reasoning, à posteriori. As a result, the works of art and human invention are often very flawed and, at first, many of them appear quite poor: our knowledge progresses gradually, and some arts and sciences require the experience of many generations before they reach any acceptable level of perfection. Is there any reason to think that the society of bees, which produced the first swarm, made worse wax or honey than any of their descendants have since? Furthermore, the laws of nature are fixed and unchanging: in all her orders and regulations, there is a stability that is not found in human creations and approvals;

Quid placet aut odio est, quod non mutabile credas?

Quid placet aut odio est, quod non mutabile credas?

Is it probable, that amongst the bees, there has ever been any other form of government than what every swarm submits to now? What an infinite variety of speculations, what ridiculous schemes have not been proposed amongst men, on the subject of government; what dissentions in opinion, and what fatal quarrels has it not been the occasion of! and which is the best form of it, is a question to this day undecided. The projects, good and bad, that have been stated for the benefit, and more happy establishment of society, are innumerable; but how short sighted is our sagacity, how fallible human judgment! What has seemed highly advantageous to mankind in one age, has often been found to be evidently detrimental by the succeeding; and even among contemporaries, what is revered in one country, is the abomination of another. What changes have ever bees made in their furniture or architecture? have they ever made cells that were not sexangular, or added any tools to those which nature furnished them with at the beginning? What mighty structures have been raised, what prodigious works have been performed by the great nations of the world! Toward all these nature has only found materials: the quarry yields [395]marble, but it is the sculptor that makes a statue of it. To have the infinite variety of iron tools that have been invented, nature has given us nothing but the oar, which she has hid in the bowels of the earth.

Is it likely that among bees there has ever been any other form of government than what every swarm follows today? What an endless array of speculations and ridiculous schemes have been proposed by humans regarding government; what disagreements in opinion and what serious conflicts has it caused! And which is the best form of government is still a question that remains unanswered. The numerous proposals, both good and bad, aimed at improving and establishing a happier society are countless; but how short-sighted is our wisdom, how unreliable human judgment! What seemed highly beneficial to humanity in one era is often found to be harmful in the next; and even among contemporaries, what is valued in one country is detested in another. What changes have bees ever made to their homes or structures? Have they ever created cells that are not hexagonal or added any tools to those that nature provided at the beginning? What grand structures have been built, what amazing feats accomplished by the great nations of the world! For all these, nature has only provided the materials: the quarry yields [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] marble, but it is the sculptor who creates a statue from it. To have the vast array of iron tools that have been invented, nature has given us only the oar, which she has hidden in the depths of the earth.

Hor. But the capacity of the workmen, the inventors of arts, and those that improved them, has had a great share in bringing those labours to perfection; and their genius they had from nature.

Hor. But the skill of the workers, the creators of arts, and those who enhanced them, has played a significant role in perfecting those efforts; their talent was a gift from nature.

Cleo. So far as it depended upon the make of their frame, the accuracy of the machine they had, and no further; but this I have allowed already; and if you remember what I have said on this head, you will find, that the part which nature contributed toward the skill and patience of every single person, that had a hand in those works, was very inconsiderable.

Cleo. It all came down to the design of their tools and the precision of the machines they used, nothing more. I've pointed this out before, and if you recall what I've mentioned on this topic, you'll see that the role nature played in the skill and patience of each individual involved in those efforts was quite minimal.

Hor. If I have not misunderstood you, you would insinuate two things: First, that the fitness of man for society, beyond other animals, is something real; but that it is hardly perceptible in individuals, before great numbers of them are joined together, and artfully managed. Secondly, that this real something, this sociableness, is a compound that consists in a concurrence of several things, and not in any one palpable quality, that man is endued with, and brutes are destitute of.

Hor. If I'm not misunderstanding you, you’re suggesting two things: First, that humans are naturally more suited for society than other animals, but this quality is barely noticeable in individuals until many come together and are skillfully organized. Second, that this social ability is a mixture of various factors, rather than just one obvious trait that humans have and animals lack.

Cleo. You are perfectly right: every grape contains a small quantity of juice, and when great heaps of them are squeezed together, they yield a liquor, which by skilful management may be made into wine: but if we consider how necessary fermentation is to the vinosity of the liquor, I mean, how essential is it to its being wine, it will be evident to us, that without great impropriety of speech, it cannot be said, that in every grape there is wine.

Cleo. You're absolutely correct: every grape has a small amount of juice, and when you press a lot of them together, they produce a liquid that can skillfully be turned into wine. However, if we think about how crucial fermentation is to the quality of the liquid—essential for it to be considered wine—it's clear that, without stretching the truth, we can't say that every grape contains wine.

Hor. Vinosity, so far as it is the effect of fermentation, is adventitious; and what none of the grapes could ever have received whilst they remained single; and, therefore, if you would compare the sociableness of man to the vinosity of wine, you must show me, that in society there is an equivalent for fermentation; I mean something that individual persons are not actually possessed of, whilst they remain single, and which likewise is palpably adventitious to multitudes when joined together; in the same manner as fermentation is to the juice of grapes, and as necessary and essential to the [396]completing of society as that is, that same fermentation, to procure the vinosity of wine.

Hor. The richness of wine, as a result of fermentation, is something added; it’s not something any individual grape could have on its own. So, if you want to liken the sociability of humans to the richness of wine, you need to show me that in society there’s something that serves as a substitute for fermentation; I mean something that individuals don’t have while they’re on their own, but that clearly becomes apparent when many come together. This is similar to how fermentation affects grape juice, and it’s just as crucial for creating a complete society as fermentation is for getting the richness of wine.

Cleo. Such an equivalent is demonstrable in mutual commerce: for if we examine every faculty and qualification, from and for which we judge and pronounce man to be a sociable creature beyond other animals, we shall find, that a very considerable, if not the greatest part of the attribute is acquired, and comes upon multitudes, from their conversing with one another. Fabricando fabri simus. Men become sociable, by living together in society. Natural affection prompts all mothers to take care of the offspring they dare own; so far as to feed and keep them from harm, whilst they are helpless: but where people are poor, and the women have no leisure to indulge themselves in the various expressions of their fondness for their infants, which fondling of them ever increases, they are often very remiss in tending and playing with them; and the more healthy and quiet such children are, the more they are neglected. This want of prattling to, and stirring up the spirits in babes, is often the principal cause of an invincible stupidity, as well as ignorance, when they are grown up; and we often ascribe to natural incapacity, what is altogether owing to the neglect of this early instruction. We have so few examples of human creatures, that never conversed with their own species, that it is hard to guess, what man would be, entirely untaught; but we have good reason to believe, that the faculty of thinking would be very imperfect in such a one, if we consider, that the greatest docility can be of no use to a creature, whilst it has nothing to imitate, nor any body to teach it.

Cleo. This can be shown in shared commerce: if we look at all the abilities and qualities that make us see humans as more social than other animals, we realize that a significant, if not the largest, part of this trait is learned through interacting with one another. Fabricando fabri simus. People become social by living together in communities. Natural affection drives mothers to care for their own children, providing food and keeping them safe while they are vulnerable. However, in poorer circumstances, when women lack the time to show affection through various nurturing behaviors, they often neglect to care for and engage with their infants. In fact, the healthier and quieter these children are, the more they might be overlooked. This lack of interaction and stimulation in early life frequently leads to a persistent lack of awareness and knowledge in adulthood. We often attribute this to natural inability when it’s actually due to the absence of early education. There are so few examples of humans who have never interacted with others that it’s hard to imagine what a completely untaught person would be like. However, we have strong reasons to believe that their ability to think would be severely lacking, as having a strong capacity to learn is pointless without anything or anyone to mimic or learn from.

Hor. Philosophers therefore are very wisely employed, when they discourse about the laws of nature; and pretend to determine what a man in the state of nature would think, and which way he would reason concerning himself and the creation, uninstructed.

Hor. Philosophers are wisely engaged when they discuss the laws of nature and try to figure out what a person in a natural state would think and how they would reason about themselves and the world, without any prior knowledge.

Cleo. Thinking, and reasoning justly, as Mr. Locke has rightly observed, require time and practice. Those that have not used themselves to thinking, but just on their present necessities, make poor work of it, when they try beyond that. In remote parts, and such as are least inhabited, we shall find our species come nearer the state of nature, than it does in and near great cities and considerable towns, even in the most civilized nations. Among the most ignorant of such people, you may learn the truth of my assertion; talk to them about [397]any thing, that requires abstract thinking, and there is not one in fifty that will understand you, any more than a horse would; and yet many of them are useful labourers, and cunning enough to tell lies and deceive. Man is a rational creature, but he is not endued with reason when he comes into the world; nor can he afterwards put it on when he pleases, at once, as he may a garment. Speech likewise is a characteristic of our species, but no man is born with it; and a dozen generations proceeding from two savages would not produce any tolerable language; nor have we reason to believe, that a man could be taught to speak after five-and-twenty, if he had never heard others before that time.

Cleo. Thinking and reasoning properly, as Mr. Locke rightly pointed out, take time and practice. Those who haven't trained themselves to think beyond their immediate needs struggle when they attempt to go further. In remote areas, which are less populated, we find our species is closer to a natural state than in or near big cities and significant towns, even in the most civilized countries. Among the most uneducated of these people, you can see the truth of my claim; talk to them about [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] anything that needs abstract thinking, and only one in fifty will get it, much like a horse wouldn't. Yet many of them can work well and are clever enough to lie and deceive. Humans are rational beings, but they aren’t born with reason; nor can they simply put it on like a coat later on. Speech is also a trait of our species, but no one is born with it; and a dozen generations from two savages wouldn’t create any decent language. We also have no reason to think that someone could learn to speak after age twenty-five if they had never heard others before that time.

Hor. The necessity of teaching, whilst the organs are supple, and easily yield to impression, which you have spoke of before, I believe is of great weight, both in speaking and thinking; but could a dog, or a monkey, ever be taught to speak?

Hor. The importance of teaching while the mind is flexible and open to new ideas, as you've mentioned before, I think is significant for both speaking and thinking; but could a dog or a monkey ever learn to talk?

Cleo. I believe not; but I do not think, that creatures of another species had ever the pains bestowed upon them, that some children have, before they can pronounce one word. Another thing to be considered is, that though some animals perhaps live longer than we do, there is no species that remains young so long as ours; and besides what we owe to the superior aptitude to learn, which we have from the great accuracy of our frame and inward structure, we are not a little indebted for our docility, to the slowness and long gradation of our increase, before we are full grown: the organs in other creatures grow stiff, before ours are come to half their perfection.

Cleo. I don't believe that; but I don't think that creatures from other species have ever experienced the struggles that some children face before they can say a single word. Another thing to consider is that, while some animals might live longer than we do, there is no species that stays young for as long as ours does. Besides what we owe to our superior ability to learn, thanks to the precision of our bodies and inner workings, we also owe our gentleness to the slow and gradual process of growing up; the organs in other creatures become rigid before ours reach even half their development.

Hor. So that in the compliment we make to our species, of its being endued with speech and sociableness, there is no other reality, than that by care and industry men may be taught to speak, and be made sociable, if the discipline begins when they are very young.

Hor. In the praise we give to our kind for having the ability to speak and be social, the truth is that with care and effort, people can be taught to communicate and become sociable, especially if the training starts when they are very young.

Cleo. Not otherwise. A thousand of our species all grown up, that is above five-and-twenty, could never be made sociable, if they had been brought up wild, and were all strangers to one another.

Cleo. Not at all. A thousand of our kind who are all over twenty-five could never be friendly if they were raised in the wild and didn't know each other.

Hor. I believe they could not be civilized, if their education began so late.

Hor. I think they couldn't be civilized if their education started so late.

Cleo. But I mean barely sociable, as it is the epithet peculiar to man; that is, it would be impossible by art to govern them, any more than so many wild horses, unless you had two [398]or three times that number to watch and keep them in awe. Therefore it is highly probable, that most societies, and beginnings of nations, were formed in the manner Sir William Temple supposes it; but nothing near so fast: and I wonder how a man of his unquestionable good sense, could form an idea of justice, prudence, and wisdom, in an untaught creature; or think of a civilized man, before there was any civil society, and even before men had commenced to associate.

Cleo. But I mean barely sociable, as it is the term unique to humans; in other words, it would be impossible to control them by skill, just like a group of wild horses, unless you had two [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] or three times that many to monitor them and keep them in check. Therefore, it is highly likely that most societies and the beginnings of nations were formed in the way Sir William Temple suggests, but nothing nearly as quickly. I’m surprised that a man of his undeniable good sense could imagine concepts of justice, prudence, and wisdom in an untaught being, or think of a civilized person before there was any civil society, or even before people began to come together.

Hor. I have read it, I am sure, but I do not remember what it is you mean.

Hor. I’ve read it, I know, but I don’t remember what you’re talking about.

Cleo. He is just behind you; the third shelf from the bottom; the first volume: pray reach it me, it is worth your hearing.——It is in his Essay on Government. Here it is. “For if we consider man multiplying his kind by the birth of many children, and his cares by providing even necessary food for them, until they are able to do it for themselves (which happens much later to the generations of men, and makes a much longer dependence of children upon parents, than we can observe among any other creatures); if we consider not only the cares, but the industry he is forced to, for the necessary sustenance of his helpless brood, either in gathering the natural fruits, or raising those which are purchased with labour and toil: if he be forced for supply of this stock, to catch the tamer creatures, and hunt the wilder, sometimes to exercise his courage in defending his little family, and fighting with the strong and savage beasts (that would prey upon him, as he does upon the weak and mild): if we suppose him disposing with discretion and order, whatever he gets among his children, according to each of their hunger or need; sometimes laying up for to-morrow, what was more than enough for to-day; at other times pinching himself, rather than suffering any of them should want.——

Cleo. He’s right behind you; it’s on the third shelf from the bottom; the first volume: please hand it to me, it's worth your attention. — It’s in his Essay on Government. Here it is. “If we think about how humans multiply by having many children, and the burden of providing even the basic necessities for them until they can take care of themselves (which takes much longer for humans than for any other creatures), resulting in a much longer dependence of children on their parents; if we consider not just the worries, but the hard work he must do for the necessary support of his helpless kids, whether it's gathering natural foods or producing what requires labor and effort: if he is obligated to catch tamer animals and hunt wild ones to feed this family, sometimes having to show bravery in protecting his little family from strong and ferocious animals (which prey on him, as he does on the weak and gentle): if we imagine him distributing wisely and orderly whatever he gathers among his children, based on each one’s hunger or need; sometimes saving for tomorrow what is more than enough for today; at other times going without for himself rather than letting any of them suffer. —

Hor. This man is no savage, or untaught creature; he is fit to be a justice of peace.

Hor. This guy isn’t a savage or an uneducated person; he’s qualified to be a justice of the peace.

Cleo. Pray let me go on, I shall only read this paragraph: “And as each of them grows up, and able to share in the common support, teaching them, both by lesson and example, what he is now to do, as the son of his family, and what hereafter, as the father of another; instructing them all, what qualities are good, and what are ill, for their health and life, or common society (which will certainly comprehend whatever is generally esteemed virtue or vice [399]among men), cherishing and encouraging dispositions to the good, disfavouring and punishing those to the ill: And lastly, among the various accidents of life, lifting up his eyes to Heaven, when the earth affords him no relief; and having recourse to a higher and a greater nature, whenever he finds the frailty of his own: we must needs conclude, that the children of this man cannot fail of being bred up with a great opinion of his wisdom, his goodness, his valour, and his piety. And if they see constant plenty in the family, they believe well of his fortune too.”

Cleo. Please let me continue, I’ll just read this paragraph: “And as each of them grows up and is able to contribute to the common support, teaching them, both through lessons and examples, what he should do now, as the son of his family, and what he will do later, as the father of another; instructing them all on what qualities are good and what are bad for their health and life, or for the common society (which will certainly include whatever is generally regarded as virtue or vice [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] among people), nurturing and encouraging positive traits, discouraging and punishing negative ones: And finally, amidst life's various challenges, looking up to Heaven when the earth offers him no relief; and turning to a higher and greater nature whenever he feels the limitations of his own: we must conclude that this man's children cannot help but grow up with a strong opinion of his wisdom, goodness, courage, and piety. And if they see constant abundance in the family, they think well of his fortune too.”

Hor. Did this man spring out of the earth, I wonder, or did he drop from the sky?

Hor. I wonder if this guy just appeared out of nowhere or fell from the sky?

Cleo. There is no manner of absurdity in supposing——.

Cleo. There's no way it's absurd to think——.

Hor. The discussion of this would too far engage us: I am sure, I have tired you already with my impertinence.

Hor. Talking about this would take us too far off track: I'm sure I've already worn you out with my nonsense.

Cleo. You have pleased me extremely: the questions you have asked have all been very pertinent, and such as every man of sense would make, that had not made it his business to think on these things. I read that passage on purpose to you, to make some use of it; but if you are weary of the subject, I will not trespass upon your patience any longer.

Cleo. You’ve really impressed me: the questions you’ve asked are all very relevant, and they’re exactly what any sensible person would ask if they hadn’t already thought about these things. I read that part to you for a reason, but if you’re tired of the topic, I won’t bother you any longer.

Hor. You mistake me; I begin to be fond of the subject: but before we talk of it any further, I have a mind to run over that Essay again; it is a great while since I read it: and after that I shall be glad to resume the discourse; the sooner the better. I know you are a lover of fine fruit, if you will dine with me to-morrow, I will give you an ananas.

Hor. You're misunderstanding me; I'm starting to really like this topic. But before we discuss it more, I want to read that essay again; it's been a long time since I went through it. After that, I'd be happy to continue the conversation—sooner would be better. I know you enjoy good fruit, so if you join me for dinner tomorrow, I’ll treat you to a pineapple.

Cleo. I love your company so well, that I can refuse no opportunity of enjoying it.

Cleo. I enjoy being with you so much that I can’t pass up any chance to spend time together.

Hor. A revoir then.

Hor. To review then.

Cleo. Your servant. [400]

Cleo. Your assistant. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE FIFTH
DIALOGUE
BETWEEN
HORATIO AND CLEOMENES.

CLEOMENES.

CLEOMENES.

It excels every thing; it is extremely rich without being luscious, and I know nothing to which I can compare the taste of it: to me it seems to be a collection of different fine flavours, that puts me in mind of several delicious fruits, which yet are all outdone by it.

It stands out above everything else; it’s incredibly rich without being overwhelming, and I can’t think of anything that compares to its taste. To me, it feels like a blend of various exquisite flavors that remind me of several delicious fruits, yet it surpasses them all.

Hor. I am glad it pleased you.

Hor. I'm happy you enjoyed it.

Cleo. The scent of it likewise is wonderfully reviving. As you was paring it, a fragrancy, I thought, perfumed the room that was perfectly cordial.

Cleo. The smell of it is incredibly refreshing. As you were peeling it, I noticed a fragrance that filled the room and was just delightful.

Hor. The inside of the rhind has an oiliness of no disagreeable smell, that upon handling of it sticks to ones fingers for a considerable time; for though now I have washed and wiped my hands, the flavour of it will not be entirely gone from them by to-morrow morning.

Hor. The inside of the rind has an oily feel that's not unpleasant, and when you touch it, it creates a sticky residue on your fingers that lasts for a long time. Even though I’ve washed and dried my hands now, the scent of it won’t completely fade by tomorrow morning.

Cleo. This was the third I ever tasted of our own growth; the production of them in these northern climates, is no small instance of human industry, and our improvements in gardening. It is very elegant to enjoy the wholesome air of temperate regions, and at the same time be able to raise fruit to its highest maturity, that naturally requires the sun of the Torrid Zone.

Cleo. This was the third time I tried fruit from our own growth; producing them in these northern climates is a significant example of human effort and our advancements in gardening. It’s quite enjoyable to breathe in the fresh air of temperate regions while also being able to grow fruit to its fullest ripeness, which typically needs the sun of the Tropics.

Hor. It is easy enough to procure heat, but the great art consists in finding out, and regulating the degrees of it at pleasure; without which it would be impossible to ripen an ananas here, and to compass this with that exactness, as it is done by the help of thermometers, was certainly a fine invention.

Hor. It's pretty easy to generate heat, but the real skill lies in figuring out how to control the levels of it as needed; without that, it would be impossible to grow ananas here, and achieving this with such precision, thanks to thermometers, was definitely a clever invention.

Cleo. I do not care to drink any more. [401]

Cleo. I'm not interested in drinking anymore. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. Just as you please; otherwise I was going to name a health, which would not have come mal à propos.

Hor. Whatever you prefer; otherwise, I was going to suggest a toast to good health, which would have been quite appropriate.

Cleo. Whose is that, pray?

Cleo. Whose is that, please?

Hor. I was thinking on the man to whom we are in a great measure obliged for the production and culture of the exotic, we were speaking of, in this kingdom; Sir Matthew Decker, the first ananas or pine-apple, that was brought to perfection in England, grew in his garden at Richmond.

Hor. I was reflecting on the man to whom we owe a lot for the introduction and cultivation of the exotic fruit we were discussing in this country; Sir Matthew Decker, who successfully grew the first pineapple in England, had it in his garden at Richmond.

Cleo. With all my heart; let us finish with that; he is a beneficent, and, I believe, a very honest man.

Cleo. I truly believe that; let's put that aside; he's a kind-hearted person, and I think he's really honest.

Hor. It would not be easy to name another, who, with the same knowledge of the world, and capacity of getting money, is equally disinterested and inoffensive.

Hor. It wouldn't be easy to find someone else who, with the same understanding of the world and ability to make money, is just as selfless and harmless.

Cleo. Have you considered the things we discoursed of yesterday?

Cleo. Have you thought about what we talked about yesterday?

Hor. I have thought on nothing else since I saw you: This morning I went through the whole Essay, and with more attention than I did formerly: I like it very well; only that passage which you read yesterday, and some others to the same purpose, I cannot reconcile with the account we have of man’s origin from the Bible: Since all are descendants from Adam, and consequently of Noah and his posterity, how came savages into the world?

Hor. I haven't thought about anything else since I saw you. This morning, I went through the entire Essay again, paying more attention than I did before. I really like it; however, I can’t reconcile that part you read yesterday, along with some other similar points, with the account we have of humanity's origin in the Bible. Since everyone is a descendant of Adam and, therefore, of Noah and his descendants, how did savages come into the world?

Cleo. The history of the world, as to very ancient times, is very imperfect: What devastations have been made by war, by pestilence, and by famine; what distress some men have been drove to, and how strangely our race has been dispersed and scattered over the earth since the flood, we do not know.

Cleo. The history of the world, especially from ancient times, is quite incomplete: We have no clear record of the destruction caused by war, disease, and famine; we don't know the suffering some people endured, or how oddly our species has been spread out and scattered across the earth since the flood.

Hor. But persons that are well instructed themselves, never fail of teaching their children; and we have no reason to think, that knowing, civilized men, as the sons of Noah were, should have neglected their offspring; but it is altogether incredible, as all are descendants from them, that succeeding generations, instead of increasing in experience and wisdom, should learn backward, and still more and more abandon their broods in such a manner, as to degenerate at last to what you call the state of nature.

Hor. But people who are well educated themselves never fail to teach their children; and we have no reason to believe that knowledgeable, civilized men, like the sons of Noah, would have neglected their offspring. It’s completely unbelievable that all of us, being their descendants, would not only fail to gain more experience and wisdom over generations but also regress and abandon our children in such a way that they would ultimately revert to what you call the state of nature.

Cleo. Whether you intend this as a sarcasm or not, I do not know; but you have raised no difficulty that can render the truth of the sacred history suspected. Holy writ has acquainted us with the miraculous origin of our species, and the small remainder of it after the deluge: But it is far from [402]informing us of all the revolutions that have happened among mankind since: The Old Testament hardly touches upon any particulars that had no relation to the Jews; neither does Moses pretend to give a full account of every thing that happened to, or was transacted by our first parents: He names none of Adam’s daughters, and takes no notice of several things that must have happened in the beginning of the world, as is evident from Cain’s building a city, and several other circumstances; from which it is plain, that Moses meddled with nothing but what was material, and to his purpose; which, in that part of his history, was to trace the descent of the Patriarchs, from the first man. But that there are savages is certain: Most nations of Europe have met with wild men and women in several parts of the world, that were ignorant of the use of letters, and among whom they could observe no rule or government.

Cleo. I don't know if you mean this sarcastically or not, but you've raised no issue that could make us doubt the truth of the sacred history. The holy texts have informed us about the miraculous origin of our species and what little remained after the flood. However, they don't provide a complete account of all the changes that have occurred among humanity since then. The Old Testament barely touches on details that don't relate to the Jews, and Moses doesn't claim to give a full account of everything that happened to or was done by our first parents. He doesn't mention any of Adam's daughters and overlooks many events that must have taken place at the beginning of the world, as evident from Cain building a city and other circumstances. This shows that Moses focused only on what was important and relevant, specifically tracing the lineage of the Patriarchs from the first man. But it is clear that there are savages: Many European nations have encountered wild men and women in various parts of the world who were unaware of the written word and among whom no rules or government could be observed.

Hor. That there are savages, I do not question; and from the great number of slaves that are yearly fetched from Africa, it is manifest, that in some parts there must be vast swarms of people, that have not yet made a great hand of their sociableness: But how to derive them from all the sons of Noah, I own, is past my skill.

Hor. I have no doubt that there are savages, and considering the large number of slaves brought from Africa each year, it's clear that in some areas there must be huge groups of people who haven't developed strong social skills. But how to trace this back to all the sons of Noah, I admit, is beyond my understanding.

Cleo. You find it as difficult to account for the loss of the many fine arts, and useful inventions of the ancients, which the world has certainly sustained. But the fault I find with Sir William Temple, is in the character of his savage. Just reasoning, and such an orderly way of proceeding, as he makes him act in, are unnatural to a wild man: In such a one, the passions must be boisterous, and continually jostling, and succeeding one another; no untaught man could have a regular way of thinking, or pursue any one design with steadiness.

Cleo. You struggle to understand the loss of the many great arts and useful inventions from ancient times that the world has definitely experienced. However, what I take issue with in Sir William Temple’s portrayal is the character of his savage. The reasoning and orderly way he has him act are unrealistic for a wild man: someone like that would have intense emotions, constantly clashing and rushing one after the other; no untrained individual could think in a structured way or stick to one plan with consistency.

Hor. You have strange notions of our species: But has not a man, by the time that he comes to maturity, some notions of right and wrong, that are natural?

Hor. You have some weird ideas about our kind: But doesn’t a man, by the time he grows up, have some basic instincts of right and wrong that are natural?

Cleo. Before I answer your question, I would have you consider, that, among savages, there must be always a great difference as to the wildness or tameness of them. All creatures naturally love their offspring whilst they are helpless, and so does man: But in the savage state, men are more liable to accidents and misfortunes than they are in society, as to the rearing of their young ones; and, therefore, the children of savages must very often be put to their shifts, so as hardly [403]to remember, by the time that they are grown up, that they had any parents. If this happens too early, and they are dropt or lost before they are four or five years of age, they must perish; either die for want, or be devoured by beasts of prey, unless some other creature takes care of them. Those orphans that survive, and become their own masters very young, must, when they are come to maturity, be much wilder than others, that have lived many years under the tuition of parents.

Cleo. Before I answer your question, I want you to consider that even among wild people, there’s a big difference in how tame or wild they are. All creatures naturally care for their young while they’re helpless, and so do humans. But in a wild state, people are more prone to accidents and hardships when it comes to raising their children than they are in a community. Because of this, the children of wild people often have to fend for themselves, so much so that by the time they grow up, they can hardly remember having parents. If this separation happens too soon and they’re abandoned or lost before they reach four or five years old, they’re likely to die; either from hunger or being eaten by predators, unless another creature takes care of them. Those orphans who survive and become independent at a young age will likely be much wilder when they reach adulthood compared to those who have lived many years under the guidance of their parents.

Hor. But would not the wildest man you can imagine, have from nature some thoughts of justice and injustice?

Hor. But wouldn’t even the wildest person you can think of have some sense of what’s right and what’s wrong?

Cleo. Such a one, I believe, would naturally, without much thinking in the case, take every thing to be his own that he could lay his hands on.

Cleo. I think someone like that would instinctively, without much thought, consider everything they could grab as theirs.

Hor. Then they would soon be undeceived, if two or three of them met together.

Hor. They would quickly realize the truth if two or three of them got together.

Cleo. That they would soon disagree and quarrel, is highly probable; but I do not believe they ever would be undeceived.

Cleo. It's very likely that they would soon disagree and argue, but I don't think they would ever realize the truth.

Hor. At this rate, men could never be formed into an aggregate body: How came society into the world?

Hor. At this rate, people could never come together as a group: How did society come into existence?

Cleo. As I told you, from private families; but not without great difficulty, and the concurrence of many favourable accidents; and many generations may pass before there is any likelihood of their being formed into a society.

Cleo. As I mentioned before, from private families; but not without a lot of struggle, and the agreement of many fortunate events; and it might take several generations before there's any chance of them becoming a society.

Hor. That men are formed into societies, we see: But if they are all born with that false notion, and they can never be undeceived, which way do you account for it?

Hor. We see that men are organized into societies. But if they are all born with that false idea and can never realize the truth, how do you explain it?

Cleo. My opinion concerning this matter, is this: Self-preservation bids all creatures gratify their appetites, and that of propagating his kind never fails to affect a man in health, many years before he comes to his full growth. If a wild man and a wild woman would meet very young, and live together for fifty years undisturbed, in a mild wholesome climate, where there is plenty of provisions, they might see a prodigious number of descendants: For, in the wild state of nature, man multiplies his kind much faster, than can be allowed of in any regular society: No male at fourteen would be long without a female, if he could get one; and no female of twelve would be refractory, if applied to, or remain long uncourted, if there were men.

Cleo. Here’s my take on this: Self-preservation drives all living beings to satisfy their desires, and the instinct to reproduce strongly influences a healthy man long before he reaches adulthood. If a wild man and a wild woman were to meet when they are very young and live together for fifty years without interruption in a pleasant, healthy environment with ample food, they could end up having a huge number of children. In nature, people tend to reproduce much more quickly than would be possible in a structured society. No boy at fourteen would stay single for long if he had the chance, and no girl at twelve would refuse attention if approached, or stay unasked for long if there were available guys around.

Hor. Considering that consanguinity would be no bar among these people, the progeny of two savages might soon amount [404]to hundreds: All this I can grant you; but as parents, no better qualified, could teach their children but little, it would be impossible for them to govern these sons and daughters when they grew up, if none of them had any notions of right or wrong; and society is as far off as ever; the false principle, which you say all men are born with, is an obstacle never to be surmounted.

Hor. Since being related by blood wouldn’t be an issue for these people, the kids of two savages could quickly add up to hundreds: I can accept all of that; but since no better-equipped parents could teach their children much, it would be impossible for them to manage these sons and daughters as they grew up, if none of them understood right from wrong; and society is still nowhere in sight; the false idea that you say all people are born with is a barrier that can never be overcome.

Cleo. From that false principle, as you call it, the right men naturally claim to every thing they can get, it must follow, that man will look upon his children as his property, and make such use of them as is most consistent with his interest.

Cleo. From that mistaken idea, as you call it, the right people will naturally believe they can claim anything they can obtain, which leads to the conclusion that a man will view his children as his possessions and treat them in a way that serves his own interests.

Hor. What is the interest of a wild man that pursues nothing with steadiness.

Hor. What does a wild man who doesn't pursue anything consistently really care about?

Cleo. The demand of the predominant passion for the time it lasts.

Cleo. The intensity of the main desire for as long as it lasts.

Hor. That may change every moment, and such children would be miserably managed.

Hor. That could change at any moment, and those kids would be poorly managed.

Cleo. That is true; but still managed they would be; I mean they would be kept under, and forced to do as they they were bid, at least till they were strong enough to resist. Natural affection would prompt a wild man to love and cherish his child; it would make him provide food, and other necessaries for his son, till he was ten or twelve years old, or perhaps longer: But this affection is not the only passion he has to gratify; if his son provokes him by stubbornness, or doing otherwise than he would have him, this love is suspended; and if his displeasure be strong enough to raise his anger, which is as natural to him as any other passion, it is ten to one but he will knock him down: If he hurts him very much, and the condition he has put his son in, moves his pity, his anger will cease; and, natural affection returning, he will fondle him again, and be sorry for what he has done. Now, if we consider that all creatures hate and endeavour to avoid pain, and that benefits beget love in all that receive them, we shall find, that the consequence of this management would be, that the savage child would learn to love and fear his father: These two passions, together with the esteem which we naturally have for every thing that far excels us, will seldom fail of producing that compound which we call reverence.

Cleo. That’s true; but they would still be managed. I mean, they would be kept under control and forced to do as they were told, at least until they were strong enough to resist. Natural affection would drive a wild man to love and care for his child; it would make him provide food and other necessities for his son until he was ten or twelve years old, or maybe even longer. But this affection isn’t the only emotion he needs to satisfy; if his son provokes him by being stubborn or not doing what he wants, that love might fade. And if his anger gets strong enough, which is just as natural for him as any other feeling, he’s likely to lash out. If he really hurts his son and sees how it affects him, his anger may subside, and with the return of natural affection, he will comfort him again and feel sorry for what he's done. Now, if we consider that all creatures hate and try to avoid pain, and that kindness brings love to everyone who receives it, we’ll see that the result of this behavior would be that the wild child would learn to love and fear his father. These two feelings, combined with the admiration we naturally have for anything that greatly surpasses us, will usually lead to what we call reverence.

Hor. I have it now; you have opened my eyes, and I see the origin of society, as plain as I do that table. [405]

Hor. I get it now; you’ve opened my eyes, and I see the origin of society as clearly as I see that table. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. I am afraid the prospect is not so clear yet as you imagine.

Cleo. I'm afraid the situation isn't as clear as you think.

Hor. Why so? The grand obstacles are removed: Untaught men, it is true, when they are grown up, are never to be governed; and our subjection is never sincere where the superiority of the governor is not very apparent: But both these are obviated; the reverence we have for a person when we are young, is easily continued as long as we live; and where authority is once acknowledged, and that acknowledgment well established, it cannot be a difficult matter to govern. If thus a man may keep up his authority over his children, he will do it still with greater ease over his grand-children: For a child that has the least reverence for his parents, will seldom refuse homage to the person to whom he sees his father pay it. Besides, a man’s pride would be a sufficient motive for him to maintain the authority once gained; and, if some of his progeny proved refractory, he would leave no stone unturned, by the help of the rest to reduce the disobedient. The old man being dead, the authority from him would devolve upon the eldest of his children, and so on.

Hor. Why is that? The big obstacles are gone: It’s true that untrained people, once they grow up, can’t really be controlled; and our submission isn’t genuine if the leader’s superiority isn’t clear. But these issues can be avoided; the respect we have for someone while we’re young can easily last a lifetime, and once authority is recognized and established, governing becomes much easier. If a person can maintain their authority over their kids, it will be even easier with their grandkids: A child who has even a bit of respect for their parents is unlikely to deny respect to someone who they see their father respecting. Plus, a person's pride would push them to keep the authority they’ve gained; and if some of their offspring are rebellious, they’d spare no effort, with the help of the others, to bring the disobedient back in line. Once the old man dies, the authority will pass to the oldest of his children, and so forth.

Cleo. I thought you would go on too fast. If the wild man had understood the nature of things, and been endued with general knowledge, and a language ready made, as Adam was by miracle, what you say might have been easy; but an ignorant creature that knows nothing but what his own experience has taught him, is no more fit to govern than he is fit to teach the mathematics.

Cleo. I thought you would rush ahead. If the wild man had understood how things work, had some general knowledge, and had a language already ready, like Adam did through a miracle, what you say might have been simple; but an ignorant being who only knows what his own experiences have taught him is no more capable of governing than he is of teaching math.

Hor. He would not have above one or two children to govern at first; and his experience would increase by degrees, as well as his family. This would require no such consummate knowledge.

Hor. He wouldn't have more than one or two kids to take care of at first, and his experience would grow gradually, just like his family. This wouldn’t need any extraordinary expertise.

Cleo. I do not say it would: An ordinary capacity of a man tolerably well educated, would be sufficient to begin with; but a man who never had been taught to curb any of his passions, would be very unfit for such a task. He would make his children, as soon as they were able, assist him in getting food, and teach them how and where to procure it. Savage children, as they got strength, would endeavour to imitate every action they saw their parents do, and every sound they heard them make; but all the instructions they received, would be confined to things immediately necessary. Savage parents would often take offence at their children, as they grew up, without a cause; and as these increased in [406]years, so natural affection would decrease in the other. The consequence would be, that the children would often suffer for failings that were not their own. Savages would often discover faults in the conduct of what was past; but they would not be able to establish rules for future behaviour, which they would approve of themselves for any continuance; and want of foresight would be an inexhaustible fund for changes in their resolutions. The savage’s wife, as well as himself, would be highly pleased to see their daughters impregnated and bring forth; and they would both take great delight in their grand-children.

Cleo. I'm not saying it wouldn't: An average person with a decent education could manage at first; however, someone who has never been taught to control their emotions would be very unfit for such a responsibility. They would make their children, as soon as they were able, help them find food and teach them how and where to get it. Wild children, as they grew stronger, would try to imitate everything they saw their parents do and every sound they heard; but all the lessons they received would be limited to what was immediately necessary. Wild parents would often get upset with their children as they grew up, often without any reason; and as the children aged, natural affection would diminish in the parents. As a result, the children would frequently suffer for mistakes that weren’t theirs. Savages might recognize past mistakes in behavior, but they wouldn’t be able to set rules for future conduct that they would consistently approve of, and their lack of foresight would lead to constant changes in their decisions. The savage’s wife, just like him, would be very pleased to see their daughters pregnant and giving birth; and both would take great joy in their grandchildren.

Hor. I thought, that in all creatures the natural affection of parents had been confined to their own young ones.

Hor. I thought that in all creatures, parental love was limited to their own offspring.

Cleo. It is so in all but man; there is no species but ours, that are so conceited of themselves, as to imagine every thing to be theirs. The desire of dominion is a never-failing consequence of the pride that is common to all men; and which the brat of a savage is as much born with as the son of an emperor. This good opinion we have of ourselves, makes men not only claim a right to their children, but likewise imagine, that they have a great share of jurisdiction over their grandchildren. The young ones of other animals, as soon as they can help themselves, are free; but the authority which parents pretend to have over their children, never ceases: How general and unreasonable this eternal claim is naturally in the heart of man, we may learn from the laws; which, to prevent the usurpation of parents, and rescue children from their dominion, every civil society is forced to make; limiting paternal authority to a certain term of years. Our savage pair would have a double title to their grandchildren, from their undoubted property in each parent of them; and all the progeny being sprung from their own sons and daughters, without intermixture of foreign blood, they would look upon the whole race to be their natural vassals; and I am persuaded, that the more knowledge and capacity of reasoning this first couple acquired, the more just and unquestionable their sovereignty over all their descendants would appear to them, though they should live to see the fifth or sixth generation.

Cleo. It’s true for all but humans; no other species is as self-important as we are, thinking everything belongs to us. The desire for control is a constant outcome of the pride that’s common to all people, and even a savage’s child is born with this instinct just like the child of an emperor. This high opinion we have of ourselves leads people to not only claim rights over their children but also to believe they should have a say in their grandchildren's lives. Young animals, as soon as they can fend for themselves, are free, but the control that parents claim over their children never really ends. How common and unreasonable this persistent claim is in human nature becomes evident in the laws that societies create to prevent parental overreach and protect kids from their control, limiting parental authority to a certain number of years. Our primitive couple would have a double claim over their grandchildren, based on their definite connection to each parent, and since all their offspring would come from their own sons and daughters, without any mixing of outside blood, they would consider the entire lineage as their natural subjects. I’m convinced that the more knowledge and reasoning skills this first couple developed, the stronger and more justified their sense of rule over all their descendants would seem to them, even if they were to see their family reach the fifth or sixth generation.

Hor. Is it not strange that nature should send us all into the world with a visible desire after government, and no capacity for it at all? [407]

Hor. Isn't it odd that nature sends us all into the world with a clear desire for leadership, yet no ability to handle it? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. What seems strange to you, is an undeniable instance of Divine Wisdom. For, if all had not been born with this desire, all must have been destitute of it; and multitudes could never have been formed into societies, if some of them had not been possessed of this thirst of dominion. Creatures may commit force upon themselves, they may learn to warp their natural appetites, and divert them from their proper objects: but peculiar instincts, that belong to a whole species, are never to be acquired by art or discipline; and those that are born without them, must remain destitute of them for ever. Ducks run to the water as soon as they are hatched; but you can never make a chicken swim any more than you can teach it to suck.

Cleo. What seems strange to you is a clear example of Divine Wisdom. If everyone hadn't been born with this desire, then no one would have it at all; and many people couldn't have formed societies if some of them didn't have this craving for power. Creatures might force themselves to change their natural desires and redirect them from what they really want, but certain instincts that belong to an entire species can't be learned through practice or training; those who are born without them will always lack them. Ducks swim towards water as soon as they're born, but you can never teach a chicken to swim any more than you can teach it to suck.

Hor. I understand you very well. If pride had not been innate to all men, none of them could ever have been ambitious: And as to the capacity of governing, experience shows us, that it is to be acquired; but how to bring society into the world, I know no more than the wild man himself. What you have suggested to me of his unskilfulness, and want of power to govern himself, has quite destroyed all the hopes I had conceived of society from this family. But would religion have no influence upon them? Pray, how came that into the world?

Hor. I get you completely. If pride wasn't a natural part of being human, no one would ever be ambitious. As for the ability to govern, experience shows it can be learned; but I have no more idea of how to create a functioning society than a wild man does. What you've pointed out about his lack of skill and inability to govern himself has completely shattered all my hopes for society coming from this family. But wouldn't religion have some impact on them? How did that come about in the first place?

Cleo. From God, by miracle.

Cleo. From God, by miracle.

Hor. Obscurum per obscurius. I do not understand miracles, that break in upon, and subvert the order of nature; and I have no notion of things that come to pass, en dépit de bon sens, and are such; that judging from sound reason and known experience, all wise men would think themselves mathematically sure that they could never happen.

Hor. Obscurum per obscurius. I don’t get miracles that disrupt and overturn the natural order; I can’t wrap my head around things that happen, en disappointment de bon sens, and are such that, based on sound reasoning and what we know from experience, all wise people would be absolutely sure they could never occur.

Cleo. It is certain, that by the word miracle, is meant an interposition of the Divine Power, when it deviates from the common course of nature.

Cleo. It's clear that by the term miracle, we mean an intervention of Divine Power when it breaks from the usual course of nature.

Hor. As when matters, easily combustible, remain whole and untouched in the midst of a fire fiercely burning, or lions in vigour, industriously kept hungry, forbear eating what they are most greedy after. These miracles are strange things.

Hor. Just like when easily ignitable things stay intact and untouched in the middle of a raging fire, or when strong lions, kept hungry, resist eating what they desire most. These wonders are truly strange.

Cleo. They are not pretended to be otherwise; the etymology of the word imports it; but it is almost as unaccountable, that men should disbelieve them, and pretend to be of a religion that is altogether built upon miracles.

Cleo. They don’t claim to be anything else; the origin of the word makes that clear. Yet, it’s almost as baffling that people would doubt them and pretend to follow a religion that’s completely based on miracles.

Hor. But when I asked you that general question, why did you confine yourself to revealed religion? [408]

Hor. But when I asked you that general question, why did you limit yourself to revealed religion? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. Because nothing, in my opinion, deserves the name of religion, that has not been revealed: The Jewish was the first that was national, and the Christian the next.

Cleo. Because nothing, in my view, can truly be called a religion unless it has been revealed: The Jewish faith was the first that was national, and the Christian faith came next.

Hor. But Abraham, Noah, and Adam himself, were no Jews, and yet they had religion.

Hor. But Abraham, Noah, and even Adam were not Jews, and still they had faith.

Cleo. No other than what was revealed to them. God appeared to our first parents, and gave them commands immediately after he had created them: The same intercourse was continued between the Supreme Being and the Patriarchs; but the father of Abraham was an idolater.

Cleo. Nothing else but what was shown to them. God revealed Himself to our first ancestors and gave them commands right after He created them. This communication continued between the Supreme Being and the Patriarchs, but Abraham's father was an idolater.

Hor. But the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans had religion, as well as the Jews.

Hor. But the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans practiced religion, just like the Jews did.

Cleo. Their gross idolatry, and abominable worship, I call superstition.

Cleo. I refer to their terrible idol worship and disgusting rituals as superstition.

Hor. You may be as partial as you please, but they all called their worship religion, as well as we do ours. You say, man brings nothing with him, but his passions; and when I asked you, how religion came into the world, I meant what is there in man’s nature that is not acquired, from which he has a tendency to religion; what is it that disposes him to it?

Hor. You can be as biased as you want, but they all refer to their beliefs as religion, just like we do ours. You say that a person comes into the world with nothing but their emotions; and when I asked you how religion originated, I was curious about what aspects of human nature are innate, which make us inclined towards religion. What is it that leads us to it?

Cleo. Fear.

Cleo. Anxiety.

Hor. How! Primus in orbe Deos fecit timor; Are you of that opinion?

Hor. What! Fear was the first to create the gods; Do you think that?

Cleo. No man upon earth less: But that noted Epicurean axiom, which irreligious men are so fond of, is a very poor one; and it is silly, as well as impious to say, that fear made a God; you may as justly say, that fear made grass, or the sun and the moon: but when I am speaking of savages, it is not clashing either with good sense, nor the Christian religion, to assert, that, whilst such men are ignorant of the true Deity, and yet very defective in the art of thinking and reasoning, fear is the passion that first gives them an opportunity of entertaining some glimmering notions of an invisible Power; which afterwards, as by practice and experience they grow greater proficients, and become more perfect in the labour of the brain, and the exercise of their highest faculty, will infallibly lead them to the certain knowledge of an Infinite and Eternal Being; whose power and wisdom will always appear the greater, and more stupendous to them, the more they themselves advance in knowledge and penetration, though both should be carried on to a much higher pitch, than it is possible for our limited nature ever to arrive at. [409]

Cleo. No man on earth is less so: But that well-known Epicurean saying, which irreligious people love, is really weak; and it's both foolish and disrespectful to claim that fear created God; you might as well say that fear created grass, or the sun and the moon: however, when I talk about primitive people, it doesn’t contradict either common sense or Christianity to say that, while these people are unaware of the true deity and quite lacking in reasoning skills, fear is the emotion that first gives them a chance to form some vague ideas of an invisible power; which, as they gain practice and experience and refine their thinking and reasoning abilities, will inevitably lead them to a clearer understanding of an Infinite and Eternal Being; whose power and wisdom will always seem greater and more amazing to them as they themselves grow in knowledge and insight, even if both should be taken to a much higher level than is possible for our limited nature to ever reach. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. I beg your pardon for suspecting you; though I am glad it gave you an opportunity of explaining yourself. The word fear, without any addition, sounded very harsh; and even now I cannot conceive how an invisible cause should become the object of a man’s fear, that should be so entirely untaught, as you have made the first savage: which way can any thing invisible, and that affects none of the senses, make an impression upon a wild creature?

Hor. I'm sorry for doubting you; but I'm glad it gave you a chance to explain. The word fear, by itself, sounds really harsh; and even now, I can't understand how something invisible could be the source of a person's fear, especially as you've portrayed the first savage as being completely uneducated: how can something invisible, which doesn't affect any of the senses, make an impression on a wild creature?

Cleo. Every mischief and every disaster that happens to him, of which the cause is not very plain and obvious; excessive heat and cold; wet and drought, that are offensive; thunder and lightning, even when they do no visible hurt; noises in the dark, obscurity itself, and every thing that is frightful and unknown, are all administering and contributing to the establishment of this fear. The wildest man that can be conceived, by the time that he came to maturity, would be wise enough to know, that fruits and other eatables are not to be had, either always, or every where: this would naturally put him upon hoarding, when he had good store: his provision might be spoiled by the rain: he would see that trees were blasted, and yielded not always the same plenty: he might not always be in health, or his young ones might grow sick, and die, without any wounds or external force to be seen. Some of these accidents might at first escape his attention, or only alarm his weak understanding, without occasioning much reflection for some time; but as they come often, he would certainly begin to suspect some invisible cause; and, as his experience increased, be confirmed in his suspicion. It is likewise highly probable, that a variety of different sufferings, would make him apprehend several such causes; and at last induce him to believe, that there was a great number of them, which he had to fear. What would very much contribute to this credulous disposition, and naturally lead him into such a belief, is a false notion we imbibe very early, and which we may observe in infants, as soon as by their looks, their gestures, and the signs they make, they begin to be intelligible to us.

Cleo. Every bit of trouble and every disaster that happens to him, especially when the cause isn't clear; extreme heat and cold; unpleasant wetness and drought; thunder and lightning, even when they don't cause any visible harm; noises in the dark, confusion itself, and anything that's scary or unknown all contribute to creating this fear. The wildest person you can imagine, by the time they reach adulthood, would be smart enough to realize that food and other supplies aren't always available or found everywhere. This realization would naturally lead them to start saving when there's a good supply. Their provisions might spoil due to rain; they would notice that trees sometimes fail to bear fruit consistently; they might not always be healthy, or their children might get sick and die without any visible wounds or obvious causes. Some of these situations might initially go unnoticed or only briefly disturb their weak understanding, without causing much thought for a while; but as these incidents occur more frequently, they would surely begin to suspect some unseen cause, and as their experiences grow, they'd be more convinced of their suspicions. It's also very likely that facing a variety of different hardships would lead them to recognize several possible causes; eventually, they might end up believing there are many things they need to fear. What would greatly support this gullible mindset and naturally lead them to such beliefs is a false idea we pick up early on, which we can see in infants as soon as their expressions, their emojis, and the signs they make begin to communicate meaning to us.

Hor. What is that, pray?

What is that, please?

Cleo. All young children seem to imagine, that every thing thinks and feels in the same manner as they do themselves; and, that they generally have this wrong opinion of things inanimate, is evident, from a common practice among them; whenever they labour under any misfortune, which their [410]own wildness, and want of care have drawn upon them. In all such cases, you see them angry at and strike, a table, a chair, the floor, or any thing else, that can seem to have been accessary to their hurting themselves, or the production of any other blunder, they have committed. Nurses we see, in compliance to their frailty, seem to entertain the same ridiculous sentiments; and actually appease wrathful brats, by pretending to take their part: Thus you will often see them very serious, in scolding at and beating, either the real object of the baby’s indignation, or something else, on which the blame of what has happened, may be thrown, with any show of probability. It is not to be imagined, that this natural folly should be so easily cured in a child, that is destitute of all instruction and commerce with his own species, as it is in those that are brought up in society, and hourly improved by conversing with others that are wiser than themselves; and I am persuaded, that a wild man would never get entirely rid of it whilst he lived.

Cleo. All young children seem to think that everything thinks and feels just like they do; it's clear that they tend to have this wrong idea about inanimate objects, especially when they experience misfortunes that their own carelessness has caused. In those situations, you often see them getting angry at and hitting a table, a chair, the floor, or anything else they believe contributed to their injury or any other mistake they made. Nurses, recognizing this childish tendency, often play along with these silly beliefs and calm down upset kids by pretending to support them. So you'll often see them seriously scolding and hitting either the actual object that the child is upset about or something else to shift the blame with some degree of believability. It's hard to imagine that this natural foolishness could be easily corrected in a child who lacks instruction and interaction with others, as it is in those raised in society who learn daily from wiser companions; I believe a wild person would never completely overcome it throughout their life.

Hor. I cannot think so meanly of human understanding.

Hor. I can’t think so poorly of human understanding.

Cleo. Whence came the Dryades and Hama-Dryades? How came it ever to be thought impious to cut down, or even to wound large venerable oaks or other stately trees; and what root did the Divinity spring from, which the vulgar, among the ancient heathens, apprehended to be in rivers and fountains?

Cleo. Where did the Dryads and Hamadryads come from? How did it come to be considered wrong to cut down or even harm large, ancient oaks or other majestic trees? And what was the source of the divine belief that the common people among the ancient pagans thought resided in rivers and springs?

Hor. From the roguery of designing priests, and other impostors, that invented those lies, and made fables for their own advantage.

Hor. From the deceitful actions of scheming priests and other frauds who created those lies and made up stories for their own benefit.

Cleo. But still it must have been want of understanding; and a tincture, some remainder of that folly which is discovered in young children, that could induce, or would suffer men to believe those fables. Unless fools actually had frailties, knaves could not make use of them.

Cleo. But it must have been a lack of understanding; and a hint, some trace of that naivety found in young children, that could lead men to believe those stories. If fools didn't actually have weaknesses, dishonest people couldn't take advantage of them.

Hor. There may be something in it; but, be that as it will, you have owned, that man naturally loves those he receives benefits from; therefore, how comes it, that man, finding all the good things he enjoys to proceed from an invisible cause, his gratitude should not sooner prompt him to be religious, than his fear?

Hor. There might be some truth to that; but regardless, you've admitted that people naturally love those who do good things for them; so why is it that when people realize all the good things in their lives come from an unseen source, their gratitude doesn’t lead them to be religious as quickly as their fear does?

Cleo. There are several substantial reasons, why it does not. Man takes every thing to be his own, which he has from nature: sowing and reaping, he thinks, deserve a crop, and whatever he has the least hand in, is always reckoned to be [411]his. Every art, and every invention, as soon as we know them, are our right and property; and whatever we perform by the assistance of them, is, by the courtesy of the species to itself, deemed to be our own. We make use of fermentation, and all the chemistry of nature, without thinking ourselves beholden to any thing but our own knowledge. She that churns the cream, makes the butter; without inquiring into the power by which the thin lymphatic particles are forced to separate themselves, and slide away from the more unctuous. In brewing, baking, cooking, and almost every thing we have a hand in, nature is the drudge that makes all the alterations, and does the principal work; yet all, forsooth, is our own. From all which, it is manifest, that man, who is naturally for making every thing centre in himself, must, in his wild state, have a great tendency, and be very prone to look upon every thing he enjoys as his due; and every thing he meddles with, as his own performance. It requires knowledge and reflection; and a man must be pretty far advanced in the art of thinking justly, and reasoning consequentially, before he can, from his own light, and without being taught, be sensible of his obligations to God. The less a man knows, and the more shallow his understanding is, the less he is capable either of enlarging his prospect of things, or drawing consequences from the little which he does know. Raw, ignorant, and untaught men, fix their eyes on what is immediately before, and seldom look further than, as it is vulgarly expressed, the length of their noses. The wild man, if gratitude moved him, would much sooner pay his respects to the tree he gathers his nuts from, than he would think of an acknowledgment to him who had planted it; and there is no property so well established, but a civilized man would suspect his title to it sooner, than a wild one would question the sovereignty he has over his own breath. Another reason, why fear is an elder motive to religion than gratitude, is, that an untaught man would never suspect that the same cause, which he received good from, would ever do him hurt; and evil, without doubt, would always gain his attention first.

Cleo. There are several solid reasons why it doesn't. People tend to see everything from nature as their own; when they sow and reap, they believe they deserve a harvest, and anything they put their hands on is always considered to be [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] theirs. Every art and every invention, once we understand them, are our rights and possessions; whatever we create using them is, by the courtesy of humankind, deemed to be ours. We use fermentation and all the natural chemistry without thinking we owe anything to anything but our own knowledge. A person who churns cream to make butter doesn’t ask how the thin particles separate and slide away from the thicker ones. In brewing, baking, cooking, and almost everything we do, nature does the heavy lifting and the main work; yet somehow, it’s all considered ours. From all this, it’s clear that humans, being naturally inclined to make everything revolve around themselves, must, in their primitive state, be very likely to see everything they enjoy as their right and everything they touch as their own achievement. It takes knowledge and reflection; a person has to be quite skilled in thinking correctly and logically before they can, using their own insight and without being taught, recognize their obligations to God. The less a person knows, and the more superficial their understanding, the less they can broaden their perspective or draw conclusions from what little they do know. Unrefined, ignorant, and untrained people focus only on what’s immediately in front of them and rarely look beyond, as the saying goes, the length of their noses. A wild person, if they felt gratitude, would much sooner show respect to the tree they gather nuts from than consider thanking the one who planted it; and there’s no ownership so well-established that a civilized person wouldn’t question their right to it sooner than a wild one would doubt their control over their own breath. Another reason why fear is a stronger motivator for religion than gratitude is that an uneducated person would never think that the same source from which they received good could ever harm them; and without a doubt, negative experiences would always grab their attention first.

Hor. Men, indeed, seem to remember one ill turn, that is served them, better than ten good ones; one month’s sickness better than ten years health.

Hor. Men really seem to remember one bad deed done to them better than ten good ones; they recall one month of illness more vividly than ten years of good health.

Cleo. In all the labours of self-preservation, man is intent on avoiding what is hurtful to him; but in the enjoyment of [412]what is pleasant, his thoughts are relaxed, and he is void of care: he can swallow a thousand delights, one after another, without asking questions; but the least evil makes him inquisitive whence it came, in order to shun it. It is very material, therefore, to know the cause of evil; but to know that of good, which is always welcome, is of little use; that is, such a knowledge seems not to promise any addition to his happiness. When a man once apprehends such an invisible enemy, it is reasonable to think, that he would be glad to appease, and make him his friend, if he could find him out; it is highly probable, likewise, that in order to this, he would search, investigate, and look every where about him; and that finding all his inquiries upon earth in vain, he would lift up his eyes to the sky.

Cleo. In all the efforts of self-preservation, people focus on avoiding what harms them; but when they enjoy what is pleasant, their thoughts are at ease, and they feel carefree. They can indulge in a thousand pleasures one after another without questioning it; however, even the smallest pain makes them curious about its source so they can avoid it. It's very important, therefore, to understand the cause of evil; but knowing the cause of good, which is always welcomed, doesn't seem very useful. This kind of knowledge doesn’t seem to add to their happiness. Once someone realizes there’s an invisible threat, it's reasonable to think they’d want to calm it down and make it a friend if they could identify it. It's also very likely that in pursuit of this, they would search, investigate, and look all around them; and finding all their inquiries fruitless on earth, they would lift their eyes to the sky.

Hor. And so a wild man might; and look down and up again long enough before he would be the wiser. I can easily conceive, that a creature must labour under great perplexities, when it actually fears something, of which it knows neither what it is, nor where it is; and that, though a man had all the reason in the world to think it invisible, he would still be more afraid of it in the dark, than when he could see.

Hor. A wild man might do that; he could look down and up again for a long time without getting any wiser. I can easily imagine that a creature would be deeply confused when it actually fears something it doesn't understand—something it doesn't even know what it is or where it is. And even if a person had every reason to believe it was invisible, they would still be more scared of it in the dark than when they could see it.

Cleo. Whilst a man is but an imperfect thinker, and wholly employed in furthering self preservation in the most simple manner, and removing the immediate obstacles he meets with in that pursuit, this affair, perhaps, affects him but little; but when he comes to be a tolerable reasoner, and has leisure to reflect, it must produce strange chimeras and surmises; and a wild couple would not converse together long, before they would endeavour to express their minds to one another concerning this matter; and, as in time they would invent and agree upon, certain sounds of distinction for several things, of which the ideas would often occur, so I believe, that this invisible cause would be one of the first, which they would coin a name for. A wild man and a wild woman would not take less care of their helpless brood than other animals; and it is not to imagined, but the children that were brought up by them, though without instruction or discipline, would, before they were ten years old, observe in their parents this fear of an invisible cause. It is incredible likewise, considering, how much men differ from one another in features, complexion, and temper, that all should form the same idea of this cause; from whence it would follow, that as soon as any considerable [413]number of men could intelligibly converse together, it would appear, that there were different opinions among them concerning the invisible cause: the fear and acknowledgment of it being universal, and man always attributing his own passions to every thing, which he conceives to think, every body would be solicitous to avoid the hatred and ill-will, and, if it was possible, to gain the friendship of such a power. If we consider these things, and what we know of the nature of man, it is hardly to be conceived, that any considerable number of our species could have any intercourse together long, in peace or otherwise, but wilful lies would be raised concerning this power, and some would pretend to have seen or heard it. How different opinions about invisible power, may, by the malice and deceit of impostors, be made the occasion of mortal enmity among multitudes, is easily accounted for. If we want rain very much, and I can be persuaded, that it is your fault we have none, there needs greater cause to quarrel; and nothing has happened in the world, of priestcraft or inhumanity, folly or abomination, on religious accounts, that cannot be solved or explained, with the least trouble, from these data, and the principle of fear.

Cleo. While a man is just an imperfect thinker, primarily focused on his own survival in the simplest ways and removing the immediate obstacles in his path, this situation might not affect him much; however, when he becomes a decent reasoner and has time to think, it must lead to strange ideas and speculations. A wild couple wouldn’t talk for long before trying to share their thoughts on this issue; over time, they would create and agree on specific sounds to represent different things that frequently come to mind, and I believe that this invisible cause would be one of the first things they would name. A wild man and a wild woman wouldn't care for their helpless offspring any less than other animals do, and it’s not hard to imagine that the children raised by them, even without formal teaching, would notice this fear of an invisible cause in their parents by the age of ten. It’s also hard to believe that, given how much people differ in looks, skin color, and temperament, everyone would have the same idea of this cause; thus, once a sufficient number of people could understand each other, it would become clear that there were different opinions about the invisible cause. The fear and acknowledgment of it being universal, people would always project their own feelings onto anything they think is aware, and everyone would be eager to avoid its hatred or ill will, and if possible, win its friendship. Considering these points and what we know about human nature, it’s difficult to imagine that a significant number of people could interact for long, whether in peace or conflict, without falsehoods arising about this power, with some claiming to have seen or heard it. The various opinions on invisible power can easily lead to fatal conflicts among many due to the malice and deceit of frauds. If we desperately need rain, and I can be convinced that you are to blame for our lack, we don't need a stronger reason to fight. Nothing that has happened in the world, whether it’s priestcraft, cruelty, foolishness, or abomination tied to religion, can’t be explained from these facts and the principle of fear.

Hor. I think I must yield to you, that the first motive of religion, among savages, was fear; but you must allow me in your turn, that from the general thankfulness that nations have always paid to their gods, for signal benefits and success; the many hecatombs that have been offered after victories; and the various institutions of games and festivals; it is evident, that when men came to be wiser, and more civilized, the greatest part of their religion was built upon gratitude.

Hor. I suppose I have to agree with you that the initial reason for religion among primitive people was fear. However, you have to admit, in your turn, that the widespread gratitude nations have consistently shown to their gods for significant blessings and victories, the many sacrifices made after winning battles, and the various games and festivals created, clearly show that as people became wiser and more civilized, the majority of their religion was founded on gratitude.

Cleo. You labour hard, I see, to vindicate the honour of our species; but we have no such cause to boast of it: and I shall demonstrate to you, that a well-weighed consideration, and a thorough understanding of our nature, will give us much less reason to exult in our pride, than it will furnish us with, for the exercise of our humility. In the first place, there is no difference between the original nature of a savage, and that of a civilized man: they are both born with fear, and neither of them, if they have their senses about them, can live many years, but an invisible Power, will, at one time or other, become the object of that fear; and this will happen to every man, whether he be wild and alone, or in society, and under the best discipline. We know by experience, [414]that empires, states, and kingdoms, may excel in arts and sciences, politeness, and all worldly wisdom, and at the same time be slaves to the grossest idolatry, and submit to all the inconsistencies of a false religion. The most civilized people have been as foolish and absurd in sacred worship as it is possible for any savages to be; and the first have often been guilty of studied cruelties, which the latter would never have thought of. The Carthaginians were a subtle flourishing people, an opulent and formidable nation, and Hannibal had half conquered the Romans, when still to their idols they sacrificed the children of their chief nobility. And, as to private persons, there are innumerable instances in the most polite ages of men of sense and virtue, that have entertained the most miserable, unworthy, and extravagant notions of the Supreme Being. What confused and unaccountable apprehensions must not some men have had of Providence, to act as they did! Alexander Severus, who succeeded Heliogabalus, was a great reformer of abuses, and thought to be as good a prince as his predecessor was a bad one: In his palace he had an oratory, a cabinet set aside for his private devotion, where he had the images of Appollonius Tyanæus, Orpheus, Abraham, Jesus Christ, and such like gods, says his historian. What makes you smile?

Cleo. I can see you're working hard to prove the honor of our species, but we have no reason to brag about it. I'll show you that a careful reflection on our nature will give us much less reason to take pride in ourselves and more reason to practice humility. First off, there's no difference between the original nature of a savage and that of a civilized person: they are both born with fear, and if they are aware, they won't live many years without that fear eventually being directed towards some unseen power. This happens to everyone, whether they're wild and alone or part of society and well-disciplined. We know from experience, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that empires, states, and kingdoms can excel in the arts, sciences, civility, and worldly wisdom while still being enslaved by gross idolatry and falling for the inconsistencies of false religions. The most civilized people have been just as foolish and absurd in their sacred worship as any savage could be, and the former have often committed brutal acts that the latter would never even consider. The Carthaginians were a cunning and prosperous people, a powerful nation, and Hannibal had nearly conquered the Romans when they were still sacrificing the children of their elite to their idols. As for individuals, there are countless examples from the most cultured eras of intelligent and virtuous men who held the most miserable, unworthy, and outrageous ideas about the Supreme Being. What confused and irrational notions must some people have had about Providence to act as they did! Alexander Severus, who followed Heliogabalus, was a significant reformer and regarded as a better ruler than his predecessor had been a bad one. In his palace, he had a private oratory, a room dedicated to his devotion, where he kept images of Appollonius Tyanæus, Orpheus, Abraham, Jesus Christ, and similar figures, as his historian notes. What’s making you smile?

Hor. To think how industrious priests are in concealing a man’s failings, when they would have you think well of him. What you say of Severus, I had read before; when looking one day for something in Moreri, I happened to cast my eye on the article of that emperor, where no mention is made either of Orpheus or Appollonius! which, remembering the passage in Lampridius, I wondered at; and thinking that I might have been mistaken, I again consulted that author, where I found it, as you have related it. I do not question but Moreri left this out on purpose to repay the civilities of the emperor to the Christians, whom, he tells us, Severus had been very favourable to.

Hor. It's surprising how hardworking priests are at hiding a man's flaws when they want you to think positively of him. What you mentioned about Severus, I had already read; one day, while looking for something in Moreri, I noticed the article on that emperor, where there’s no mention of either Orpheus or Apollonius! Remembering the passage in Lampridius made me curious, and thinking I might have misremembered, I checked that source again and found it just as you described. I have no doubt that Moreri deliberately left this out to acknowledge the kindness Severus showed to Christians, which he notes Severus was very supportive of.

Cleo. That is not impossible in a Roman Catholic. But what I would speak to, in the second place, is the festivals you mentioned, the hecatombs after victories, and the general thankfulness of nations to their gods. I desire you would consider, that in sacred matters, as well as all human affairs, there are rites and ceremonies, and many demonstrations of respect to be seen, that to outward appearance seem to proceed [415]from gratitude, which, upon due examination, will be found to have been originally the result of fear. At what time the floral games were first instituted, is not well known: but they never were celebrated every year constantly, before a very unseasonable spring put the senate upon the decree that made them annual. To make up the true compound of reverence or veneration, love and esteem are as necessary ingredients as fear; but the latter alone is capable of making men counterfeit both the former; as is evident from the duties that are outwardly paid to tyrants, at the same time that inwardly they are execrated and hated. Idolators have always behaved themselves to every invisible cause they adored, as men do to a lawless arbitrary power; when they reckon it as captious, haughty, and unreasonable, as they allow it to be sovereign, unlimited, and irresistible. What motive could the frequent repetitions of the same solemnities spring from, whenever it was suspected that the least holy trifle had been omitted? You know, how often the same farce was once acted over again, because after every performance there was still room to apprehend that something had been neglected. Do but consult, I beg of you, and call to mind your own reading; cast your eyes on the infinite variety of ideas men have formed to themselves, and the vast multitude of divisions they have made of the invisible cause, which every one imagines to influence human affairs: run over the history of all ages; look into every considerable nation, their straits and calamities, as well as victories and successes; the lives of great generals, and other famous men, their adverse fortune and prosperity: mind at which times their devotion was most fervent; when oracles were most consulted, and on what accounts the gods were most frequently addressed. Do but calmly consider every thing you can remember relating to superstition, whether grave, ridiculous, or execrable, and you will find, in the first place, that the heathens, and all that have been ignorant of the true Deity, though many of them were persons otherwise of great knowledge, fine understanding, and tried probity, have represented their gods, not as wise, benign, equitable, and merciful; but, on the contrary, as passionate, revengeful, capricious, and unrelenting beings; not to mention the abominable vices and gross immoralities, the vulgar were taught to ascribe to them: In the second, that for every one instance that men have addressed themselves to an invisible [416]cause, from a principle of gratitude, there are a thousand in every false religion to convince you, that divine worship, and men’s submission to Heaven, have always proceeded from their fear. The word religion itself, and the fear of God, are synonymous; and had man’s acknowledgment been originally founded in love, as it is in fear, the craft of impostors could have made no advantage of the passion; and all their boasted acquaintance with gods and goddesses, would have been useless to them, if men had worshipped the immortal powers, as they called their idols, out of gratitude.

Cleo. That's not impossible for a Roman Catholic. But what I want to talk about next is the festivals you mentioned, the hecatombs after victories, and the general gratitude of nations to their gods. I ask you to consider that in sacred matters, just like in all human affairs, there are rites and ceremonies, and many expressions of respect that, on the surface, seem to come from gratitude, but upon closer inspection, will be found to originally stem from fear. It’s not clear when the floral games were first started, but they were not held every year until a particularly harsh spring led the senate to decree that they should be annual. To create the true mix of reverence or veneration, love and respect are as essential as fear; but fear alone can make people pretend to feel both love and respect, as is clear from the duties that are outwardly given to tyrants, even while they are secretly despised and loathed. Idolators have always treated every unseen force they worshipped like people do with an unaccountable and arbitrary authority; they view it as unjust, arrogant, and unreasonable, even while they accept it as powerful, unlimited, and irresistible. What could motivate the frequent repetition of the same solemnities, whenever there was even a suspicion that something holy had been neglected? You know how often the same ritual was repeated because, after each performance, there was still a fear that something had been overlooked. Please reflect on your own readings; think of the countless ideas people have had, and the vast numbers of divisions they’ve made of the invisible force they believe influences human affairs: review the history of all ages; observe every notable nation, their struggles and disasters as well as their victories and successes; look at the lives of great generals and other famous individuals, their fortunes and misfortunes: notice when their devotion was most intense; when oracles were most sought after, and for what reasons the gods were most frequently called upon. Just calmly consider everything you can remember about superstition, whether serious, ridiculous, or horrific, and you will find, first, that the heathens, and all those who have been ignorant of the true God, despite many being otherwise highly knowledgeable, intelligent, and virtuous individuals, portrayed their gods not as wise, kind, fair, and merciful; but rather as angry, vengeful, unpredictable, and ruthless beings; not to mention the terrible vices and gross immoralities that the common people were taught to attribute to them. Secondly, for every single instance where people have approached an invisible [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] force out of gratitude, there are thousands in every false religion that show divine worship and human submission to Heaven have always come from fear. The word religion itself and the fear of God are the same; and if humanity's recognition had originally been based on love, rather than fear, the deception of impostors could not have taken advantage of that feeling; and all their claimed connections with gods and goddesses would have been useless to them if people had worshipped the immortal powers, as they called their idols, out of gratitude.

Hor. All lawgivers and leaders of people gained their point, and acquired what they expected from those pretences, which is reverence; and which to produce, you have owned yourself, love and esteem to be as requisite as fear.

Hor. All lawmakers and leaders of people achieved their goals and got what they wanted from those pretenses, which is respect; and to generate that, you’ve acknowledged that love and admiration are just as necessary as fear.

Cleo. But from the laws they imposed on men, and the punishments they annexed to the breach and neglect of them, it is easily seen which of the ingredients they most relied upon.

Cleo. But from the laws they imposed on people, and the penalties attached to breaking or ignoring them, it's clear which aspects they depended on the most.

Hor. It would be difficult to name a king, or other great man, in very ancient times, who attempted to govern an infant nation that laid no claim to some commerce or other with an invisible power, either held by himself or his ancestors. Between them and Moses, there is no other difference, than that he alone was a true prophet, and really inspired, and all the rest were impostors.

Hor. It's hard to find a king or any great leader from ancient times who tried to rule a young nation that didn’t claim some sort of connection to an unseen power, either owned by him or his ancestors. The only difference between them and Moses is that he was the only true prophet, genuinely inspired, while the others were just fakes.

Cleo. What would you infer from this?

Cleo. What do you think about this?

Hor. That we can say no more for ourselves, than what men of all parties and persuasions have done in all ages, every one for their cause, viz. That they alone were in the right, and all that differed from them in the wrong.

Hor. We can't say anything more for ourselves than what people from all walks of life and beliefs have said throughout history: that they alone are right, and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

Cleo. Is it not sufficient that we can say this of ourselves with truth and justice, after the strictest examination; when no other cause can stand any test, or bear the least inquiry? A man may relate miracles that never were wrought, and give an account of things that never happened; but a thousand years hence, all knowing men will agree, that nobody could have wrote Sir Isaac Newton’s Principia, unless he had been a great mathematician. When Moses acquainted the Israelites with what had been revealed to him, he told them a truth, which nobody then upon earth knew but himself.

Cleo. Isn't it enough that we can honestly and justly say this about ourselves after the thorough examination? When no other reason can withstand any scrutiny or survive even the slightest investigation? A man can claim miracles that never occurred and tell stories about events that never took place; but a thousand years from now, all knowledgeable people will agree that no one could have written Sir Isaac Newton's Principia unless he was a great mathematician. When Moses shared what had been revealed to him with the Israelites, he revealed a truth that no one else on earth knew at the time except for him.

Hor. You mean the unity of God, and his being the Author of the universe.

Hor. You’re talking about the oneness of God and how He is the Creator of the universe.

Cleo. I do so. [417]

Cleo. I really do. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. But is not every man of sense capable of knowing this from his reason?

Hor. But isn’t every sensible person able to understand this through their own reasoning?

Cleo. Yes, when the art of reasoning consequentially is come to that perfection, which it has been arrived at these several hundred years, and himself has been led into the method of thinking justly. Every common sailor could steer a course through the midst of the ocean, as soon as the use of the loadstone, and the mariners compass were invented. But before that, the most expert navigator would have trembled at the thoughts of such an enterprise. When Moses acquainted, and imbued the posterity of Jacob with this sublime and important truth, they were degenerated into slaves, attached to the superstition of the country they dwelled in; and the Egyptians, their masters, though they were great proficients in many arts and sciences, and more deeply skilled in the mysteries of nature than any other nation then was, had the most abject and abominable notions of the Deity, which it is possible to conceive; and no savages could have exceeded their ignorance and stupidity, as to the Supreme Being, the invisible cause that governs the world. He taught the Israelites à priori; and their children, before they were nine or ten years old, knew what the greatest philosophers did not attain to, by the light of nature, till many ages after.

Cleo. Yes, when the art of reasoning logically has reached the level of perfection it has attained over the past several hundred years, he has learned to think clearly. Every common sailor could navigate through the middle of the ocean as soon as the use of the lodestone and the mariner’s compass was discovered. Before that, even the most skilled navigator would have hesitated at the thought of such a journey. When Moses informed and instilled the descendants of Jacob with this profound and significant truth, they had become enslaved, caught up in the superstitions of the land they lived in; and their Egyptian masters, although they excelled in many arts and sciences and were more deeply knowledgeable about the mysteries of nature than any other nation at the time, held the most degrading and repugnant beliefs about the divine that one could imagine. No savages could have surpassed their ignorance and foolishness regarding the Supreme Being, the unseen force that governs the world. He taught the Israelites à priori; and by the time their children were nine or ten years old, they understood what the greatest philosophers would not grasp through nature's light for many ages to come.

Hor. The advocates for the ancients will never allow, that any modern philosophers have either thought or reasoned better, than men did in former ages.

Hor. Supporters of the ancients will never admit that any modern philosophers have thought or reasoned better than people did in previous ages.

Cleo. Let them believe their eyes: What you say every man of sense may know, by his own reason, was in the beginning of Christianity contested, and denied with zeal and vehemence by the greatest men in Rome. Celsus, Symmachus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and other famous rhetoricians, and men of unquestionable good sense, wrote in defence of idolatry, and strenuously maintained the plurality and multiplicity of their gods. Moses lived about fifteen hundred years before the reign of Augustus. If in a place where I was very well assured that nobody understood any thing of colouring or drawing, a man should tell me, that he had acquired the art of painting by inspiration, I should be more ready to laugh at him than to believe him; but if I saw him draw several fine portraits before my face, my unbelief would cease, and I should think it ridiculous any longer to suspect his veracity. All the accounts that other lawgivers and founders of nations have given of the deities, which they or [418]their predecessors conversed with, contained ideas that were unworthy of the Divine Being; and by the light of nature only, it is easily proved, that they must have been false: But the image which Moses gave the Jews of the Supreme Being, that He was One, and had made heaven and earth, will stand all tests, and is a truth that will outlast the world. Thus, I think, I have fully proved, on the one hand, that all true religion must be revealed, and could not have come into the world without miracle; and, on the other, that what all men are born with towards religion, before they receive any instruction, is fear.

Cleo. Let them believe their eyes: What you say every sensible person can understand, through their own reasoning, was hotly debated and rejected by the most prominent figures in Rome at the start of Christianity. Celsus, Symmachus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and other well-known rhetoricians and individuals of undeniable good sense defended idolatry passionately and insisted on the existence of many gods. Moses lived about fifteen hundred years before the reign of Augustus. If I were in a place where I was sure no one knew anything about coloring or drawing, and someone claimed to have learned the art of painting through inspiration, I would be more inclined to laugh at him than to believe him; but if I saw him create several beautiful portraits right before my eyes, I would no longer doubt him and would find it silly to question his honesty. All the descriptions that other lawgivers and founders of nations have provided about the deities with whom they or their ancestors interacted contained concepts unworthy of the Divine Being; and just by using reason, it's easy to demonstrate that they must have been false. But the picture Moses presented to the Jews of the Supreme Being— that He is One and has created heaven and earth— will withstand all scrutiny and is a truth that will endure beyond this world. Therefore, I believe I have conclusively shown, on one hand, that all true religion must be revealed and could not have entered the world without a miracle; and, on the other hand, that what all people are born with regarding religion, before receiving any teaching, is fear.

Hor. You have convinced me many ways, that we are poor creatures by nature; but I cannot help struggling against those mortifying truths, when I hear them started first. I long to hear the origin of society, and I continually retard your account of it myself with new questions.

Hor. You've convinced me in many ways that we are naturally poor creatures, but I can't help but resist those painful truths when I first hear them. I'm eager to learn about the origin of society, and I keep interrupting your explanation with more questions.

Cleo. Do you remember where we left off?

Cleo. Do you remember where we stopped?

Hor. I do not think we have made any progress yet; for we have nothing towards it but a wild man, and a wild woman, with some children and grandchildren, which they are not able either to teach or govern.

Hor. I don’t think we’ve made any progress yet; all we have is a wild man and a wild woman, along with some kids and grandkids, whom they can neither teach nor control.

Cleo. I thought that the introduction of the reverence, which the wildest son must feel, more or less, for the most savage father, if he stays with him, had been a considerable step.

Cleo. I thought that the respect, which even the wildest son must feel, to some extent, for the most brutal father, if he remains with him, had been a significant advancement.

Hor. I thought so too, till you destroyed the hopes I had conceived of it yourself, by showing me the incapacity of savage parents to make use of it: And since we are still as far from the origin of society as ever we were, or ever can be, in my opinion, I desire, that before you proceed to that main point, you would answer what you have put off once already, which is my question concerning the notions of right and wrong: I cannot be easy before I have your sentiments on this head.

Hor. I used to think that way too, until you dashed my hopes by showing me how incapable savage parents are of using it. And since we remain just as distant from the origins of society as we’ve always been, or will ever be, I’d like you to address the main point only after answering the question you’ve already postponed: my question about the concepts of right and wrong. I can't feel at ease until I hear your thoughts on this.

Cleo. Your demand is very reasonable, and I will satisfy you as well as I can. A man of sense, learning, and experience, that has been well educated, will always find out the difference between right and wrong in things diametrically opposite; and there are certain facts, which he will always condemn, and others which he will always approve of: To kill a member of the same society that has not offended us, or to rob him, will always be bad; and to cure the sick, and be beneficent to the public, he will always pronounce to be [419]good actions: and for a man to do as he will be done by, he will always say is a good rule in life; and not only men of great accomplishments, and such as have learned to think abstractly, but all men of middling capacities, that have been brought up in society, will agree in this, in all countries and in all ages. Nothing likewise seems more true to all, that have made any tolerable use of their faculty of thinking, than that out of the society, before any division was made, either by contract or otherwise, all men would have an equal right to the earth: But do you believe that our wild man, if he had never seen any other human creature but his savage consort and his progeny, would ever have entertained the same notions of right and wrong?

Cleo. Your request is completely fair, and I will do my best to meet it. A person with common sense, knowledge, and experience, who has received a good education, will always understand the difference between right and wrong in opposing situations. There are certain actions he will always condemn and others he will approve of: to kill someone from the same society who hasn't wronged us, or to steal from them, is always wrong; while to help the sick and be kind to the community will always be considered [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]good actions. He will also say that treating others as you want to be treated is a good principle in life. This belief is shared not just by highly educated individuals and those capable of abstract thinking but by all people of average intelligence who have grown up in society, across all cultures and eras. It's also widely accepted among those who think reasonably that before any agreements or divisions were made, everyone would have equal rights to the earth. But do you think our wild man, who has only ever known his savage partner and their offspring, would have the same ideas about right and wrong?

Hor. Hardly; his small capacity in the art of reasoning, would hinder him from doing it so justly; and the power he found he had over his children, would render him very arbitrary.

Hor. Barely; his limited ability in reasoning would prevent him from doing it fairly, and the control he realized he had over his children would make him quite authoritarian.

Cleo. But without that incapacity, suppose that at threescore he was, by a miracle, to receive a fine judgment, and the faculty of thinking and reasoning consequentially, in as great a perfection as the wisest man ever did, do you think he would ever alter his notion of the right he had to every thing he could manage, or have other sentiments in relation to himself and his progeny, than from his behaviour it appeared he entertained, when he seemed to act almost altogether by instinct?

Cleo. But if he were to somehow gain the ability to think clearly and reason well at the age of sixty, as perfectly as the wisest person ever has, do you think he would change his views on his right to everything he could control? Would he have different thoughts about himself and his descendants than what his actions suggested, when he seemed to be acting mostly on instinct?

Hor. Without doubt: For, if judgment and reason were given him, what could hinder him from making use of those faculties, as well as others do?

Hor. Absolutely: Because if he had judgment and reason, what could stop him from using those abilities like anyone else?

Cleo. You seem not to consider, that no man can reason but à posteriori, from something that he knows, or supposes to be true: What I said of the difference between right and wrong, I spoke of persons who remembered their education, and lived in society; or, at least, such as plainly saw others of their own species, that were independent of them, and either their equals or superiors.

Cleo. You don’t seem to realize that no person can reason about anything except from what they know or believe to be true. When I talked about the difference between right and wrong, I was referring to people who remember their upbringing and interact with society, or at least those who can clearly see other individuals like themselves who are independent of them and either their equals or superiors.

Hor. I begin to believe you are in the right: But at second thoughts, why might not a man, with great justice, think himself the sovereign of a place, where he knew no human creature but his own wife, and the descendents of both?

Hor. I'm starting to think you might be right. But on second thought, why couldn't a man justly consider himself the ruler of a place where the only person he knows is his own wife and their descendants?

Cleo. With all my heart: But may there not be an hundred such savages in the world with large families, that might never meet, nor ever hear of one another? [420]

Cleo. I completely agree: But is it possible that there are hundreds of people like that in the world with big families, who may never cross paths or even hear about each other? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. A thousand, if you will, and then there would be so many natural sovereigns.

Hor. A thousand, if you want, and then there would be that many natural rulers.

Cleo. Very well: what I would have you observe, is, that there are things which are commonly esteemed to be eternal truths, that an hundred or a thousand people of fine sense and judgment, could have no notion of. What if it should be true, that every man is born with this domineering spirit, and that we cannot be cured of it, but by our commerce with others, and the experience of facts, by which we are convinced that we have no such right? Let us examine a man’s whole life, from his infancy to his grave, and see which of the two seems to be most natural to him; a desire of superiority, and grasping every thing to himself, or a tendency to act according to the reasonable notions of right and wrong; and we shall find, that, in his early youth, the first is very conspicuous; that nothing appears of the second before he has received some instructions, and that this latter will always have less influence upon his actions, the more uncivilized he remains: From whence I infer, that the notions of right and wrong are acquired; for if they were as natural, or if they affected us as early as the opinion, or rather the instinct we are born with, of taking every thing to be our own, no child would ever cry for his eldest brother’s play-things.

Cleo. Alright: what I want you to notice is that there are things that are generally considered eternal truths, which a hundred or a thousand people with good sense and judgment might not even recognize. What if it turns out that every person is born with this controlling nature, and we can only overcome it through our interactions with others and the experiences that show us we don’t have that right? Let’s look at a person’s entire life, from childhood to death, and see which of the two seems most natural to them: a desire for superiority and grabbing everything for themselves, or acting according to reasonable ideas of right and wrong. We’ll find that in early youth, the first is very obvious; the second doesn’t show up until they’ve been taught something, and it will always have less impact on their actions the more uncivilized they remain. From this, I conclude that ideas of right and wrong are learned; because if they were natural, or if they influenced us as early as the instinct we have from birth to claim everything as our own, no child would ever cry for their older brother's toys.

Hor. I think there is no right more natural, nor more reasonable, than that which men have over their children; and what we owe our parents can never be repaid.

Hor. I believe there is no right more natural or reasonable than the one people have over their children, and we can never fully repay what we owe our parents.

Cleo. The obligations we have to good parents for their care and education, is certainly very great.

Cleo. The responsibilities we owe to our good parents for their care and education are definitely significant.

Hor. That is the least. We are indebted to them for our being; we might be educated by an hundred others, but without them we could never have existed.

Hor. That's the least we can say. We owe our existence to them; we could be educated by countless others, but without them, we would never have come into being.

Cleo. So we could have no malt liquor, without the ground that bears the barley: I know no obligations for benefits that never were intended. Should a man see a fine parcel of cherries, be tempted to eat, and devour them accordingly with great satisfaction, it is possible he might swallow some of the stones, which we know by experience do not digest: If twelve or fourteen months after, he should find a little sprig of a cherry-tree growing in a field, where nobody would expect it, if he recollected the time, he had been there before, it is not improbable that he might guess at the true reason how it came there. It is possible, likewise, that for curiosity’s sake, this man might take up this plant, and take [421]care of it; I am well assured, that whatever became of it afterwards, the right he would have to it from the merit of his action, would be the same which a savage would have to his child.

Cleo. We can't have malt liquor without the land that grows the barley: I see no reason to feel obligated for benefits that were never meant to be given. If a man sees a nice bunch of cherries and is tempted to eat them, enjoying them fully, he might accidentally swallow some pits, which we know don't digest well. If twelve or fourteen months later, he finds a little cherry tree growing in a field where no one would expect it, and remembers being there before, it's likely he might figure out how it got there. It's also possible that out of curiosity, this man might decide to take the plant and take [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] care of it; I am certain that no matter what happens to it later, the claim he would have over it from his actions would be the same as a savage would have to his child.

Hor. I think there would be a vast difference between the one and the other: the cherry-stone was never part of himself, nor mixed with his blood.

Hor. I believe there's a huge difference between the two: the cherry stone was never part of him, nor was it mixed with his blood.

Cleo. Pardon me; all the difference, as vast as you take it to be, can only consist in this, That the cherry-stone was not part of the man who swallowed it, so long, nor received so great an alteration in its figure, whilst it was, as some other things which the savage swallowed, were, and received in their figure, whilst they stayed with him.

Cleo. Excuse me; the difference, no matter how significant you think it is, comes down to this: the cherry stone wasn’t a part of the person who swallowed it for long, nor did it change as much in shape while it was inside, unlike some other things that the savage swallowed, which did change in their form while they remained with him.

Hor. But he that swallowed the cherry-stone, did nothing to it; it produced a plant as a vegetable, which it might have done as well without his swallowing it.

Hor. But the person who swallowed the cherry pit didn’t change anything; it grew into a plant just like any other vegetable, which it would have done whether he had swallowed it or not.

Cleo. That is true; and I own, that as to the cause to which the plant owes its existence, you are in the right: but I plainly spoke as to the merit of the action; which in either case could only proceed from their intentions as free agents; and the savage might, and would in all probability act with as little design, to get a child, as the other had eat cherries in order to plant a tree. It is commonly said, that our children are our own flesh and blood: but this way of speaking is strangely figurative. However, allow it to be just, though rhetoricians have no name for it, what does it prove, what benevolence in us, what kindness to others in the intention?

Cleo. That's true; and I admit that when it comes to why the plant exists, you’re right. But I was clearly referring to the merit of the action itself, which in any case can only stem from their intentions as free agents. The savage might act with just as little intention to have a child as the other did when he ate cherries to plant a tree. It's often said that our children are our own flesh and blood, but that's a pretty figurative way of expressing it. Still, let's consider it fair, even though rhetoricians don’t have a term for it. What does it really show? What goodwill do we have, and what kindness toward others does it reflect in our intentions?

Hor. You shall say what you please, but I think, that nothing can endear children to their parents more, than the reflection that they are their own flesh and blood.

Hor. You can say whatever you want, but I believe that nothing can make children feel closer to their parents than the realization that they are their own flesh and blood.

Cleo. I am of your opinion; and it is a plain demonstration of the superlative value we have for our own selves, and every thing that comes from us, if it be good, and counted laudable; whereas, other things that are offensive, though equally our own, are in compliment to ourselves, industriously concealed; and, as soon as it is agreed upon that any thing is unseemly, and rather a disgrace to us than otherwise, presently it becomes ill manners to name, or so much as to hint at it. The contents of the stomach are variously disposed of, but we have no hand in that; and whether they go to the blood, or elsewhere, the last thing we did to them voluntarily, and with our knowledge, was swallowing them; and whatever is afterwards performed by the animal economy, a man contributes [422]no more to, than he does to the going of his watch. This is another instance of the unjust claim we lay to every performance we are but in the least concerned in, if good comes of it, though nature does all the work; but whoever places a merit in his prolific faculty, ought likewise to expect the blame, when he has the stone, or a fever. Without this violent principle of innate folly, no rational creature would value himself on his free agency, and at the same time accept of applause for actions that are visibly independent of his will. Life in all creatures is a compound action, but the share they have in it themselves, is only passive. We are forced to breathe before we know it; and our continuance palpably depends upon the guardianship and perpetual tutelage of nature; whilst every part of her works, ourselves not excepted, is an impenetrable secret to us, that eludes all inquiries. Nature furnishes us with all the substance of our food herself, nor does she trust to our wisdom for an appetite to crave it; to chew it, she teaches us by instinct, and bribes us to it by pleasure. This seeming to be an action of choice, and ourselves being conscious of the performance, we perhaps may be said to have a part in it; but the moment after, nature resumes her care, and again withdrawn from our knowledge, preserves us in a mysterious manner, without any help or concurrence of ours, that we are sensible of. Since, then, the management of what we have eat and drank remains entirely under the direction of nature, what honour or shame ought we to receive from any part of the product, whether it is to serve as a doubtful means toward generation, or yields to vegetation a less fallible assistance? It is nature that prompts us to propagate as well as to eat; and a savage man multiplies his kind by instinct as other animals do, without more thought or design of preserving his species, than a new-born infant has of keeping itself alive, in the action of sucking.

Cleo. I agree with you; it clearly shows how highly we value ourselves and everything that comes from us when it's good and praised. On the other hand, things that are unpleasant, though they're also from us, we try to hide because they don't reflect well on us. Once it's agreed that something is inappropriate and a disgrace, it becomes bad manners to even mention it. The contents of our stomachs are dealt with in various ways, but we don't control that; whether they go into our blood or elsewhere, the last thing we consciously did was swallow them. Whatever happens next in our bodies, we contribute to it no more than we do to our watch ticking. This is another example of how we unjustly claim credit for any good outcome we have a small part in, while nature does all the work. However, anyone who takes pride in their ability to reproduce should also expect criticism when they face health issues like kidney stones or fever. Without this strange principle of innate foolishness, no rational being would feel proud of their free choice while also accepting praise for actions that are clearly beyond their control. Life in all creatures is a combined effort, but their involvement is merely passive. We breathe without realizing it, and our survival obviously relies on the constant care and guidance of nature; every part of her process, including ourselves, remains a mystery to us that we can't fully understand. Nature provides us with all the food we need, and she doesn't depend on our wisdom to create the desire for it; she teaches us to chew it through instinct and encourages us with pleasure. This seems like a choice we make, and since we're aware of it, we might think we're involved. But right after that, nature takes over again, maintaining our survival in a mysterious way, without us being aware of it. Since the digestion of what we've eaten and drunk is completely managed by nature, what honor or shame should we feel about the results, whether they contribute to reproduction or help plants grow? It's nature that drives us to reproduce as much as to eat; a primitive person multiplies their kind out of instinct, just like other animals do, without any more thought or intention to ensure their species survives than a newborn baby has while nursing.

Hor. Yet nature gave the different instincts to both, for those reasons.

Hor. But nature provided both with different instincts for those reasons.

Cleo. Without doubt; but what I mean, is, that the reason of the thing is as much the motive of action in the one, as it is in the other; and I verily believe, that a wild woman who had never seen, or not minded the production of any young animals, would have several children before she would guess at the real cause of them; any more than if she had the cholic, she would suspect that it proceeded from some delicious [423]fruit she had eaten; especially if she had feasted upon it for several months, without perceiving any inconveniency from it. Children, all the world over, are brought forth with pain, more or less, which seems to have no affinity with pleasure; and an untaught creature, however docile and attentive, would want several clear experiments, before it would believe that the one could produce or be the cause of the other.

Cleo. Absolutely; but what I mean is that the reasoning behind things is just as much the driving force of action in one case as it is in the other. I truly believe that a wild woman who had never witnessed or noticed the birth of any young animals would have several children before she would even guess at the real cause of them; just as if she had a stomach ache, she wouldn't suspect that it came from some tasty [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] fruit she had eaten. Especially if she had been enjoying it for months without any issues. All around the world, children are born with varying degrees of pain, which seems completely unrelated to pleasure; and an untaught creature, no matter how well-behaved or attentive, would need several clear examples before it would believe that one could cause or be connected to the other.

Hor. Most people marry in hopes, and with a design of having children.

Hor. Most people get married hoping to have kids.

Cleo. I doubt, not; and believe that there are as many that would rather not have children, or at least not so fast as often they come, as there are that wish for them, even in the state of matrimony; but out of it, in the amours of thousands, that revel in enjoyments, children are reckoned to be the greatest calamity that can befal them; and often what criminal love gave birth to, without thought more criminal pride destroys, with purposed and considerate cruelty. But all this belongs to people in society, that are knowing, and well acquainted with the natural consequences of things; what I urged, I spoke of a savage.

Cleo. I have no doubt, and I believe that just as many people would prefer not to have children, or at least not so quickly and often as they do come, as there are those who wish for them, even in marriage; but outside of that, in the affairs of countless people who indulge in pleasure, children are considered the greatest misfortune that can happen to them; and often what illicit love brings into the world, without thinking, is destroyed with deliberate and cruel intent. But all of this applies to people in society, who are knowledgeable and aware of the natural consequences of things; what I addressed, I was speaking about a savage.

Hor. Still the end of love, between the different sexes, in all animals, is the preservation of their species.

Hor. Ultimately, the reason for love between different sexes in all animals is to ensure the survival of their species.

Cleo. I have allowed that already. But once more the savage is not prompted to love from that consideration: he propagates before he knows the consequence of it; and I much question, whether the most civilized pair, in the most chaste of their embraces, ever acted from the care of their species, as a real principle. A rich man may, with great impatience, wish for a son to inherit his name and his estate; perhaps he may marry from no other motive, and for no other purpose; but all the satisfaction he seems to receive, from the flattering prospect of an happy posterity, can only arise from a pleasing reflection on himself, as the cause of those descendants. How much soever this man’s posterity might be thought to owe him for their being, it is certain, that the motive he acted from, was to oblige himself: still here is a wishing for posterity, a thought and design of getting children, which no wild couple could have to boast of; yet they would be vain enough to look upon themselves, as the principal cause of all their offspring and descendants, though they should live to see the fifth or sixth generation. [424]

Cleo. I've thought about that already. But again, the savage isn't driven to love because of that consideration: he procreates without understanding the consequences; and I really wonder if the most civilized couple, in the purest of their embraces, ever act out of genuine concern for their species as a real principle. A wealthy man might eagerly wish for a son to inherit his name and fortune; perhaps he might marry solely for that reason and purpose; but all the joy he seems to get from the hopeful prospect of a happy future generation can only come from a pleasant reflection on himself, as the reason for those descendants. No matter how much this man's children might owe him for their existence, it's clear that his motivation was to benefit himself: still, there is a desire for future generations, a thought and plan to have kids, which no wild couple could claim; yet they would be arrogant enough to see themselves as the main reason for all their children and descendants, even if they lived to witness the fifth or sixth generation. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. I can find no vanity in that, and I should think them so myself.

Hor. I don’t see any vanity in that, and I would feel the same way.

Cleo. Yet, as free agents, it would be plain, that they had contributed nothing to the existence of their prosperity.

Cleo. But, as independent individuals, it would be clear that they had contributed nothing to the existence of their success.

Hor. Now surely, you have overshot the mark; nothing?

Hor. Now, come on, you've definitely gone too far; nothing?

Cleo. No, nothing, even to that of their own children, knowingly; if you will allow that men have their appetites from nature. There is but one real cause in the universe, to produce that infinite variety of stupendous effects, and all the mighty labours that are performed in nature, either within, or far beyond the reach of our senses. Parents are the efficients of their offspring, with no more truth or propriety of speech, than the tools of an artificer, that were made and contrived by himself, are the cause of the most elaborate of his works. The senseless engine that raises water into the copper, and the passive mash-tub, have between them, as great a share in the art and action of brewing, as the liveliest male and female ever had in the production of an animal.

Cleo. No, nothing, not even when it comes to their own children, knowingly; if you consider that men have natural appetites. There is only one true cause in the universe that creates the infinite variety of amazing effects and all the incredible efforts happening in nature, whether within or far beyond our senses. Parents are just the means by which their children come into existence, as much as the tools of a craftsman, which he designed and created himself, are responsible for the most intricate of his works. The inanimate machine that pumps water into the kettle and the passive mash-tub have just as much to do with the art and process of brewing as the most lively male and female do in producing an offspring.

Hor. You make stocks and stones of us; is it not in our choice to act, or not to act?

Hor. You treat us like we're just objects; don't we have the choice to act or not to act?

Cleo. Yes, it is my choice now, either to run my head against the wall; or to let it alone; but, I hope, it does not puzzle you much to guess which of the two I shall choose.

Cleo. Yes, it's my decision now, whether to bang my head against the wall or to leave it alone; but I hope it's not too hard for you to figure out which one I'll choose.

Hor. But do not we move our bodies as we list; and is not every action determined by the will?

Hor. But don't we move our bodies however we want? Isn't every action controlled by our will?

Cleo. What signifies that, where there is a passion that manifestly sways, and with a strict hand governs that will?

Cleo. What does it mean when there's a passion that clearly controls and strictly governs someone’s will?

Hor. Still we act with consciousness, and are intelligent creatures.

Hor. We still act with awareness and are intelligent beings.

Cleo. Not in the affair I speak of; where, willing or not willing, we are violently urged from within, and in a manner compelled not only to assist in, but likewise to long for, and, in spite of our teeth, be highly pleased with a performance that infinitely surpasses our understanding. The comparison I made is just, in every part of it; for the most loving, and, if you will, the most sagacious couple you can conceive, are as ignorant in the mystery of generation, nay, must remain, after having had twenty children together, as much uninformed, and as little conscious of nature’s transactions, and what has been wrought within them, as inanimate utensils are of the most mystic and most ingenious operations they have been employed in. [425]

Cleo. Not in the situation I'm talking about; here, whether we want to or not, we're forcefully driven from within, feeling like we have no choice but to not only participate but also to desire, and despite our best efforts, to genuinely enjoy a performance that is far beyond our understanding. My comparison is completely fair; even the most loving and, if you prefer, the wisest couple you can imagine are just as clueless about the mystery of procreation, and even after having twenty children together, they remain as unaware and as oblivious to nature’s workings and what has happened inside them as inanimate objects are to the most mysterious and imaginative tasks they've been involved in. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. I do not know any man more expert in tracing human pride, or more severe in humbling it than yourself; but when the subject comes in your way, you do not know how to leave it. I wish you would, at once, go over to the origin of society; which, how to derive, or bring about at all, from the savage family, as we left it, is past my skill. It is impossible but those children, when they grew up, would quarrel on innumerable occasions: if men had but three appetites to gratify, that are the most obvious, they could never live together in peace, without government: for though they all paid a deference to the father, yet if he was a man void of all prudence, that could give them no good rules to walk by, I am persuaded that they would live in a perpetual state of war; and the more numerous his offspring grew, the more the old savage would be puzzled between his desire and incapacity of government. As they increased in numbers, they would be forced to extend their limits, and the spot they were born upon would not hold them long: nobody would be willing to leave his native vale, especially if it was a fruitful one. The more I think upon it, and the more I look into such multitudes, the less I can conceive which way they could ever be formed into a society.

Hor. I don’t know anyone better at identifying human pride or more ruthless in bringing it down than you, but when the topic comes up, you just can’t let it go. I wish you would, for once, consider the beginnings of society; figuring out how to evolve from the primitive family we started with is beyond me. It’s inevitable that those kids would argue constantly as they grew up: if men only had three basic drives to satisfy, the most obvious ones, they could never live peacefully without some form of government. Even though they respected their father, if he lacked wisdom and couldn’t provide good guidance, I’m sure they would exist in a constant state of conflict. The more children he had, the more confused he would be about how to govern them. As their numbers grew, they would have to expand their territory, and their birthplace wouldn’t be able to support them for long. No one would want to leave their home valley, especially if it was a fertile one. The more I think about it and consider such large groups, the harder it is to imagine how they could ever form a society.

Cleo. The first thing that could make man associate, would be common danger, which unites the greatest enemies: this danger they would certainly be in, from wild beasts, considering that no uninhabited country is without them, and the defenceless condition in which men come into the world. This often must have been a cruel article, to prevent the increase of our species.

Cleo. The first thing that might bring people together is a shared danger, which can unite even the fiercest enemies. This danger, especially from wild animals, is something they would certainly face, since no unpopulated area is free of them, and humans are born defenseless. This situation must have often been harsh, making it harder for our species to thrive.

Hor. The supposition then, that this wild man, with his progeny, should for fifty years live undisturbed, is not very probable; and I need not trouble myself about our savages being embarrassed with too numerous an offspring.

Hor. The idea that this wild man and his children could live undisturbed for fifty years is pretty unlikely; and I don't need to worry about our savages being overwhelmed by too many kids.

Cleo. You say right; there is no probability, that a man and his progeny, all unarmed, should so long escape the ravenous hunger of beasts of prey, that are to live upon what animals they can get; that leave no place unsearched, nor pains untried, to come at food, though with the hazard of their lives. The reason why I made that supposition, was to show you, first, the improbability that a wild and altogether untaught man should have the knowledge and discretion which Sir William Temple gives him; secondly, that children who conversed with their own species, though they [426]were brought up by savages, would be governable; and consequently, that all such, when come to maturity, would be fit for society, how ignorant and unskilful soever their parents might have been.

Cleo. You're right; there’s no way that a man and his offspring, completely unarmed, could escape the relentless hunger of wild predators for so long. These creatures will go to any length to find food, risking their lives in the process. The reason I made that assumption was to illustrate, first, how unlikely it is for a wild and completely untaught person to possess the knowledge and judgment that Sir William Temple attributes to him; and second, that children who interact with their own kind, even if they were raised by savages, would still be manageable. Thus, all such children, once they reach maturity, could be suitable for society, no matter how uneducated or inexperienced their parents might have been.

Hor. I thank you for it; for it has shown me, that the very first generation of the most brutish savages, was sufficient to produce sociable creatures; but that to produce a man fit to govern others, much more was required.

Hor. I appreciate it; it has shown me that even the very first generation of the most primitive savages was enough to create social beings. However, to create a person capable of leading others, much more is needed.

Cleo. I return to my conjecture concerning the first motive that would make savages associate: it is not possible to know any thing with certainty of beginnings, where men were destitute of letters; but I think, that the nature of the thing makes it highly probable, that it must have been their common danger from beasts of prey; as well such sly ones as lay in wait for their children, and the defenceless animals, men made use of for themselves, as the more bold, that would openly attack grown men and women. What much confirms me in this opinion is, the general agreement of all the relations we have, from the most ancient times, in different countries: for, in the infancy of all nations, profane history is stuffed with the accounts of the conflicts men had with wild beasts. It took up the chief labours of the heroes of remotest antiquity, and their greatest prowess was shown in killing of dragons, and subduing of other monsters.

Cleo. I return to my thoughts about the first reason that might have made early humans band together: it’s impossible to know for sure about beginnings when people didn’t have written records; however, I believe that the nature of the situation makes it very likely that it was their shared danger from predatory animals. This includes both the stealthy ones that lay in wait for their children and the defenseless animals they used, as well as the more aggressive ones that would openly attack adults. What reinforces my belief in this is the common understanding across various ancient accounts from different countries: in the early days of all nations, historical records are filled with stories of battles between humans and wild animals. The main efforts of heroes from ancient times were focused on defeating dragons and conquering other monsters.

Hor. Do you lay any stress upon sphinxes, basilisks, flying dragons, and bulls that spit fire?

Hor. Do you really put any importance on sphinxes, basilisks, flying dragons, and fire-breathing bulls?

Cleo. As much as I do on modern witches. But I believe that all those fictions had their rise from noxious beasts, the mischiefs they did, and other realities that struck terror into man; and I believe, that if no man had ever been seen on a horse’s back, we should never have heard of Centaurs. The prodigious force and rage that are apparent in some savage animals, and the astonishing power, which, from the various poisons of venomous creatures, we are sure must be hid in others; the sudden and unexpected assaults of serpents, the variety of them; the vast bulk of crocodiles; the irregular and uncommon shapes of some fishes, and the wings of others, are all things that are capable of alarming man’s fear; and it is incredible what chimeras that passion alone may produce in a terrified mind: the dangers of the day often haunt men at night with addition of terror; and from what they remember in their dreams, it is easy to forge realities. If you will consider, likewise, that the natural ignorance of man, and his hankering [427]after knowledge, will augment the credulity which hope and fear first give birth to; the desire the generality have of applause, and the great esteem that is commonly had for the merveilleux, and the witnesses and relaters of it: If, I say, you will consider all these, you will easily discover, how many creatures came to be talked of, described, and formally painted, that never had any existence.

Cleo. Just like I do about modern witches. But I believe that all those stories came from terrifying creatures, the havoc they wreaked, and other realities that scared people; and I think that if no one had ever seen a man on a horse, we would never have heard of Centaurs. The incredible strength and fury seen in some wild animals, and the shocking power that must lie hidden in other venomous creatures; the sudden and unexpected attacks of snakes, the variety among them; the massive size of crocodiles; the strange and unusual shapes of some fish, and the wings of others, all these things can instill fear in humans. It's amazing what sort of monsters that fear can create in a frightened mind: the dangers of the day often haunt people at night, adding to their terror; and from what they remember in their dreams, it's easy to invent realities. If you also consider that human ignorance and the constant quest for knowledge will increase the gullibility that hope and fear initially create; the common desire for approval and the high regard typically held for the merveilleux, along with those who witness and recount it: If, I say, you reflect on all this, you'll quickly find out how many creatures have been talked about, described, and even painted that never actually existed.

Hor. I do not wonder at the origin of monstrous figures, or the invention of any fables whatever; but in the reason you gave for the first motive, that would make men combine in one interest, I find something very perplexing, which I own I never thought of before. When I reflect on the condition of man, as you have set it before me, naked and defenceless, and the multitude of ravenous animals that thirst after his blood, and are superior to him in strength, and completely armed by nature, it is inconceivable to me, how our species should have subsisted.

Hor. I’m not surprised by the origin of strange creatures or the creation of any myths at all; however, the reason you gave for the initial motivation that would drive people to unite in a common cause is something I find quite puzzling, and honestly, I’ve never considered it before. When I think about the state of humanity, as you’ve described it—vulnerable and unprotected—along with the many fierce animals that crave his blood and are stronger than him, fully equipped by nature, I can’t comprehend how our species could have survived.

Cleo. What you observe is well worthy our attention.

Cleo. What you see is definitely worth our attention.

Hor. It is astonishing. What filthy, abominable beasts are lions and tigers!

Hor. It’s amazing. What disgusting, horrible creatures lions and tigers are!

Cleo. I think them to be very fine creatures; there is nothing I admire more than a lion.

Cleo. I think they are really amazing creatures; there's nothing I admire more than a lion.

Hor. We have strange accounts of his generosity and gratitude; but do you believe them?

Hor. We've heard some unusual stories about his generosity and gratitude, but do you actually believe them?

Cleo. I do not trouble my head about them: What I admire is his fabric, his structure, and his rage, so justly proportioned to one another. There are order, symmetry, and superlative wisdom to be observed in all the works of nature; but she has not a machine, of which every part more visibly answers the end for which the whole was formed.

Cleo. I don’t worry about them: What I admire is his design, his structure, and his intensity, all perfectly balanced with each other. There’s order, symmetry, and incredible wisdom in all of nature’s creations; but there isn’t a machine where each part so clearly serves the purpose for which the whole was made.

Hor. The destruction of other animals.

The extinction of other animals.

Cleo. That is true; but how conspicuous is that end, without mystery or uncertainty! that grapes were made for wine, and man for society, are truths not accomplished in every individual: but there is a real majesty stamped on every single lion, at the sight of which the stoutest animals submit and tremble. When we look upon and examine his massy talons, the size of them, and the laboured firmness with which they are fixed in, and fastened to that prodigious paw; his dreadful teeth, the strength of his jaws, and the width of his mouth equally terrible, the use of them is obvious; but when we consider, moreover, the make of his limbs, the toughness of his flesh and tendons, the solidity of his bones, [428]beyond that of other animals, and the whole frame of him, together with his never-ceasing anger, speed, and agility; whilst in the desart he ranges king of beasts! When, I say, we consider all these things, it is stupidity not to see the design of nature, and with what amazing skill the beautiful creature is contrived for offensive war and conquest.

Cleo. That’s true; but how clear is that end, with no mystery or uncertainty! That grapes are meant for wine and people for society are truths not realized by everyone: yet there is a real majesty in every single lion, which makes even the bravest animals submit and tremble. When we look at and examine his massive claws, their size, and the strong grip with which they are attached to that enormous paw; his fearsome teeth, the power of his jaws, and the frightening width of his mouth, their purpose is obvious; but when we also consider the structure of his limbs, the toughness of his flesh and tendons, the strength of his bones, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]superior to other animals, and his entire build, along with his constant rage, speed, and agility; while he roams the desert as the king of beasts! When I say we consider all these things, it is foolish not to recognize the design of nature, and how incredibly skilled the beautiful creature is made for battle and dominance.

Hor. You are a good painter. But after all, why would you judge of a creature’s nature from what it was perverted to, rather than from its original, the state it was first produced in? The lion in Paradise was a gentle, loving creature. Hear what Milton says of his behaviour before Adam and Eve, “as they sate recline on the soft downy bank, damask’d with flowers:”

Hor. You're a talented painter. But really, why would you judge a creature's true nature based on how it was twisted, instead of how it originally was, the way it was created? The lion in Paradise was a gentle, loving animal. Listen to what Milton says about its behavior before Adam and Eve, “as they sat reclined on the soft downy bank, damasked with flowers:”

————About them frisking play’d

About them frisking played

All beasts of the earth, since wild, and of all chase

All the wild animals on the land, and all the hunts

In wood or wilderness, forest or den;

In the woods or wilderness, forest or lair;

Sporting the lion ramp’d, and in his paw

Sporting the lion standing proudly, and in his paw

Dandel’d the kid; bears, tigers, ounces, pards,

Dandel’d the kid; bears, tigers, leopards,

Gambol’d before them.————

Gambolled before them.

What was it the lion fed upon; what sustenance had all these beasts of prey in Paradise?

What did the lion eat? What did all these predatory animals in Paradise survive on?

Cleo. I do not know. Nobody who believes the Bible, doubts, but that the whole state of Paradise, and the intercourse between God and the first man, were as much preternatural, as the creation out of nothing; and, therefore, it cannot be supposed, that they should be accounted for by human reason; and if they were, Moses would not be answerable for more than he advanced himself. The history which he has given us of those times is extremely succinct, and ought not to be charged with any thing contained in the glosses and paraphrases that have been made upon it by others.

Cleo. I don't know. Anyone who believes the Bible doesn't doubt that the entire state of Paradise and the relationship between God and the first man were just as miraculous as creation from nothing. So, it can't be expected that human reason could explain them, and if it could, Moses wouldn't be responsible for more than he actually presented. The account he provided of those times is very brief and shouldn't be criticized for anything found in the interpretations and elaborations made by others.

Hor. Milton has said nothing of Paradise, but what he could justify from Moses.

Hor. Milton hasn’t mentioned Paradise except for what he could support from Moses.

Cleo. It is no where to be proved, from Moses, that the state of innocence lasted so long, that goats, or any viviparous animals could, have bred and brought forth young ones.

Cleo. It's not proven anywhere in Moses' writings that the state of innocence lasted long enough for goats or any other live-bearing animals to breed and give birth to young ones.

Hor. You mean that there could have been no kid. I should never have made that cavil in so fine a poem. It was not in my thoughts: what I aimed at in repeating those lines, was to show you how superfluous and impertinent a lion must have been in Paradise; and that those who pretend to [429]find fault with the works of nature, might have censured her with justice, for lavishing and throwing away so many excellencies upon a great beast, to no purpose. What a fine variety of destructive weapons, would they say, what prodigious strength of limbs and sinews are here given to a creature! What to do with? to be quiet and dandle a kid. I own, that to me, this province, the employment assigned to the lion, seems to be as proper and well chosen, as if you would make a nurse of Alexander the Great.

Hor. You mean that there couldn't have been a kid. I shouldn't have made that point in such a fine poem. It wasn't on my mind: what I was trying to convey by repeating those lines was to show you how unnecessary and out of place a lion would have been in Paradise; and that those who claim to [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] criticize the works of nature might have justly criticized her for wasting and squandering so many great qualities on a big beast, to no avail. What an amazing array of destructive weapons would they say, what incredible strength of limbs and muscles has been given to this creature! What for? Just to sit quietly and nurse a kid. I admit, to me, this role, the task assigned to the lion, seems as fitting and well chosen as if you were to make a nurse out of Alexander the Great.

Cleo. You might make as many flights upon a lion now, if you saw him asleep. Nobody would think that a bull had occasion for horns, who had never seen him otherwise than quietly grazing among a parcel of cows; but, if one should see him attacked by dogs, by a wolf, or a rival of his own species, he would soon find out that his horns were of great use and service to him. The lion was not made to be always in Paradise.

Cleo. You could ride a lion as many times as you want if you saw him sleeping. No one would believe a bull needed horns if they only saw him peacefully grazing with a group of cows. But if someone witnessed him being attacked by dogs, a wolf, or another bull, they would quickly understand how valuable his horns really are. The lion wasn’t meant to always be in Paradise.

Hor. There I would have you. If the lion was contrived for purposes to be served and executed out of Paradise, then it is manifest, from the very creation, that the fall of man was determined and predestinated.

Hor. This is where I would have you. If the lion was designed for certain purposes to be carried out beyond Paradise, then it’s clear, from the very beginning, that the fall of man was decided and predetermined.

Cleo. Foreknown it was: nothing could be hid from Omniscience; that is certain: But that it was predestinated so as to have prejudiced, or anywise influenced the free will of Adam, I utterly deny. But that word, predestinated, has made so much noise in the world, and the thing itself has been the cause of so many fatal quarrels, and is so inexplicable, that I am resolved never to engage in any dispute concerning it.

Cleo. It was known ahead of time: nothing can be hidden from all-knowingness; that's for sure. But I completely deny that it was predestined in a way that affected Adam's free will. However, the term "predestined" has caused so much commotion in the world, and the concept itself has led to so many deadly arguments and is so hard to understand, that I've decided never to get into any debates about it.

Hor. I cannot make you; but what you have extolled so much, must have cost the lives of thousands of our species; and it is a wonder to me how men, when they were but few, could possibly defend themselves, before they had fire arms, or at least bows and arrows; for what number of naked men and women, would be a match for one couple of lions?

Hor. I can't create you, but what you've praised so much must have cost the lives of thousands of our kind; and I find it hard to believe how people, when they were few in number, could defend themselves before they had firearms, or at least bows and arrows; because how could a group of unarmed men and women stand a chance against even one pair of lions?

Cleo. Yet, here we are; and none of those animals are suffered to be wild, in any civilized nation; our superior understanding has got the start of them.

Cleo. Yet, here we are; and none of those animals are allowed to be wild in any civilized country; our greater understanding has gained the upper hand over them.

Hor. My reason tells me it must be that; but I cannot help observing, that when human understanding serves your purpose to solve any thing, it is always ready and full grown; but at other times, knowledge and reasoning are the work of time, and men are not capable of thinking justly, until after [430]many generations. Pray, before men had arms, what could their understanding do against lions, and what hindered wild beasts from devouring mankind, as soon as they were born?

Hor. My logic tells me that it must be that way; however, I can't help but notice that when human understanding is useful for solving something, it's always quick and fully developed. Yet at other times, acquiring knowledge and reasoning takes time, and people aren’t able to think clearly until after [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] many generations. Seriously, before humans had weapons, what could their understanding do against lions, and what stopped wild animals from eating humans as soon as they were born?

Cleo. Providence.

Cleo. Providence.

Hor. Daniel, indeed, was saved by miracle; but what is that to the rest of mankind? great numbers, we know, have, at different times, been torn to pieces by savage beasts: what I want to know, is, the reason that any of them escaped, and the whole species was not destroyed by them; when men had yet no weapons to defend, nor strong holds to shelter themselves from the fury of those merciless creatures.

Hor. Daniel was certainly saved by a miracle, but what does that mean for the rest of humanity? We know that many people have been torn apart by wild animals at different times. What I want to understand is why any of them managed to escape, and why the whole human race wasn’t wiped out by these beasts when people didn’t have weapons to defend themselves or strongholds to protect them from the rage of those brutal creatures.

Cleo. I have named it to you already, Providence.

Cleo. I already mentioned it to you, Providence.

Hor. But which way can you prove this miraculous assistance?

Hor. But how can you show this amazing help?

Cleo. You still talk of miracles, and I speak of Providence, or the all-governing Wisdom of God.

Cleo. You still talk about miracles, and I talk about God's Providence, or the all-controlling Wisdom of God.

Hor. If you can, demonstrate to me, how that Wisdom interposed between our species and that of lions, in the beginning of the world, without miracle, any more than it does at present, eris mihi magnus Apollo: for now, I am sure, a wild lion would prey upon a naked man, as soon, at least, as he would upon an ox or an horse.

Hor. If you can, show me how that Wisdom separated our kind from lions at the dawn of time, without any miracles, just as it does now, eris mihi magnus Apollo: because right now, I’m certain that a wild lion would attack a naked man just as quickly as it would a cow or a horse.

Cleo. Will not you allow me, that all properties, instincts, and what we call the nature of things, animate or inanimate, are the produce, the effects of that Wisdom?

Cleo. Will you not agree that all properties, instincts, and what we refer to as the nature of things, whether living or non-living, are the result, the effects of that Wisdom?

Hor. I never thought otherwise.

I never thought differently.

Cleo. Then it will not be difficult to prove this to you. Lions are never brought forth wild, but in very hot countries, as bears are the product of the cold. But the generality of our species, which loves moderate warmth, are most delighted with the middle regions. Men may, against their wills, be inured to intense cold, or by use and patience, accustom themselves to excessive heat; but a mild air, and weather between both extremes, being more agreeable to human bodies, the greatest part of mankind would naturally settle in temperate climates, and with the same conveniency, as to every thing else, never choose any other. This would very much lessen the danger men would be in from the fiercest and most irresistible wild beasts.

Cleo. Then it won't be hard to prove this to you. Lions aren't found in the wild everywhere; they're from very hot countries, just as bears come from cold ones. But most of our species, which prefer moderate warmth, are happiest in temperate regions. People can, against their better judgment, adapt to extreme cold, or through experience and patience, get used to intense heat; but a mild climate, with weather that's balanced, is more comfortable for human bodies. Most people would naturally settle in these temperate areas and would usually choose them over others. This would greatly reduce the risks people face from the fiercest and most formidable wild animals.

Hor. But would lions and tigers in hot countries keep so close within their bounds, and bears in cold ones, as never to straggle or stray beyond them? [431]

Hor. But would lions and tigers in warm countries stay so limited in their territory, and bears in cold ones, that they never wander or stray beyond their boundaries? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. I do not suppose they would; and men, as well as cattle, have often been picked up by lions, far from the places where these were whelped. No wild beasts are more fatal to our species, than often we are to one another; and men pursued by their enemies have fled into climates and countries, which they would never have chose. Avarice likewise and curiosity, have, without force or necessity, often exposed men to dangers, which they might have avoided, if they had been satisfied with what nature required; and laboured for self-preservation in that simple manner, which creatures less vain and fantastical content themselves with. In all these cases, I do not question, but multitudes of our species have suffered from savage beasts, and other noxious animals; and on their account only, I verily believe, it would have been impossible for any number of men, to have settled or subsisted in either very hot or very cold countries, before the invention of bows and arrows, or better arms. But all this does nothing to overthrow my assertion: what I wanted to prove, is, that all creatures choosing by instinct that degree of heat or cold which is most natural to them, there would be room enough in the world for man to multiply his species, for many ages, without running almost any risk of being devoured either by lions or by bears; and that the most savage man would find this out, without the help of his reason. This I call the work of Providence; by which I mean the unalterable wisdom of the Supreme Being, in the harmonious disposition of the universe; the fountain of that incomprehensible chain of causes, on which all events have their undoubted dependance.

Cleo. I don't think they would; and just like cattle, men have often been taken by lions far from where they were born. No wild animals are more deadly to us than we often are to each other; and men chased by their enemies have sought refuge in places they would never have chosen. Greed and curiosity have also led people into dangers they could have avoided if they had been content with what nature provided, working for their survival in the straightforward way that less vain creatures do. In all these situations, I have no doubt that many of our kind have suffered at the hands of wild animals and other harmful creatures; and I truly believe that without bows and arrows or better weapons, it would have been impossible for any group of men to settle in very hot or very cold regions. But none of this changes my point: what I wanted to show is that if all creatures instinctively choose the temperatures that suit them best, there would be enough space in the world for humans to reproduce for many ages without almost any risk of being eaten by lions or bears; and even the most primitive human would figure this out without the aid of reason. I call this the work of Providence, which refers to the unchanging wisdom of the Supreme Being in the balanced arrangement of the universe; the source of that complex chain of causes upon which all events depend without question.

Hor. You have made this out better than I had expected; but I am afraid, that what you alleged as the first motive towards society, is come to nothing by it.

Hor. You’ve explained this better than I expected; but I’m afraid that what you claimed as the first reason for society hasn’t resulted in anything.

Cleo. Do not fear that; there are other savage beasts, against which men could not guard themselves unarmed, without joining, and mutual assistance: in temperate climates, most uncultivated countries abound with wolves.

Cleo. Don’t worry about that; there are other fierce animals that men can’t protect themselves from when unarmed, unless they band together and help each other out: in temperate regions, many wild areas are full of wolves.

Hor. I have seen them in Germany; they are of the size of a large mastiff; but I thought their chief prey had been sheep.

Hor. I’ve seen them in Germany; they’re about the size of a large mastiff, but I thought their main prey was sheep.

Cleo. Any thing they can conquer is their prey: they are desperate creatures, and will fall upon men, cows, and horses, as well as upon sheep, when they are very hungry: they have teeth like mastiffs; but besides them they have sharp [432]claws to tear with, which dogs have not. The stoutest man is hardly equal to them in strength; but what is worse, they often come in troops, and whole villages have been attacked by them; they have five, six, and more whelps at a litter, and would soon over-run a country where they breed, if men did not combine against, and make it their business to destroy them. Wild boars likewise, are terrible creatures, that few large forests, and uninhabited places, in temperate climates, are free from.

Cleo. Anything they can overpower is their target: they are relentless creatures and will attack people, cows, and horses, as well as sheep, when they are extremely hungry. They have teeth like mastiffs, and in addition, they have sharp [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]claws for tearing that dogs do not have. Even the strongest man is hardly a match for them, and what's worse, they often come in packs, with entire villages being attacked by them. They have five, six, or more pups in a litter and would quickly take over an area where they breed if people didn’t band together to hunt them down and eliminate them. Wild boars are also fearsome creatures, and very few large forests or uninhabited places in temperate climates are free from them.

Hor. Those tusks of theirs are dreadful weapons.

Those tusks are scary weapons.

Cleo. And they are much superior to wolves in bulk and strength. History is full of the mischief they have done in ancient times, and of the renown that valiant men have gained by conquering them.

Cleo. And they are much stronger and bigger than wolves. History is full of the trouble they caused in ancient times and the fame

Hor. That is true; but those heroes that fought monsters in former days, were well armed; at least, the generality of them; but what could a number of naked men, before they had any arms at all, have to oppose to the teeth and claws of ravenous wolves that came in troops; and what impression could the greatest blow a man can strike, make upon the thick bristly hide of a wild boar?

Hor. That's true; but the heroes who battled monsters back in the day were well-equipped; at least, most of them were. But what could a bunch of unarmed men do against the teeth and claws of hungry wolves attacking in packs? And how much damage could the strongest punch a man could throw do against the thick bristly hide of a wild boar?

Cleo. As on the one hand, I have named every thing that man has to fear from wild beasts; so, on the other, we ought not to forget the things that are in his favour. In the first place, a wild man inured to hardship, would far exceed a tame one, in all feats of strength, nimbleness and activity; in the second, his anger would sooner and more usefully transport and assist him in his savage state, than it can do in society; where, from his infancy he is so many ways taught, and forced in his own defence, to cramp and stifle with his fears the noble gift of nature. In wild creatures we see, that most of them, when their own life or that of their young ones is at stake, fight with great obstinacy, and continue fighting to the last, and do what mischief they can, whilst they have breath, without regard to their being overmatched, or the disadvantages they labour under. It is observed likewise, that the more untaught and inconsiderate creatures are, the more entirely they are swayed by the passion that is uppermost: natural affection would make wild men and women too, sacrifice their lives, and die for their children; but they would die fighting; and one wolf would not find it an easy matter to carry of a child from his watchful parents, if they were both resolute, though they were naked. As to [433]man’s being born defenceless, it is not to be conceived, that he should long know the strength of his arms, without being acquainted with the articulation of his fingers, or at least, what is owing to it, his faculty of grasping and holding fast; and the most untaught savage would make use of clubs and staves before he came to maturity. As the danger men are in from wild beasts would be of the highest consequence, so it would employ their utmost care and industry: they would dig holes, and invent other stratagems, to distress their enemies, and destroy their young ones: as soon as they found out fire, they would make use of that element to guard themselves and annoy their foes: by the help of it they would soon learn to sharpen wood, which presently would put them upon making spears and other weapons that would cut. When men are angry enough with creatures to strike them, and these are running away, or flying from them, they are apt to throw at what they cannot reach: this, as soon as they had spears, would naturally lead them to the invention of darts and javelins. Here, perhaps, they may stop a while; but the same chain of thinking would, in time, produce bows and arrows: the elasticity of sticks and boughs of trees is very obvious; and to make strings of the guts of animals, I dare say, is more ancient than the use of hemp. Experience teaches us, that men may have all these, and many more weapons, and be very expert in the use of them, before any manner of government, except that of parents over their children, is to be seen among them: it is likewise very well known, that savages furnished with no better arms, when they are strong enough in number, will venture to attack, and even hunt after the fiercest wild beasts, lions and tigers not excepted. Another thing is to be considered, that likewise favours our species, and relates to the nature of the creatures, of which intemperate climates man has reason to stand in bodily fear of.

Cleo. On one hand, I’ve pointed out everything that a person has to fear from wild animals; on the other hand, we shouldn't overlook the benefits that exist for him. First, a wild man accustomed to hardship would far outperform a domesticated one in feats of strength, agility, and activity. Second, his anger would more quickly and effectively motivate him in his wild state than it can in society, where from a young age he is trained in various ways to suppress and stifle the natural instincts gifted to him by fear. In wild creatures, we see that most of them fight with fierce determination when their own lives or those of their young are threatened, continuing to struggle until the very end, causing as much harm as they can while they still have breath, regardless of being outmatched or facing disadvantages. It's also observed that the less trained and less thoughtful creatures are, the more entirely they act on their strongest emotions: a natural bond would lead wild men and women to sacrifice their lives for their children; but they would do so while fighting. One wolf would find it difficult to take a child from vigilant parents if both were steadfast, even if they were unarmed. Regarding [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] the idea that man is born defenseless, it’s hard to believe he would know the strength of his arms for long without understanding how to use his fingers, or at least, what’s tied to it—his ability to grip and hold on. Even the most untrained savage would use clubs and sticks before reaching maturity. Since the danger men encounter from wild beasts is significant, it would demand their utmost attention and effort: they would dig holes and come up with other strategies to hinder their enemies and eliminate their young. Once they discovered fire, they would use it to protect themselves and annoy their foes: with fire, they would soon learn to sharpen wood, which would lead them to create spears and other cutting weapons. When men are angry enough to strike at creatures and those creatures are fleeing, they tend to throw what they can’t reach; as soon as they had spears, this would naturally lead to the development of darts and javelins. They might pause here for a moment, but this train of thought would eventually result in bows and arrows: the flexibility of sticks and tree branches is quite evident, and using animal guts to make strings is likely more ancient than the use of hemp. Experience shows us that men can have all these and many more weapons and be very skilled in using them long before any form of government, other than that of parents over their children, appears among them. It is also well-known that savages, equipped with no better arms, when strong enough in numbers, will dare to attack and even hunt the fiercest wild beasts, including lions and tigers. Another aspect to consider is one that also benefits our species and relates to the nature of the creatures that pose a physical threat to humans in extreme climates.

Hor. Wolves and wild boars?

Wolves and wild boars?

Cleo. Yes. That great numbers of our species have been devoured by the first, is uncontested; but they most naturally go in quest of sheep and poultry; and, as long as they can get carrion, or any thing to fill their bellies with, they seldom hunt after men, or other large animals; which is the reason, that in the summer our species, as to personal insults, have not much to fear from them. It is certain likewise, that savage swine will hunt after men, and many of their maws [434]have been crammed with human flesh: but they naturally feed on acorns, chestnuts, beach-mast, and other vegetables; and they are only carnivorous upon occasion, and through necessity, when they can get nothing else; in great frosts, when the country is bare, and every thing covered with snow. It is evident, then, that human creatures are not in any great and immediate danger from either of these species of beasts, but in hard winters, which happen but seldom in temperate climates. But as they are our perpetual enemies, by spoiling and devouring every thing that may serve for the sustenance of man, it is highly necessary, that we should not only be always upon our guard against them, but likewise never cease to assist one another in routing and destroying them.

Cleo. Yes. There's no doubt that a lot of our kind have been eaten by them, but they typically go after sheep and poultry. As long as they can find dead animals or anything to fill their stomachs, they rarely hunt people or other large animals. This is why, in the summer, we don't have much to worry about from them when it comes to personal attacks. It's also true that wild pigs will go after humans, and many of them [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]have had their stomachs filled with human flesh. However, they usually eat acorns, chestnuts, beechnuts, and other plants; they only turn to meat when they have to, like during harsh winter when the land is barren and everything is covered in snow. So, it's clear that humans aren’t in any major immediate danger from either of these types of animals, except in severe winters, which don’t happen often in temperate areas. But since they are our constant enemies by ruining and consuming everything that can feed us, it’s essential that we remain vigilant against them and continually support one another in driving them away and getting rid of them.

Hor. I plainly see, that mankind might subsist and survive to multiply, and get the mastery over all other creatures that should oppose them; and as this could never have been brought about, unless men had assisted one another against savage beasts, it is possible that the necessity men were in of joining and uniting together, was the first step toward society. Thus far I am willing to allow you to have proved your main point: but to ascribe all this to Providence, otherwise than that nothing is done without the Divine permission, seems inconsistent with the ideas we have of a perfectly good and merciful Being. It is possible, that all poisonous animals may have something in them that is beneficial to men; and I will not dispute with you, whether the most venomous of all the serpents which Lucan has made mention of, did not contain some antidote, or other fine medicine, still undiscovered: but when I look upon the vast variety of ravenous and blood-thirsty creatures, that are not only superior to us in strength, but likewise visibly armed by nature, as it were on purpose for our destruction; when, I say, I look upon these, I can find out no use for them, nor what they could be designed for, unless it be to punish us: but I can much less conceive, that the Divine Wisdom should have made them the means without which men could not have been civilized. How many thousands of our species must have been devoured in the conflicts with them!

Hor. I can clearly see that humans could live and thrive, reproduce, and dominate all other creatures that opposed them. This couldn’t have happened unless people helped each other against wild beasts, so it’s likely that the need for men to come together was the first step toward forming society. So far, I’m willing to accept that you’ve proven your main point. However, to attribute all this to Providence, aside from the idea that nothing happens without divine permission, seems inconsistent with what we believe about a truly good and merciful Being. It’s possible that all poisonous animals have something beneficial for humans; I won’t argue about whether the most venomous snakes that Lucan mentions might contain some antidote or undiscovered medicine. But when I look at the vast array of ravenous and bloodthirsty creatures, which are not only stronger than us but also seem naturally equipped for our destruction, I can’t find any purpose for them or what they could possibly be intended for, unless it’s to punish us. I also find it hard to believe that Divine Wisdom created them as necessary for human civilization. How many thousands of our kind must have been consumed in battles with them!

Cleo. Ten troops of wolves, with fifty in each, would make a terrible havoc, in a long winter, among a million of our species with their hands tied behind them; but among half that number, one pestilence has been known to slaughter more, [435]than so many wolves could have eaten in the same time; notwithstanding the great resistance that was made against it, by approved of medicines and able physicians. It is owing to the principle of pride we are born with, and the high value we all, for the sake of one, have for our species, that men imagine the whole universe to be principally made for their use; and this error makes them commit a thousand extravagancies, and have pitiful and most unworthy notions of God and his works. It is not greater cruelty, or more unnatural, in a wolf to eat a piece of a man, than it is in a man to eat part of a lamb or a chicken. What, or how many purposes wild beasts were made for, is not for us to determine; but that they were made, we know; and that some of them must have been very calamitous to every infant nation, and settlement of men, is almost as certain: this you was fully persuaded of; and thought, moreover, that they must have been such an obstacle to the very subsistence of our species, as was insurmountable: In answer to this difficulty, which you started, I showed you, from the different instincts and peculiar tendencies of animals, that in nature a manifest provision was made for our species: by which, notwithstanding the rage and power of the fiercest beasts, we should make a shift, naked and defenceless, to escape their fury, so as to be able to maintain ourselves and multiply our kind, till by our numbers, and arms acquired by our own industry, we could put to flight, or destroy all savage beasts without exception, whatever spot of the globe we might have a mind to cultivate and settle on. The necessary blessings we receive from the sun, are obvious to a child; and it is demonstrable, that without it, none of the living creatures that are now upon the earth, could subsist. But if it were of no other use, being eight hundred thousand times bigger than the earth at least, one thousandth part of it would do our business as well, if it was but nearer to us in proportion. From this consideration alone, I am persuaded, that the sun was made to enlighten and cherish other bodies, besides this planet of ours. Fire and water were designed for innumerable purposes; and among the uses that are made of them, some are immensely different from others. But whilst we receive the benefit of these, and are only intent on ourselves, it is highly probable, that there are thousands of things, and perhaps our own machines among them, that, in the vast system of the universe, [436]are now serving some very wise ends, which we shall never know. According to that plan of this globe, I mean the scheme of government, in relation to the living creatures that inhabit the earth, the destruction of animals is as necessary as the generation of them.

Cleo. Ten packs of wolves, with fifty in each, would cause a terrible disaster during a long winter among a million of our kind, especially when they’re defenseless; however, among half that number, one epidemic has been known to kill more, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] than so many wolves could eat in that same time, despite the great resistance from effective medicines and skilled doctors. It’s due to our inherent pride and the high value we place on our species for the sake of one another that people tend to believe the whole universe is made primarily for their benefit; and this misconception leads them to commit countless absurdities, resulting in regrettable and misguided notions about God and his creations. A wolf eating a piece of a human is no more cruel or unnatural than a human eating part of a lamb or a chicken. It's not for us to decide the purposes for which wild animals were created, but we know they were made; and it’s almost certain that some of them posed considerable threats to every early nation and settlement of humans: this you understood well and believed they must have been such a barrier to our survival that it was insurmountable. In response to this issue you raised, I demonstrated to you, through the various instincts and specific behaviors of animals, that nature has clearly made provisions for our species: so that, despite the fury and strength of the fiercest beasts, we could manage, naked and defenseless, to evade their wrath and maintain our existence long enough to multiply until our numbers and weapons, acquired through our own efforts, could drive away or destroy all wild beasts regardless of where we chose to settle and cultivate. The essential benefits we receive from the sun are obvious even to a child; and it’s clear that without it, none of the living creatures on earth could survive. But if it served no other purpose, being at least eight hundred thousand times larger than the earth, even one thousandth of it would suffice for us if it were positioned closer to us in scale. This fact alone convinces me that the sun was created to illuminate and nourish other bodies besides this planet of ours. Fire and water were intended for countless purposes; and among those purposes, some are vastly different from others. But while we focus on benefiting ourselves from these resources, it’s highly probable that there are thousands of things, including perhaps our own machines, that are currently serving some very wise purposes in the vast system of the universe, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] which we will never fully understand. According to the design of this planet, meaning the governing structure regarding the living creatures that inhabit the earth, the destruction of animals is as necessary as their generation.

Hor. I have learned that from the Fable of the Bees; and I believe what I have read there to be very true; that, if any one species was to be exempt from death, it would in time crush all the rest to pieces, though the first were sheep, and the latter all lions: but that the Supreme Being should have introduced society at the expence of so many lives of our species, I cannot believe, when it might have been done much better in a milder way.

Hor. I learned this from the Fable of the Bees; and I believe what I read there is very true: if any one species were exempt from death, it would eventually overpower all the others, even if the first were sheep and the others were all lions. However, I can't believe that the Supreme Being would create society at the cost of so many lives of our kind when it could have been done in a gentler way.

Cleo. We are speaking of what probably was done, and not of what might have been done. There is no question, but the same Power that made whales, might have made us seventy feet high, and given us strength in proportion. But since the plan of this globe requires, and you think it necessary yourself, that in every species some should die almost as fast as others are born, why should you take away any of the means of dying?

Cleo. We're talking about what likely happened, not what could have happened. There's no doubt that the same Power that created whales could have made us seventy feet tall and given us proportional strength. But since the design of this planet demands—and you agree—that in every species, some should die almost as quickly as others are born, why would you want to eliminate any of the ways to die?

Hor. Are there not diseases enough, physicians and apothecaries, as well as wars by sea and land, that may take off more than the redundancy of our species?

Hor. Aren't there already enough diseases, doctors and pharmacists, along with wars on land and sea, that could reduce our population more than necessary?

Cleo. They may, it is true; but in fact they are not always sufficient to do this: and in populous nations we see, that war, wild beasts, hanging, drowning, and an hundred casualties together, with sickness and all its attendants, are hardly a match for one invisible faculty of ours, which is the instinct men have to preserve their species. Every thing is easy to the Deity; but to speak after an human manner, it is evident, that in forming this earth, and every thing that is in it, no less wisdom or solicitude was required, in contriving the various ways and means, to get rid and destroy animals, than seems to have been employed in producing them; and it is as demonstrable, that our bodies were made on purpose not to last beyond such a period, as it is, that some houses are built with a design not to stand longer than such a term of years. But it is death itself to which our aversion by nature is universal; as to the manner of dying, men differ in their opinions; and I never heard of one yet that was generally liked of. [437]

Cleo. It’s true they might, but in reality, they’re not always enough to accomplish this. In crowded nations, we see that war, wild animals, hanging, drowning, and a hundred other tragedies, along with sickness and everything that comes with it, barely stand a chance against one invisible aspect of our nature—the instinct to survive as a species. Everything is easy for the Deity; but if we’re speaking in human terms, it’s clear that when creating this earth and everything in it, just as much wisdom and care was needed to devise various ways to eliminate and destroy animals, as was used in bringing them into existence. It’s just as evident that our bodies were designed not to last beyond a certain timeframe, just like some houses are built with a specific lifespan in mind. However, we all have a natural aversion to death itself; as for how we die, people have different opinions, and I’ve yet to hear of one method that is universally liked. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. But nobody chooses a cruel one. What an unspeakable and infinitely excruciating torment must it be, to be torn to pieces, and eat alive by a savage beast!

Hor. But no one picks someone cruel. What an unbearable and endlessly torturous pain it must be to be torn apart and eaten alive by a wild beast!

Cleo. Not greater, I can assure you; than are daily occasioned by the gout in the stomach, and the stone in the bladder.

Cleo. I can promise you, it's no worse than the daily struggles caused by stomach gout and bladder stones.

Hor. Which way can you give me this assurance; how can you prove it?

Hor. How can you assure me of this? How can you prove it?

Cleo. From our fabric itself, the frame of human bodies, that cannot admit of any torment, infinitely excruciating. The degrees of pain, as well as of pleasure, in this life are limited, and exactly proportioned to every one’s strength; whatever exceeds that, takes away the senses; and whoever has once fainted away with the extremity of any torture, knows the fall extent of what here he can suffer, if he remembers what he felt. The real mischief which wild beasts have done to our species, and the calamities they have brought upon it, are not to be compared to the cruel usage, and the multiplicity of mortal injuries which men have received from one another. Set before your eyes a robust warrior, that having lost a limb in battle, is afterwards trampled upon by twenty horses; and tell me, pray, whether you think, that lying thus helpless with most of his ribs broke, and a fractured skull, in the agony of death, for several hours, he suffers less than if a lion had dispatched him?

Cleo. From our very fabric, the structure of human bodies, which cannot endure any torment that is infinitely painful. The levels of pain, as well as pleasure, in this life are limited and precisely matched to each person’s strength; anything beyond that takes away the senses. Anyone who has fainted from extreme torture knows the full extent of what they can endure if they remember what they felt. The real harm that wild animals have done to our species and the disasters they have caused can’t compare to the cruel treatment and numerous injuries that humans have inflicted upon one another. Imagine a strong warrior who has lost a limb in battle and then gets trampled by twenty horses; now tell me, do you really think that lying there helpless, with most of his ribs broken and a fractured skull, suffering in agony for hours, he feels less pain than if a lion had killed him?

Hor. They are both very bad.

Hor. They're both really bad.

Cleo. In the choice of things we are more often directed by the caprice of fashions, and the custom of the age, than we are by solid reason, or our own understanding. There is no greater comfort in dying of a dropsy, and in being eaten by worms, than there is in being drowned at sea, and becoming the prey of fishes. But in our narrow way of thinking, there is something that subverts and corrupt our judgment; how else could persons of known elegancy in their taste, prefer rotting and stinking in a loathsome sepulchre, to their being burnt in the open air to inoffensive ashes?

Cleo. When it comes to our choices, we’re often swayed more by the whims of fashion and what’s trendy than by solid reasoning or our own understanding. Dying of dropsy and being eaten by worms isn’t any more comforting than drowning at sea and becoming fish food. Yet, in our limited way of thinking, something distorts and messes with our judgment; how else could people known for their refined taste prefer rotting and stinking in a disgusting grave to being burned in the open air until they turn to harmless ashes?

Hor. I freely own, that I have an aversion to every thing that is shocking and unnatural.

Hor. I admit that I have a dislike for anything that is shocking and unnatural.

Cleo. What you call shocking, I do not know; but nothing is more common to nature, or more agreeable to her ordinary course, than that creatures should live upon one another. The whole system of animated beings on the earth seems to be built upon this; and there is not one species [438]that we know of, that has not another that feeds upon it, either alive or dead; and most kind of fish are forced to live upon fish. That this in the last-mentioned, was not an omission or neglect, is evident from the large provision nature has made for it, far exceeding any thing she has done for other animals.

Cleo. I don’t understand what you find shocking; it’s actually pretty normal in nature for creatures to eat each other. The entire system of living beings on Earth seems to be based on this, and there isn’t a single species [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that we know of that doesn’t have another species that feeds on it, whether it’s alive or dead. Most types of fish even have to eat other fish. The fact that this last point isn’t an oversight or neglect is clear because of how much nature has provided for it, which is way more than what she has done for other animals.

Hor. You mean the prodigious quantity of roe they spawn.

Hor. You mean the huge amount of eggs they produce.

Cleo. Yes; and that the eggs contained in them, receive not their fecundity until after they are excluded; by which means the female may be filled with as many of them as her belly can hold, and the eggs themselves may be more closely crowded together, than would be consistent with the admission of any substance from the male: without this, one fish could not bring forth yearly such a prodigious shoal.

Cleo. Yes; and the eggs contained in them don’t become fertile until after they're laid; this way, the female can carry as many as her belly can hold, and the eggs can be packed more tightly than if they were allowed to take in anything from the male. Without this, one fish wouldn't be able to produce such a massive school each year.

Hor. But might not the aura seminalis of the male be subtle enough to penetrate the whole cluster of eggs, and influence every one of them, without taking up any room, as it does in fowls and other oviparous animals?

Hor. But could it be that the aura seminalis of the male is subtle enough to reach all the eggs at once and affect each one of them without needing any space, just like it does in birds and other egg-laying animals?

Cleo. The ostrich excepted in the first place: in the second, there are no other oviparous animals in which the eggs are so closely compacted together, as they are in fish. But suppose the prolific power should pervade the whole mass of them; if all the eggs which some of the females are crammed with, were to be impregnated whilst they are within the fish, it is impossible but the aura seminalis, the prolific spirit of the male, though it took up no room itself, would, as it does in all other creatures, dilate, and more or less distend every egg; and the least expansion of so many individuals would swell the whole roe to a bulk that would require a much greater space, than the cavity that now contains them. Is not here a contrivance beyond imagination fine, to provide for the continuance of a species, though every individual of it should be born with an instinct to destroy it!

Cleo. The ostrich is an exception in the first place; secondly, there are no other egg-laying animals whose eggs are packed together as tightly as they are in fish. But imagine if the ability to reproduce affected all of them. If all the eggs that some of the females are filled with were to be fertilized while they are still inside the fish, it's unavoidable that the aura seminalis, the male's reproductive essence, even though it takes up no space itself, would, like in all other creatures, expand and cause each egg to enlarge. And even a small expansion among so many would cause the entire mass of eggs to swell to a size that would need much more space than the area they currently occupy. Isn’t it an incredibly clever design to ensure the survival of a species, even if every individual in it is born with an instinct to destroy it?

Hor. What you speak of, is only true at sea, in a considerable part of Europe at least: for in fresh water, most kinds of fish do not feed on their own species, and yet they spawn in the same manner, and are as full of roe as all the rest: among them, the only great destroyer with us, is the pike.

Hor. What you’re talking about is only true at sea, in a significant part of Europe at least: because in freshwater, most types of fish don’t eat their own kind, yet they reproduce just like the others and are just as full of eggs. Among them, the only major predator we have is the pike.

Cleo. And he is a very ravenous one: We see in ponds, that where pikes are suffered to be, no other fish shall ever increase in number. But in rivers, and all waters near any [439]land, there are amphibious fowls, and many sorts of them, that live mostly upon fish: Of these water-fowls in many places are prodigious quantities. Besides these, there are otters, beavers, and many other creatures that live upon fish. In brooks and shallow waters, the hearn and bittern will have their share: What is taken off by them, perhaps is but little; but the young fry, and the spawn that one pair of swans are able to consume in one year, would very well serve to stock a considerable river. So they are but eat, it is no matter what eats them, either their own species or another: What I would prove, is, that nature produces no extraordinary numbers of any species, but she has contrived means answerable to destroy them. The variety of insects in the several parts of the world, would be incredible to any one that has not examined into this matter; and the different beauties to be observed in them is infinite: But neither the beauty, nor the variety, of them, are more surprising, than the industry of nature in the multiplicity of her contrivances to kill them; and if the care and vigilance of all other animals in destroying them were to cease at once, in two years time the greatest part of the earth, which is ours now, would be theirs, and in many countries insects would be the only inhabitants.

Cleo. And he’s a very hungry one: We see in ponds that where pike are allowed to live, no other fish will ever thrive. But in rivers and all waters near any [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]land, there are amphibious birds, and many kinds of them, that mostly eat fish. There are huge numbers of these waterfowl in many places. In addition to these, there are otters, beavers, and other creatures that feed on fish. In streams and shallow waters, the heron and bittern will take their share: What they catch may be small, but the young fish and fry that one pair of swans can eat in a year could easily stock a sizable river. So it doesn’t really matter who eats them, whether it’s their own kind or another: What I want to show is that nature doesn’t produce extraordinary numbers of any species without also creating means to keep their populations in check. The variety of insects around the world would be unbelievable to anyone who hasn’t looked into this, and the different beauties found among them are endless. But neither their beauty nor variety is as astonishing as nature’s efforts to eliminate them; and if all other animals suddenly stopped caring about destroying them, in just two years, a huge part of the earth that we now inhabit would belong to insects, and in many places, insects would be the only inhabitants.

Hor. I have heard that whales live upon nothing else; that must make a fine consumption.

Hor. I’ve heard that whales only eat that; it must be quite a diet.

Cleo. That is the general opinion, I suppose, because they never find any fish in them; and because there are vast multitudes of insects in those seas, hovering on the surface of the water. This creature likewise helps to corroborate my assertion, that in the numbers produced of every species, the greatest regard is had to the consumption of them: This prodigious animal being too big to be swallowed, nature in it has quite altered the economy observed in all other fish; for they are viviparous, engender like other viviparous animals, and have never above two or three young ones at a time. For the continuance of every species among such an infinite variety of creatures as this globe yields, it was highly necessary, that the provision for their destruction should not be less ample, than that which was made for the generation of them; and therefore the solicitude of nature in procuring death, and the consumption of animals, is visibly superior to the care she takes to seed and preserve them.

Cleo. That's the general belief, I guess, since they never find any fish in them; and there are tons of insects in those seas, floating on the surface of the water. This creature also supports my point, that when it comes to the number of species produced, the focus is primarily on their consumption: This enormous animal is too big to be eaten, so nature has completely changed the pattern seen in all other fish; they give birth to live young, reproduce like other live-bearing animals, and typically have no more than two or three offspring at a time. For every species to survive among the countless creatures this planet produces, it was crucial that the means of their destruction was just as plentiful as those for their reproduction; therefore, nature's concern for providing for death and the consumption of animals is clearly greater than the effort she puts into creating and preserving them.

Hor. Prove that pray. [440]

Hor. Prove that please. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. Millions of her creatures are starved every year, and doomed to perish for want of sustenance; but whenever any die, there is always plenty of mouths to devour them. But then, again, she gives all she has: nothing is so fine or elaborate, as that she grudges it for food; nor is any thing more extensive or impartial than her bounty: she thinks nothing too good for the meanest of her broods, and all creatures are equally welcome to every thing they can find to eat. How curious is the workmanship in the structure of a common fly; how inimitable are the celerity of his wings, and the quickness of all his motions in hot weather! Should a Pythagorean, that was likewise a good master in mechanics, by the help of a microscope, pry into every minute part of this changeable creature, and duly consider the elegancy of its machinery, would he not think it great pity, that thousands of millions of animated beings, so nicely wrought and admirably finished, should every day be devoured by little birds and spiders, of which we stand in so little need? Nay, do not you think yourself, that things would have been managed full as well, is the quantity of flies had been less, and there had been no spiders at all?

Cleo. Millions of her creatures go hungry every year, and are destined to die from lack of food; but whenever one dies, there are always plenty of others ready to eat it. Yet, she gives everything she has: nothing is too fine or elaborate for her to spare for food; nor is anything more generous or fair than her giving: she believes nothing is too good for even the smallest of her offspring, and all creatures are equally welcome to whatever they can find to eat. How amazing is the design of a common fly; how unmatched are the speed of its wings and the quickness of all its movements in hot weather! If a Pythagorean who was also skilled in mechanics were to use a microscope to examine every tiny part of this changeable creature, and truly appreciate the elegance of its design, wouldn’t he feel it’s a great shame that thousands of millions of such intricately crafted and beautifully finished beings are devoured every day by little birds and spiders, which we hardly need? Don’t you think it would have been just as well if there were fewer flies and no spiders at all?

Hor. I remember the fable of the Acorn and the Pumkin too well to answer you; I do not trouble my head about it.

Hor. I remember the story of the Acorn and the Pumpkin too well to respond to you; I’m not going to stress over it.

Cleo. Yet you found fault with the means, which I supposed Providence had made use of to make men associate; I mean the common danger they were in from wild beasts: though you owned the probability of its having been the first motive of their uniting.

Cleo. But you criticized the way that I thought Providence had encouraged people to come together; I’m talking about the shared danger they faced from wild animals. Still, you admitted that it was likely the main reason they banded together.

Hor. I cannot believe that Providence should have no greater regard to our species, than it has to flies, and the spawn of fish: or that nature has ever sported with the fate of human creatures, as she does with the lives of insects, and been as wantonly lavish of the first, as she seems to be of the latter. I wonder how you can reconcile this to religion; you that are such a stickler for Christianity.

Hor. I can’t believe that Providence cares about our species any less than it does about flies and fish eggs, or that nature has played with the fate of humans like she does with insects, being as carelessly generous with us as she appears to be with them. I’m curious how you can make sense of this in relation to religion, especially since you’re such a strong advocate for Christianity.

Cleo. Religion has nothing to do with it. But we are so full of our own species, and the excellency of it, that we have no leisure seriously to consider the system of this earth; I mean the plan on which the economy of it is built, in relation to the living creatures that are in and upon it.

Cleo. Religion isn't relevant here. We're so focused on ourselves and how great we think we are that we rarely take the time to really think about how this planet works; I mean the way everything is organized concerning all the living things that exist on it and within it.

Hor. I do not speak as to our species, but in respect to the Deity: has religion nothing to do with it, that you make God the author of so much cruelty and malice? [441]

Hor. I'm not talking about our kind, but regarding the Deity: doesn't religion have anything to do with it, that you make God responsible for so much cruelty and malice? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. It is impossible, you should speak otherwise, than in relation to our species, when you make use of those expressions, which can only signify to us the intentions things were done with, or the sentiments human creatures have of them; and nothing can be called cruel or malicious in regard to him who did it, unless his thoughts and designs were such in doing it. All actions in nature, abstractly considered, are equally indifferent; and whatever it may be to individual creatures, to die is not a greater evil to this earth, or the whole universe, than it is to be born.

Cleo. It's impossible; you should express yourself differently when referring to our kind. The phrases you use only convey the intentions behind actions or the feelings that humans have about them. Nothing can be deemed cruel or malicious toward the person who acted unless their thoughts and motivations were that way at the time. All actions in nature, when viewed in isolation, are equally neutral; and whether it concerns individual beings, dying is no greater tragedy for this earth or the entire universe than being born.

Hor. This is making the First Cause of things not an intelligent being.

Hor. This suggests that the First Cause of everything isn't a conscious being.

Cleo. Why so? Can you not conceive an intelligent, and even a most wise being, that is not only exempt from, but likewise incapable of entertaining any malice or cruelty?

Cleo. Why not? Can't you imagine an intelligent and even very wise being who is not only free from but also incapable of feeling any malice or cruelty?

Hor. Such a being could not commit, or order things that are malicious and cruel.

Hor. A being like that couldn't do or command anything malicious or cruel.

Cleo. Neither does God. But this will carry us into a dispute about the origin of evil; and from thence we must inevitably fall on free-will and predestination, which, as I have told you before, is an inexplicable mystery I will never meddle with. But I never said nor thought any thing irreverent to the Deity: on the contrary, the idea I have of the Supreme Being, is as transcendently great, as my capacity is able to form one, of what is incomprehensible; and I could as soon believe, that he could cease to exist, as that he should be the author of any real evil. But I should be glad to hear the method, after which you think society might have been much better introduced: Pray, acquaint me with that milder way you spoke of.

Cleo. God doesn’t either. But this will lead us into a debate about the source of evil; and from there, we will inevitably touch on free will and predestination, which, as I’ve mentioned before, is a complex mystery I prefer to stay out of. However, I never said or thought anything disrespectful about the Deity: on the contrary, my understanding of the Supreme Being is as immensely great as my ability to conceive of what is beyond human comprehension; I could just as easily believe He could stop existing as that He would be the cause of any real evil. But I would love to hear the approach you think could have introduced society in a much better way: please, let me know about that gentler method you referred to.

Hor. You have thoroughly convinced me, that the natural love which it is pretended we have for our species, is not greater than what many other animals have for theirs: but if nature had actually given us an affection for one another, as sincere and conspicuous as that which parents are seen to have for their children, whilst they are helpless, men would have joined together by choice; and nothing could have hindered them from associating, whether their numbers had been great or small, and themselves either ignorant or knowing.

Hor. You have completely convinced me that the natural love we supposedly have for our species isn't any stronger than what many other animals have for theirs. But if nature truly had given us a genuine and obvious affection for one another, like the one parents have for their helpless children, people would have chosen to come together. Nothing would have stopped them from associating, whether they were many or few, or whether they were knowledgeable or not.

Cleo. O mentes hominum cæcas! O Pectora cæca!

Cleo. O blind minds of men! O blind hearts!

Hor. You may exclaim as much as you please; I am persuaded that this would have united men in firmer bonds of [442]friendship, than any common danger from wild beasts could have tied them with: but what fault can you find with it, and what mischief could have befallen us from mutual affection?

Hor. You can shout all you want; I truly believe that this would have brought people together in stronger ties of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]friendship than any shared threat from wild animals could have. But what issue do you have with it, and what harm could come from caring about each other?

Cleo. It would have been inconsistent with the scheme, the plan after which, it is evident, Providence has been pleased to order and dispose of things in the universe. If such an affection had been planted in man by instinct, there never could have been any fatal quarrels among them, nor mortal hatreds; men could never have been cruel to one another: in short, there could have been no wars of any duration; and no considerable numbers of our species could ever have been killed by one another’s malice.

Cleo. It wouldn’t have matched the plan that Providence has clearly designed for the universe. If this kind of love had been instinctively placed in people, there would never have been any serious conflicts or deep-seated hatreds; people would never have been cruel to each other: essentially, there wouldn’t have been any long-lasting wars, and no significant number of our species would have been harmed by each other’s malice.

Hor. You would make a rare state-physician, in prescribing war, cruelty and malice, for the welfare and maintenance of civil society.

Hor. You’d be an exceptional state physician, suggesting war, cruelty, and malice for the well-being and stability of civil society.

Cleo. Pray, do not misrepresent me: I have done no such thing: but if you believe the world is governed by Providence at all, you must believe likewise, that the Deity makes use of means to bring about, perform, and execute his will and pleasure: As for example, to have war kindled, there must be first misunderstandings and quarrels between the subjects of different nations, and dissentions among the respective princes, rulers, or governors of them: it is evident, that the mind of man is the general mint where the means of this sort must be coined; from whence I conclude, that if Providence had ordered matters after that mild way, which you think would have been the best, very little of human blood could have been spilt, if any at all.

Cleo. Please, don’t misrepresent me: I haven’t done anything like that. But if you believe the world is guided by a higher power, you have to agree that the Deity uses certain means to fulfill His will and intentions. For instance, to ignite war, there first needs to be misunderstandings and conflicts between the people of different nations and disagreements among their leaders. It’s clear that the human mind is the main source where these kinds of means are generated. Therefore, I conclude that if Providence had arranged things in that gentle way you think would have been best, very little human blood would have been spilled, if any at all.

Hor. Where would have been the inconveniency of that?

Hor. What would have been the problem with that?

Cleo. You could not have had that variety of living creatures, there is now; nay, there would not have been room for man himself, and his sustenance: our species alone would have overstocked the earth, if there had been no wars, and the common course of Providence had not been more interrupted than it has been. Might I not justly say then, that this is quite contrary and destructive to the scheme on which it is plain this earth was built? This is a consideration which you will never give its due weight. I have once already put you in mind of it, that you yourself have allowed the destruction of animals to be as necessary as the generation of them. There is as much wisdom to be seen in the contrivances how numbers of living creatures might always [443]be taken off and destroyed, to make room for those that continually succeed them, as there is in making all the different sorts of them, every one preserve their own species. What do you think is the reason, that there is but one way for us to come into the world?

Cleo. You couldn't have had the variety of living creatures that we have now; in fact, there wouldn’t have even been enough room for humans and their needs. Our species alone would have overwhelmed the earth if there hadn’t been wars and if the common flow of Providence hadn’t been interrupted more than it has. Can I rightly say that this goes against and undermines the plan that this earth was clearly built upon? This is something you will never fully appreciate. I've already reminded you that you yourself have accepted the necessity of animal destruction alongside their generation. There’s just as much wisdom in figuring out how to remove and destroy many living creatures to make space for those that will replace them as there is in ensuring that each species preserves its own. What do you think is the reason that there’s only one way for us to enter the world?

Hor. Because that one is sufficient.

Hor. Because that one is enough.

Cleo. Then from a parity of reason, we ought to think, that there are several ways to go out of the world, because one would not have been sufficient. Now, if for the support and maintenance of that variety of creatures which are here that they should die, is a postulatum as necessary as it is, that they should be born; and you cut off or obstruct the means of dying, and actually stop up one of the great gates, through which we see multitudes go to death; do you not oppose the scheme, nay, do you mar it less, than if you hindered generation! Is there never had been war, and no other means of dying, besides the ordinary ones, this globe could not have born, or at least not maintained, the tenth part of the people that would have been in it. By war, I do not mean only such as one nation has had against another, but civil as well as foreign quarrels, general massacres, private murders, poison, sword, and all hostile force, by which men, notwithstanding their pretence of love to their species, have endeavoured to take away one another’s lives throughout the world, from the time that Cain slew Abel to this day.

Cleo. Based on logic, we should consider that there are many ways to leave the world since one wouldn’t be enough. Now, if the existence and upkeep of the various creatures here imply that they must die, it’s just as crucial as the idea that they should be born; and if you interfere with or block the means of dying, effectively shutting one of the major exits through which countless individuals depart from life, aren’t you disrupting the plan? Aren’t you ruining it as much as if you were preventing birth? If there had never been war and no other means of dying beyond the usual ones, this planet couldn’t have supported—let alone maintained—the tenth part of the population that could have existed. When I mention war, I’m talking about not just conflicts between nations but also about civil strife, foreign disputes, mass killings, personal murders, poison, weapons, and all forms of violence through which people, despite claiming to love their fellow humans, have sought to end each other's lives throughout history, from the moment Cain killed Abel up to today.

Hor. I do not believe, that a quarter of all these mischiefs are upon record: but what may be known from history, would make a prodigious number of men: much greater, I dare say, than ever was on earth at one time: But what would you infer from this? They would not have been immortal; and if they had not died in war, they must soon after have been slain by diseases. When a man of threescore is killed by a bullet in the field, it is odds, that he would not have lived four years longer, though he had stayed at home.

Hor. I don't believe that a quarter of all these troubles are recorded, but what we do know from history suggests a staggering number of people—much larger, I’d bet, than any time in history. But what would you conclude from this? They wouldn’t have been immortal; and if they hadn’t died in battle, they would have soon been taken by disease. When a man in his sixties is shot in the field, it’s likely he wouldn’t have lived four more years even if he had stayed home.

Cleo. There are soldiers of threescore perhaps in all armies, but men generally go to the war when they are young; and when four or five thousand are lost in battle, you will find the greatest number to have been under five-and-thirty: consider now, that many men do not marry till after that age, who get ten or a dozen children.

Cleo. There are maybe sixty soldiers in all armies, but most men go to war when they’re young. When four or five thousand people die in battle, you'll see that the majority were under thirty-five. Now think about how many men don’t marry until after that age and end up having ten or a dozen kids.

Hor. If all that die by the hands of another, were to get a dozen children before they die—— [444]

Hor. If everyone who dies at the hands of someone else were to have a dozen kids before they die—— [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. There is no occasion for that; I suppose nothing, that is either extravagant or improbable; but that all such, as have been wilfully destroyed by means of their species, should have lived, and taken their chance with the rest; that every thing should have befallen them, that has befallen those that have not been killed that way; and the same likewise to their posterity; and that all of them should have been subject to all the casualties as well as diseases, doctors, apothecaries, and other accidents, that take away man’s life, and shorten his days; war, and violence from one another, only excepted.

Cleo. There's no reason for that; I don't think anything is too extravagant or unlikely. I believe that all those who have been deliberately destroyed by their own kind should have lived and faced their fate along with others. Everything that has happened to those who weren't killed in that way should have happened to them, and the same goes for their descendants. They should have been subject to all the risks and diseases, doctors, pharmacies, and other dangers that take away human life and shorten our days, except for war and violence amongst each other.

Hor. But if the earth had been too full of inhabitants, might not Providence have sent pestilences and diseases oftener? More children might have died when they were young, or more women might have proved barren.

Hor. But if the earth had been too crowded with people, wouldn't Providence have sent plagues and diseases more often? More children might have died young, or more women might have struggled with infertility.

Cleo. I do not know whether your mild way would have been more generally pleasing; but you entertain notions of the Deity that are unworthy of him. Men might certainly have been born with the instinct you speak of; but if this had been the Creator’s pleasure, there must have been another economy; and things on earth, from the beginning, would have been ordered in a manner quite different from what they are now. But to make a scheme first, and afterwards to mend it, when it proves defective, is the business of finite wisdom; it belongs to human prudence alone to mend faults, to correct and redress what was done amiss before, and to alter the measures which experience teaches men, were ill concerted: but the knowledge of God was consummate from eternity. Infinite Wisdom is not liable to errors or mistakes; therefore all his works are universally good, and every thing is made exactly as he would have it: the firmness and liability of his laws and councils are everlasting, and therefore his resolutions are as unalterable, as his decrees are eternal. It is not a quarter of an hour ago, that you named wars among the necessary means to carry off the redundancy of our species; how come you now to think them useless? I can demonstrate to you, that nature, in the production of our species, has amply provided against the losses of our sex, occasioned by wars, by repairing them visibly, where they are sustained, in as palpable a manner, as she has provided for the great destruction that is made of fish, by their devouring one another.

Cleo. I’m not sure if your gentle approach would have been more widely accepted, but your ideas about God are unworthy of Him. People might have been born with the instincts you mention, but if that had been the Creator’s intent, everything on Earth from the beginning would have been arranged very differently. However, to create a plan first and then fix it when it proves flawed is the task of limited wisdom; it’s up to human judgment to correct mistakes, to address what was done wrong, and to adjust strategies that experience shows were poorly planned. But God's knowledge has always been perfect. Infinite Wisdom doesn't make mistakes, so all His creations are inherently good, and everything is made exactly as He wants it. The strength and reliability of His laws and decisions are eternal, and thus His resolutions are as unchangeable as His decrees are eternal. Just a little while ago, you mentioned wars as necessary means to control our population; why do you now consider them pointless? I can show you that nature, in creating our species, has adequately compensated for the losses caused by wars, visibly repairing them as clearly as she does for the massive destruction of fish caused by their eating each other.

Hor. How is that, pray? [445]

Hor. How is that, please? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. By sending more males into the world than females. You will easily allow me that our sex bears the brunt of all the toils and hazards that are undergone by sea and land; and that by this means a far greater number of men must be destroyed than there is of women: now if we see, as certainly we do, that of the infants yearly born, the number of males is always considerably superior to that of the females, is it not manifest, that nature has made a provision for great multitudes, which, if they were not destroyed, would be not only superfluous, but of pernicious consequence in great nations?

Cleo. By introducing more males into the world than females. You will surely agree that our gender bears the brunt of all the hard work and dangers faced on land and sea; and because of this, many more men must perish than there are women. Now, if we observe, as we certainly do, that each year the number of newborn males significantly exceeds the number of females, isn't it obvious that nature has made a plan for large populations, which, if not lost, would not only be excessive but could also have harmful effects in large nations?

Hor. That superiority in the number of males born is wonderful indeed; I remember the account that has been published concerning it, as it was taken from the bills of births and burials in the city and suburbs.

Hor. It's amazing how many more males are born; I recall the report that was released about it, based on the records of births and deaths in the city and surrounding areas.

Cleo. For fourscore years; in which the number of females born was constantly much inferior to that of the males, sometimes by many hundreds: and that this provision of nature, to supply the havoc that is made of men by wars and navigation, is still greater than could be imagined from that difference only, will soon appear, if we consider that women, in the first place, are liable to all diseases, within a trifle, that are incident to men; and that, in the second, they are subject to many disorders and calamities on account of their sex, which great numbers die of, and which men are wholly exempt from.

Cleo. For eighty years; during which the number of females born was consistently much lower than that of males, sometimes by hundreds: and that this natural arrangement, meant to offset the loss of men due to wars and sea journeys, is even greater than one might think from that difference alone, will soon become clear if we consider that women, first of all, are susceptible to all the diseases, nearly, that affect men; and, second, they face many disorders and hardships because of their sex, which a significant number die from, and which men are completely unaffected by.

Hor. This could not well be the effect of chance; but it spoils the consequence which you drew from my affectionate scheme, in case there had been no wars: for your fear that our species would have increased beyond all bounds, was entirely built upon the supposition, that those who have died in war should not have wanted women if they had lived; which, from this superiority in the number of males, it is evident, they should and must have wanted.

Hor. This can't just be a coincidence; however, it undermines the conclusion you reached from my caring plan, assuming there were no wars. Your worry that our population would have grown beyond control was based entirely on the assumption that those who died in war would have had women if they had survived. Given that there are more men than women, it's clear they would have needed women.

Cleo. What you observe is true; but my chief aim was to show you how disagreeable the alteration you required would have been every way to the rest of the scheme, by which it is manifest things are governed at present. For, if the provision had been made on the other side; and nature, in the production of our species, had continually taken care to repair the loss of women that die of calamities not incident to men, then certainly there would have been women for all the men that have been destroyed by their own species, if [446]they had lived; and the earth without war, as I have said, would have been over-stocked; or, if nature had ever been the same as she is now, that is, if more males had been born than females, and more females had died of diseases than males, the world would constantly have had a great superfluity of men, if there never had been any wars; and this disproportion between their number and that of the women would have caused innumerable mischiefs, that are now prevented by no other natural causes, than the small value men set upon their species, and their dissentions with one another.

Cleo. What you're observing is correct; however, my main goal was to show you how unpleasant the change you wanted would have been for the whole system that currently governs our world. If the arrangement had been different, and nature had consistently worked to replace the women lost to disasters that don't affect men, then there would definitely have been enough women for all the men who have been lost due to their own kind, assuming they had lived; and the earth, without war, as I've mentioned, would have been overcrowded. Alternatively, if nature had always been the same as it is now—meaning if more males were born than females, and if more females died of diseases than males—there would always have been a significant surplus of men, even without wars. This imbalance between the number of men and women would have led to countless problems, which are now avoided by no other natural reasons than the low value men place on their own kind and their conflicts with one another.

Hor. I can see no other mischief this would produce, than that the number of males which die without having ever tried matrimony, would be greater than it is now; and whether that would be a real evil or not, is a very disputable point.

Hor. I can’t see any other trouble this would cause, than that the number of men who die without ever having tried marriage would be higher than it is now; and whether that would be a genuine problem or not is a topic that’s up for debate.

Cleo. Do not you think, that this perpetual scarcity of women, and superfluity of men, would make great uneasiness in all societies, how well soever people might love one another; and that the value, the price of women, would be so enhanced by it, that none but men in tolerable good circumstances would be able to purchase them? This alone would make us another world; and mankind could never have known that most necessary and now inexhaustible spring, from which all nations, where slaves are not allowed of, are constantly supplied with willing hands for all the drudgery of hard and dirty labour; I mean the children of the poor, the greatest and most extensive of all temporal blessings that accrue from society, on which all the comforts of life, in the civilized state, have their unavoidable dependance. There are many other things, from which it is plain, that such a real love of man for his species would have been altogether inconsistent with the present scheme; the world must have been destitute of all that industry, that is owing to envy and emulation; no society could have been easy with being a flourishing people at the expence of their neighbours, or enduring to be counted a formidable nation. All men would have been levellers; government would have been unnecessary; and there could have been no great bustle in the world. Look into the men of greatest renown, and the most celebrated achievements of antiquity, and every thing that has been cried up and admired in past ages by the fashionable part of mankind; if the same labours were to be performed [447]over again, which qualification, which help of nature do you think would be the most proper means to have them executed; that instinct of real affection you required, without ambition or the love of glory; or a staunch principle of pride and selfishness, acting under pretence to, and assuming the resemblance of that affection? Consider, I beseech you, that no men governed by this instinct would require services of any of their species, which they would not be ready to perform for others; and you will easily see, that its being universal would quite alter the scene of society from what it is now. Such an instinct might be very suitable to another scheme different from this, in another world; where, instead of fickleness, and a restless desire after changes and novelty, there was observed an universal steadiness, continually preferred by a serene spirit of contentment among other creatures of different appetites from ours, that had frugality without avarice, and generosity without pride; and whose solicitude after happiness in a future state, was as active and apparent in life as our pursuits are after the enjoyments of this present. But, as to the world we live in, examine into the various ways of earthly greatness, and all the engines that are made use of to attain to the felicity of carnal men, and you will find, that the instinct you speak of must have destroyed the principles, and prevented the very existence of that pomp and glory to which human societies have been, and are still raised by worldly wisdom.

Cleo. Don’t you think that this constant shortage of women and excess of men would create a lot of discomfort in all societies, no matter how much people might care for each other? The value and cost of women would go up so much that only men in decent circumstances could afford to have them. This alone would create a completely different world; and humanity would never have discovered that essential and now boundless source from which all nations that don’t allow slavery are continuously supplied with willing workers for all the hard and dirty jobs. I’m talking about the children of the poor, the greatest and most widespread of all the temporal blessings that come from society, on which all the comforts of life in a civilized state inevitably depend. There are many other reasons that show that a genuine love for humanity wouldn’t fit into the current system; the world would lack all the industry driven by envy and competition. No society could feel comfortable being a thriving population at the expense of their neighbors, nor be willing to be seen as a powerful nation. All men would have been equal; government would be unnecessary; and there would be no major commotion in the world. Look at the most renowned figures and celebrated achievements from ancient times, at everything that has been praised and admired throughout history by the fashionable part of society; if those same efforts were to be repeated, which qualities or natural gifts do you think would be most suitable to accomplish them? Would it be the genuine affection you mentioned, without ambition or a desire for glory, or a firm principle of pride and selfishness masquerading as that affection? Consider, I urge you, that no men driven by this instinct would demand services from others that they wouldn’t be willing to perform themselves; and you will easily see that if this instinct were universal, it would completely change the nature of society as we know it. Such an instinct might work well in a different system in another world, where instead of inconstancy and a restless desire for change and novelty, there was a universal stability preferred by a calm spirit of contentment among other beings with different appetites than ours, who had moderation without greed and generosity without pride; and whose quest for happiness in the next life was as active and evident as our pursuit of pleasure in this one. But as for the world we live in, look into the various forms of earthly greatness and all the means used to achieve the happiness of mortal men, and you will find that the instinct you speak of must have destroyed the principles and prevented the very existence of the pomp and glory that human societies have been, and still are, developed by worldly wisdom.

Hor. I give up my affectionate scheme; you have convinced me that there could not have been that stir and variety, nor, upon the whole, that beauty in the world, which there have been, if all men had been naturally humble, good, and virtuous. I believe that wars of all sorts, as well as diseases, are natural means to hinder mankind from increasing too fast; but that wild beasts should likewise have been designed to thin our species, I cannot conceive; for they can only serve this end, when men are but few, and their numbers should be increased, instead of lessened; and afterwards, if they were made for that purpose, when men are strong enough, they would not answer it.

Hor. I’m giving up my heartfelt idea; you’ve convinced me that there wouldn’t be such excitement and diversity, nor, overall, such beauty in the world, if everyone were naturally humble, good, and virtuous. I think that wars of all kinds, as well as diseases, are natural ways to prevent humanity from growing too fast; but I can’t understand how wild animals would also be meant to reduce our numbers, as they only serve this purpose when there are few people around. Their numbers should actually be increased, not decreased; and later, if they were created for that reason, when people are strong enough, they wouldn’t fulfill that role.

Cleo. I never said that wild beasts was designed to thin our species. I have showed that many things were made to serve a variety of different purposes; that in the scheme of this earth, many things must have been considered that man has nothing to do with; and that it is ridiculous to think that [448]the universe was made for our sake. I have said likewise, that as all our knowledge comes, à posteriori, it is imprudent to reason otherwise than from facts. That there are wild beasts, and that there are savage men, is certain; and that where there are but few of the latter, the first must always be very troublesome, and often fatal to them, is as certain; and when I reflect on the passions all men are born with, and their incapacity whilst they are untaught, I can find no cause or motive which is so likely to unite them together, and make them espouse the same interest, as that common danger they must always be in from wild beasts, in uncultivated countries, whilst they live in small families that all shift for themselves, without government or dependance upon one another: This first step to society, I believe to be an effect, which that same cause, the common danger so often mentioned, will never fail to produce upon our species in such circumstances: what other, and how many purposes wild beasts might have been designed for besides, I do not pretend to determine, as I have told you before.

Cleo. I never said that wild animals were meant to reduce our population. I've shown that many things were created to serve different purposes; that in the grand scheme of this world, many factors must have been considered that humans have nothing to do with; and that it's ridiculous to think that [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]the universe was made for us. I've also said that since all our knowledge comes à posteriori, it's unwise to reason in any way that doesn't rely on facts. It's clear that there are wild animals, and that there are savage people; and it's equally clear that where there are few of the latter, the former must always be very problematic, and often deadly to them. When I think about the instincts that all humans are born with, and their inability to learn while untaught, I can't find any cause or motivation more likely to bring them together and make them share common interests than the shared danger they face from wild animals in untamed areas, especially when they live in small groups that fend for themselves, without any government or reliance on each other. I believe this initial step towards society is a result of that same common danger I've mentioned so often—it will consistently prompt a response from our species in those situations. What other purposes wild animals might have been intended for, I don't claim to know, as I've told you before.

Hor. But whatever other purposes wild beasts were designed for, it still follows from your opinion, that the uniting of savages in common defence, must have been one; which to me seems clashing with our idea of the Divine Goodness.

Hor. But whatever other reasons wild animals were created for, it still follows from your view that the coming together of savages for mutual protection must have been one; which to me seems to contradict our understanding of Divine Goodness.

Cleo. So will every thing seem to do, which we call natural evil; if you ascribe human passions to the Deity, and measure Infinite Wisdom by the standard of our most shallow capacity; you have been at this twice already; I thought I had answered it. I would not make God the author of evil, any more than yourself; but I am likewise persuaded, that nothing could come by chance, in respect to the Supreme Being; and, therefore, unless you imagine the world not to be governed by Providence, you must believe that wars, and all the calamities we can suffer from man or beast, as well as plagues and all other diseases, are under a wise direction that is unfathomable. As there can be no effect without a cause, so nothing can be said to happen by chance, but in respect to him who is ignorant of the cause of it. I can make this evident to you, in an obvious and familiar example. To a man who knows nothing of the tennis-court, the skips and rebounds of the ball seems to be all fortuitous; as he is not able to guess at the several different directions it will receive before it comes to the ground; so, as soon as it has hit the place to which it was plainly directed at first, it [449]is chance to him where it will fall: whereas, the experienced player, knowing perfectly well the journey the ball will make, goes directly to the place, if he is not there already, where it will certainly come within his reach. Nothing seems to be more the effect of chance than a cast of the dice: yet they obey the laws of gravity and motion in general, as much as any thing else; and from the impressions that are given them, it is impossible they should fall otherwise than they do: but the various directions which they shall receive in the whole course of the throw being entirely unknown, and the rapidity with which they change their situation being such, that our slow apprehension cannot trace them, what the cast will be is a mystery to human understanding, at fair play. But if the same variety of directions was given to two cubes of ten feet each, which a pair of dice receive, as well from one another as the box, the caster’s fingers that cover it, and the table they are flung upon, from the time they are taken up until they lie still, the same effect would follow; and if the quantity of motion, the force that is imparted to the box and dice was exactly known, and the motion itself was so much retarded in the performance, that what is done in three or four seconds, should take up an hour’s time, it would be easy to find out the reason of every throw, and men might learn with certainty to foretell which side of the cube would be uppermost. It is evident, then, that the words fortuitous and casual, have no other meaning than what depends upon our want of knowledge, foresight, and penetration; the reflection on which will show us, by what an infinity of degrees all human capacity falls short of that universal intuitus, with which the Supreme Being beholds at once every thing without exception, whether to us it be visible or invisible, past, present, or to come.

Cleo. Everything we call natural evil seems to do the same; if you attribute human emotions to God and judge Infinite Wisdom based on our limited understanding. You've already brought this up twice; I thought I had addressed it. I wouldn't make God the source of evil, just like I wouldn’t do that to you; but I also believe that nothing happens by chance when it comes to the Supreme Being. Therefore, unless you think the world isn’t governed by Providence, you have to accept that wars and all the troubles we face, whether from humans or animals, as well as plagues and other diseases, are guided by a profound wisdom we can't fully understand. Just as every effect has a cause, nothing can be said to happen randomly, except to someone who doesn’t know what caused it. I can show you this with a simple and relatable example. To someone unfamiliar with a tennis court, the skips and bounces of the ball might seem completely random because they can’t predict the various paths it will take before it hits the ground. When the ball lands where it was clearly aimed initially, it seems random to them where it will drop. In contrast, an experienced player, fully aware of the ball's trajectory, can go straight to the spot where it will land, if they’re not already there. A dice roll looks to be pure chance; however, it adheres to the same laws of gravity and motion as everything else. Given how they’re influenced, it’s impossible for the dice to land any differently. But since we don’t know all the various angles they take during the throw, and because they change positions so quickly that we can’t keep up, the outcome remains a mystery to us in fair play. If the same kinds of angles acted on two ten-foot cubes, just as they do on a pair of dice, from the moment they’re picked up until they settle down, the same result would occur. If we knew the exact amount of motion and force applied to the box and dice, and the process was slowed down so that what typically happens in three or four seconds took an hour, we could easily figure out why each throw happened, and people might accurately predict which side of the cube would land face up. Clearly, the terms fortuitous and casual only reflect our lack of knowledge, foresight, and understanding. Reflecting on this illustrates just how vastly human capability falls short of the all-encompassing awareness with which the Supreme Being perceives everything—whether it’s visible or invisible, past, present, or future.

Hor. I yield: you have solved every difficulty I have been able to raise; and I must confess, that your supposition concerning the first motive that would make savages associate, is neither clashing with good sense, nor any idea we ought to have of the Divine attributes; but, on the contrary, in answering my objections, you have demonstrated the probability of your conjecture, and rendered the wisdom and power of providence, in the scheme of this earth, both as to the contrivance and the execution of it, more conspicuous and palpable to me, than any thing I ever heard or read, had done before. [450]

Hor. I give in: you've addressed every challenge I've raised. I have to admit that your idea about the initial reason that would make primitive people come together makes sense and aligns with our understanding of Divine attributes. In fact, by responding to my objections, you've shown the likelihood of your theory and made the wisdom and power of Providence in the design and execution of this world clearer to me than anything I've ever heard or read before. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. I am glad you are satisfied; though far from arrogating to myself so much merit as your civility would compliment me with.

Cleo. I’m glad you’re satisfied; although I don’t take all the credit your politeness suggests I deserve.

Hor. It is very clear to me now; that as it is appointed for all men to die, so it is necessary there should be means to compass this end; that from the number of those means, or causes of death; it is impossible to exclude either the malice of men, or the rage of wild beasts, and all noxious animals; and that if they had been actually designed by nature, and contrived for that purpose, we should have no more reason justly to complain of them, than we have to find fault with death itself, or that frightful train of diseases which are daily and hourly the manifest occasion of it.

Hor. It's very clear to me now that just as it's destined for everyone to die, there must be ways to bring about that end. Among the many causes of death, we can't exclude the intentions of people, the aggression of wild animals, or any harmful creatures. If these were truly intended by nature for that purpose, we would have no more reason to complain about them than we would to criticize death itself or the terrifying array of diseases that are the daily and hourly cause of it.

Cleo. They are all equally included in the curse, which after the fall was deservedly pronounced against the whole earth; and if they be real evils, they are to be looked upon as the consequence of sin, and a condign punishment, which the transgression of our first parents has drawn and entailed upon all their posterity. I am fully persuaded, that all the nations in the world, and every individual of our species, civilized or savage, had their origin from Seth, Sham, or Japhet: and as experience has taught us, that the greatest empires have their periods, and the best governed states and kingdoms may come to ruin; so it is certain, that the politest people being scattered and distressed, may soon degenerate, and some of them by accidents and misfortunes, from knowing and well taught ancestors, be reduced at last to savages of the first and lowest class.

Cleo. They are all equally affected by the curse that was justly declared against the whole earth after the fall. If these are indeed real evils, they should be viewed as consequences of sin and a proper punishment resulting from the wrongdoing of our first parents, which has been passed down to all their descendants. I firmly believe that all the nations in the world, and every individual of our species, whether civilized or primitive, trace their origins back to Seth, Shem, or Japheth. As experience shows us that even the greatest empires have their limits and the best-governed states and kingdoms can fall into ruin, it is also true that even the most cultured societies, when scattered and distressed, can quickly decline. Some of those who were once well-educated and knowledgeable may, through misfortunes and accidents, devolve into the most primitive savages.

Hor. If what you are fully persuaded of, be true, the other is self-evident, from the savages that are still subsisting.

Hor. If what you believe to be true is accurate, then the other is obvious, given the savages that still exist.

Cleo. You once seemed to insinuate, that all the danger men were in from wild beasts, would entirely cease as soon as they were civilized, and lived in large and well-ordered societies; but by this you may see, that our species will never be wholly exempt from that danger; because mankind will always be liable to be reduced to savages; for, as this calamity has actually befallen vast multitudes that were the undoubted descendants of Noah; so the greatest prince upon earth, that has children, cannot be sure, that the same disaster will never happen to any of his posterity. Wild beasts may be entirely extirpated in some countries that are duly cultivated; but they will multiply in others that are [451]wholly neglected; and great numbers of them range now, and are masters in many places, where they had been rooted and kept out before. I shall always believe that every species of living creatures in and upon this globe, without exception, continues to be, as it was at first, under the care of that same Providence that thought fit to produce it. You have had a great deal of patience, but I would not tire it: This first step towards society, now we have mastered it, is a good resting place, and so we will leave off for to-day.

Cleo. You once suggested that the danger from wild animals would completely vanish once men became civilized and lived in organized societies. However, this shows that we’ll never be completely free from that danger; humanity will always be at risk of reverting to savagery. Just as this disaster has actually happened to many who are direct descendants of Noah, no great ruler on earth with children can guarantee that this won't happen to any of their descendants. While wild animals may be entirely eliminated in some well-cultivated areas, they'll thrive in others that are [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] completely neglected. Many of them now roam freely and dominate places where they used to be kept away. I will always believe that every species of living creatures on this planet, without exception, continues to exist under the care of the same Providence that brought them into being. You've been very patient, but I won’t wear you out: now that we’ve tackled this first step toward society, it feels like a good place to take a break, so let’s stop for today.

Hor. With all my heart: I have made you talk a great deal; but I long to hear the rest, as soon as you are at leisure.

Hor. Absolutely! I've had you talking quite a bit; but I can't wait to hear more when you have some free time.

Cleo. I am obliged to dine at Windsor to-morrow; if you are not otherwise engaged, I can carry you where the honour of your company will be highly esteemed: my coach shall be ready at nine; you know you are in my way.

Cleo. I'm required to have dinner in Windsor tomorrow; if you’re not busy, I can take you where your presence will be greatly appreciated: my coach will be ready at nine; you know it would be convenient for you to join me.

Hor. A fine opportunity, indeed, of three or four hours chat.

Hor. A great chance for a three or four-hour conversation.

Cleo. I shall be all alone without you.

Cleo. I'll be all alone without you.

Hor. I am your man, and shall expect you.

Hor. I'm your guy and I'll be waiting for you.

Cleo. Adieu.

Cleo. Goodbye.

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

THE SIXTH
DIALOGUE
BETWEEN
HORATIO AND CLEOMENES

Horatio.

Horatio.

Now we are off the stones, pray let us lose no time; I expect a great deal of pleasure from what I am to hear further.

Now that we’re off the stones, let’s not waste any time; I’m really looking forward to what I’m about to hear next.

Cleo. The second step to society is the danger men are in from one another: for which we are beholden to that staunch principle of pride and ambition, that all men are born with. Different families may endeavour to live together, [452]and be ready to join in common danger; but they are all of little use to one another, when there is no common enemy to oppose. If we consider that strength, agility, and courage would, in such a state, be the most valuable qualifications, and that many families could not live long together, but some, actuated by the principle I named, would strive for superiority: this must breed quarrels, in which the most weak and fearful will, for their own safety, always join with him of whom they have the best opinion.

Cleo. The second step to society is the danger men face from each other, which we owe to that strong principle of pride and ambition that all men are born with. Different families might try to live together [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] and be ready to unite against a common threat; however, they’re of little help to each other when there’s no shared enemy to fight. If we think about it, strength, agility, and courage would be the most valuable traits in such a situation, and many families wouldn’t last long together because some would be driven by the desire I mentioned, striving for superiority. This would lead to conflicts, where the weakest and most fearful would always side with whoever they hold in the highest regard for their safety.

Hor. This would naturally divide multitudes into bands and companies, that would all have their different leaders, and of which the strongest and most valiant would always swallow up the weakest and most fearful.

Hor. This would naturally split large groups into factions and teams, each with their own leaders, where the strongest and bravest would always overpower the weakest and most fearful.

Cleo. What you say agrees exactly with the accounts we have of the uncivilized nations that are still subsisting in the world; and thus men may live miserably many ages.

Cleo. What you're saying matches perfectly with what we know about the uncivilized nations that still exist in the world; and so, people can live in misery for many ages.

Hor. The very first generation that was brought up under the tuition of parents, would be governable: and would not every succeeding generation grow wiser than the foregoing?

Hor. The very first generation raised by their parents would be able to follow rules: and wouldn’t every new generation become wiser than the one before it?

Cleo. Without doubt they would increase in knowledge and cunning: time and experience would have the same effect upon them as it has upon others; and in the particular things to which they applied themselves, they would become as expert and ingenious as the most civilized nations: but their unruly passions, and the discords occasioned by them, would never suffer them to be happy; their mutual contentions would be continually spoiling their improvements, destroying their inventions, and frustrating their designs.

Cleo. There's no doubt they would gain knowledge and cleverness: time and experience would impact them just like it does for others; and in the specific areas they focused on, they would become as skilled and inventive as the most advanced societies. However, their uncontrolled emotions and the conflicts that arise from them would never allow them to be happy; their constant arguing would constantly undermine their progress, ruin their innovations, and thwart their plans.

Hor. But would not their sufferings in time bring them acquainted with the causes of their disagreement; and would not that knowledge put them upon making of contracts, not to injure one another?

Hor. But wouldn’t their suffering eventually help them understand the reasons for their conflict? And wouldn’t that understanding lead them to make agreements to avoid hurting each other?

Cleo. Very probably they would; but among such ill-bred and uncultivated people, no man would keep a contract longer than that interest lasted which made him submit to it.

Cleo. They probably would; but among such rude and unrefined people, no man would uphold a contract longer than the interest that made him agree to it.

Hor. But might not religion, the fear of an invisible cause, be made serviceable to them, as to the keeping of their contracts?

Hor. But could religion, the fear of an unseen force, help them in keeping their agreements?

Cleo. It might, without dispute; and would, before many generations passed away. But religion could do no more among them, than it does among civilized nations; where [453]the Divine vengeance is seldom trusted to only, and oaths themselves are thought to be of little service, where there is no human power to enforce the obligation, and punish perjury.

Cleo. It definitely could; and it would, before many generations went by. However, religion can only achieve as much among them as it does among civilized nations; where [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] divine punishment is rarely relied upon alone, and oaths are seen as not very useful without human authority to enforce the obligation and punish those who lie.

Hor. But do not think, that the same ambition that made a man aspire to be a leader, would make him likewise desirous of being obeyed in civil matters, by the numbers he led?

Hor. But don't assume that the same ambition that drove a man to want to be a leader would also make him eager to be followed in civil affairs by the people he leads?

Cleo. I do; and moreover that, notwithstanding this unsettled and precarious way communities would live in, after three or four generations, human nature would be looked into, and begin to be understood: leaders would find out, that the more strife and discord there was amongst the people they headed, the less use they could make of them: this would put them upon various ways of curbing mankind; they would forbid killing and striking one another; the taking away by force the wives or children of others in the same community; they would invent penalties, and very early find out that nobody ought to be a judge in his own cause; and that old men, generally speaking, knew more than young.

Cleo. I do; and besides that, even though communities would live in this unstable and risky way, after three or four generations, people would start to understand human nature: leaders would realize that the more conflict and disagreement there was among the people they led, the less they could benefit from them: this would lead them to find different ways to control society; they would prohibit killing and hurting one another; they would stop people from taking others' wives or children by force within the same community; they would come up with punishments and quickly discover that nobody should be the judge of their own case; and that older people usually knew more than younger ones.

Hor. When once they have prohibitions and penalties, I should think all the difficulty surmounted; and I wonder why you said, that thus they might live miserably for many ages.

Hor. Once they have rules and punishments, I would think all the challenges are solved; and I’m curious why you said that they might live poorly for many generations.

Cleo. There is one thing of great moment, which has not been named yet; and until that comes to pass, no considerable numbers can ever be made happy; what signify the strongest contracts when we have nothing to show for them; and what dependence can we have upon oral tradition, in matters that require exactness; especially whilst the language that is spoken is yet very imperfect? Verbal reports are liable to a thousand cavils and disputes that are prevented by records, which every body knows to be unerring witnesses; and from the many attempts that are made to wrest and distort the sense of even written laws, we may judge how impracticable the administration of justice must be among all societies that are destitute of them. Therefore the third and last step to society, is the invention of letters. No multitudes can live peaceably without government; no government can subsist without laws; and no laws can be effectual long, unless they are wrote down: the consideration of this is alone sufficient to give us a great insight into the nature of man. [454]

Cleo. There is one important thing that hasn’t been mentioned yet; and until that happens, no significant number of people can ever be truly happy. What good are strong agreements if we have nothing to show for them? And how can we rely on oral tradition for matters that need precision, especially when the language being used is still very flawed? Verbal accounts are open to countless arguments and disputes, which written records avoid, as everyone knows they are reliable witnesses. Given the many attempts to twist and distort even written laws, we can see how difficult it must be to administer justice in societies without them. Therefore, the third and final step to a society is the invention of writing. No large groups can live peacefully without government; no government can last without laws; and no laws can be effective for long unless they are written down. Understanding this alone gives us significant insight into human nature. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. I do not think so: the reason why no government can subsist without laws, is, because there are bad men in all multitudes; but to take patterns from them, when we would judge of human nature, rather than from the good ones that follow the dictates of their reason, is an injustice one would not be guilty of to brute beasts; and it would be very wrong in us, for a few vicious horses, to condemn the whole species as such, without taking notice of the many fine spirited creatures that are naturally tame and gentle.

Hor. I don’t think so: the reason no government can survive without laws is that there are bad people in every group; but judging human nature based on those bad examples instead of considering the good ones who follow their reason is an injustice we shouldn’t commit, even against animals. It would be very unfair for us to condemn all horses because of a few bad ones without acknowledging the many well-behaved and gentle ones.

Cleo. At this rate I must repeat every thing that I have said yesterday and the day before: I thought you was convinced, that it was with thought as it is with speech; and that though man was born with a capacity beyond other animals, to attain to both, yet, whilst he remained untaught, and never conversed with any of his species, these characteristics were of little use to him. All men uninstructed, whilst they are let alone, will follow the impulse of their nature, without regard to others; and therefore all of them are bad, that are not taught to be good; so all horses are ungovernable that are not well broken: for what we call vicious in them, is, when they bite or kick, endeavour to break their halter, throw their rider, and exert themselves with all their strength to shake off the yoke, and recover that liberty which nature prompts them to assert and desire. What you call natural, is evidently artificial, and belongs to education: no fine-spirited horse was ever tame or gentle, without management. Some, perhaps, are not backed until they are four years old; but then long before that time, they are handled, spoke to, and dressed; they are fed by their keepers, put under restraint, sometimes caressed, and sometimes made to smart; and nothing is omitted whilst they are young, to inspire them with awe and veneration to our species; and make them not only submit to it, but likewise take a pride in obeying the superior genius of man. But would you judge of the nature of horses in general, as to its fitness to be governed, take the foals of the best bred mares and finest stallions, and turn an hundred of them loose, fillies and colts together, in a large forest, till they are seven years old, and then see how tractable they will be.

Cleo. At this rate, I have to repeat everything I said yesterday and the day before: I thought you were convinced that thinking is like speaking; and that, although humans are born with a capacity greater than other animals for both, if they remain untrained and have never interacted with others of their kind, these abilities are of little use. All untrained humans, when left alone, will act on their natural impulses without considering others; therefore, all of them are bad if they aren't taught to be good; just like all horses are uncontrollable if they aren't trained properly: what we call vicious behavior in them—biting, kicking, trying to break free, throwing their rider, and using all their strength to shake off the yoke—is simply their natural instinct to seek the freedom they desire. What you call natural is clearly shaped by training and education: no spirited horse is ever tame or gentle without guidance. Some maybe aren't ridden until they're four years old, but long before that, they’re handled, spoken to, and groomed; they’re fed by their caretakers, put under control, sometimes pampered, and sometimes made to feel discomfort; and nothing is overlooked while they are young to instill in them a sense of respect and admiration for our species, making them not only submit but also take pride in obeying the superior intellect of humans. But if you want to assess the nature of horses generally and their ability to be managed, take the foals of the best-bred mares and finest stallions, and let a hundred of them run free—fillies and colts alike—in a large forest until they are seven years old, and then see how manageable they will be.

Hor. But this is never done.

But this never happens.

Cleo. Whose fault is that? It is not at the request of the horses, that they are kept from the mares; and that any of [455]them are ever gentle or tame, is entirely owing to the management of man. Vice proceeds from the same origin in men, as it does in horses; the desire of uncontrouled liberty, and impatience of restraint, are not more visible in the one than they are in the other; and a man is then called vicious, when, breaking the curbs of precepts and prohibitions, he wildly follows the unbridled appetites of his untaught or ill-managed nature. The complaints against this nature of ours, are every where the same: man would have every thing he likes, without considering whether he has any right to it or not; and he would do every thing he has a mind to do, without regard to the consequence it would be of to others; at the same time that he dislikes every body, that acting from the same principle, have in all their behaviour not a special regard to him.

Cleo. Whose fault is that? It's not because the horses asked to be kept away from the mares; the fact that any of [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]them are ever gentle or tame is entirely due to how humans manage them. Vice comes from the same source in people as it does in horses; the desire for unrestricted freedom and impatience with restraint are just as evident in one as they are in the other. A person is deemed vicious when, ignoring the limits set by rules and restrictions, they recklessly pursue the uncontrolled desires of their undisciplined or poorly managed nature. The complaints about our nature are universal: people want everything they like, without considering whether they have the right to it; they want to do whatever they please, regardless of the consequences it may have for others, while at the same time disliking everyone who acts on the same principle, without taking them into account in their behavior.

Hor. That is, in short, man naturally will not do as he would be done by.

Hor. In short, people generally don't treat others the way they want to be treated.

Cleo. That is true; and for this, there is another reason in his nature: all men are partial in their judgments, when they compare themselves to others; no two equals think so well of each other, as both do of themselves; and where all men have an equal right to judge, there needs no greater cause of quarrel, than a present amongst them, with an inscription of detur digniori. Man in his anger behaves himself in the same manner as other animals; disturbing, in the pursuit self-preservation, those they are angry with; and all of them endeavour, according as the degree of their passion is, either to destroy, or cause pain and displeasure to their adversaries. That these obstacles to society are the faults, or rather properties of our nature, we may know by this, that all regulations and prohibitions that have been contrived for the temporal happiness of mankind, are made exactly to tally with them, and to obviate those complaints, which I said were every where made against mankind. The principal laws of all countries have the same tendency; and there is not one that does not point at some frailty, defect, or unfitness for society, that men are naturally subject to; but all of them are plainly designed as so many remedies, to cure and disappoint that natural instinct of sovereignty, which teaches man to look upon every thing as centring in himself, and prompts him to put in a claim to every thing he can lay his hands on. This tendency and design to mend our nature, for the temporal good of society, is no where more visible, than in [456]that compendious as well as complete body of laws, that was given by God himself. The Israelites, whilst they were slaves in Egypt, were governed by the laws of their masters; and as they were many degrees removed from the lowest savages, so they were yet far from being a civilized nation. It is reasonable to think, that, before they received the law of God, they had regulations and agreements already established, which the ten commandments did not abolish; and that they must have had notions of right and wrong, and contracts among them against open violence, and the invasion of property, is demonstrable.

Cleo. That’s true; and for this, there’s another reason in his nature: all men have biases in their judgments when they compare themselves to others; no two equals think as highly of each other as they do of themselves; and where everyone has an equal right to judge, there doesn’t need to be a bigger cause for conflict than a gift among them with the inscription detur digniori. When angry, a person behaves like other animals, disrupting those they’re upset with in the pursuit of self-preservation; and all of them try, depending on how intense their feelings are, either to destroy or to inflict pain and discomfort on their opponents. We can recognize that these barriers to community are faults, or rather traits of our nature, because all the rules and restrictions created for the well-being of humanity are specifically designed to align with them and address those complaints that I mentioned are commonly made about humanity. The main laws of every country share this aim, and there isn’t one that doesn’t address some flaw, deficiency, or unsuitability for society that people are naturally prone to; yet all of them are clearly intended as remedies to fix and counter that natural urge for dominance, which leads people to see everything as revolving around themselves and pushes them to claim whatever they can get their hands on. This tendency and effort to improve our nature for the common good of society is most evident in [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] that concise yet comprehensive set of laws that was given by God himself. The Israelites, while they were slaves in Egypt, were governed by the laws of their masters; and as far removed as they were from the most primitive savages, they were still far from being a civilized nation. It’s reasonable to think that before they received God's law, they had rules and agreements already in place that the Ten Commandments didn’t abolish; and it’s clear they must have had concepts of right and wrong, along with agreements against open violence and property invasion.

Hor. How is that demonstrable?

Hor. How can that be proven?

Cleo. From the decalogue itself: all wise laws are adapted to the people that are to obey them. From the ninth commandment, for example, it is evident, that a man’s own testimony was not sufficient to be believed in his own affair, and that nobody was allowed to be a judge in his own case.

Cleo. From the ten commandments themselves: all wise laws are tailored to the people who must follow them. For instance, from the ninth commandment, it’s clear that a person’s own testimony isn't enough to be taken at face value in their own matter, and that no one is permitted to be the judge in their own case.

Hor. It only forbids us to bear false witness against our neighbour.

Hor. It just tells us not to lie about our neighbor.

Cleo. That is true; and therefore the whole tenor and design of this commandment presupposes, and must imply what I say. But the prohibitions of stealing, adultery, and coveting any thing that belonged to their neighbours, are still more plainly intimating the same; and seem to be additions and amendments, to supply the defects of some known regulations and contracts that had been agreed upon before. If, in this view, we behold the three commandments last hinted at, we shall find them to be strong evidences, not only of that instinct of sovereignty within us, which at other times I have called a domineering spirit, and a principle of selfishness; but likewise of the difficulty there is to destroy, eradicate, and pull it out of the heart of man: for, from the eighth commandment it appears, that, though we debar ourselves from taking the things of our neighbour by force, yet there is danger that this instinct will prompt us to get them unknown to him in a clandestine manner, and deceive us with the insinuations of an oportet habere. From the foregoing precept, it is likewise manifest, that though we agree not to take away, and rob a man of the woman that is his own, it is yet to be feared, that if we like her, this innate principle that bids us gratify every appetite, will advise us to make use of her as if she was our own; though our neighbour is at the charge of maintaining her and all the children [457]she brings forth. The last more especially is very ample in confirming my assertion. It strikes directly at the root of the evil, and lays open the real source of the mischiefs that are apprehended in the seventh and the eighth commandment: for without first actually trespassing against this, no man is in danger of breaking either of the former. This tenth commandment, moreover, insinuates very plainly, in the first place, that this instinct of ours is of great power, and a frailty hardly to be cured; in the second, that there is nothing which our neighbour can be possessed of, but, neglecting the consideration of justice and property, we may have a desire after it; for which reason it absolutely forbids us to covet any thing that is his: The Divine Wisdom, well knowing the strength of this selfish principle, which obliges us continually to assume every thing to ourselves; and that, when once a man heartily covets a thing, this instinct, this principle will over-rule and persuade him to leave no stone unturned to compass his desires.

Cleo. That’s true; and because of that, the entire purpose and intention of this commandment assumes and must imply what I’m saying. But the rules against stealing, adultery, and wanting anything that belongs to others make this even clearer; they appear to be additions and improvements to fix the shortcomings of rules and agreements that were already established. If we look at the last three commandments mentioned, we’ll see they strongly indicate not only that sovereign instinct within us, which I’ve referred to before as a controlling spirit and a selfish principle, but also the challenge of getting rid of it entirely from the human heart: because the eighth commandment shows that even though we refrain from taking our neighbor's things by force, there’s still a risk that this instinct will drive us to acquire them secretly, using some form of deceit. From the previous commandment, it’s also clear that even when we agree not to take away and rob a man of his own wife, there’s still a fear that if we’re attracted to her, this natural instinct that urges us to satisfy every desire will suggest we use her as if she were ours, even though our neighbor bears the cost of supporting her and all the children she has. The last commandment especially supports my point. It goes straight to the root of the problem and reveals the real source of the issues addressed in the seventh and eighth commandments: without first violating this one, no one risks breaking either of the former. This tenth commandment also clearly suggests, first, that our instinct is very powerful and a weakness that's hard to fix; second, that there’s nothing our neighbor possesses that we might not desire, ignoring the principles of justice and property; that’s why it strictly forbids us from coveting anything that belongs to him. Divine Wisdom, fully aware of the strength of this selfish principle, which constantly pushes us to claim everything for ourselves, knows that once a person sincerely desires something, this instinct will overpower them and drive them to do whatever it takes to fulfill their wishes.

Hor. According to your way of expounding the commandments, and making them tally so exactly with the frailties of our nature, it should follow from the ninth, that all men are born with a strong appetite to forswear themselves, which I never heard before.

Hor. Based on how you explain the commandments and align them so perfectly with our human weaknesses, it would imply from the ninth that everyone is born with a strong tendency to lie, which I've never encountered before.

Cleo. Nor I neither; and I confess that the rebuke there is in this smart turn of yours is very plausible; but the censure, how specious soever it may appear, is unjust, and you shall not find the consequence you hint at, if you will be pleased to distinguish between the natural appetites themselves, and the various crimes which they make us commit, rather than not be obeyed: For, though we are born with no immediate appetite to forswear ourselves, yet we are born with more than one, that, if never checked, may in time oblige us to forswear ourselves, or do worse, if it be possible, and they cannot be gratified without it; and the commandment you mention plainly implies, that by nature we are so unreasonably attached to our interest on all emergencies, that it is possible for a man to be swayed by it, not only to the visible detriment of others, as is manifest from the seventh and the eighth, but even though it should be against his own conscience: For nobody did ever knowingly bear false witness against his neighbour, but he did it for some end or other; this end, whatever it is, I call his interest. The law which forbids murder, had already demonstrated to us, how immensely [458]we undervalue every thing, when it comes in competition with ourselves; for, though our greatest dread be destruction, and we know no other calamity equal to the dissolution of our being, yet such unequitable judges this instinct of sovereignty is able to make of us, that rather than not have our will, which we count our happiness, we choose to inflict this calamity on others, and bring total ruin on such as we think to be obstacles to the gratification of our appetites; and this men do, not only for hindrances that are present, or apprehended as to come, but likewise for former offences, and things that are past redress.

Cleo. Me neither; and I admit that your sharp comment is quite convincing; but the criticism, no matter how appealing it seems, is unfair, and you won't find the outcome you suggest if you consider the difference between our natural desires and the various wrongdoings they lead us to commit when ignored. Though none of us are born with an immediate urge to betray ourselves, we do have multiple desires that, if left unchecked, could eventually force us to betray ourselves or do even worse things, especially if those desires can't be satisfied otherwise. The commandment you mentioned clearly implies that we are so irrationally focused on our own interests in every situation that it's possible for someone to act against their own conscience just to fulfill those interests. No one ever knowingly gives false witness against their neighbor without having some personal motive; whatever that motive is, I call it their interest. The law against murder has already shown us how little value we place on everything when it competes with our own needs; even though our greatest fear is destruction, knowing that there is no greater misfortune than the end of our existence, this instinct for dominance can twist our judgment to the point where we would rather cause harm to others, whom we see as obstacles to our happiness, than forgo our own desires. And people do this not just for immediate threats or fears of future hindrances but also for past grievances and things that can't be fixed.

Hor. By what you said last, you mean revenge, I suppose.

Hor. By what you just said, you mean revenge, right?

Cleo. I do so; and the instinct of sovereignty which I assert to be in human nature, is in nothing so glaringly conspicuous as it is in this passion, which no mere man was ever born without, and which even the most civilized, as well as the most learned, are seldom able to conquer: For whoever pretends to revenge himself, must claim a right to a judicature within, and an authority to punish: Which, being destructive to the mutual peace of all multitudes, are for that reason the first things that in every civil society are snatched away out of every man’s hands, as dangerous tools, and vested in the governing part, the supreme power only.

Cleo. I really do; and the instinct for leadership that I believe is part of human nature is most clearly seen in this desire, which no ordinary person can live without, and which even the most civilized and educated people rarely manage to overcome: Because anyone who seeks revenge must assert the right to be a judge and the authority to punish: This mindset, being harmful to the collective peace of any group, is why these rights are typically taken away from everyone in a civilized society, as they are seen as dangerous tools, and given to the governing authority, the supreme power alone.

Hor. This remark on revenge has convinced me more than any thing you have said yet, that there is some such thing as a principle of sovereignty in our nature; but I cannot conceive yet, why the vices of private, I mean particular persons, should be thought to belong to the whole species.

Hor. This comment about revenge has convinced me more than anything you've said so far that there is indeed a principle of sovereignty in our nature; however, I still can't understand why the faults of individuals should be seen as reflective of the entire human race.

Cleo. Because every body is liable to fall into the vices that are peculiar to his species; and it is with them, as it is with distempers among creatures of different kinds: There are many ailments that horses are subject to, which are not incident to cows. There is no vice, but whoever commits it had within him before he was guilty of it, a tendency towards it, a latent cause that disposed him to it: Therefore, all lawgivers have two main points to consider at setting out: First, what things will procure happiness to the society under their care: Secondly, what passions and properties there are in man’s nature, that may either promote or obstruct this happiness. It is prudence to watch your fish ponds against the insults of hearns and bitterns; but the same precaution would be ridiculous against turkeys and peacocks, or any [459]other creatures, that neither love fish, nor are able to catch them.

Cleo. Since every person is prone to the vices unique to their kind; and it's similar to how different animals experience various diseases: There are many illnesses that horses can get, which cows do not. No vice exists without the person having a tendency towards it before actually committing it, a hidden cause that led them to it: So, all lawmakers have two main things to focus on at the start: First, what will bring happiness to the society they oversee: Second, what qualities and emotions in human nature may either enhance or hinder that happiness. It’s wise to guard your fish ponds against the threats of herons and bitterns; but taking the same precautions against turkeys and peacocks, or any [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]other animals that neither enjoy fish nor can catch them, would be foolish.

Hor. What frailty or defect is it in our nature, that the two first commandments have a regard to, or, as you call it, tally with?

Hor. What weakness or flaw in our nature do the first two commandments address, or, as you put it, match with?

Cleo. Our natural blindness and ignorance of the true Deity: For, though we all come into the world with an instinct toward religion that manifests itself before we come to maturity, yet the fear of an invisible cause, or invisible causes, which all men are born with, is not more universal, than the uncertainty which all untaught men fluctuate in, as to the nature and properties of that cause, or those causes: There can be no greater proof of this——

Cleo. Our natural blindness and lack of understanding about the true God: Although we all enter the world with an instinct for religion that shows itself before we reach adulthood, the fear of an unseen force, or unseen forces, that every person is born with is just as universal as the uncertainty that all uneducated individuals experience regarding the nature and characteristics of that force, or those forces: There can be no greater proof of this——

Hor. I want none; the history of all ages is a sufficient witness.

Hor. I don’t want any; the history of all time is enough proof.

Cleo. Give me leave: There can, I say, be no greater proof of this, than the second commandment, which palpably points at all the absurdities and abominations which the ill-guided fear of an invisible cause had already made, and would still continue to make men commit; and in doing this, I can hardly think, that any thing but Divine Wisdom could, in so few words, have comprehended the vast extent and sum total of human extravagancies, as it is done in that commandment: For there is nothing so high or remote in the firmament, nor so low or abject upon earth, but some men have worshipped it, or made it one way or other the object of their superstition.

Cleo. Allow me to explain: There’s no better evidence of this than the second commandment, which clearly addresses all the ridiculous and terrible things that misguided fear of an unseen force has led people to do, and continues to lead them to do. I seriously doubt that anything other than Divine Wisdom could summarize the vast range and totality of human folly in so few words as that commandment does. Because there’s nothing too high in the sky or too low on the ground that someone hasn’t worshipped or made into an object of their superstition in some way.

Hor.——Crocodilon adorat

Hor.——Crocodilon worships

Pars hæc: illa pavet saturam serpentibus Ibin.

Pars hæc: illa pavet saturam serpentibus Ibin.

Effigias sacri nitet aurea Cercopitheci.

The golden monkey shines brightly.

A holy monkey! I own it is a reproach to our species, that ever any part of it should have adored such a creature as a god. But that is the tip-top of folly, that can be charged on superstition.

A holy monkey! I admit it’s a shame for our kind that any part of it ever worshiped such a creature as a god. But that really is the height of foolishness that can be attributed to superstition.

Cleo. I do not think so; a monkey is still a living creature, and consequently somewhat superior to things inanimate.

Cleo. I don’t think so; a monkey is still a living being, and so it's somewhat better than inanimate objects.

Hor. I should have thought mens adoration of the sun or moon infinitely less absurd than to have seen them fall down before so vile, so ridiculous an animal.

Hor. I would have thought that people's worship of the sun or moon is far less ridiculous than seeing them bow down to such a disgusting, silly creature.

Cleo. Those who have adored the sun and moon never questioned, but they were intelligent as well as glorious beings. [460]But when I mentioned the word inanimate, I was thinking on what the same poet you quoted said of the veneration men paid to leeks and onions, deities they raised in their own gardens.

Cleo. Those who have worshipped the sun and moon never questioned, but they were wise as well as magnificent beings. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]But when I brought up the term inanimate, I was reflecting on what the same poet you quoted said about the reverence people showed toward leeks and onions, gods they grew in their own gardens.

Porrum & cepe nefas violare, & frangere morsu:

Porrum & cepe nefas violare, & frangere morsu:

O sanctas genteis, quibus hæc nascuntur in hortis

O holy ones, to whom these are born in gardens

Numina!——

Numina!

But this is nothing to what has been done in America fourteen hundred years after the time of Juvenal. If the portentous worship of the Mexicans had been known in his days, he would not have thought it worth his while to take notice of the Egyptians. I have often admired at the uncommon pains those poor people must have taken to express the frightful and shocking, as well as bizarre and unutterable notions they entertained of the superlative malice and hellish implacable nature of their vitzliputzli, to whom they sacrificed the hearts of men, cut out whilst they were alive. The monstrous figure and laboured deformity of that abominable idol, are a lively representation of the direful ideas those wretches framed to themselves of an invisible over-ruling power; and plainly show us, how horrid and execrable they thought it to be, at the same time that they paid it the highest adoration; and at the expence of human blood endeavoured, with fear and trembling, if not to appease the wrath and rage of it, at least to avert, in some measure, the manifold mischiefs they apprehended from it.

But this is nothing compared to what has happened in America fourteen hundred years after Juvenal's time. If he had known about the terrifying worship of the Mexicans, he wouldn’t have thought it worth his time to pay attention to the Egyptians. I’ve often marveled at the extraordinary effort those poor people must have put into expressing the horrifying and shocking, as well as the strange and unspeakable ideas they had about the extreme malice and unyielding nature of their vitzliputzli, to whom they sacrificed the hearts of men while they were still alive. The monstrous appearance and painstaking deformity of that dreadful idol vividly represent the terrifying ideas those unfortunate people created about an unseen, controlling power; and it clearly shows us how horrific and detestable they believed it to be, even as they offered it their highest reverence, attempting—at the cost of human blood—out of fear and trembling, if not to calm its wrath and rage, at least to lessen, in some way, the many dangers they feared from it.

Hor. Nothing, I must own, can render declaiming against idolatry more seasonable than a reflection upon the second commandment: But as what you have been saying required no great attention, I have been thinking of something else. Thinking on the purport of the third commandment, furnishes me with an objection, and I think a strong one, to what you have affirmed about all laws in general, and the decalogue in particular. You know I urged that it was wrong to ascribe the faults of bad men to human nature in general.

Hor. Honestly, nothing makes arguing against idolatry more timely than considering the second commandment. But since what you were saying didn’t need much thought, I’ve been focusing on something else. Reflecting on the meaning of the third commandment gives me an objection, and I believe it’s a strong one, to what you’ve claimed about all laws in general, and the decalogue specifically. You know I said it’s wrong to blame the flaws of bad people on human nature as a whole.

Cleo. I do; and thought I had answered you.

Cleo. I do, and I thought I had replied to you.

Hor. Let me try only once more. Which of the two, pray, do you think profane swearing to proceed from, a frailty in our nature, or an ill custom generally contracted by keeping of bad company?

Hor. Let me give it one more shot. Which of the two do you think causes profane swearing: is it a weakness in our nature, or is it a bad habit we pick up from hanging around with the wrong crowd?

Cleo. Certainly the latter. [461]

Cleo. Definitely the latter. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. Then it is evident to me, that this law is levelled at the bad men only, that are guilty of the vice forbid in it; and not any frailty belonging to human nature in general.

Hor. So it’s clear to me that this law targets only those bad individuals guilty of the vice it forbids, and not any weaknesses that are part of human nature as a whole.

Cleo. I believe you mistake the design of this law; and am of opinion, that it has a much higher aim than you seem to imagine. You remember my saying, that reverence to authority was necessary, to make human creatures governable.

Cleo. I think you misunderstand the purpose of this law; I believe it has a much greater goal than you realize. You remember me saying that respect for authority is essential to keep people manageable.

Hor. Very well; and that reverence was a compound of fear, love, and esteem.

Hor. Alright; that respect was a mix of fear, love, and admiration.

Cleo. Now let us take a view of what is done in the decalogue: In the short preamble to it, expressly made that the Israelites should know who it was that spoke to them, God manifests himself to those whom he had chosen for his people, by a most remarkable instance of his own great power, and their strong obligation to him, in a fact, that none of them could be ignorant of. There is a plainness and grandeur withal in this sentence, than which nothing can be more truly sublime or majestic; and I defy the learned world to show me another as comprehensive, and of equal weight and dignity, that so fully executes its purpose, and answers its design with the same simplicity of words. In that part of the second commandment, which contains the motives and inducements why men should obey the Divine laws, are set forth in the most emphatical manner: First, God’s wrath on those that hate him, and the continuance of it on their posterity: Secondly, the wide extent of his mercy to those who love him and keep his commandments. If we duly consider these passages, we shall find, that fear, as well as love, and the highest esteem, are plainly and distinctly inculcated in them; and that the best method is made use of there, to inspire men with a deep sense of the three ingredients that make up the compound of reverence. The reason is plain: If people were to be governed by that body of laws, nothing was more necessary to enforce their obedience to them, than their awful regard and utmost veneration to him, at whose command they were to keep them, and to whom they were accountable for the breaking of them.

Cleo. Now let’s take a look at what’s outlined in the commandments: In the brief introduction to it, clearly made so the Israelites would know who was speaking to them, God reveals himself to those he chose as his people through a powerful demonstration of his might and their strong obligation to him, in a fact that none of them could ignore. There’s a clarity and grandeur in this statement that is truly sublime and majestic; I challenge anyone to show me another that is as comprehensive, weighty, and dignified, which accomplishes its purpose and fulfills its intention with such simplicity in wording. The part of the second commandment that presents the reasons and motivations for why people should follow Divine laws is expressed in a very emphatic way: First, God’s anger toward those who hate him and its ongoing impact on their descendants; second, the vast scope of his mercy toward those who love him and keep his commandments. When we carefully consider these points, we’ll find that both fear and love, along with the highest respect, are clearly emphasized; and that the best approach is taken to instill a deep appreciation for the three elements that create reverence. The reason is clear: If people are to be governed by these laws, nothing is more essential for ensuring their obedience than their deep respect and reverence for him, whose commands they are to follow, and to whom they are accountable for breaking them.

Hor. What answer is all this to my objection?

Hor. What kind of response is this to my objection?

Cleo. Have a moment’s patience; I am coming to it. Mankind are naturally fickle, and delight in change and variety; they seldom retain long the same impression of things they received at first, when they were new to them; and [462]they are apt to undervalue, if not despise the best, when they grow common. I am of opinion, that the third commandment points at this frailty, this want of steadiness in our nature; the ill consequences of which, in our duty to the Creator, could not be better prevented than by a strict observance of this law, in never making use of his name, but in the most solemn manner, on necessary occasions, and in matters of high importance. As in the foregoing part of the decalogue, care had been already taken, by the strongest motives, to create and attract reverence, so nothing could be more wisely adapted to strengthen, and make it everlasting, than the contents of this law: For as too much familiarity breeds contempt, so our highest regard due to what is most sacred, cannot be kept up better than by a quite contrary practice.

Cleo. Please be patient; I'm getting to it. People are naturally changeable and enjoy variety; they rarely hold onto the first impressions they had of things when they were new to them. Plus, they tend to undervalue, if not look down on, the best things once they become common. I believe the third commandment addresses this weakness, this lack of stability in our nature. The negative effects of this, especially in our duty to the Creator, could be avoided by strictly following this law, only using His name in a very solemn way, on necessary occasions, and in matters of great importance. Just as the earlier parts of the commandments aimed to instill reverence through strong motivations, nothing could be more wisely designed to reinforce and make that reverence lasting than the message of this law. Because too much familiarity breeds contempt, our highest respect for what is most sacred can be maintained best by the opposite approach.

Hor. I am answered.

I got my answer.

Cleo. What weight reverence is thought to be of to procure obedience, we may learn from the same body of laws in another commandment. Children have no opportunity of learning their duty but from their parents and those who act by their authority or in their stead: Therefore, it was requisite, that men should not only stand in great dread of the law of God, but likewise have great reverence for those who first inculcated it, and communicated to them that this was the law of God.

Cleo. We can see how important respect is for gaining obedience from another commandment in the same set of laws. Children can only learn their responsibilities from their parents and those who act with their authority or in their place. Therefore, it’s essential that people should not only fear the law of God but also deeply respect those who taught it to them and conveyed that it was indeed the law of God.

Hor. But you said, that the reverence of children to parents was a natural consequence of what they first experienced from the latter.

Hor. But you said that the respect children have for their parents comes naturally from what they initially experience from them.

Cleo. You think there was no occasion for this law, if man would do what is commanded in it of his own accord: But I desire you would consider, that though the reverence of children to parents is a natural consequence, partly of the benefits and chastisements they receive from them, and partly of the great opinion they form of the superior capacity they observe in them; experience teaches us, that this reverence may be over-ruled by stronger passions; and therefore it being of the highest moment to all government and sociableness itself, God thought fit to fortify and strengthen it in us, by a particular command of his own; and, moreover, to encourage it, by the promise of a reward for the keeping of it. It is our parents that first cure us of our natural wildness, and break in us the spirit of independency we are all born with: It is to them we owe the first rudiments of our submission; and to the honour and deference which children [463]pay to parents, all societies are obliged for the principle of human obedience. The instinct of sovereignty in our nature, and the waywardness of infants, which is the consequence of it, discover themselves with the least glimmering of our understanding, and before children that have been most neglected, and the least taught, are always the most stubborn and obstinate; and none are more unruly, and fonder of following their own will, than those that are least capable of governing themselves.

Cleo. You think there was no need for this law, if people would just follow it on their own. But I want you to think about this: while it's natural for children to respect their parents because of the benefits and punishments they get from them, and because of the high regard they have for their parents' greater abilities, experience shows us that this respect can be overridden by stronger emotions. That's why it's so important for all government and social interactions that God chose to reinforce and strengthen this respect in us with a specific command and to encourage it by promising rewards for following it. Our parents are the ones who first tame our natural wildness and teach us to move beyond the independent spirit we're all born with. We owe them our first lessons in submission, and the honor and respect children show their parents are essential for the foundation of human obedience in all societies. The instinct for authority in our nature, combined with the stubbornness of infants that comes from it, shows itself even in the early stages of understanding. Neglected children and those who receive the least guidance tend to be the most rebellious and headstrong, and those who are least capable of self-control are often the most unruly and determined to follow their own desires.

Hor. Then this commandment you think not obligatory, when we come to years of maturity.

Hor. So, you believe this commandment is not binding when we reach adulthood?

Cleo. Far from it: for though the benefit politically intended by this law be chiefly received by us, whilst we are under age and the tuition of parents; yet, for that very reason, ought the duty commanded in it, never to cease. We are fond of imitating our superiors from our cradle, and whilst this honour and reverence to parents continue to be paid by their children, when they are grown men and women, and act for themselves, the example is of singular use to all minors, in teaching them their duty, and not to refuse what they see others, that are older and wiser, comply with by choice: For, by this means, as their understanding increases, this duty, by degrees, becomes a fashion, which at last their pride will not suffer them to neglect.

Cleo. Not at all: even though the political benefit of this law primarily goes to us while we're underage and under the care of our parents, that’s exactly why the responsibilities outlined in it should never stop. We naturally tend to mimic our elders from a young age, and as long as children show respect and honor to their parents when they grow up and become independent, that example is incredibly valuable for all minors. It teaches them their responsibilities and encourages them not to reject what they see older, wiser people willingly do. This way, as their understanding grows, this sense of duty gradually becomes a norm that eventually their pride won't allow them to ignore.

Hor. What you said last is certainly the reason, that among fashionable people, even the most vicious and wicked do outward homage, and pay respect to parents, at least before the world; though they act against, and in their hearts hate them.

Hor. What you just said is definitely the reason that among fashionable people, even the most immoral and evil still show outward respect and honor their parents, at least in public; even though they act against them and secretly despise them.

Cleo. Here is another instance to convince us, that good manners are not inconsistent with wickedness; and that men may be strict observers of decorums, and take pains to seem well-bred, and at the same time have no regard to the laws of God, and live in contempt of religion: and therefore to procure an outward compliance with this fifth commandment, no lecture can be of such force, nor any instruction so edifying to youth, among the modest sort of people, as the sight of a strong and vigorous, as well as polite and well dressed man, in a dispute giving way and submitting to a decrepit parent.

Cleo. Here’s another example that shows us that good manners can coexist with wickedness; men can strictly adhere to social niceties and go to great lengths to appear cultured while completely disregarding God's laws and having no respect for religion. Therefore, to encourage outward adherence to this fifth commandment, nothing can be as powerful or as instructive for young people, especially among respectful individuals, as witnessing a strong, capable, and well-dressed man in a disagreement yield and submit to an elderly parent.

Hor. But do you imagine that all the divine laws, even those that seem only to relate to God himself, his power and glory, and our obedience to his will, abstract from any consideration [464]of our neighbour, had likewise a regard to the good of society, and the temporal happiness of his people?

Hor. But do you really think that all the divine laws, even those that seem solely about God, His power and glory, and our obedience to Him, completely ignore the consideration [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] of our neighbors, and also take into account the well-being of society and the happiness of His people?

Cleo. There is no doubt of that; witness the keeping of the Sabbath.

Cleo. There’s no doubt about it; just look at how the Sabbath is observed.

Hor. We have seen that very handsomely proved in one of the Spectators.

Hor. We've seen that clearly demonstrated in one of the Spectators.

Cleo. But the usefulness of it in human affairs, is of far greater moment, than that which the author of that paper chiefly takes notice of. Of all the difficulties that mankind have laboured under in completing society, nothing has been more puzzling or perplexing than the division of time. Our annual course round the sun, not answering exactly any number of complete days or hours, has been the occasion of immense study and labour: and nothing has more racked the brain of man, than the adjusting the year to prevent the confusion of seasons: but even when the year was divided into lunar months, the computation of time must have been impracticable among the common people: To remember twenty-nine, or thirty days, where feasts are irregular, and all other days show alike, must have been a great burden to the memory, and caused a continual confusion among the ignorant; whereas, a short period soon returning is easily remembered, and one fixed day in seven, so remarkably distinguished from the rest, must rub up the memory of the most unthinking.

Cleo. But its usefulness in human affairs is far more significant than what the author of that paper mainly highlights. Of all the challenges humanity has faced in building society, nothing has been more confusing or complicated than the division of time. Our annual journey around the sun, which doesn’t align perfectly with a set number of complete days or hours, has led to tremendous effort and study: and nothing has strained human thought more than figuring out how to align the year to avoid seasonal confusion. Even when the year was divided into lunar months, keeping track of time must have been impractical for ordinary people. Remembering twenty-nine or thirty days, especially when festivals are irregular and all other days look the same, must have been a heavy mental load and created ongoing confusion for those who didn’t understand. In contrast, a short, recurring period is easy to remember, and a fixed day every seven days, so clearly different from the others, surely helps even the most forgetful people remember it.

Hor. I believe that the Sabbath is a considerable help in the computation of time, and of greater use in human affairs, than can be easily imagined by those, who never knew the want of it.

Hor. I think that the Sabbath is a significant aid in keeping track of time, and it's more useful in everyday life than people who have never needed it can easily understand.

Cleo. But what is most remarkable in this fourth commandment, is God’s revealing himself to his people, and acquainting an infant nation with a truth, which the rest of the world remained ignorant of for many ages. Men were soon made sensible of the sun’s power, observed every meteor in the sky, and suspected the influence of the moon and other stars: but it was a long time, and man was far advanced in sublime notions, before the light of nature could raise mortal thought to the contemplation of an Infinite Being that is the author of the whole.

Cleo. But what’s most remarkable about this fourth commandment is how God reveals Himself to His people, introducing a young nation to a truth that the rest of the world remained unaware of for many ages. People quickly noticed the power of the sun, observed every meteor in the sky, and speculated about the influence of the moon and other stars. However, it took a long time, and humanity had to progress through complex ideas before the light of nature could elevate human thought to the contemplation of an Infinite Being, who is the creator of everything.

Hor. You have descanted on this sufficiently when you spoke of Moses: pray let us proceed to the further establishment of society. I am satisfied that the third step towards it is the invention of letters; that without them no laws can be [465]long effectual, and that the principal laws of all countries are remedies against human frailties; I mean, that they are designed as antidotes, to prevent the ill consequences of some properties, inseparable from our nature; which yet in themselves, without management or restraint, are obstructive and pernicious to society: I am persuaded likewise, that these frailties are palpably pointed at in the decalogue; that it was wrote with great wisdom, and that there is not one commandment in it, that has not a regard to the temporal good of society, as well as matters of higher moment.

Hor. You've talked enough about this when you mentioned Moses; let's move on to further establishing society. I'm convinced that the third step toward this is the invention of letters; without them, no laws can remain effective for long, and the main laws of all countries are remedies for human weaknesses. I mean, they are intended as solutions to prevent the negative consequences of certain traits that are part of our nature, which can be harmful to society without proper management or restraint. I also believe these weaknesses are clearly addressed in the Ten Commandments; it was written with great wisdom, and not a single commandment exists that doesn't consider the well-being of society, as well as more significant matters.

Cleo. These are the things, indeed, that I have endeavoured to prove; and now all the great difficulties and chief obstructions, that can hinder a multitude from being formed into a body politic, are removed: when once men come to be governed by written laws, all the rest comes on a-pace. Now property, and safety of life and limb may be secured: this naturally will forward the love of peace, and make it spread. No number of men, when once they enjoy quiet, and no man needs to fear his neighbour, will be long without learning to divide and subdivide their labour.

Cleo. These are the things that I have really tried to prove; and now all the major challenges and main obstacles that can prevent a group from becoming a political body are removed: once people start being governed by written laws, everything else follows quickly. Now property and the safety of life and well-being can be secured: this will naturally promote a love for peace and help it grow. When a group of people enjoys tranquility, and no one has to fear their neighbor, they won't take long to learn how to divide and specialize their work.

Hor. I do not understand you.

I don’t understand you.

Cleo. Man, as I have hinted before, naturally loves to imitate what he sees others do, which is the reason that savage people all do the same thing: this hinders them from meliorating their condition, though they are always wishing for it: but if one will wholly apply himself to the making of bows and arrows, whilst another provides food, a third builds huts, a fourth makes garments, and a fifth utensils: they not only become useful to one another, but the callings and employments themselves will in the same number of years receive much greater improvements, than if all had been promiscuously followed by every one of the five.

Cleo. You see, humans naturally like to copy what they see others doing. That's why people who live in primitive conditions all end up doing the same things. Even though they wish for a better way of life, their behavior holds them back. But if one person focuses on making bows and arrows, while another gathers food, a third builds shelters, a fourth creates clothing, and a fifth makes tools, they don’t just help each other out; their skills and trades will improve much faster over the years than if everyone tried to do everything at once.

Hor. I believe you are perfectly right there; and the truth of what you say is in nothing so conspicuous, as it is in watch-making, which is come to a higher degree of perfection, than it would have been arrived at yet, if the whole had always remained the employment of one person; and I am persuaded, that even the plenty we have of clocks and watches, as well as the exactness and beauty they may be made of, are chiefly owing to the division that has been made of that art into many branches. [466]

Hor. I think you're absolutely right about that, and the truth of what you have said is most evident in watch-making. It has reached a higher level of perfection than it would have if it had always been the work of just one person. I'm convinced that the abundance of clocks and watches we have today, along with their precision and beauty, is largely due to the fact that this craft has been split into many different branches. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. The use of letters must likewise very much improve speech itself, which before that time cannot but be very barren and precarious.

Cleo. The use of letters must also greatly enhance speech itself, which before that could only be very limited and uncertain.

Hor. I am glad to hear you mention speech again: I would not interrupt you when you named it once before: Pray what language did your wild couple speak, when first they met?

Hor. I'm glad you brought up speech again. I didn't want to interrupt you when you mentioned it earlier. What language did your wild couple speak when they first met?

Cleo. From what I have said already, it is evident, that they could have had none at all; at least, that it is my opinion.

Cleo. From what I’ve said so far, it’s clear that they couldn’t have had any at all; at least, that’s what I think.

Hor. Then wild people must have an instinct to understand one another, which they lose when they are civilized.

Hor. So, it seems that wild people have a natural instinct to connect with each other, which they lose once they become civilized.

Cleo. I am persuaded that nature has made all animals of the same kind, in their mutual commerce, intelligible to one another, as far as is requisite for the preservation of themselves and their species: and as to my wild couple, as you call them, I believe there would be a very good understanding before many sounds passed between them. It is not without some difficulty, that a man born in society can form an idea of such savages, and their condition; and unless he has used himself to abstract thinking, he can hardly represent to himself such a state of simplicity, in which man can have so few desires, and no appetites roving beyond the immediate call of untaught nature: to me it seems very plain, that such a couple would not only be destitute of language, but likewise never find out, or imagine that they stood in need of any; or that the want of it was any real inconvenience to them.

Cleo. I believe that nature has made all animals of the same kind able to understand each other well enough for their survival and the continuation of their species. As for my wild couple, as you call them, I think they would get along just fine without needing many words. It's not easy for someone raised in society to imagine such wild beings and their way of life; if they haven’t practiced thinking abstractly, they can't really picture such a simple state where a person has few desires and no cravings that go beyond the basic needs of untamed nature. To me, it’s clear that such a couple would not only lack language but also wouldn’t realize they needed it or feel that not having it was a problem.

Hor. Why do you think so?

Hor. Why do you say that?

Cleo. Because it is impossible that any creatures should know the want of what it can have no idea of: I believe, moreover, that if savages, after they are grown men and women, should hear others speak, be made acquainted with the usefulness of speech, and consequently become sensible of the want of it in themselves, their inclination to learn it would be as inconsiderable as their capacity; and if they should attempt it, they would find it an immense labour, a thing not to be surmounted; because the suppleness and flexibility in the organs of speech, that children are endued with, and which I have often hinted at, would be lost in them; and they might learn to play masterly upon the violin, or any other the most difficult musical instrument, before they could make any tolerable proficiency in speaking. [467]

Cleo. It's impossible for creatures to know they lack something they have no idea exists. I also believe that if people who have grown up isolated were to hear others speak and learn about the usefulness of speech, they would realize their lack of it but would still be reluctant to learn. Their ability to pick it up would be minimal, and if they tried, it would be a great struggle—something they couldn’t easily overcome. The natural flexibility and adaptability in the speech organs that children possess, which I've mentioned before, would be lost on them. They might be able to master playing the violin or any other challenging musical instrument before they could manage to speak reasonably well. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. Brutes make several distinct sounds to express different passions by: as for example, anguish, and great danger, dogs of all sorts express with another noise than they do rage and anger; and the whole species express grief by howling.

Hor. Animals make different sounds to show various feelings: for instance, dogs of all kinds express anguish and danger with one sound, while they express rage and anger with another; and all dogs express grief by howling.

Cleo. This is no argument to make us believe, that nature has endued man with speech; there are innumerable other privileges and instincts which some brutes enjoy, and men are destitute of: chickens run about as soon as they are hatched; and most quadrupeds can walk without help, as soon as they are brought forth. If ever language came by instinct, the people that spoke it must have known every individual word in it; and a man in the wild state of nature would have no occasion for a thousandth part of the most barren language that ever had a name. When a man’s knowledge is confined within a narrow compass, and he has nothing to obey, but the simple dictates of nature, the want of speech is easily supplied by dumb signs; and it is more natural to untaught men to express themselves by gestures, than by sounds; but we are all born with a capacity of making ourselves understood, beyond other animals, without speech: to express grief, joy, love, wonder and fear, there are certain tokens that are common to the whole species. Who doubts that the crying of children was given them by nature, to call assistance and raise pity, which latter it does so unaccountably beyond any other sound?

Cleo. This doesn’t convince us that nature has given humans the ability to speak; there are countless other privileges and instincts that some animals have, which humans lack. Chicks can run around as soon as they hatch, and most four-legged animals can walk on their own right after birth. If language came from instinct, then the people who spoke it must have understood every single word; a person living in a natural state wouldn’t need even a small fraction of the simplest language that ever existed. When a person’s knowledge is limited and they only follow the basic rules of nature, they can easily communicate through gestures instead of words; it’s more natural for untrained individuals to express themselves through movements than sounds. However, we are all born with the ability to make ourselves understood better than other animals without using speech. To convey feelings like grief, joy, love, wonder, and fear, there are specific signs that are universal among our species. Who can doubt that babies cry to signal for help and evoke sympathy, which they do in a way that's far more compelling than any other sound?

Hor. In mothers and nurses, you mean.

Hor. You mean in mothers and caregivers.

Cleo. I mean in the generality of human creatures. Will you allow me, that warlike music generally rouses and supports the spirits, and keeps them from sinking.

Cleo. I mean in general, for all people. Will you agree that battle music usually lifts and energizes the spirit, helping to keep it from getting weighed down?

Hor. I believe I must.

I think I have to.

Cleo. Then I will engage, that the crying (I mean the vagitus) of helpless infants will stir up compassion in the generality of our species, that are within the hearing of it, with much greater certainty than drums and trumpets will dissipate and chase away fear, in those they are applied to. Weeping, laughing, smiling, frowning, sighing, exclaiming, we spoke of before. How universal, as well as copious, is the language of the eyes, by the help of which the remotest nations understand one another at first sight, taught or untaught, in the weightiest temporal concern that belongs to the species? and in that language our wild couple would at their first meeting intelligibly say more to one another without [468]guile, than any civilized pair would dare to name without blushing.

Cleo. Then I will argue that the cries (I mean the vagitus) of helpless infants will evoke compassion in most people who can hear them, with much more certainty than drums and trumpets can dispel fear in those they are aimed at. Weeping, laughing, smiling, frowning, sighing, exclaiming—these are all things we discussed earlier. How universal and abundant is the language of the eyes, which allows even the most distant nations to understand one another at first sight, whether they are taught or untaught, on the most significant matters affecting our species? In that language, our wild couple would, at their first meeting, convey more to each other without [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] deceit than any civilized couple would dare to express without blushing.

Hor. A man, without doubt, may be as impudent with his eyes, as he can be with his tongue.

Hor. A man can definitely be just as bold with his eyes as he can be with his words.

Cleo. All such looks, therefore, and several motions, that are natural, are carefully avoided among polite people, upon no other account, than that they are too significant: it is for the same reason that stretching ourselves before others, whilst we are yawning, is an absolute breach of good manners, especially in mixed company of both sexes. As it is indecent to display any of these tokens, so it is unfashionable to take notice of, or seem to understand them: this disuse and neglect of them is the cause, that whenever they happen to be made, either through ignorance or wilful rudeness, many of them are lost and really not understood, by the beau monde, that would be very plain to savages without language, who could have no other means of conversing than by signs and motions.

Cleo. All these looks and gestures that are natural are carefully avoided among polite people simply because they’re too expressive. It’s the same reason why stretching while yawning in front of others is considered bad manners, especially in mixed company. Just as it’s inappropriate to show these signs, it’s also out of style to acknowledge them or act like you understand them. This neglect leads to a situation where, when they do occur—either out of ignorance or deliberate rudeness—many of these signs are lost and really not understood by the social elite, even though they would be obvious to people without language, who have no means of communication other than signs and gestures.

Hor. But if the old stock would never either be able or willing to acquire speech, it is possible they could teach it their children: then which way could any language ever come into the world from two savages?

Hor. But if the old generation was never able or willing to learn to speak, it’s possible they could teach their children how to do it: so how could any language ever come into existence from two savages?

Cleo. By slow degrees, as all other arts and sciences have done, and length of time; agriculture, physic, astronomy, architecture, painting, &c. From what we see in children that are backward with their tongues, we have reason to think, that a wild pair would make themselves intelligible to each other by signs and gestures, before they would attempt it by sounds: but when they lived together for many years, it is very probable, that for the things they were most conversant with they would find out sounds, to stir up in each other the ideas of such things, when they were out of sight; these sounds they would communicate to their young ones; and the longer they lived together the greater variety of sounds they would invent, as well for actions as the things themselves: they would find that the volubility of tongue, and flexibility of voice, were much greater in their young ones, than they could remember it ever to have been in themselves: it is impossible, but some of these young ones would either by accident or design, make use of this superior aptitude of the organs at one time or other; which every generation would still improve upon; and this must have been the origin of all languages, and speech itself, that were not [469]taught by inspiration. I believe moreover, that after language (I mean such as is of human invention) was come to a great degree of perfection, and even when people had distinct words for every action in life, as well as every thing they meddled or conversed with, signs and gestures still continued to be made for a great while, to accompany speech; because both are intended for the same purpose.

Cleo. Gradually, like all other arts and sciences, and over time; agriculture, medicine, astronomy, architecture, painting, etc. When we observe children who are slow to talk, we have reason to believe that a wild pair would communicate with each other using signs and gestures before they tried to do so with sounds. However, after living together for many years, it’s very likely that for the things they saw most often, they would develop sounds to evoke those ideas when those things were not in sight; they would then pass these sounds on to their young. The longer they lived together, the more varied the sounds they would create, both for actions and the things themselves. They would notice that their young ones had a much greater ability to speak clearly and manipulate their voices than they ever remembered having themselves. It’s inevitable that some of these young ones would, either by chance or design, take advantage of this enhanced ability of the organs at some point. Each generation would build upon this, and this must have been the origin of all languages and speech that were not [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] taught by divine inspiration. Furthermore, I believe that after language (meaning those created by humans) reached a significant level of sophistication, even when people had specific words for every action in life and everything they interacted with, signs and gestures continued to be used for quite some time to complement speech because both serve the same purpose.

Hor. The design of speech is to make our thoughts known to others.

Hor. The purpose of speech is to share our thoughts with others.

Cleo. I do not think so.

Cleo. I don't think so.

Hor. What! do not men speak to be understood?

Hor. What! Don't people talk to be understood?

Cleo. In one sense they do; but there is a double meaning in those words, which I believe you did not intend: if by man’s speaking to be understood you mean, that when men speak, they desire that the purport of the sounds they utter should be known and apprehended by others, I answer in the affirmative: but if you mean by it, that men speak, in order that their thoughts may be known, and their sentiments laid open and seen through by others, which likewise may be meant by speaking to be understood, I answer in the negative. The first sign or sound that ever man made, born of a woman, was made in behalf, and intended for the use of him who made it; and I am of opinion, that the first design of speech was to persuade others, either to give credit to what the speaking person would have them believe; or else to act or suffer such things, as he would compel them to act or suffer, if they were entirely in his power.

Cleo. In one way, they do; but there's a double meaning in those words that I don't think you intended. If by a man wanting to be understood you mean that when men speak, they want others to know and understand what they are saying, I agree. But if you mean that men speak so their thoughts can be known and their feelings exposed for others to see, then I disagree. The first sound or sign that any man made, born of a woman, was made for his own purpose and intended for himself. I believe the original purpose of speech was to persuade others, either to make them believe what the speaker wants them to believe, or to compel them to act or endure things that he would want them to, if he had total control over them.

Hor. Speech is likewise made use of to teach, advise, and inform others for their benefit, as well as to persuade them in our own behalf.

Hor. Speech is also used to teach, advise, and inform others for their benefit, as well as to persuade them on our behalf.

Cleo. And so by the help of it men may accuse themselves and own their crimes; but nobody would have invented speech for those purposes; I speak of the design, the first motive and intention that put man upon speaking. We see in children that the first things they endeavour to express with words are their wants and their will; and their speech is but a confirmation of what they asked, denied, or affirmed, by signs before.

Cleo. And so with its help, people can admit their wrongdoings and take responsibility for their actions; but no one would have created speech for that purpose. I'm talking about the original purpose, the primary motive and intention that led humans to start speaking. We can observe that children’s first attempts to use words are to express their needs and desires; their speech simply reaffirms what they previously indicated through gestures, whether it was by asking, being denied, or affirming.

Hor. But why do you imagine that people would continue to make use of signs and gestures, after they could sufficiently express themselves in words?

Hor. But why do you think people would keep using signs and gestures after they could fully express themselves with words?

Cleo. Because signs confirm words, as much as words do signs; and we see, even in polite people, that when they are [470]very eager they can hardly forbear making use of both. When an infant, in broken imperfect gibberish, calls for a cake or a play-thing, and at the same time points at and reaches after it, this double endeavour makes a stronger impression upon us, than if the child had spoke its wants in plain words, without making any signs, or else looked at and reached after the thing wanted, without attempting to speak. Speech and action assist and corroborate one another, and experience teaches us that they move us much more, and are more persuasive jointly than separately; vis unita fortior; and when an infant makes use of both, he acts from the same principle that an orator does when he joins proper gestures to an elaborate declamation.

Cleo. Because signs support words just as much as words support signs; and we notice, even in polite people, that when they are [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]very eager, they can hardly help using both. When a baby, in broken, imperfect gibberish, asks for a cake or a toy, and at the same time points to it and reaches for it, this combination creates a stronger impression on us than if the child simply expressed their needs with words, without making any gestures, or just looked at and reached for the desired item without speaking. Speech and action enhance and reinforce each other, and experience teaches us that they affect us much more and are more convincing together than apart; vis unita fortior; and when a baby uses both, they operate on the same principle that an orator does when they combine appropriate gestures with a well-crafted speech.

Hor. From what you have said it should seem that action is not only more natural, but likewise more ancient than speech itself, which before I should have thought a paradox.

Hor. From what you've said, it seems that action is not only more natural but also older than speech itself, which I would have previously thought was a paradox.

Cleo. Yet it is true; and you shall always find that the most forward, volatile, and fiery tempers make more use of gestures when they speak, than others that are more patient and sedate.

Cleo. It's true; you'll always notice that the most outspoken, restless, and intense people tend to use more gestures when they talk compared to those who are calmer and more reserved.

Hor. It is a very diverting scene to see how this is overdone among the French, and still more among the Portuguese: I have often been amazed to see what distortions of face and body, as well as other strange gesticulations with hands and feet, some of them will make in their ordinary discourses: But nothing was more offensive to me, when I was abroad, than the loudness and violence which most foreigners speak with, even among persons of quality, when a dispute arises, or any thing is to be debated: before I was used to it, it put me always upon my guard; for I did not question but they were angry; and I often recollected what had been said in order to consider whether it was not something I ought to have resented.

Hor. It's quite amusing to see how exaggerated this is among the French, and even more so among the Portuguese. I've often been astonished by the weird facial expressions and body movements, along with all the strange hand and foot gestures some people make in their everyday conversations. But nothing bothered me more when I was abroad than how loudly and aggressively most foreigners talk, even among people of high status, when there’s a disagreement or something is being discussed. At first, it always caught me off guard because I assumed they were angry; I often thought back on what had been said to figure out if it was something I should have taken offense to.

Cleo. The natural ambition and strong desire men have to triumph over, as well as persuade others, are the occasion of all this. Heightening and lowering the voice at proper seasons, is a bewitching engine to captivate mean understandings; and loudness is an assistant to speech, as well as action is: uncorrectness, false grammar, and even want of sense, are often happily drowned in noise and great bustle; and many an argument has been convincing, that had all its force from the vehemence it was made with: the weakness [471]of the language itself may be palliatively cured by strength of elocution.

Cleo. The natural ambition and strong desire that people have to succeed and convince others drive all of this. Changing the tone of your voice at the right moments is a powerful tool to capture the attention of average listeners; speaking loudly helps both in speech and action: errors, bad grammar, and even lack of logic can often be drowned out by noise and commotion; many arguments have been persuasive simply because of the passion behind them: the flaws of the language itself can often be masked by strong delivery.

Hor. I am glad that speaking low is the fashion among well-bred people in England; for bawling and impetuosity I cannot endure.

Hor. I'm glad that speaking softly is the trend among polite people in England; I can't stand shouting and aggression.

Cleo. Yet this latter is more natural; and no man ever gave in to the contrary practice, the fashion you like, that was not taught it either by precept or example: and if men do not accustom themselves to it whilst they are young, it is very difficult to comply with it afterwards: but it is the most lovely, as well as most rational piece of good manners that human invention has to boast of in the art of flattery; for when a man addresses himself to me in a calm manner, without making gestures or other motions with head or body, and continues his discourse in the same submissive strain and composure of voice, without exalting or depressing it, he, in the first place, displays his own modesty and humility in an agreeable manner; and, in the second, makes me a great compliment in the opinion which he seems to have of me; for by such a behaviour he gives me the pleasure to imagine that he thinks me not influenced by my passions, but altogether swayed by my reason: he seems to lay his stress on my judgment, and therefore to desire, that I should weigh and consider what he says without being ruffled or disturbed: no man would do this unless he trusted entirely to my good sense, and the rectitude of my understanding.

Cleo. But this way is more natural; no man has ever submitted to the contrary practice, the way you prefer, without being taught it either by direct instruction or by example. If men don't get used to it when they're young, it’s really hard to adopt it later on. However, it is the most charming and rational aspect of good manners in the art of flattery. When a man speaks to me calmly, without making gestures or motions with his head or body, and continues his conversation in the same respectful and composed tone, without raising or lowering his voice, he first shows his own modesty and humility in a pleasant way; and second, he pays me a huge compliment by implying he holds me in high regard. His behavior allows me to think he believes I am guided by reason rather than emotions; he seems to focus on my judgment, wanting me to consider what he says without being unsettled or disturbed. No man would do this unless he completely trusted my good sense and the clarity of my understanding.

Hor. I have always admired this unaffected manner of speaking, though I never examined so deeply into the meaning of it.

Hor. I've always admired this natural way of speaking, even though I've never looked too closely at its meaning.

Cleo. I cannot help thinking, but that, next to the laconic and manly spirit that runs through the nation, we are very much beholden for the strength and beauty of our language to this tranquillity in discourse, which for many years has been in England, more than any where else, a custom peculiar to the beau monde, who, in all countries, are the undoubted refiners of language.

Cleo. I can't help but think that, alongside the straightforward and strong character of our nation, we owe a lot of the strength and beauty of our language to the calmness in conversation, which for many years has been, more than anywhere else, a tradition unique to the beau monde in England, who are, in every country, the clear influencers of language.

Hor. I thought that it was the preachers, play-wrights, orators, and fine writers that refined upon language.

Hor. I thought it was the preachers, playwrights, speakers, and great writers who refined language.

Cleo. They make the best of what is ready coined to their hands; but the true and only mint of words and phrases is the court; and the polite part of every nation are in possession of the jus et norma loquendi. All technic words indeed, and terms of art, belong to the respective artists and dealers, [472]that primarily and literally make use of them in their business; but whatever is borrowed from them for metaphorical use, or from other languages, living or dead, must first have the stamp of the court, and the approbation of beau monde before it can pass for current; and whatever is not used among them, or comes abroad without their sanction, is either vulgar, pedantic, or obsolete. Orators therefore, historians, and all wholesale dealers in words, are confined to those that have been already well received, and from that treasure they may pick and choose what is most for their purpose; but they are not allowed to make new ones of their own, any more than bankers are suffered to coin.

Cleo. They make the most of what they have on hand, but the real source of words and phrases is the court; and the refined part of every nation holds the jus et norma loquendi. Technical words and terms of art truly belong to the respective artists and merchants [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] who primarily and literally use them in their work; however, anything borrowed from them for metaphorical use or from other languages, whether contemporary or ancient, must first be approved by the court and gain the acceptance of the beau monde before it can be considered current. Anything not used among them, or that comes out without their approval, is either common, pretentious, or outdated. Therefore, orators, historians, and all those who deal in words are limited to those that have already been well accepted, and they can only choose from that collection for their needs; they are not permitted to create new ones any more than bankers are allowed to mint currency.

Hor. All this while I cannot comprehend what advantage or disadvantage speaking loud or low can be of to the language itself; and if what I am saying now was set down, it must be a real conjurer that, half a year hence, should be able to tell by the writing, whether it had been bawled out or whispered.

Hor. All this time, I can’t understand what benefit or drawback speaking loudly or softly has for the language itself; and if what I’m saying now were written down, it would take a real magician, six months from now, to tell from the writing whether it was shouted or whispered.

Cleo. I am of opinion that when people of skill and address accustom themselves to speak in the manner aforesaid, it must in time have an influence upon the language, and render it strong and expressive.

Cleo. I believe that when skilled and articulate people get used to speaking in this way, it will eventually affect the language and make it more powerful and expressive.

Hor. But your reason?

But what’s your reason?

Cleo. When a man has only his words to trust to, and the hearer is not to be affected by the delivery of them, otherwise than if he was to read them himself, it will infallibly put men upon studying not only for nervous thoughts and perspicuity, but likewise for words of great energy, for purity of diction, compactness of style, and fullness, as well as elegancy of expressions.

Cleo. When a man can only rely on his words, and the listener isn't influenced by how those words are delivered, just as if they were reading them themselves, it will definitely lead people to focus on crafting not only strong ideas and clarity but also powerful words, clean language, concise style, and richness, as well as elegance in their expressions.

Hor. This seems to be far fetched, and yet I do not know but there may be something in it.

Hor. This seems unlikely, but I can't help but think there might be some truth to it.

Cleo. I am sure you will think so, when you consider that men that do speak are equally desirous and endeavouring to persuade and gain the point they labour for, whether they speak loud or low, with gestures or without.

Cleo. I'm sure you'll agree when you think about how men who do speak are just as eager and trying to persuade and achieve what they want, whether they talk loudly or softly, with gestures or without.

Hor. Speech, you say, was invented to persuade; I am afraid you lay too much stress upon that: it certainly is made use of likewise for many other purposes.

Hor. You say speech was created to persuade; I think you’re putting too much emphasis on that. It’s definitely used for a lot of other things as well.

Cleo. I do not deny that.

Cleo. I won't deny that.

Hor. When people scold, call names, and pelt one another with scurrilities, what design is that done with? If it be to persuade others, to have a worse opinion of themselves [473]than they are supposed to entertain, I believe it is seldom done with success.

Hor. When people criticize, insult, and throw hurtful words at each other, what is their intention? If it's to make others think worse of themselves than they actually do, I believe it rarely works out well. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. Calling names is showing others, and showing them with pleasure and ostentation, the vile and wretched opinion we have of them; and persons that make use of opprobrious language, are often endeavouring to make those whom they give it to, believe that they think worse of them than they really do.

Cleo. Calling people names is a way of openly expressing, with enjoyment and showiness, the contemptible and miserable opinion we hold of them; and those who use insulting language often try to make the people they insult believe that they think less of them than they actually do.

Hor. Worse than they do! Whence does that ever appear?

Hor. Worse than they do! Where does that ever happen?

Cleo. From the behaviour and the common practice of those that scold and call names. They rip up and exaggerate not only the faults and imperfections of their adversary himself, but likewise every thing that is ridiculous or contemptible in his friends or relations: They will fly to, and reflect upon every thing which he is but in the least concerned in, if any thing can possibly be said of it that is reproachful; the occupation he follows, the party he sides with, or the country he is of. They repeat with joy the calamities and misfortunes that have befallen him or his family: They see the justice of Providence in them, and they are sure they are punishments he has deserved. Whatever crime he has been suspected of, they charge him with, as if it had been proved upon him. They call in every thing to their assistance; bare surmises, loose reports, and known calumnies; and often upbraid him with what they themselves, at other times, have owned not to believe.

Cleo. From the behavior and common habits of those who scold and name-call. They dig into and exaggerate not just the faults and flaws of their target but also anything silly or shameful about their friends or family. They will jump at and criticize anything he is even slightly connected to if it can be twisted into something negative; his job, his political views, or his nationality. They happily share the troubles and misfortunes that have hit him or his family: They see it as divine justice, convinced it's punishment he deserves. Whatever crime he’s suspected of, they accuse him of it as if it’s been proven. They bring every bit of gossip into play; mere guesses, vague rumors, and known slanders; and they often taunt him with things they’ve previously claimed not to believe.

Hor. But how comes the practice of scolding and calling names to be so common among the vulgar all the world over? there must be a pleasure in it, though I cannot conceive it: I ask to be informed; what satisfaction or other benefit is it, that men receive or expect from it? what view is it done with?

Hor. But why is it that scolding and name-calling are so common among everyday people everywhere? There must be some enjoyment in it, even though I can't understand it. I'm curious to know: what satisfaction or benefit do people get or hope to get from it? What purpose does it serve?

Cleo. The real cause and inward motive men act from, when they use ill language, or call names in earnest, is, in the first place, to give vent to their anger, which it is troublesome to stifle and conceal. Secondly, to vex and afflict their enemies with greater hopes of impunity than they could reasonably entertain, if they did them any more substantial mischief, which the law would revenge: but this never comes to be a custom, nor is thought of, before language is arrived to great perfection, and society is carried to some degree of politeness.

Cleo. The real reason and underlying motive behind why people use harsh language or insult others seriously is, first, to release their anger, which is difficult to suppress and hide. Second, it's to annoy and hurt their enemies with more confidence of getting away with it than they would have if they caused them real harm that the law would punish. However, this doesn't become a habit or even cross people's minds until language has evolved to a high level of sophistication, and society has reached a certain level of politeness.

Hor. That is merry enough, to assert that scurrility is the effect of politeness. [474]

Hor. That's pretty funny, to say that rudeness is a sign of politeness. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. You shall call it what you please, but in its original it is a plain shift to avoid fighting, and the ill consequences of it; for nobody ever called another rogue and rascal, but he would have struck him if it had been in his own power, and himself had not been withheld by the fear of something or other: therefore, where people call names without doing further injury, it is a sign not only that they have wholesome laws amongst them against open force and violence, but likewise that they obey and stand in awe of them; and a man begins to be a tolerable subject, and is nigh half civilized, that in his passion will take up and content himself with this paultry equivalent; which never was done without great self-denial at first: for otherwise the obvious, ready, and unstudied manner of venting and expressing anger, which nature teaches, is the same in human creatures that it is in other animals, and is done by fighting; as we may observe in infants of two or three months old, that never yet saw any body out of humour; for even at that age they will scratch, fling, and strike with their heads as well as arms and legs, when any thing raises their anger, which is easily, and at most times unaccountably provoked; often by hunger, pain, and other inward ailments. That they do this by instinct, something implanted in the frame, the mechanism of the body before any marks of wit or reason are to be seen in them, I am fully persuaded; as I am likewise, that nature teaches them the manner of fighting peculiar to their species; and children strike with their arms as naturally as horses kick, dogs bite, and bulls push with their horns. I beg your pardon for this digression.

Cleo. You can call it whatever you want, but at its core, it's just a way to avoid fighting and its negative consequences; because nobody ever calls someone a rogue or a rascal without being ready to hit them if they had the chance, held back only by fear of something. So when people resort to name-calling without causing further harm, it shows that they have good laws against open violence and that they respect and fear those laws. A person who can control their anger and settle for this petty substitute is starting to be a decent citizen and is almost halfway civilized; this requires a lot of self-restraint at first. Otherwise, the natural way of expressing anger, which humans share with other animals, is through fighting. We can see this in infants as young as two or three months old, who have never seen anyone angry; even at that age, they will scratch, throw things, and hit with their heads as well as their arms and legs whenever something makes them angry, which can happen for various reasons, like hunger, pain, or other internal issues. I believe they do this by instinct, a part of their makeup, before they show any signs of intelligence or reason. I also think nature teaches them how to fight in a way that's typical for their kind; just as children strike with their arms, horses kick, dogs bite, and bulls use their horns. I apologize for this digression.

Hor. It was natural enough, but if it had been less so, you would not have slipt the opportunity of having a fling at human nature, which you never spare.

Hor. It made sense, but if it hadn’t, you wouldn’t have missed the chance to take a jab at human nature, which you never hold back on.

Cleo. We have not a more dangerous enemy than our own inborn pride: I shall ever attack, and endeavour to mortify it when it is in my power: For the more we are persuaded that the greatest excellencies the best men have to boast of, are acquired, the greater stress it will teach us to lay upon education; and the more truly solicitous it will render us about it: And the absolute necessity of good and early instructions, can be no way more clearly demonstrated, than by exposing the deformity as well as the weakness of our untaught nature. [475]

Cleo. We have no greater enemy than our own natural pride: I will always challenge it and try to keep it in check when I can. The more we believe that the greatest virtues of the best people come from their education, the more importance we will place on it. This will make us more genuinely concerned about our own education. The absolute need for good and early teaching can only be clearly shown by revealing both the flaws and the weaknesses of our untrained nature. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. Let us return to speech: if the chief design of it is to persuade, the French have got the start of us a great way; theirs is really a charming language.

Hor. Let’s get back to talking: if the main purpose of speech is to persuade, the French have a real advantage over us; their language is truly charming.

Cleo. So it is without doubt to a Frenchman.

Cleo. So it's definitely a French guy.

Hor. And every body else, I should think, that understands it, and has any taste: do not you think it to be very engaging?

Hor. And everyone else, I would think, who understands it and has any taste: don’t you find it very engaging?

Cleo. Yes, to one that loves his belly; for it is very copious in the art of cookery, and every thing that belongs to eating and drinking.

Cleo. Yes, to someone who loves food; because it has a lot to offer in the art of cooking, and everything related to eating and drinking.

Hor. But without banter, do not you think that the French tongue is more proper, more fit to persuade in, than ours?

Hor. But without joking, don’t you think that the French language is more appropriate and better for persuasion than ours?

Cleo. To coax and wheedle in, I believe it may.

Cleo. I think it might help to persuade and flatter.

Hor. I cannot conceive what nicety it is you aim at, in that distinction.

Hor. I can't understand what subtlety you're getting at with that distinction.

Cleo. The word you named includes no idea of reproach or disparagement; the greatest capacities may, without discredit to them, yield to persuasion, as well as the least; but those who can be gained by coaxing and wheedling, are commonly supposed to be persons of mean parts and weak understandings.

Cleo. The word you've chosen carries no sense of blame or insult; even those with the greatest abilities can, without losing their dignity, give in to persuasion, just like those with lesser talents; however, those who can be swayed by flattery and charm are often thought to be of low character and shallow minds.

Hor. But pray come to the point: which of the two do you take to be the finest language?

Hor. But please get to the point: which of the two do you think is the better language?

Cleo. That is hard to determine: Nothing is more difficult than to compare the beauties of two languages together, because what is very much esteemed in the one, is often not relished at all in the other: In this point, the Pulchrum & Honestum varies, and is different every where, as the genius of the people differs. I do not set up for a judge, but what I have commonly observed in the two languages, is this: All favourite expressions in French, are such as either sooth or tickle; and nothing is more admired in English than what pierces or strikes.

Cleo. It's tough to say: There’s nothing harder than comparing the beauties of two languages, because what’s highly valued in one often isn’t appreciated at all in the other. In this regard, the Pulchrum & Honestum varies and differs everywhere, just like the characteristics of the people do. I’m not claiming to be an authority, but what I’ve often noticed in the two languages is this: All the favorite expressions in French are either soothing or pleasing, while in English, nothing is admired more than expressions that pierce or strike.

Hor. Do you take yourself to be entirely impartial now?

Hor. Do you think you're completely unbiased now?

Cleo. I think so; but if I am not, I do not know how to be sorry for it: There are some things in which it is the interest of the society that men should be biassed; and I do not think it amiss, that men should be inclined to love their own language, from the same principle that they love their country. The French call us barbarous, and we say they are fawning: I will not believe the first, let them believe what they please. Do you remember the six lines in the [476]Cid, which Corneille is said to have had a present of six thousand livres for?

Cleo. I think so; but if I'm not, I don't know how to feel bad about it. There are some things where it benefits society for people to have biases, and I don't think it's wrong for people to be inclined to love their own language, just like they love their country. The French call us barbaric, and we say they are sycophantic: I won't believe the first, and they can believe whatever they want. Do you remember the six lines in the [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Cid, for which Corneille is said to have received a gift of six thousand livres?

Hor. Very well.

Hor. Sounds good.

Mon Pere est mort, Elvire, & la premiere Espee

Mon Pere est mort, Elvire, & la premiere Espee

Dont s’est arme Rodrigue a sa trame coupee.

Dont s'est armé Rodrigue à sa trame coupée.

Pleures, pleures mes yeux, & fondes vous en eau,

Pleure, pleure, my eyes, and melt into water,

La moitie de ma vie a mis l’autre au tombeau;

La moitié de ma vie a mis l'autre au tombeau;

Et m’oblige a venger, apres ce coup funeste,

Et m’oblige à venger, après ce coup funeste,

Cell qui je n’ay plus sur celle qui me reste.

Cell qui je n’ai plus sur celle qui me reste.

Cleo. The same thought expressed in our language, to all the advantage it has in the French, would be hissed by an English audience.

Cleo. The same idea put into our language, with all the benefits it has in French, would be booed by an English audience.

Hor. That is no compliment to the taste of your country.

Hor. That's not a compliment to your country's taste.

Cleo. I do not know that: Men may have no bad taste, and yet not be so ready at conceiving, which way one half of one’s life can put the other into the grave: To me, I own it is puzzling, and it has too much the air of a riddle to be seen in heroic poetry.

Cleo. I don't know about that: Men might not have bad taste, but that doesn't mean they're good at figuring out how one part of life can lead to the end of another. Honestly, I find it confusing, and it seems too much like a riddle to be part of epic poetry.

Hor. Can you find no delicacy at all in the thought?

Hor. Can you not see any subtlety in that idea?

Cleo. Yes; but it is too fine spun; it is the delicacy of a cobweb; there is no strength in it.

Cleo. Yes; but it's too finely made; it's as delicate as a cobweb; there's no strength to it.

Hor. I have always admired these lines; but now you have made me out of conceit with them: Methinks I spy another fault that is much greater.

Hor. I've always admired these lines, but now you've made me lose my appreciation for them: I think I see another flaw that’s even bigger.

Cleo. What is that?

Cleo. What’s that?

Hor. The author makes his heroine say a thing which was false in fact: One half, says Chimene, of my life has put the other into the grave, and obliges me to revenge, &c. Which is the nominative of the verb obliges?

Hor. The author has his heroine say something that's not true: Chimene claims that one half of her life has put the other half in the grave and forces her to seek revenge, etc. But who is the subject of the verb "forces"?

Cleo. One half of my life.

Cleo. Half of my life.

Hor. Here lies the fault; it is this, which I think is not true; for the one half of her life, here mentioned, is plainly that half which was left; it is Rodrigues her lover: Which way did he oblige her to seek for revenge?

Hor. Here's the problem; I don't believe this is true. The part of her life mentioned here clearly refers to the half that was left; it's about Rodrigues, her lover. How did he push her to seek revenge?

Cleo. By what he had done, killing her father.

Cleo. Because of what he did, killing her father.

Hor. No, Cleomenes, this excuse is insufficient. Chimene’s calamity sprung from the dilemma she was in between her love and her duty; when the latter was inexorable, and violently pressing her to solicit the punishment, and employ with zeal all her interest and eloquence to obtain the death of him, whom the first had made dearer to her than her own life; and therefore it was the half that [477]was gone, that was put in the grave, her dead father, and not Rodrigues which obliged her to sue for justice: Had the obligation she lay under come from this quarter, it might soon have been cancelled, and herself released without crying out her eyes.

Hor. No, Cleomenes, this excuse isn't enough. Chimene's tragedy came from the conflict between her love and her duty; when her duty became unavoidable and forcefully pushed her to demand punishment, using all her influence and persuasion to seek the death of the one whom love had made dearer to her than her own life. So it was her deceased father, not Rodrigues, that drove her to seek justice. If her obligation had come from this direction, it could have been resolved quickly, and she could have freed herself without shedding so many tears.

Cleo. I beg pardon for differing from you, but I believe the poet is in the right.

Cleo. I'm sorry to disagree with you, but I think the poet is correct.

Hor. Pray, consider which it was that made Chimene prosecute Rodrigues, love, or honour.

Hor. Please think about what made Chimene go after Rodrigues: was it love or honor?

Cleo. I do; but still I cannot help thinking, but that her lover, by having killed her father, obliged Chimene to prosecute him, in the same manner as a man, who will give no satisfaction to his creditors, obliges them to arrest him; or as we would say to a coxcomb, who is offending us with his discourse, If you go on thus, Sir, you will oblige me to treat you ill: Though all this while the debtor might be as little desirous of being arrested, and the coxcomb of being ill treated, as Rodrigues was of being prosecuted.

Cleo. I do; but I can't help thinking that her lover, by killing her father, forced Chimene to go after him, just like a guy who won't pay his debts forces his creditors to come after him; or like we might say to a fool who's annoying us with his talk, "If you keep this up, Sir, you'll make me treat you badly." Yet all this time, the debtor might want to avoid being chased down, and the fool might not want to be treated poorly, just like Rodrigues didn’t want to be prosecuted.

Hor. I believe you are in the right, and I beg Corneille’s pardon. But now I desire you would tell me what you have further to say of society: What other advantages do multitudes receive from the invention of letters, besides the improvements it makes in their laws and language?

Hor. I think you're right, and I apologize to Corneille. But now, could you tell me what else you have to say about society? What other benefits do large groups gain from the invention of writing, aside from the enhancements it brings to their laws and language?

Cleo. It is an encouragement to all other inventions in general, by preserving the knowledge of every useful improvement that is made. When laws begin to be well known, and the execution of them is facilitated by general approbation, multitudes may be kept in tolerable concord among themselves: It is then that it appears, and not before, how much the superiority of man’s understanding beyond other animals, contributes to his sociableness, which is only retarded by it in his savage state.

Cleo. It encourages all other inventions by keeping track of every useful improvement that’s made. When laws become well known and their enforcement is supported by general approval, many people can maintain a decent harmony among themselves. It’s at that point, and not before, that it becomes clear how much humans’ superior understanding over other animals helps with their social nature, which is only held back in their wild state.

Hor. How so, pray; I do not understand you.

Hor. What do you mean? I don't get you.

Cleo. The superiority of understanding, in the first place, makes man sooner sensible of grief and joy, and capable of entertaining either with greater difference as to the degrees, than they are felt in other creatures: Secondly, it renders him more industrious to please himself; that is, it furnishes self-love with a greater variety of shifts to exert itself on all emergencies, than is made use of by animals of less capacity. Superiority of understanding likewise gives us a foresight, and inspires us with hopes, of which other creatures have little, and that only of things immediately before them. All [478]these things are so many tools, arguments, by which self-love reasons us into content, and renders us patient under many afflictions, for the sake of supplying those wants that are most pressing: this is of infinite use to a man, who finds himself born in a body politic, and it must make him fond of society; whereas, the same endowment before that time, the same superiority of understanding in the state of nature, can only serve to render man incurably averse to society, and more obstinately tenacious of his savage liberty, than any other creature would be, that is equally necessitous.

Cleo. The advantage of understanding, first of all, allows humans to feel grief and joy more deeply and to experience a greater range of emotions compared to other creatures. Secondly, it drives people to please themselves more; that is, it gives self-love a wider variety of ways to cope with different situations than is found in animals with less intellect. An advanced understanding also gives us foresight and fills us with hopes that other creatures barely possess, focusing only on immediate concerns. All [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]these aspects serve as tools, arguments that guide self-love toward contentment, helping us endure many hardships to address our most pressing needs. This is incredibly beneficial for someone who finds themselves part of a community, encouraging a fondness for society. In contrast, when humans had the same capability in the state of nature, that very superiority of understanding made them strongly averse to society, making them cling more stubbornly to their wild freedom than any other equally needy creature would.

Hor. I do not know how to refute you: there is a justness of thought in what you say, which I am forced to assent to; and yet it seems strange: How come you by this insight into the heart of man, and which way is that skill of unravelling human nature to be obtained?

Hor. I honestly don’t know how to argue against you: there’s a truth in what you’re saying that I can’t deny; and yet it feels odd: How did you gain this understanding of human nature, and how can one acquire the skill to decode it?

Cleo. By diligently observing what excellencies and qualifications are really acquired in a well-accomplished man; and having done this impartially, we may be sure that the remainder of him is nature. It is for want of duly separating and keeping asunder these two things, that men have uttered such absurdities on this subject; alleging as the causes of man’s fitness for society, such qualifications as no man ever was endued with, that was not educated in a society, a civil establishment, of several hundred years standing. But the flatterers of our species keep this carefully from our view: instead of separating what is acquired from what is natural, and distinguishing between them, they take pains to unite and confound them together.

Cleo. By closely observing the qualities and traits that a well-rounded person truly possesses, and having done this fairly, we can be certain that what remains is just human nature. It's due to the failure to properly separate and keep separate these two aspects that people have made such ridiculous claims about this topic; suggesting that the attributes making someone suitable for society are qualities that no one has ever truly possessed unless they were raised in a society with a long history and established norms. But those who flatter humanity keep this from our sight: instead of distinguishing what is learned from what is innate, they make a concerted effort to merge and confuse the two.

Hor. Why do they? I do not see the compliment; since the acquired, as well as natural parts, belong to the same person; and the one is not more inseparable from him than the other.

Hor. Why do they? I don't see the compliment; since both acquired and natural traits belong to the same person, and neither is more inseparable from them than the other.

Cleo. Nothing is so near to a man, nor so really and entirely his own, as what he has from nature; and when that dear self, for the sake of which he values or despises, loves or hates every thing else, comes to be stript and abstracted from all foreign acquisitions, human nature makes a poor figure: it shows a nakedness, or at least an undress, which no man cares to be seen in. There is nothing we can be possessed of that is worth having, which we do not endeavour, closely to annex, and make an ornament of to ourselves; even wealth and power, and all the gifts of fortune, that are plainly adventitious, and altogether remote from our persons; whilst [479]they are our right and property, we do not love to be considered without them. We see likewise that men, who are come to be great in the world from despicable beginnings, do not love to hear of their origin.

Cleo. Nothing is closer to a person, nor more genuinely and completely theirs, than what they have from nature; and when that precious self, for which they value or disdain, love or hate everything else, is stripped away from all external possessions, human nature appears in a sad light: it shows a nakedness, or at least an undress, that no one wants to be seen in. There’s nothing we can own that’s worth having if we don’t try to closely tie it to ourselves and make it an extension of who we are; even wealth and power, and all the gifts of luck, which are clearly external and totally separate from our identities; while [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] they are our rights and possessions, we prefer not to be seen without them. We also observe that people who rise to greatness from humble beginnings do not like to be reminded of where they came from.

Hor. That is no general rule.

Hor. That's not a general rule.

Cleo. I believe it is, though there may be exceptions from it; and these are not without reasons. When a man is proud of his parts, and wants to be esteemed for his diligence, penetration, quickness and assiduity, he will make perhaps an ingenuous confession, even to the exposing of his parents; and in order to set off the merit that raised him, bespeaking himself of his original meanness. But this is commonly done before inferiors, whose envy will be lessened by it, and who will applaud his candour and humility in owning this blemish: but not a word of this before his betters, who value themselves upon their families; and such men could heartily wish that their parentage was unknown, whenever they are with those that are their equals in quality, though superior to them in birth; by whom they know that they are hated for their advancement, and despised for the lowness of their extraction. But I have a shorter way of proving my assertion. Pray, is it good manners to tell a man that he is meanly born, or to hint at his descent, when it is known to be vulgar?

Cleo. I think it is, although there might be some exceptions, and those have reasons behind them. When a man is proud of his abilities and wants to be recognized for his hard work, insight, quickness, and dedication, he might even make an honest confession that reveals his parents' background, all to highlight the merit that helped him rise up, talking about his humble beginnings. But this is usually done in front of those of lesser status, whose envy will be reduced by it, and who will praise his honesty and humility in admitting this shortcoming. However, he wouldn’t dare mention this around those of higher status, who take pride in their families; such men would prefer that their origins remain a secret whenever they’re among peers who are equal in standing but superior in background, knowing that these people resent them for their success and look down on them for their lowly roots. But I have a simpler way to prove my point. Is it considered good manners to tell someone that they come from humble beginnings or to mention their lower-class background when it’s already known?

Hor. No: I do not say it is.

Hor. No, I’m not saying it is.

Cleo. That decides it, by showing the general opinion about it. Noble ancestors, and every thing else that is honourable and esteemed, and can be drawn within our sphere, are an advantage to our persons, and we all desire they should be looked upon as our own.

Cleo. That settles it, demonstrating the general opinion on the matter. Noble ancestors and everything else that is honorable and respected, and can be brought into our realm, are benefits to our identity, and we all want them to be regarded as our own.

Hor. Ovid did not think so, when he said, Nam genus & proavos & quæ non fecimus ipsi, vix ea nostra voco.

Hor. Ovid didn't agree, when he said, Nam genus & proavos & quæ non fecimus ipsi, vix ea nostra voco.

Cleo. A pretty piece of modesty in a speech, where a man takes pains to prove that Jupiter was his great grandfather. What signifies a theory, which a man destroys by his practice? Did you ever know a person of quality pleased with being called a bastard, though he owed his being, as well as his greatness, chiefly to his mother’s impudicity?

Cleo. It's quite a funny display of humility when someone goes out of their way to claim that Jupiter is their great-grandfather. What good is a theory if someone's actions contradict it? Have you ever known a nobleman happy to be called a bastard, even if his existence and status largely come from his mother's shamelessness?

Hor. By things acquired, I thought you meant learning and virtue; how come you to talk of birth and descent?

Hor. When you mentioned things acquired, I thought you were talking about learning and virtue; why are you bringing up birth and family background?

Cleo. By showing you, that men are unwilling to have any thing that is honourable separated from themselves, though it is remote from, and has nothing to do with their persons: I [480]would convince you of the little probability there is, that we should be pleased with being considered, abstract from what really belongs to us; and qualifications, that in the opinion of the best and wisest are the only things for which we ought to be valued. When men are well-accomplished, they are ashamed of the lowest steps from which they rose to that perfection; and the more civilized they are, the more they think it injurious to have their nature seen, without the improvements that have been made upon it. The most correct authors would blush to see every thing published, which in the composing of their works they blotted out and stifled; and which yet it is certain they once conceived: for this reason they are justly compared to architects, that remove the scaffolding before they show their buildings. All ornaments bespeak the value we have for the things adorned. Do not you think, that the first red or white that ever was laid upon a face, and the first false hair that was wore, were put on with great secrecy, and with a design to deceive?

Cleo. I'm showing you that men don't want anything honorable to be separated from themselves, even if it has nothing to do with them personally. I [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]want to convince you that it's unlikely we would want to be valued for things that don't actually belong to us, and that the qualifications which the wisest and best people believe we should be valued for are what truly matter. When men are well-accomplished, they're often embarrassed by the low beginnings they came from; the more civilized they become, the more they feel it's harmful to reveal their natural state without the improvements they've achieved. The most accurate authors would feel ashamed if everything they wrote was published, including all the mistakes they edited out because, without a doubt, they once had those ideas. For this reason, they are rightly compared to architects who take down the scaffolding before revealing their buildings. All adornments reflect how much we value the things they embellish. Don’t you think that the first time red or white was applied to a face, and the first time false hair was worn, it was done in secrecy and meant to deceive?

Hor. In France, painting is now looked upon as part of a woman’s dress; they make no mystery of it.

Hor. In France, painting is now seen as part of a woman's outfit; they don't hide it.

Cleo. So it is with all the impositions of this nature, when they come to be so gross that they can be hid no longer; as men’s perukes all over Europe: but if these things could be concealed, and were not known, the tawny coquette would heartily wish that the ridiculous dawbing she plasters herself with might pass for complexion; and the bald-pated beau would be as glad to have his full-bottomed wig looked upon as a natural head of hair. Nobody puts in artificial teeth, but to hide the loss of his own.

Cleo. It’s the same with all the demands like this, when they become so obvious that they can't be hidden anymore; like men's wigs all over Europe. But if these things could be hidden and nobody knew, the fake tan-loving flirt would wish that the ridiculous makeup she slathers on could actually be seen as her natural skin; and the bald guy would be just as happy to have his fancy wig seen as his real hair. Nobody gets fake teeth unless they're trying to cover up the loss of their own.

Hor. But is not a man’s knowledge a real part of himself?

Hor. But isn’t a man’s knowledge a real part of who he is?

Cleo. Yes, and so is his politeness; but neither of them belong to his nature, any more than his gold watch or his diamond ring; and even from these he endeavours to draw a value and respect to his person. The most admired among the fashionable people that delight in outward vanity, and know how to dress well, would be highly displeased if their clothes, and skill in putting them on, should be looked upon otherwise than as part of themselves; nay, it is this part of them only, which, whilst they are unknown, can procure them access to the highest companies, the courts of princes; where it is manifest, that both sexes are either admitted or refused, by no other judgment than what is formed of them [481]from their dress, without the least regard to their goodness, or their understanding.

Cleo. Yes, and so is his politeness; but neither of them are part of his true self, just like his gold watch or his diamond ring; he even tries to get value and respect from these things. The most admired among the fashionable crowd that revels in superficiality and knows how to dress well would be very upset if their clothing and their style were seen as anything other than an extension of themselves; in fact, it’s this aspect of them that, while they remain unknown, allows them to access elite circles, the courts of princes; where it's clear that both men and women are either welcomed or turned away based solely on judgments made about them [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] from their attire, with no consideration for their character or intelligence.

Hor. I believe I apprehend you. It is our fondness of that self, which we hardly know what it consists in, that could first make us think of embellishing our persons; and when we have taken pains in correcting, polishing, and beautifying nature, the same self-love makes us unwilling to have the ornaments seen separately from the thing adorned.

Hor. I think I understand you. It's our affection for ourselves, which we barely understand, that makes us want to enhance our appearance; and once we've put in the effort to refine, polish, and beautify ourselves, that same self-love makes us reluctant to let the decorations be seen apart from the person they're meant to enhance.

Cleo. The reason is obvious. It is that self we are in love with, before it is adorned, as well as after, and every thing which is confessed to be acquired, seems to point at our original nakedness, and to upbraid us with our natural wants; I would say, the meanness and deficiency of our nature. That no bravery is so useful in war, as that which is artificial, is undeniable; yet the soldier, that by art and discipline has manifestly been tricked and wheedled into courage, after he has behaved himself in two or three battles with intrepidity, will never endure to hear that he has not natural valour; though all his acquaintance, as well as himself, remember the time that he was an arrant coward.

Cleo. The reason is clear. It's the self we love, both before and after it’s dressed up. Everything we gain seems to remind us of our original bare state and criticizes our natural shortcomings; I mean, the flaws and limitations of our nature. It's true that no courage is more useful in battle than the kind that’s cultivated, yet a soldier who has been trained and convinced to be brave, after showing real guts in a couple of fights, won't stand for being told he lacks natural bravery, even if everyone around him remembers when he was a total coward.

Hor. But since the love, affection, and benevolence we naturally have for our species, is not greater than other creatures have for theirs, how comes it, that man gives more ample demonstrations of this love on thousand occasions, than any other animal?

Hor. But since the love, affection, and kindness we naturally feel for our own kind isn't greater than what other creatures feel for theirs, why is it that humans show this love more openly on countless occasions than any other animal?

Cleo. Because no other animal has the same capacity or opportunity to do it. But you may ask the same of his hatred: the greater knowledge and the more wealth and power a man has, the more capable he is of rendering others sensible of the passion he is affected with, as well when he hates as when he loves them. The more a man remains uncivilized, and the less he is removed from the state of nature, the less his love is to be depended upon.

Cleo. Because no other animal has the same ability or chance to do it. But you might question his hatred too: the more knowledge and wealth and power a person has, the better they can express the feelings they have, whether it’s love or hate for others. The more a person stays uncivilized and closer to a natural state, the less reliable their love is.

Hor. There is more honesty and less deceit among plain, untaught people, than there is among those that are more artful; and therefore I should have looked for true love and unfeigned affection among those that live in a natural simplicity, rather than any where else.

Hor. There’s more honesty and less deceit among straightforward, uneducated people than there is among those who are more cunning; so I would expect to find true love and genuine affection among those who live simply, rather than anywhere else.

Cleo. You speak of sincerity; but the love which I said was less to be depended upon in untaught than in civilized people, I supposed to be real and sincere in both. Artful people may dissemble love, and pretend to friendship, where they have none; but they are influenced by their [482]passions and natural appetites as well as savages, though they gratify them in another manner: well-bred people behave themselves in the choice of diet and the taking of their repasts, very differently from savages; so they do in their amours; but hunger and lust are the same in both. An artful man, nay, the greatest hypocrite, whatever his behaviour is abroad, may love his wife and children at his heart, and the sincerest man can do no more. My business is to demonstrate to you, that the good qualities men compliment our nature and the whole species with, are the result of art and education. The reason why love is little to be depended upon in those that are uncivilized, is because the passions in them are more fleeting and inconstant; they oftener jostle out and succeed one another, than they are and do in well-bred people, persons that are well educated, have learned to study their ease and the comforts of life; to tie themselves up to rules and decorums for their own advantage, and often to submit to small inconveniencies to avoid greater. Among the lowest vulgar, and those of the meanest education of all, you seldom see a lasting harmony: you shall have a man and his wife that have a real affection for one another, be full of love one hour, and disagree the next for a trifle; and the lives of many are made miserable from no other faults in themselves, than their want of manners and discretion. Without design they will often talk imprudently, until they raise one another’s anger; which neither of them being able to stifle, she scolds at him; he beats her; she bursts out into tears; this moves him, he is sorry; both repent, and are friends again: and with all the sincerity imaginable resolve never to quarrel for the future, as long as they live: all this will pass between them in less than half a day, and will perhaps be repeated once a month, or oftener, as provocations offer, or either of them is more or less prone to anger. Affection never remained long uninterrupted between two persons without art; and the best friends, if they are always together, will fall out, unless great discretion be used on both sides.

Cleo. You talk about sincerity, but the love I mentioned is less dependable in uneducated people than in civilized ones; however, I thought it was genuine and sincere in both groups. Deceptive people might fake love and act friendly when they don’t feel it; still, they are driven by their interests and natural desires just like savages, even if they satisfy them differently. Well-mannered people choose their food and how they dine in ways that differ significantly from those of savages; the same goes for their romances, but hunger and desire remain the same for both. A cunning man, even the biggest hypocrite, might genuinely love his wife and kids inside, and a truly sincere person can do no more than that. My goal is to show you that the good traits people celebrate in our nature and species come from art and education. The reason why love is less reliable in the uncivilized is that their passions are more fleeting and unpredictable; they often clash and replace one another more frequently than in well-bred individuals, who have learned to pursue comfort and ease in life and to adhere to rules and etiquette for their own benefit, often enduring minor inconveniences to avoid larger ones. Among the lowest classes, especially those with little education, lasting harmony is rarely seen: you might find a husband and wife who genuinely love each other, filled with affection one moment, then bickering over something trivial the next; many people's lives become miserable due to nothing more than a lack of manners and good sense. Without intending to, they often speak thoughtlessly, sparking each other’s anger; unable to hold back, she yells at him, he hits her, she starts crying, which makes him feel bad, and they both regret it, becoming friends again. With all the sincerity they can muster, they promise never to argue again for the rest of their lives; all this can happen in less than half a day and might occur once a month or even more often, depending on what provokes them or how prone either of them is to anger. Affection doesn’t last long between two people without effort, and even the closest friends will fall out if they’re always together unless both are very careful.

Hor. I have always been of your opinion, that the more men were civilized the happier they were; but since nations can never be made polite but by length of time, and mankind must have been always miserable before they had written laws, how come poets and others to launch out so much [483]in praise of the golden age, in which they pretend there was so much peace, love, and sincerity?

Hor. I've always agreed with you that the more civilized people become, the happier they are. But since nations can only become polite over time, and humanity must have been pretty miserable before we had written laws, how is it that poets and others go on and on praising the golden age, claiming it was filled with peace, love, and sincerity? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. For the same reason that heralds compliment obscure men of unknown extraction with illustrious pedigrees: as there is no mortal of high descent, but who values himself upon his family, so extolling the virtue and happiness of their ancestors, can never fail pleasing every member of a society: but what stress would you lay upon the fictions of poets?

Cleo. Just like how messengers flatter unknown people by giving them impressive family backgrounds: everyone of noble descent takes pride in their lineage, and praising the virtues and happiness of their ancestors is sure to please everyone in a community. But how much weight would you give to the tales spun by poets?

Hor. You reason very clearly, and with great freedom, against all heathen superstition, and never suffer yourself to be imposed upon by any fraud from that quarter; but when you meet with any thing belonging to the Jewish or Christian religion, you are as credulous as any of the vulgar.

Hor. You think very clearly and freely against all pagan superstitions, and you never let yourself be fooled by any tricks from that side; but when it comes to anything related to the Jewish or Christian faith, you believe it as easily as anyone else.

Cleo. I am sorry you should think so.

Cleo. I'm sorry you feel that way.

Hor. What I say is fact. A man that contentedly swallows every thing that is said of Noah and his ark, ought not to laugh at the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha.

Hor. What I'm saying is true. A person who happily accepts everything that's said about Noah and his ark shouldn't mock the tale of Deucalion and Pyrrha.

Cleo. Is it as credible, that human creatures should spring from stones, because an old man and his wife threw them over their heads, as that a man and his family, with a great number of birds and beasts, should be preserved in a large ship, made convenient for that purpose?

Cleo. Is it really believable that humans came from stones just because an old couple threw them over their shoulders, as much as it is that a man and his family, along with a lot of birds and animals, could be saved in a big ship designed for that purpose?

Hor. But you are partial: what odds is there between a stone and a lump of earth, for either of them to become a human creature? I can as easily conceive how a stone should be turned into a man or a woman, as how a man or a woman should be turned into a stone; and I think it not more strange, that a woman should be changed into a tree, as was Daphne, or into marble as Niobe, than that she should be transformed into a pillar of salt, as the wife of Lot was. Pray suffer me to catechise you a little.

Hor. But you’re biased: what’s the difference between a stone and a clump of dirt when it comes to either of them becoming a human? I can just as easily imagine a stone turning into a man or a woman as I can imagine a man or a woman turning into a stone; and I don’t find it any stranger that a woman could be turned into a tree, like Daphne, or into marble like Niobe, than that she could be transformed into a pillar of salt, like Lot's wife was. Let me ask you a few questions.

Cleo. You will hear me afterwards, I hope.

Cleo. I hope you’ll listen to me later.

Hor. Yes, yes. Do you believe Hesiod?

Hor. Yeah, yeah. Do you trust Hesiod?

Cleo. No.

Cleo. Nope.

Hor. Ovid’s Metamorphosis?

Hor. Ovid’s Metamorphoses?

Cleo. No.

Cleo. Nope.

Hor. But you believe the story of Adam and Eve, and Paradise.

Hor. But you believe the story of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden.

Cleo. Yes.

Cleo. Yep.

Hor. That they were produced at once, I mean at their full growth; he from a lump of earth, and she from one of his ribs?

Hor. So you're saying they just appeared fully formed, him from a pile of dirt, and her from one of his ribs?

Cleo. Yes. [484]

Cleo. Yes. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. And that as soon as they were made, they could speak, reason, and were endued with knowledge?

Hor. And that as soon as they were created, they could talk, think, and were filled with knowledge?

Cleo. Yes.

Cleo. Yup.

Hor. In short, you believe the innocence, the delight, and all the wonders of Paradise, that are related by one man; at the same time that you will not believe what has been told us by many, of the uprightness, the concord, and the happiness of a golden age.

Hor. In short, you believe in the innocence, the joy, and all the wonders of Paradise as described by one person; at the same time, you refuse to believe what has been told to us by many about the honesty, harmony, and happiness of a golden age.

Cleo. That is very true.

Cleo. That's very true.

Hor. Now give me leave to show you, how unaccountable, as well as partial, you are in this. In the first place, the things naturally impossible, which you believe, are contrary to your own doctrine, the opinion you have laid down, and which I believe to be true: for you have proved, that no man would ever be able to speak, unless he was taught it; that reasoning and thinking come upon us by slow degrees; and that we can know nothing that has not from without been conveyed to the brain, and communicated to us through the organs of the senses. Secondly, in what you reject as fabulous, there is no manner of improbability. We know from history, and daily experience teaches us, that almost all the wars and private quarrels that have at any time disturbed mankind, have had their rise from the differences about superiority, and the meum & tuum: therefore before cunning, covetousness and deceit, crept into the world; before titles of honour, and the distinction between servant and master were known; why might not moderate numbers of people have lived together in peace and amity, when they enjoyed every thing in common; and have been content with the product of the earth in a fertile soil and a happy climate? Why cannot you believe this?

Hor. Now let me show you how inconsistent and biased you're being about this. First of all, the things you believe are naturally impossible contradict your own ideas, which I believe are true: you’ve argued that no one can speak without being taught; that reasoning and thinking develop gradually; and that we can't know anything that hasn’t been communicated to us through our senses. Secondly, what you dismiss as unbelievable actually has no improbability. From history and everyday experience, we see that almost all wars and personal conflicts throughout time have arisen from disputes over power and ownership. So, before greed, deceit, and cunning entered the world; before titles of nobility and the divide between servant and master existed; why couldn’t a moderate number of people have lived together peacefully and harmoniously, content with everything in common, enjoying the bounty of fertile land and a pleasant climate? Why can’t you accept this?

Cleo. Because it is inconsistent with the nature of human creatures, that any number of them should ever live together in tolerable concord, without laws or government, let the soil, the climate, and their plenty be whatever the most luxuriant imagination shall be pleased to fancy them. But Adam was altogether the workmanship of God; a preternatural production: his speech and knowledge, his goodness and innocence were as miraculous, as every other part of his frame.

Cleo. It's unrealistic to think that any group of people could live together in harmony without laws or government, no matter how rich the land or climate may seem in our imaginations. But Adam was entirely a creation of God; a supernatural being: his ability to speak and understand, his goodness and innocence were as extraordinary as every other aspect of his being.

Hor. Indeed, Cleomenes, this is insufferable; when we are talking philosophy you foist in miracles: why may not I do the same, and lay that the people of the golden age were made happy by miracle? [485]

Hor. Honestly, Cleomenes, this is unbearable; while we’re discussing philosophy, you bring up miracles: why can’t I do the same and argue that the people of the golden age were made happy by miracles? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. It is more probable that one miracle should, at a stated time, have produced a male and female, from whom all the rest of mankind are descended in a natural way; than that by a continued series of miracles several generations of people should have all been made to live and act contrary to their nature; for this must follow from the account we have of the golden and silver ages. In Moses, the first natural man, the first that was born of a woman, by envying and slaying his brother, gives an ample evidence of the domineering spirit, and the principle of sovereignty, which I have asserted to belong to our nature.

Cleo. It's more likely that one miracle could have created a male and female at a specific time, from whom all of humanity naturally descended, than that multiple miracles would cause several generations of people to live and behave against their nature; because this is what we gather from the stories of the golden and silver ages. In Moses, the first natural man, the first born of a woman, who killed his brother out of jealousy, clearly shows the controlling spirit and the principle of authority that I claim is part of our nature.

Hor. You will not be counted credulous, and yet you believe all those stories, which even some of our divines have called ridiculous, if literally understood. But I do not insist upon the golden age, if you will give up Paradise: a man of sense, and a philosopher, should believe neither.

Hor. You won't be seen as gullible, but you believe all those stories that even some of our religious leaders have labeled as absurd if taken literally. But I’m not pushing for the golden age if you’re willing to give up Paradise: a sensible person and a philosopher shouldn't believe in either.

Cleo. Yet you have told me that you believed the Old and New Testament.

Cleo. But you’ve said that you believe in both the Old and New Testament.

Hor. I never said that I believed every thing that is in them, in a literal sense. But why should you believe miracles at all?

Hor. I never said that I took everything in them literally. But why should you believe in miracles at all?

Cleo. Because I cannot help it: and I promise never to mention the name to you again, if you can show me the bare possibility that man could ever have been produced, brought into the world without miracle. Do you believe there ever was a man who had made himself?

Cleo. Because I can't help it: and I promise I won't mention his name again if you can show me even the slightest chance that a man could have come into existence without a miracle. Do you really think there was ever a person who created himself?

Hor. No: that is a plain contradiction.

Hor. No: that’s just a flat-out contradiction.

Cleo. Then it is manifest the first man must have been made by something; and what I say of man, I may say of all matter and motion in general. The doctrine of Epicurus, that every thing is derived from the concourse and fortuitous jumble of atoms, is monstrous and extravagant beyond all other follies.

Cleo. It's clear that the first man must have been created by something; and what I say about man applies to all matter and motion in general. Epicurus's idea that everything comes from the random collision and mixing of atoms is absurd and more outrageous than any other nonsense.

Hor. Yet there is no mathematical demonstration against it.

Hor. But there isn't any mathematical proof against it.

Cleo. Nor is there one to prove, that the sun is not in love with the moon, if one had a mind to advance it; and yet I think it a greater reproach to human understanding to believe either, than it is to believe the most childish stories that are told of fairies and hobgoblins.

Cleo. There's also no evidence to show that the sun isn't in love with the moon, if someone wanted to argue that. Still, I think it's a bigger insult to human intelligence to believe either of those ideas than it is to believe the most silly tales about fairies and ghosts.

Hor. But there is an axiom very little inferior to a mathematical demonstration, ex nihilo nihil fit, that is directly clashing with, and contradicts the creation out of nothing. Do you understand how something can come from nothing? [486]

Hor. But there’s a principle that’s almost as solid as a mathematical proof, ex nihilo nihil fit, which directly opposes and contradicts the idea of creation from nothing. Do you get how something can come from nothing? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. I do not, I confess, any more than I can comprehend eternity, or the Deity itself: but when I cannot comprehend what my reason assures me must necessarily exist, there is no axiom or demonstration clearer to me, than that the fault lies in my want of capacity, the shallowness of my understanding. From the little we know of the sun and stars, their magnitudes, distances, and motion; and what we are more nearly acquainted with, the gross visible parts in the structure of animals and their economy, it is demonstrable, that they are the effects of an intelligent cause, and the contrivance of a Being infinite in wisdom as well as power.

Cleo. I don't, I admit, any more than I can understand eternity or God itself: but when I can't grasp what my reason tells me must exist, there's no rule or proof clearer to me than that the problem lies in my lack of ability, the limitations of my understanding. From what little we know about the sun and stars, their sizes, distances, and movements; and what we’re more familiar with, the visible parts of living creatures and how they function, it’s clear that these are the results of an intelligent cause, and the design of a Being who is infinite in both wisdom and power.

Hor. But let wisdom be as superlative, and power as extensive as it is possible for them to be, still it is impossible to conceive how they should exert themselves, unless they had something to act upon.

Hor. But even if wisdom is at its highest and power is as vast as it can be, it's hard to imagine how they could take action without something to act upon.

Cleo. This is not the only thing which, though it be true, we are not able to conceive: How came the first man to exist? and yet here we are. Heat and moisture are the plain effects from manifest causes, and though they bear a great sway, even in the mineral as well as the animal and vegetable world, yet they cannot produce a sprig of grass without a previous seed.

Cleo. This isn't the only thing that, even though it's true, we can't fully grasp: How did the first man come into being? And yet, here we are. Heat and moisture clearly come from obvious causes, and while they have a significant influence in both the mineral and the animal and plant worlds, they can't create a blade of grass without a prior seed.

Hor. As we ourselves, and every thing we see, are the undoubted parts of some one whole, some are of opinion, that this all, the τὸ παν, the universe, was from all eternity.

Hor. Just like us and everything we see, which are definitely parts of a larger whole, some people believe that this all, the τὸ παν, the universe, has existed for all eternity.

Cleo. This is not more satisfactory or comprehensible than the system of Epicurus, who derives every thing from wild chance, and an undesigned struggle of senseless atoms. When we behold things which our reason tells us could not have been produced without wisdom and power, in a degree far beyond our comprehension, can any thing be more contrary to, or clashing with that same reason, than that the things in which that high wisdom and great power are visibly displayed, should be coeval with the wisdom and power themselves that contrived and wrought them? Yet this doctrine which is spinosism in epitome, after having been neglected many years, begins to prevail again, and the atoms lose ground: for of atheism, as well as superstition, there are different kinds that have their periods and returns, after they have been long exploded.

Cleo. This is no more satisfying or understandable than Epicurus's idea, which claims everything comes from random chance and the unintended struggle of mindless atoms. When we see things that our reason tells us couldn't have come about without wisdom and power far beyond our understanding, can anything be more contradictory or at odds with that same reason than the idea that the things displaying that high wisdom and great power should exist alongside the very wisdom and power that created them? Yet this belief, which is basically a simplified version of Spinoza's philosophy, after being ignored for many years, is starting to gain popularity again, and the idea of atoms is losing ground: different forms of atheism, just like superstition, have their own cycles and returns after being dismissed for a long time.

Hor. What makes you couple together two things so diametrically opposite? [487]

Hor. Why do you put two things that are so completely opposite together? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. There is greater affinity between them than you imagine: they are of the same origin.

Cleo. There's a stronger connection between them than you think: they come from the same background.

Hor. What, atheism and superstition!

Hor. What, atheism and superstition?!

Cleo. Yes, indeed; they both have their rise from the same cause, the same defect in the mind of man, our want of capacity in discerning truth, and natural ignorance of the Divine essence. Men that from their most early youth have not been imbued with the principles of the true religion, and have not afterwards continued to be strictly educated in the same, are all in great danger of falling either into the one or the other, according to the difference there is in the temperament and complexion they are of, the circumstances they are in, and the company they converse with. Weak minds, and those that are brought up in ignorance, and a low condition, such as are much exposed to fortune, men of slavish principles, the covetous and mean-spirited, are all naturally inclined to, and easily susceptible of superstition; and there is no absurdity so gross, nor contradiction so plain, which the dregs of the people, most gamesters, and nineteen women in twenty, may not be taught to believe, concerning invisible causes. Therefore multitudes are never tainted with irreligion; and the less civilized nations are, the more boundless is their credulity. On the contrary, men of parts and spirit, of thought and reflection, the assertors of liberty, such as meddle with mathematics and natural philosophy, most inquisitive men, the disinterested that live in ease and plenty; if their youth has been neglected, and they are not well-grounded in the principles of the true religion, are prone to infidelity; especially such amongst them, whose pride and sufficiency are greater than ordinary; and if persons of this sort fall into hands of unbelievers, they run great hazard of becoming atheists or sceptics.

Cleo. Yes, that’s right; both come from the same source, the same flaw in human nature—our inability to recognize truth and our natural ignorance of the Divine essence. People who have not been taught the principles of true religion from an early age, and who haven’t continued to receive proper education in it, are at risk of falling into either one or the other, depending on their temperament, circumstances, and the company they keep. Weak minds and those raised in ignorance and poverty, who are often at the mercy of fate, as well as those with cowardly principles, the greedy, and the mean-spirited, are all naturally inclined to superstition; there's no absurdity too ridiculous, nor contradiction too clear, that the lower classes, many gamblers, and nineteen out of twenty women can’t be persuaded to believe about unseen forces. Because of this, many people never become irreligious; and the less civilized a society is, the more gullible they tend to be. On the other hand, capable and spirited individuals, thinkers and reflectors, defenders of liberty, those who engage with mathematics and natural philosophy—most curious minds, the selfless who live comfortably—if they’ve been neglected in their youth and aren’t firmly grounded in the principles of true religion, are likely to lean towards infidelity; especially those whose pride and self-sufficiency are above average. If such individuals fall into the influence of unbelievers, they face a serious risk of becoming atheists or skeptics.

Hor. The method of education you recommend, in pinning men down to an opinion, may be very good to make bigots, and raise a strong party to the priests; but to have good subjects, and moral men, nothing is better than to inspire youth with the love of virtue, and strongly to imbue them with sentiments of justice and probity, and the true notions of honour and politeness. These are the true specifics to cure man’s nature, and destroy in him the savage principles of sovereignty and selfishness, that infest and are so mischievous to it. As to religious matters, prepossessing the mind, and forcing youth into a belief, is more partial [488]and unfair, than it is to leave them unbiassed, and unprejudiced till they come to maturity, and are fit to judge as well as choose for themselves.

Hor. The education method you suggest, which forces people to stick to a single opinion, might be effective for creating fanatics and strengthening the power of the priests. However, to produce good citizens and moral individuals, nothing beats inspiring young people with a love for virtue and instilling in them strong feelings of justice, integrity, and genuine ideas of honor and politeness. These are the real solutions to improve human nature and eliminate the harmful instincts of dominance and selfishness that plague it. When it comes to religious matters, conditioning the mind and pressuring young people into a belief system is more biased and unfair than allowing them to remain open-minded and free from prejudice until they mature and are ready to judge and choose for themselves.

Cleo. It is this fair and impartial management you speak in praise of, that will ever promote and increase unbelief; and nothing has contributed more to the growth of deism in this kingdom, than the remissness of education in sacred matters, which for some time has been in fashion among the better sort.

Cleo. It's this fair and impartial management you’re praising that will only promote and increase disbelief; and nothing has contributed more to the rise of deism in this country than the neglect of education in religious matters, which has been in vogue among the upper class for some time.

Hor. The public welfare ought to be our principal care; and I am well assured, that it is not bigotry to a sect or persuasion; but common honesty, uprightness in all dealings, and benevolence to one another, which the society stands most in need of.

Hor. The public good should be our top priority, and I firmly believe that it’s not about being loyal to a specific group or belief; it’s about honesty, integrity in all our interactions, and kindness towards one another that our society needs the most.

Cleo. I do not speak up for bigotry; and where the Christian religion is thoroughly taught as it should be, it is impossible, that honesty, uprightness or benevolence should ever be forgot; and no appearances of those virtues are to be trusted to, unless they proceed from that motive; for without the belief of another world, a man is under no obligation for his sincerity in this: his very oath is no tie upon him.

Cleo. I don't support bigotry, and where the Christian religion is truly taught, it's impossible for honesty, integrity, or kindness to ever be overlooked. Any outward signs of those virtues shouldn't be trusted unless they come from that genuine motive; because without believing in another world, a person feels no obligation to be sincere about it: even their oath means nothing to them.

Hor. What is it upon an hypocrite that dares to be perjured?

Hor. What does it say about a hypocrite who has the audacity to lie under oath?

Cleo. No man’s oath is ever taken, if it is known that once he has been forsworn; nor can I ever be deceived by an hypocrite, when he tells me that he is one; and I shall never believe a man to be an atheist, unless he owns it himself.

Cleo. No man’s promise means anything if it’s known that he has broken his word; nor can I be fooled by a hypocrite when he admits that he is one; and I will never consider someone an atheist unless he acknowledges it himself.

Hor. I do not believe there are real atheists in the world.

Hor. I don't think there are any true atheists in the world.

Cleo. I will not quarrel about words; but our modern deism is no greater security than atheism: for a man’s acknowledging the being of a God, even an intelligent first Cause, is of no use, either to himself or others, if he denies, a Providence and a future state.

Cleo. I'm not going to argue about words; but our modern deism provides no more security than atheism does: a person’s acknowledging the existence of God, or an intelligent first Cause, doesn’t benefit themselves or anyone else if they deny Providence and an afterlife.

Hor. After all, I do not think that virtue has any more relation to credulity, than it has to want of faith.

Hor. After all, I don't think that virtue is any more related to gullibility than it is to a lack of faith.

Cleo. Yet it would and ought to have, if we were consistent with ourselves; and if men were swayed in their actions by the principles they side with, and the opinion they profess themselves to be of, all atheists would be devils, and superstitious men saints: but this is not true; there are atheists of good morals, and great villains superstitious: nay, I do not believe there is any wickedness that the worst atheist can commit, but superstitious men may be guilty of it; impiety [489]not excepted; for nothing is more common amongst rakes and gamesters, than to hear men blaspheme, that believe in spirits, and are afraid of the devil. I have no greater opinion of superstition than I have of atheism; what I aimed at, was to prevent and guard against both; and I am persuaded that there is no other antidote to be obtained by human means, so powerful and infallible against the poison of either, as what I have mentioned. As to the truth of our descent from Adam, I would not be a believer, and cease to be a rational creature: what I have to say for it, is this. We are convinced that human understanding is limited; and by the help of every little reflection, we may be as certain that the narrowness of its bounds, its being so limited, is the very thing, the sole cause, which palpably hinders us from diving into our origin by dint of penetration: the consequence is, that to come at the truth of this origin, which is of very great concern to us, something is to be believed: but what or whom to believe is the question. If I cannot demonstrate to you that Moses was divinely inspired, you will be forced to confess, that there never was any thing more extraordinary in the world, than that, in a most superstitious age, one man brought up among the grossest idolaters, that had the vilest and most abominable notions of the Godhead, should, without help, as we know of, find out the most hidden and most important truths by his natural capacity only; for, besides the deep insight he had in human nature, as appears from the decalogue, it is manifest that he was acquainted with the creation out of nothing, the unity and immense greatness of that Invisible Power that has made the universe; and that he taught this to the Israelites, fifteen centuries before any other nation upon earth was so far enlightened: it is undeniable, moreover, that the history of Moses, concerning the beginning of the world and mankind, is the most ancient and least improbable of any that are extant; that others, who have wrote after him on the same subject, appear most of them to be imperfect copiers of him; and that the relations which seem not to have been borrowed from Moses, as the accounts we have of Sommona-codam, Confucius, and others, are less rational, and fifty times more extravagant and incredible, than any thing contained in the Pentateuch. As to the things revealed, the plan itself, abstract from faith and religion; when we have weighed every system that has been advanced, we shall find; that, since we must have had [490]a beginning, nothing is more rational or more agreeable to good sense, than to derive our origin from an incomprehensible creative Power, that was the first Mover and Author of all things.

Cleo. Yet it should have, if we were true to ourselves; and if men acted on the principles they claim to support, and the beliefs they declare, then all atheists would be evil, and superstitious people would be saints. But that’s not the case; there are atheists with good morals and notorious villains who are superstitious. In fact, I don’t think there’s any wrongdoing that the worst atheist can commit that superstitious people aren’t also capable of; impiety included. It’s common to hear rakes and gamblers blaspheme while believing in spirits and fearing the devil. I hold no higher regard for superstition than for atheism; my goal is to protect against both, and I believe there’s no other remedy available to us that is as powerful and reliable against the harmful effects of either as what I’ve mentioned. Regarding the truth of our descent from Adam, I wouldn’t accept it and stop being a rational person. Here’s my reasoning: we understand that human understanding is limited; with a bit of reflection, we can be certain that this limitation is precisely what prevents us from truly uncovering our origins. Therefore, to get at the truth of this origin, which is crucial to us, we must believe something or someone; but the challenge is knowing what or whom to believe. If I can’t prove to you that Moses was divinely inspired, you’ll have to admit there has never been anything more extraordinary than that, in a deeply superstitious era, one man raised among the most ignorant idolaters, who held the most contemptible ideas about God, could, without any known assistance, discover the most profound and significant truths purely through his own reasoning. He had an astonishing insight into human nature, as shown by the Ten Commandments, and it’s clear he understood creation from nothing, as well as the unity and immense greatness of that Invisible Power that created the universe. He taught these truths to the Israelites fifteen centuries before any other civilization was as enlightened. Moreover, it’s undeniable that Moses’ account of the world’s and humanity’s beginnings is the oldest and least improbable of any available; those who wrote after him on the same topic mostly appear to be inferior copies of him; and the narratives that don’t seem to have drawn from Moses, like the accounts of Sommona-codam, Confucius, and others, are less rational and far more extravagant and unbelievable than anything found in the Pentateuch. Regarding the revealed truths, if we look at the plan itself, separate from faith and religion, when we evaluate every theory proposed, we’ll find that since we must have had [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] a beginning, it’s more reasonable and sensible to trace our origin back to an incomprehensible creative Power that was the First Mover and Author of all things.

Hor. I never heard any body entertain higher notions, or more noble sentiments of the Deity, than at different times I have heard from you; pray, when you read Moses, do not you meet with several things in the economy of Paradise, and the conversation between God and Adam, that seem to be low, unworthy, and altogether inconsistent with the sublime ideas you are used to form of the Supreme Being.

Hor. I've never heard anyone express more elevated ideas or nobler feelings about God than I have from you at different times. When you read Moses, don’t you come across several aspects of Paradise and the dialogue between God and Adam that seem low, unworthy, and completely out of sync with the lofty concepts you usually associate with the Supreme Being?

Cleo. I freely own, not only that I have thought so, but likewise that I have long stumbled at it: but when I consider, on the one hand, that the more human knowledge increases, the more consummate and unerring the Divine Wisdom appears to be, in every thing we can have any insight into; and on the other, that the things hitherto detected, either by chance or industry, are very inconsiderable both in number and value, if compared to the vast multitude of weightier matters that are left behind and remain still undiscovered: When, I say, I consider these things, I cannot help thinking, that there may be very wise reasons for what we find fault with, that are, and perhaps ever will be, unknown to men as long the world endures.

Cleo. I openly admit that I haven't just thought this but have also struggled with it for a long time: however, when I think about how, on one hand, as human knowledge grows, Divine Wisdom seems to become more perfect and flawless in everything we can understand; and on the other hand, the things we've discovered so far, whether by chance or effort, are quite small both in number and significance compared to the countless important matters that we still haven't uncovered; when I consider these points, I can't help but think there may be very wise reasons for the things we criticize that will likely remain unknown to humanity for as long as the world lasts.

Hor. But why should he remain labouring under difficulties we can easily solve, and not say with Dr. Burnet, and several others, that those things are allegories, and to be understood in a figurative sense?

Hor. But why should he keep struggling with issues we can easily fix, instead of saying, like Dr. Burnet and several others, that these things are allegories and should be understood figuratively?

Cleo. I have nothing against it; and shall always applaud the ingenuity and good offices of men, who endeavour to reconcile religious mysteries to human reason and probability; but I insist upon it, that nobody can disprove any thing that is said in the Pentateuch, in the most literal sense; and I defy the wit of man to frame or contrive a story, the best concerted fable they can invent, how man came into the world, which I shall not find as much fault with, and be able to make as strong objections to, as the enemies of religion have found with, and raised against the account of Moses: If I may be allowed to take the same liberty with their known forgery, which they take with the Bible, before they have brought one argument against the veracity of it.

Cleo. I have nothing against it; I will always appreciate the creativity and efforts of those who try to explain religious mysteries in a way that makes sense to humans. However, I maintain that no one can disprove anything stated in the Pentateuch in its most literal sense. I challenge anyone to create a story, no matter how cleverly devised, to explain how humans came into the world that I wouldn’t be just as critical of and able to raise as many objections to as the critics of religion have found against Moses’ account. If I’m allowed to use the same freedom to critique their known fabrications as they do with the Bible, before they’ve provided a single argument against its truthfulness.

Hor. It may be so. But as first I was the occasion of this long digression, by mentioning the golden age; so now, I [491]desire we may return to our subject. What time, how many ages do you think it would require to have a well-civilized nation from such a savage pair as yours?

Hor. That might be true. But just as I initially prompted this long digression by mentioning the golden age, I now [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] want us to return to our topic. How long do you think it would take to turn such a savage couple as yours into a well-civilized nation?

Cleo. That is very uncertain; and I believe it impossible, to determine any thing about it. From what has been said, it is manifest, that the family descending from such a stock, would be crumbled to pieces, reunited, and dispersed again several times, before the whole of any part of it could be advanced to any degree of politeness. The best forms of government are subject to revolutions, and a great many things must concur to keep a society of men together, till they become a civilized nation.

Cleo. That's really uncertain, and I think it's impossible to figure anything out about it. From what we've discussed, it's clear that a family coming from such a background would fall apart, come back together, and break up again multiple times before any part of it could achieve any level of politeness. The best forms of government can still experience revolutions, and a lot of things need to align to keep a group of people united until they become a civilized nation.

Hor. Is not a vast deal owing, in the raising of a nation, to the difference there is in the spirit and genius of people?

Hor. Isn't it a huge factor in building a nation that there's a difference in the spirit and character of its people?

Cleo. Nothing, but what depends upon climates, which is soon over-balanced by skilful government. Courage and cowardice, in all bodies of men, depend entirely upon exercise and discipline. Arts and sciences seldom come before riches, and both flow in faster or slower, according to the capacity of the governors, the situation of the people, and the opportunities they have of improvements; but the first is the chief: to preserve peace and tranquillity among multitudes of different views, and make them all labour for one interest, is a great task; and nothing in human affairs requires greater knowledge, than the art of governing.

Cleo. Nothing, except what is affected by the weather, which can quickly be corrected by skilled leadership. Courage and fear in any group of people rely completely on training and discipline. Arts and sciences usually come after wealth, and both advance more quickly or slowly depending on the abilities of the leaders, the conditions of the people, and the chances they have for improvement; but the former is the most important: maintaining peace and calm among many different perspectives and getting everyone to work toward a common goal is a significant challenge; and nothing in human affairs demands more knowledge than the skill of governing.

Hor. According to your system, it should be little more, than guarding against human nature.

Hor. According to your approach, it should be just a bit more than protecting against human nature.

Cleo. But it is a great while before that nature can be rightly understood; and it is the work of ages to find out the true use of the passions, and to raise a politician that can make every frailty of the members add strength to the whole body, and by dextrous management turn private Vices into public Benefits.

Cleo. But it takes a long time to truly understand human nature; it takes ages to figure out how to use our emotions correctly, and to develop a politician who can turn each weakness of individuals into strength for the whole community, and skillfully transform personal flaws into public advantages.

Hor. It must be a great advantage to an age, when many extraordinary persons are born in it.

Hor. It must be a huge benefit for a time when many remarkable people are born.

Cleo. It is not genius, so much as experience, that helps men to good laws: Solon, Lycurgus, Socrates and Plato, all travelled for their knowledge, which they communicated to others. The wisest laws of human invention are generally owing to the evasions of bad men, whose cunning had eluded the force of former ordinances that had been made with less caution. [492]

Cleo. It's not so much genius as experience that helps people create good laws: Solon, Lycurgus, Socrates, and Plato all traveled to gain their knowledge, which they then shared with others. The best laws created by humans usually come about as a result of the tricks used by bad people, whose cleverness has outsmarted the stricter rules that were set up without enough thought. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. I fancy that the invention of iron, and working the oar into a metal, must contribute very much to the completing of society; because men can have no tools nor agriculture without it.

Hor. I believe that the invention of iron and the creation of metal tools greatly contribute to the development of society; without them, people cannot have tools or engage in farming.

Cleo. Iron is certainly very useful; but shells and flints, and hardening of wood by fire, are substitutes that men make a shift with; if they can but have peace, live in quiet, and enjoy the fruits of their labour. Could you ever have believed, that a man without hands could have shaved himself, wrote good characters, and made use of a needle and thread with his feet? Yet this we have seen. It is said by some men of reputation, that the Americans in Mexico and Peru have all the signs of an infant world; because, when the Europeans first came among them, they wanted a great many things, that seem to be of easy invention. But considering that they had nobody to borrow from, and no iron at all, it is amazing which way they could arrive at the perfection we found them in. First, it is impossible to know, how long multitudes may have been troublesome to one another, before the invention of letters came among them, and they had any written laws. Secondly, from the many chasms in history, we know by experience, that the accounts of transactions and times in which letters are known, may be entirely lost. Wars and human discord may destroy the most civilized nations, only by dispersing them; and general devastations spare arts and sciences no more than they do cities and palaces. That all men are born with a strong desire, and no capacity at all to govern, has occasioned an infinity of good and evil. Invasions and persecutions, by mixing and scattering our species, have made strange alterations in the world. Sometimes large empires are divided into several parts, and produce new kingdoms and principalities; at others, great conquerors in few years bring different nations under one dominion. From the decay of the Roman empire alone we may learn, that arts and sciences are more perishable, much sooner lost, than buildings or inscriptions; and that a deluge of ignorance may overspread countries, without their ceasing to be inhabited.

Cleo. Iron is definitely very helpful; but shells, flints, and hardening wood with fire are alternatives that people manage with as long as they can have peace, live calmly, and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Could you have ever imagined that a man without hands could shave himself, write beautifully, and use a needle and thread with his feet? Yet we’ve seen that happen. Some respected people say that the Americans in Mexico and Peru show all the signs of a primitive society because, when Europeans first arrived, they lacked many things that seem easy to invent. But given that they had no one to learn from and no iron at all, it’s amazing how they reached the level of skill we found them at. First, it’s impossible to know how long many groups of people might have troubled each other before the invention of writing and any laws in writing. Secondly, from the many gaps in history, we know from experience that the records of events and times when writing was known can be completely lost. Wars and human conflict can wipe out even the most advanced nations just by scattering them, and widespread destruction doesn’t spare the arts and sciences any more than it spares cities and palaces. The fact that all humans are born with a strong desire to govern but lack the ability to do so has caused countless good and bad outcomes. Invasions and persecutions, by mixing and scattering our people, have caused strange changes in the world. Sometimes large empires split into several parts, creating new kingdoms and principalities; at other times, great conquerors quickly bring different nations under one rule. From the fall of the Roman Empire alone, we can learn that arts and sciences are much more fragile and lost much faster than buildings or inscriptions; and that a flood of ignorance can overwhelm countries even if they remain inhabited.

Hor. But what is it at last, that raises opulent cities and powerful nations from the smallest beginnings?

Hor. But what is it, in the end, that builds wealthy cities and strong nations from the smallest origins?

Cleo. Providence.

Cleo. Providence.

Hor. But Providence makes use of means that are visible; I want to know the engines it is performed with. [493]

Hor. But fate uses visible means; I want to understand the tools it works with. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. All the ground work that is required to aggrandize nations, you have seen in the Fable of the Bees. All sound politics, and the whole art of governing, are entirely built upon the knowledge of human nature. The great business in general of a politician is to promote, and, if he can, reward all good and useful actions on the one hand; and on the other, to punish, or at least discourage every thing that is destructive or hurtful to society. To name particulars would be an endless task. Anger, lust, and pride, may be the causes of innumerable mischiefs, that are all carefully to be guarded against: but setting them aside, the regulations only that are required to defeat and prevent all the machinations and contrivances that avarice and envy may put man upon, to the detriment of his neighbour, are almost infinite. Would you be convinced of these truths, do but employ yourself for a month or two, in surveying and minutely examining into every art and science, every trade, handicraft and occupation, that are professed and followed in such a city as London; and all the laws, prohibitions, ordinances and restrictions that have been found absolutely necessary, to hinder both private men and bodies corporate, in so many different stations, first from interfering with the public peace and welfare; secondly, from openly wronging and secretly over-reaching, or any other way injuring one another: if you will give yourself this trouble, you will find the number of clauses and provisos, to govern a large flourishing city well, to be prodigious beyond imagination; and yet every one of them tending to the same purpose, the curbing, restraining, and disappointing the inordinate passions, and hurtful frailties of man. You will find, moreover, which is still more to be admired, the greater part of the articles in this vast multitude of regulations, when well understood, to be the result of consummate wisdom.

Cleo. You've seen all the groundwork needed to elevate nations in the Fable of the Bees. Effective politics and the whole art of governance rely completely on understanding human nature. A politician’s main job is to encourage, and if possible, reward all good and helpful actions on one side; and on the other, to punish or at least deter anything harmful or destructive to society. Listing specifics would take forever. Anger, lust, and pride can lead to countless problems that we need to be careful to avoid. But aside from those, the rules needed to combat and prevent all the schemes and tricks that greed and jealousy can stir up against one’s neighbor are almost endless. If you want to see these truths, just spend a month or two studying closely every art, science, trade, craft, and profession in a city like London; and examine all the laws, prohibitions, ordinances, and regulations that have been deemed absolutely necessary to keep both individuals and corporate bodies from disturbing the public peace and welfare, and from either openly harming or secretly cheating one another. If you take the time to look into this, you'll discover the sheer number of rules needed to manage a large, thriving city is extraordinary beyond belief, and yet they all serve the same purpose: to control, limit, and manage humanity's intense desires and harmful weaknesses. Moreover, you'll find that many of these countless rules, when properly understood, result from exceptional wisdom.

Hor. How could these things exist, if there had not been men of very bright parts and uncommon talents?

Hor. How could these things exist if there weren't exceptionally talented and intelligent people?

Cleo. Among the things I hint at, there are very few that are the work of one man, or of one generation; the greatest part of them are the product, the joint labour of several ages. Remember what in our third conversation I told you, concerning the arts of ship-building and politeness. The wisdom I speak of, is not the offspring of a fine understanding, or intense thinking, but of sound and deliberate judgment, acquired from a long experience in business, and a multiplicity [494]of observations. By this sort of wisdom, and length of time, it may be brought about, that there shall be no greater difficulty in governing a large city, than (pardon the lowness of the simile) there is in weaving of stockings.

Cleo. Among the things I mention, very few are the result of a single person or one generation; most of them come from the combined efforts of many ages. Remember what I told you in our third conversation about the arts of shipbuilding and courtesy. The wisdom I refer to isn’t just the result of intelligence or deep contemplation, but is based on sound judgment gained from extensive experience in business and numerous observations. This type of wisdom, developed over time, can make governing a large city just as manageable as, forgive the simple example, knitting stockings.

Hor. Very low indeed.

Hor. Very low, for sure.

Cleo. Yet I know nothing to which the laws and established economy of a well ordered city may be more justly compared, than the knitting-frame. The machine, at first view, is intricate and unintelligible; yet the effects of it are exact and beautiful; and in what is produced by it, there is a surprising regularity: but the beauty and exactness in the manufacture are principally, if not altogether, owing to the happiness of the invention, the contrivance of the engine. For the greatest artist at it can furnish us with no better work, than may be made by almost any scoundrel after half a year’s practice.

Cleo. But I can't think of anything better to compare the laws and organization of a well-run city to than a knitting machine. At first glance, the machine seems complicated and hard to understand; however, the results it produces are precise and beautiful, and there's an impressive consistency in what comes from it. The beauty and accuracy in the products mainly, if not entirely, come from the brilliance of the design and the mechanics of the machine. Even the best artist using it can only create work that someone with just six months of practice could manage.

Hor. Though your comparison be low, I must own that it very well illustrates your meaning.

Hor. Even though your comparison is simple, I have to admit that it really shows what you mean.

Cleo. Whilst you spoke, I have thought of another, which is better. It is common now, to have clocks that are made to play several tunes with great exactness: the study and labour, as well as trouble of disappointments, which, in doing and undoing, such a contrivance must necessarily have cost from the beginning to the end, are not to be thought of without astonishment; there is something analogous to this in the government of a flourishing city, that has lasted uninterrupted for several ages: there is no part of the wholesome regulations belonging to it, even the most trifling and minute, about which great pains and consideration have not been employed, as well as length of time; and if you will look into the history and antiquity of any such city, you will find that the changes, repeals, additions and amendments, that have been made in and to the laws and ordinances by which it is ruled, are in number prodigious: but that when once they are brought to as much perfection as art and human wisdom can carry them, the whole machine may be made to play of itself, with as little skill as it required to wind up a clock; and the government of a large city once put into good order, the magistrates only following their noses, will continue to go right for a while, though there was not a wise man in it; provided that the care of Providence was to watch over it in the same manner as it did before. [495]

Cleo. While you were talking, I thought of something even better. Nowadays, it’s common to have clocks that can play multiple tunes with incredible accuracy. The effort, time, and frustration involved in creating and perfecting such a device, from start to finish, is truly astounding. There’s something similar in the management of a thriving city that has maintained its success for generations. Every single regulation, no matter how small or trivial, has required significant thought and deliberation over a long period. If you look into the history of any such city, you'll see that the number of changes, repeals, additions, and amendments to its laws and ordinances is immense. However, once these laws are perfected to the highest level that skill and human knowledge allow, the entire system can run smoothly with minimal effort, much like how you just need to wind a clock. Once the government of a large city is well-structured, even if the leaders aren’t particularly wise, it can still function properly for a time, as long as it remains under the careful watch of Providence, just like it has in the past. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. But supposing the government of a large city, when it is once established, to be very easy, it is not so with whole states and kingdoms: is it not a great blessing to a nation, to have all places of honour and great trust filled with men of parts and application, of probity and virtue?

Hor. But even if running a big city seems simple once it's set up, managing entire states and kingdoms is a different story. Isn't it a huge blessing for a nation to have all positions of honor and trust filled with capable, dedicated people who are honest and virtuous?

Cleo. Yes; and of learning, moderation, frugality, candour and affability: look out for such as fast as you can; but in the mean time the places cannot stand open, the offices must be served by such as you can get.

Cleo. Yes; and for learning, moderation, frugality, honesty, and friendliness: try to find people like that as quickly as you can; but in the meantime, the positions can't stay unfilled, and the responsibilities need to be handled by whoever you can find.

Hor. You seem to insinuate, that there is a great scarcity of good men in the nation.

Hor. It looks like you're suggesting that there are very few good people in the country.

Cleo. I do not speak of our nation in particular, but of all states and kingdoms in general. What I would say, is, that it is the interest of every nation to have their home government, and every branch of the civil administration so wisely contrived, that every man of middling capacity and reputation may be fit for any of the highest posts.

Cleo. I'm not talking about our country specifically, but about all nations and kingdoms in general. What I want to say is that it's in the best interest of every nation to have their government and each part of civil administration designed wisely, so that any person of average ability and reputation is capable of holding the highest positions.

Hor. That is absolutely impossible, at least in such a nation as ours: for what would you do for judges and chancellors?

Hor. That's totally impossible, at least in a country like ours: what would you do for judges and chancellors?

Cleo. The study of the law is very crabbed and very tedious; but the profession of it is as gainful, and has great honours annexed to it: the consequence of this is, that few come to be eminent in it, but men of tolerable parts and great application. And whoever is a good lawyer, and not noted for dishonesty, is always fit to be a judge, as soon as he is old and grave enough. To be a lord chancellor, indeed, requires higher talents; and he ought not only to be a good lawyer and an honest man, but likewise a person of general knowledge and great penetration. But this is but one man: and considering what I have said of the law, and the power which ambition and the love of gain have upon mankind, it is morally impossible, that, in the common course of things among the practitioners in chancery, there should not at all times be one or other fit for the seals.

Cleo. Studying law is really difficult and boring, but the profession is rewarding and comes with a lot of prestige. Because of this, only a few people become distinguished in it, typically those who are reasonably intelligent and very dedicated. Anyone who is a good lawyer and has a reputation for honesty is always qualified to be a judge once they are old and dignified enough. Becoming a lord chancellor, however, requires exceptional skills; they need to be not just a good lawyer and an honest person, but also someone with broad knowledge and great insight. But that's just one position: considering what I've mentioned about the law and the influence of ambition and the desire for wealth on people, it’s virtually impossible that among the practitioners in chancery, there isn’t always someone ready to take on that role.

Hor. Must not every nation have men that are fit for public negotiations, and persons of great capacity to serve for envoys, ambassadors and plenipotentiaries? must they not have others at home, that are likewise able to treat with foreign ministers?

Hor. Mustn't every nation have people who are suited for public negotiations, and capable individuals to serve as envoys, ambassadors, and envoys? Don't they also need others at home who are able to negotiate with foreign ministers?

Cleo. That every nation must have such people, is certain; but I wonder that the company you have kept both at home and abroad, have not convinced you that the things you [496]speak of require no such extraordinary qualifications. Among the people of quality that are bred up in courts of princes, all middling capacities must be persons of address, and a becoming boldness, which are the most useful talents in all conferences and negotiations.

Cleo. It's clear that every nation needs people like that; however, I'm surprised that your experiences, both at home and abroad, haven't shown you that the things you [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] talk about don't need any special skills. Among the nobility raised in royal courts, all average individuals must be good at handling themselves and have a certain level of confidence, which are the most valuable skills in all discussions and negotiations.

Hor. In a nation so involved in debts of different kinds, and loaded with such a variety of taxes as ours is, to be thoroughly acquainted with all the funds, and the appropriations of them, must be a science not to be attained to without good natural parts and great application; and therefore the chief management of the treasury must be a post of the highest trust, as well as endless difficulty.

Hor. In a country burdened with various debts and a wide range of taxes like ours, fully understanding all the funds and how they’re allocated must be a complex skill that requires both natural talent and significant effort. Therefore, overseeing the treasury is a position of the utmost trust and immense challenge.

Cleo. I do not think so: most branches of the public administration are in reality less difficult to those that are in them, than they seem to be to those that are out of them, and are strangers to them. If a jack and the weights of it were out of sight, a sensible man unacquainted with that matter, would be very much puzzled, if he was to account for the regular turning of two or three spits well loaded, for hours together; and it is ten to one, but he would have a greater opinion of the cook or the scullion, than either of them deserved. In all business that belong to the exchequer, the constitution does nine parts in ten; and has taken effectual care, that the happy person whom the king shall be pleased to favour with the superintendency of it, should never be greatly tired or perplexed with his office; and likewise that the trust, the confidence that must be reposed in him, should be very near as moderate as his trouble. By dividing the employments in a great office, and subdividing them into many parts, every man’s business may be made so plain and certain, that, when he is a little used to it, it is hardly possible for him to make mistakes: and again, by careful limitations of every man’s power, and judicious checks upon every body’s trust, every officer’s fidelity may be placed in so clear a light, that the moment he forfeits it, he must be detected. It is by these arts that the weightiest affairs, and a vast multiplicity of them, may be managed with safety as well as dispatch, by ordinary men, whose highest good is wealth and pleasure; and that the utmost regularity may be observed in a great office, and every part of it; at the same time, that the whole economy of it seems to be intricate and perplexed to the last degree, not only to strangers, but the greatest part of the very officers that are employed in it. [497]

Cleo. I don't think so: most parts of public administration are actually less challenging for those involved than they seem to outsiders. If someone who doesn't know anything about it were to see a jack and its weights hidden from view, they'd be really confused trying to explain how two or three heavily loaded spits turn regularly for hours. Chances are, they'd think more highly of the cook or the kitchen worker than either truly deserves. In all matters concerning the treasury, the structure handles almost everything, ensuring that the fortunate person the king chooses to oversee it won’t become overly stressed or confused by their role. Plus, the trust and confidence placed in them should be about as manageable as the demands of their job. By breaking down responsibilities in a large office and further splitting them into smaller tasks, each person's job can be made so straightforward that, once they're accustomed to it, it's nearly impossible for them to mess up. Moreover, by carefully limiting each person’s authority and implementing smart checks on everyone's trust, each officer's integrity can be made clear, so that the instant they lose it, they’ll be exposed. It’s through these strategies that the most significant and numerous issues can be handled safely and efficiently by ordinary people, whose main goal is wealth and comfort; and this ensures maximum order within a large office and its every component, even while it seems extremely complex and confusing, not just to outsiders but also to most of the officers working in it. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. The economy of our exchequer, I own, is an admirable contrivance to prevent frauds and encroachments of all kinds; but in the office, which is at the head of it, and gives motion to it, there is greater latitude.

Hor. I admit, our financial management is a great way to prevent all sorts of fraud and abuses; however, in the office that oversees it and keeps it running, there is more freedom.

Cleo. Why so? A lord treasurer, or if his office be executed by commissioners, the chancellor of the exchequer, are no more lawless, and have no greater power with impunity to embezzle money, than the meanest clerk that is employed under them.

Cleo. Why is that? A lord treasurer, or if their duties are carried out by commissioners, the chancellor of the exchequer, has no more freedom to break the law or any greater immunity to steal money than the lowest clerk working under them.

Hor. Is not the king’s warrant their discharge?

Hor. Isn't the king's order their release?

Cleo. Yes; for sums which the king has a right to dispose of, or the payment of money for uses directed by parliament; not otherwise; and if the king, who can do no wrong, should be imposed upon, and his warrant be obtained for money at random, whether it is appropriated or not, contrary to, or without a direct order of the legislature, the treasurer obeys at his peril.

Cleo. Yes; for amounts that the king is allowed to manage, or the payment of money for purposes specified by parliament; not any other way; and if the king, who can do no wrong, is misled, and his approval is obtained for random money, whether it's assigned or not, against or without a clear order from the legislature, the treasurer acts at his own risk.

Hor. But there are other posts, or at least there is one still of higher moment, and that requires a much greater, and more general capacity than any yet named.

Hor. But there are other positions, or at least one that is even more important, and that requires a much greater and broader skill set than any mentioned so far.

Cleo. Pardon me: as the lord chancellor’s is the highest office in dignity, so the execution of it actually demands greater, and more uncommon abilities than any other whatever.

Cleo. Excuse me: since the lord chancellor's position is the most prestigious, the role actually requires greater and more unique skills than any other position.

Hor. What say you to the prime minister who governs all, and acts immediately under the king?

Hor. What do you think of the prime minister who manages everything and works directly for the king?

Cleo. There is no such officer belonging to our constitution; for by this, the whole administration is, for very wise reasons, divided into several branches.

Cleo. There is no officer like that in our system; because of this, the entire administration is, for very good reasons, divided into different branches.

Hor. But who must give orders and instructions to admirals, generals, governors, and all our ministers in foreign courts? Who is to take care of the king’s interest throughout the kingdom, and of his safety?

Hor. But who is supposed to give orders and instructions to admirals, generals, governors, and all our ministers in foreign courts? Who will look after the king’s interests across the kingdom and ensure his safety?

Cleo. The king and his council, without which, royal authority is not supposed to act, superintend, and govern all; and whatever the monarch has not a mind immediately to take care of himself, falls in course to that part of the administration it belongs to, in which every body has plain laws to walk by. As to the king’s interest, it is the same with that of the nation; his guards are to take care of his person; and there is no business of what nature soever, that can happen in or to the nation, which is not within the province, and under the inspection of some one or other of the great officers [498]of the crown, that are all known, dignified, and distinguished by their respective titles; and amongst them, I can assure you, there is no such name as prime minister.

Cleo. The king and his council, without which royal authority isn’t supposed to operate, oversee and govern everything. Whatever the monarch doesn’t want to handle personally falls to the relevant part of the administration, which follows clear laws. The king’s interests align with those of the nation; his guards are responsible for his safety, and there’s no matter—regardless of its nature—that arises in the nation that isn’t under the jurisdiction or oversight of one or more of the high-ranking officials [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]of the crown, all of whom are known, respected, and distinguished by their titles. Among them, I can assure you, there’s no title as prime minister.

Hor. But why will you prevaricate with me after this manner? You know yourself, and all the world knows and sees, that there is such a minister; and it is easily proved, that there always have been such ministers: and in the situation we are, I do not believe a king could do without. When there are a great many disaffected people in the kingdom, and parliament-men are to be chosen, elections must be looked after with great care, and a thousand things are to be done, that are necessary to disappoint the sinister ends of malecontents, and keep out the Pretender; things of which the management often requires great penetration, and uncommon talents, as well as secrecy and dispatch.

Hor. But why are you being dishonest with me like this? You know it, and everyone knows and sees that there is such a minister; it’s easy to prove that there have always been such ministers. Given our current situation, I don’t think a king could manage without one. When there are many unhappy people in the kingdom and elections for parliament are coming up, we need to handle the elections very carefully. A lot of things must be done to thwart the harmful goals of those who are discontent and to keep the Pretender out; managing those things often requires great insight, unique skills, as well as secrecy and quick action.

Cleo. How sincerely soever you may seem to speak in defence of these things, Horatio, I am sure, from your principles, that you are not in earnest. I am not to judge of the exigency of our affairs: But as I would not pry into the conduct, or scan the actions of princes, and their ministers, so I pretend to justify or defend no wisdom but that of the constitution itself.

Cleo. No matter how sincerely you might seem to defend these ideas, Horatio, I know, based on your beliefs, that you don't really mean it. I'm not one to judge the urgency of our situation. Just like I wouldn't question the behavior or actions of rulers and their advisors, I won't claim to justify or defend anything but the wisdom of the constitution itself.

Hor. I do not desire you should: Only tell me, whether you do not think, that a man, who has and can carry this vast burden upon his shoulders, and all Europe’s business in his breast, must be a person of a prodigious genius, as well as general knowledge, and other great abilities.

Hor. I don't want you to feel that way: Just tell me, don't you think that a man who can handle this huge responsibility on his shoulders and manage all of Europe’s affairs must be someone with incredible talent, as well as broad knowledge and other significant skills?

Cleo. That a man, invested with so much real power, and an authority so extensive, as such ministers generally have, must make a great figure, and be considerable above all other subjects, is most certain: But it is my opinion, that there are always fifty men in the kingdom, that, if employed, would be fit for this post, and, after a little practice, shine in it, to one who is equally qualified to be a Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain. A prime minster has a vast, an unspeakable advantage barely by being so, and by every body’s knowing him to be, and treating him as such: A man who in every office, and every branch of it throughout the administration, has the power, as well as the liberty, to ask and see whom and what he pleases, has more knowledge within his reach, and can speak of every thing with greater exactness than any other man, that is much better versed in affairs, [499]and has ten times greater capacity. It is hardly possible, than an active man, of tolerable education, that is not destitute of a spirit nor of vanity, should fail of appearing to be wise, vigilant, and expert, who has the opportunity whenever he thinks fit, to make use of all the cunning and experience, as well as diligence and labour of every officer in the civil administration; and if he has but money enough, and will employ men to keep up a strict correspondence in every part of the kingdom, he can remain ignorant of nothing; and there is hardly any affair or transaction, civil or military, foreign or domestic, which he will not be able greatly to influence, when he has a mind either to promote or obstruct it.

Cleo. It's clear that a man who holds so much real power and has such broad authority, like most ministers do, will stand out and be significant compared to other subjects. However, I believe there are always about fifty individuals in the kingdom who, if given the chance, could fit this role and, after some practice, perform just as well as someone qualified to be the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain. A prime minister has an immense, almost indescribable advantage simply by their position, as everyone recognizes and treats them that way. A person who has the freedom and ability to ask about anything they want in every part of the administration possesses more knowledge at their fingertips and can speak on every topic with greater accuracy than anyone else, even those who are more experienced and capable. It's virtually impossible for a proactive person with decent education—who isn’t lacking in spirit or a bit of pride—not to come across as wise, alert, and skilled, especially since they can draw on all the cleverness and experience, as well as the effort and work of every official in the civil administration. If they have enough funds and are willing to hire people to maintain a close watch throughout the kingdom, they can be unaware of nothing; and there is almost no issue or event, whether in civil or military matters, foreign or domestic, that they won’t be able to significantly influence when they choose to either support or hinder it.

Hor. There seems to be a great deal in what you say, I must confess; but I begin to suspect, that what often inclines me to be of your opinion, is your dexterity in placing things in the light you would have seen them in, and the great skill you have in depreciating what is valuable, and detracting from merit.

Hor. You make a lot of valid points; I have to admit. However, I’m starting to think that my tendency to agree with you comes from your talent for framing things in a way that suits your perspective, as well as your skill in downplaying what’s valuable and undermining others’ achievements.

Cleo. I protest that I speak from my heart.

Cleo. I swear I’m speaking from my heart.

Hor. When I reflect on what I have beheld with my own eyes, and what I still see every day of the transactions between statesmen and politicians, I am very well assured you are in the wrong: When I consider all the stratagems, and the force as well as finesse that are made use of to supplant and undo prime ministers, the wit and cunning, industry and address, that are employed to misrepresent all their actions, the calumnies and false reports that are spread of them, the ballads and lampoons that are published, the set speeches and studied invectives that are made against them; when I consider, I say, and reflect on these things, and every thing else that is said and done, either to ridicule or to render them odious, I am convinced, that to defeat so much art and strength, and disappoint so much malice and envy as prime ministers are generally attacked with, require extraordinary talents: No man of only common prudence and fortitude could maintain himself in that post for a twelvemonth, much less for many years together, though he understood the world very well, and had all the virtue, faithfulness, and integrity in it; therefore, there must be some fallacy in your assertion.

Hor. When I think about what I’ve seen with my own eyes and what I observe every day in the dealings of statesmen and politicians, I'm quite sure you're mistaken: Considering all the schemes and the force as well as finesse used to undermine and bring down prime ministers, the intelligence and cleverness, effort and skill that go into misrepresenting all their actions, the slanders and false rumors spread about them, the songs and parodies published, the prepared speeches and calculated insults aimed at them; when I think about these things and everything else said and done, either to mock or to make them hated, I’m convinced that overcoming such artfulness and strength, and thwarting so much malice and envy that prime ministers typically face, requires extraordinary abilities: No person with only ordinary wisdom and courage could hold that position for a year, let alone for many years, even if they understood the world well and had all the virtue, loyalty, and integrity in it; therefore, there must be some error in what you claim.

Cleo. Either I have been deficient in explaining myself or else I have had the misfortune to be misunderstood. When I insinuated that men might be prime ministers without extraordinary [500]endowments, I spoke only in regard to the business itself, that province, which, if there was no such minister, the king and council would have the trouble of managing.

Cleo. Either I haven't explained myself clearly, or I've unfortunately been misunderstood. When I suggested that men could be prime ministers without extraordinary [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]abilities, I was only referring to the role itself, that area which, if there were no such minister, the king and council would have to handle themselves.

Hor. To direct and manage the whole machine of government, he must be a consummate statesman in the first place.

Hor. To oversee and run the entire government system, he must first be an expert politician.

Cleo. You have too sublime a notion of that post. To be a consummate statesman, is the highest qualification human nature is capable of possessing. To deserve that name, a man must be well versed in ancient and modern history, and thoroughly acquainted with all the courts of Europe, that he may know not only the public interest in every nation, but likewise the private views, as well as inclinations, virtues, and vices of princes and ministers: Of every country in Christendom, and the borders of it, he ought to know the product and geography, the principal cities and fortresses; and of these their trade and manufactures, their situation, natural advantages, strength, and number of inhabitants; he must have read men as well as books, and perfectly well understand human nature, and the use of the passions: He must, moreover, be a great master in concealing the sentiments of his heart, have an entire command over his features, and be well skilled in all the wiles and stratagems to draw out secrets from others. A man, of whom all this, or the greatest part of it, may not be said with truth, and that he has had great experience in public affairs, cannot be called a consummate statesman; but he may be fit to be a prime minister, though he had not a hundredth part of those qualifications. As the king’s favour creates prime ministers, and makes their station the post of the greatest power as well as profit, so the same favour is the only bottom which those that are in it have to stand upon: The consequence is, that the most ambitious men in all monarchies are ever contending for this post as the highest prize, of which the enjoyment is easy, and all the difficulty in obtaining and preserving it. We see accordingly, that the accomplishments I spoke of to make a statesman are neglected, and others aimed at and studied, that are more useful and more easily acquired. The capacities you observe in prime ministers are of another nature, and consist in being finished courtiers, and thoroughly understanding the art of pleasing and cajoling with address. To procure a prince what he wants, when it is known, and [501]to be diligent in entertaining him with the pleasures he calls for, are ordinary services: Asking is no better than complaining; therefore, being forced to ask, is to have cause of complaint, and to see a prince submit to the slavery of it, argues great rusticity in his courtiers; a polite minister penetrates into his master’s wishes, and furnishes him with what he delights in, without giving him the trouble to name it. Every common flatterer can praise and extol promiscuously every thing that is said or done, and find wisdom and prudence in the most indifferent actions; but it belongs to the skilful courtier to set fine glosses upon manifest imperfections, and make every failing, every frailty of his prince, have the real appearance of the virtues that are the nearest, or, to speak more justly, the least opposite to them. By the observance of these necessary duties, it is that the favour of princes may be long preserved, as well as obtained. Whoever can make himself agreeable at a court, will seldom fail of being thought necessary; and when a favourite has once established himself in the good opinion of his master, it is easy for him to make his own family engross the king’s ear, and keep every body from him but his own creatures: Nor is it more difficult, in length of time, to turn out of the administration every body that was not of his own bringing in, and constantly be tripping up the heels of those who attempt to raise themselves by any other interest or assistance. A prime minister has by his place great advantages over all that oppose him; one of them is, that nobody, without exception, ever filled that post but who had many enemies, whether he was a plunderer or a patriot: Which being well known, many things that are laid to a prime minister’s charge are not credited among the impartial and more discreet part of mankind, even when they are true. As to the defeating and disappointing all the envy and malice they are generally attacked with, if the favourite was to do all that himself, it would certainly, as you say, require extraordinary talents and a great capacity, as well as continual vigilance and application; but this is the province of their creatures, a task divided into a great number of parts; and every body that has the least dependence upon, or has any thing to hope from the minister, makes it his business and his study, as it is his interest, on the one hand, to cry up their patron, magnify his virtues and abilities, and justify his conduct; on the other, to exclaim against his adversaries, blacken their reputation, [502]and play at them every engine, and the same stratagems that are made use of to supplant the minister.

Cleo. You have too high a view of that position. To be an exceptional politician is the greatest qualification that human nature can achieve. To earn that title, a man must be knowledgeable about both ancient and modern history, and well-informed about all the courts of Europe, so he can understand not only the public interest in every nation but also the private motivations, inclinations, virtues, and vices of rulers and officials. He should know the resources and geography of every country in Christendom and its borders, including key cities and fortresses, their trade and industries, location, natural advantages, strengths, and population size. He must be as skilled in understanding people as he is in reading books and must have a deep understanding of human nature and the role of emotions. Additionally, he should be highly adept at hiding his own feelings, maintain complete control over his expressions, and be well-versed in all the tricks and strategies to extract secrets from others. A man who cannot truthfully claim most of these attributes, along with significant experience in public affairs, cannot be called a consummate statesman; however, he might still qualify to be a prime minister even without a fraction of those qualifications. Since the king’s favor creates prime ministers, giving them the role of the greatest power and profit, that same favor is the only foundation on which those in that position can stand: This leads to the reality that the most ambitious individuals in all monarchies are always competing for this position as the highest prize, which is easy to enjoy but difficult to obtain and maintain. Consequently, the skills I mentioned for being a statesman are often overlooked, with others that are more practical and easier to acquire being sought after instead. The qualities you observe in prime ministers are different; they are seasoned courtiers who excel at the art of charming and manipulating effectively. Fulfilling a prince’s known wants and keeping him entertained with the pleasures he desires are routine tasks: Asking for favors is no better than whining, so being forced to ask indicates a complaint, and seeing a prince submit to that kind of servitude suggests real ineptitude among his courtiers; a skilled minister anticipates his master’s desires and provides what he enjoys without requiring him to ask. Every common flatterer can praise and applaud anything that is said or done, finding wisdom and prudence even in the most trivial actions; but it takes a skilled courtier to gloss over obvious flaws and present each fault or weakness of his prince as if it were a virtue that is merely similar or, to put it more accurately, the least contrary. By fulfilling these essential duties, one can both gain and keep the favor of princes. Anyone who can make themselves likable at court will rarely fail to be deemed necessary; and once a favorite secures a positive standing with his master, it becomes easy for him to dominate the king’s attention, blocking out anyone except his own allies. Over time, it’s also not hard for him to remove anyone from administration who wasn’t initially allied with him, continually sabotaging those seeking to advance through any other support or connections. A prime minister has significant advantages over any opposition; one of these is that nobody has ever held that role without having many enemies, whether they were exploiters or well-meaning individuals. Since this is widely recognized, many allegations against a prime minister are not believed among the more impartial and discerning members of society, even when they are true. Regarding the task of counteracting the jealousy and malice typically aimed at them, if a favorite were to handle everything personally, it would certainly, as you say, require extraordinary skill and capacity, as well as constant vigilance and dedication; but this task is divided among their supporters, with many taking it upon themselves to promote their patron, praise his virtues and capabilities, and justify his actions, while simultaneously denouncing his opponents, damaging their reputation, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] and employing the same tactics used to undermine the minister.

Hor. Then every well-polished courtier is fit to be a prime minister, without learning or languages, skill in politics, or any other qualification besides.

Hor. So, every well-groomed courtier is ready to be a prime minister, without needing to know anything about education, languages, political skills, or any other qualifications for that matter.

Cleo. No other than what are often and easily met with: It is necessary that he should be a man, at least, of plain common sense, and not remarkable for any gross frailties or imperfections; and of such, there is no scarcity almost in any nation: He ought to be a man of tolerable health and constitution, and one who delights in vanity, that he may relish, as well as be able to bear the gaudy crowds that honour his levees, the constant addresses, bows, and cringes of solicitors, and the rest of the homage that is perpetually paid him. The accomplishment he stands most in need of, is to be bold and resolute, so as not to be easily shocked or ruffled; if he be thus qualified, has a good memory, and is, moreover, able to attend a multiplicity of business, if not with a continual presence of mind, at least seemingly without hurry or perplexity, his capacity can never fail of being extolled to the skies.

Cleo. Essentially, he should be an ordinary man with good common sense, not notable for any major flaws or weaknesses; and there's no shortage of such individuals in almost any country. He should have decent health and stamina, and enjoy a bit of vanity so he can appreciate and handle the flashy crowds that come to his events, as well as the constant flattery, bows, and ingratiating gestures from those seeking his attention. The key trait he needs is to be bold and composed, so he won't be easily upset or irritated. If he has these qualities, a good memory, and can manage a variety of tasks without appearing rushed or confused, people will undoubtedly sing his praises.

Hor. You say nothing of his virtue nor his honesty; there is a vast trust put in a prime minister: If he should be covetous, and have no probity, nor love for his country, he might make strange havoc with the public treasure.

Hor. You don't mention his integrity or honesty; there's a huge amount of trust placed in a prime minister. If he's greedy and lacks decency or love for his country, he could cause serious damage to the public funds.

Cleo. There is no man that has any pride, but he has some value for his reputation; and common prudence is sufficient to hinder a man of very indifferent principles from stealing, where he would be in great danger of being detected, and has no manner of security that he shall not be punished for it.

Cleo. No man who has any pride doesn’t care about his reputation; and basic common sense is enough to prevent a person with questionable morals from stealing, especially when there’s a high chance of getting caught and no guarantee that he won’t face consequences for it.

Hor. But great confidence is reposed in him where he cannot be traced; as in the money for secret services, of which, for reasons of state, it may be often improper even to mention, much more to scrutinize into the particulars; and in negotiations with other courts, should he be only swayed by selfishness and private views, without regard to virtue of the public, is it not in his power to betray his country, sell the nation, and do all manner of mischief?

Hor. But a lot of trust is placed in him where he can't be easily tracked; like with the funds for covert operations, which, for political reasons, might be too sensitive even to mention, let alone to look into the specifics. And when it comes to dealings with other governments, if he’s only driven by personal gain and private interests, without thinking about the good of the public, isn't it possible for him to betray his country, sell it out, and cause all sorts of harm?

Cleo. Not amongst us, where parliaments are every year sitting. In foreign affairs nothing of moment can be transacted but what all the world must know; and should any thing be done or attempted that would be palpably ruinous [503]to the kingdom, and in the opinion of natives and foreigners grossly and manifestly clashing with our interest, it would raise a general clamour, and throw the minister into dangers, which no man of the least prudence, who intends to stay in his country, would ever run into. As to the money for secret services, and perhaps other sums, which ministers have the disposal of, and where they have great latitudes, I do not question but they have opportunities of embezzling the nation’s treasure: but to do this without being discovered, it must be done sparingly, and with great discretion: The malicious overlookers that envy them their places, and watch all their motions, are a great awe upon them: the animosities between those antagonists, and the quarrels between parties, are a considerable part of the nation’s security.

Cleo. Not here with us, where governments meet every year. In international matters, nothing significant can be done without the whole world knowing; and if anything is attempted that would clearly harm the kingdom, and that both locals and foreigners see as completely against our interests, it would lead to widespread outrage and put the minister in danger—something no prudent person who wants to stay in their country would risk. Regarding the money for secret services and possibly other funds that ministers control, they likely have opportunities to misuse the nation's resources. However, to do this without being caught, they would need to act carefully and discreetly. The jealous observers who resent them for their positions and monitor their every move keep them in check: the tensions between those rivals and the conflicts between parties are a significant part of the nation’s security.

Hor. But would it not be a greater security to have men of honour, of sense and knowledge, of application and frugality, preferred to public employments?

Hor. But wouldn't it be a better idea to have honorable people, who are sensible, knowledgeable, diligent, and frugal, put in positions of public duty?

Cleo. Yes, without doubt.

Cleo. Yes, definitely.

Hor. What confidence can we have in the justice or integrity of men; that, on the one hand, show themselves on all occasions mercenary and greedy after riches; and on the other, make it evident, by their manner of living, that no wealth or estate could ever suffice to support their expences, or satisfy their desires! besides, would it not be a great encouragement to virtue and merit, if from the posts of honour and profit all were to be debarred and excluded, that either wanted capacity or were enemies to business; all the selfish, ambitious, vain, and voluptuous?

Hor. What trust can we place in the fairness or honesty of people who constantly reveal themselves to be greedy and obsessed with wealth? On one hand, they chase after riches, and on the other, their lifestyles show that no amount of money could ever cover their expenses or fulfill their desires! Wouldn’t it be a huge boost to virtue and talent if those who lack skill or oppose hard work—those who are selfish, ambitious, vain, and indulgent—were completely shut out from positions of honor and profit?

Cleo. Nobody disputes it with you; and if virtue, religion, and future happiness were sought after by the generality of mankind, with the same solicitude, as sensual pleasure, politeness, and worldly glory are, it would certainly be best that none but men of good lives, and known ability, should have any place in the government whatever: but to expert that this ever should happen, or to live in hopes of it in a large, opulent, and flourishing kingdom, is to betray great ignorance in human affairs? and whoever reckons a general temperance, frugality, and disinterestedness among the national blessings, and at the same time solicits Heaven for ease and plenty, and the increase of trade, seems to me, little to understand what he is about. The best of all, then, not being to be had, let us look out for the next best, and we shall [504]find, that of all possible means to secure and perpetuate to nations their establishment, and whatever they value, there is no better method than with wise laws to guard and entrench their constitution, and contrive such forms of administration that the commonweal can receive no great detriment from the want of knowledge or probity of ministers, if any of them should prove less able or honest, than they could wish them. The public administration must always go forward; it is a ship that can never lie at anchor: the most knowing, the most virtuous, and the least self-interested ministers are the best; but, in the mean time there must be ministers. Swearing and drunkenness are crying sins among seafaring men, and I should think it a very desirable blessing to the nation, if it was possible to reform them: but all this while we must have sailors; and if none were to be admitted on board of any of his majesty’s ships, that had sworn above a thousand oaths, or had been drunk above ten times in their lives, I am persuaded that the service would suffer very much by the well-meaning regulation.

Cleo. No one argues with you; and if people cared about virtue, religion, and future happiness as much as they do about sensual pleasure, politeness, and worldly fame, it would certainly be best for only good, capable people to hold any position in government. But to expect this to happen or to hope for it in a large, wealthy, and successful kingdom shows a real lack of understanding of human nature. Anyone who sees general temperance, frugality, and selflessness as national blessings while simultaneously asking God for comfort, abundance, and increased trade seems to misunderstand the situation completely. Since we can't have the best, let's aim for the next best, and we’ll [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]find that the best way to secure and sustain a nation’s stability and values is by creating wise laws that protect their constitution and shaping a system of governance so that the common good doesn't suffer too much from any ministers' lack of knowledge or integrity, should any turn out to be less capable or honest than we would like. Public administration must always continue; it's a ship that can never anchor. The most knowledgeable, virtuous, and least self-serving ministers are the ideal, but we still need ministers in the meantime. Swearing and drunkenness are serious issues among sailors, and I would consider it a great blessing for the nation if we could reform them. However, we still need sailors, and if no one were allowed aboard any of His Majesty's ships who had sworn more than a thousand oaths or had been drunk more than ten times in their lives, I believe the service would suffer greatly from such a well-meaning regulation.

Hor. Why do not you speak more openly, and say that there is no virtue or probity in the world? for all the drift of your discourse is tending to prove that.

Hor. Why don't you speak more openly and say that there's no virtue or honesty in the world? Because everything you're saying is pointing to that conclusion.

Cleo. I have amply declared myself upon this subject already in a former conversation; and I wonder you will lay again to my charge what I once absolutely denied: I never thought that there were no virtuous or religious men; what I differ in with the flatterers of our species, is about the numbers which they contend for; and I am persuaded that you yourself, in reality, do not believe that there are so many virtuous men as you imagine you do.

Cleo. I've clearly stated my position on this topic before, and I'm surprised you're bringing it up again after I completely denied it. I never claimed that there are no virtuous or religious people; my disagreement with those who flatter our kind is about the numbers they assert. I truly believe that you, deep down, don’t actually think there are as many virtuous people as you seem to believe.

Hor. How come you to know my thoughts better than I do myself?

Hor. How do you know my thoughts better than I know them myself?

Cleo. You know I have tried you upon this head already, when I ludicrously extolled and set a fine gloss on the merit of several callings and professions in the society, from the lowest stations of life to the highest: it then plainly appeared, that, though you have a very high opinion of mankind in general, when we come to particulars, you was as severe, and every whit as censorious as myself. I must observe one thing to you, which is worth consideration. Most, if not all people, are desirous of being thought impartial; yet nothing is more difficult than to preserve our judgment unbiassed, when we are influenced either by our love or our [505]hatred; and how just and equitable soever people are, we see that their friends are seldom so good, or their enemies so bad as they represent them, when they are angry with the one, or highly pleased with the other. For my part, I do not think that, generally speaking, prime ministers are much worse than their adversaries, who for their own interest defame them, and at the same time, move Heaven and earth to be in their places. Let us look out for two persons of eminence in any court of Europe, that are equal in merit and capacity, and as well matched in virtues and vices, but of contrary parties; and whenever we meet with two such, one in favour and the other neglected, we shall always find that whoever is uppermost, and in great employ, has the applause of his party; and if things go tolerably well, his friends will attribute every good success to his conduct, and derive all his actions from laudable motives: the opposite side can discover no virtues in him; they will not allow him to act from any principles but his passions; and if any thing be done amiss, are very sure that it would not have happened if their patron had been in the same post. This is the way of the world. How immensely do often people of the same kingdom differ in the opinion they have of their chiefs and commanders, even when they are successful to admiration! we have been witnesses ourselves that one part of the nation has ascribed the victories of a general entirely to his consummate knowledge in martial affairs, and superlative capacity in action; and maintained that it was impossible for a man to bear all the toils and fatigues he underwent with alacrity, or to court the dangers he voluntarily exposed himself to, if he had not been supported, as well as animated, by the true spirit of heroism, and a most generous love for his country: these, you know, were the sentiments of one part of the nation, whilst the other attributed all his successes to the bravery of his troops, and the extraordinary care that was taken at home to supply his army; and insisted upon it, that from the whole course of his life, it was demonstrable, that he had never been buoyed up or actuated by any other principles than excess of ambition, and an unsatiable greediness after riches.

Cleo. You know I've already brought this up with you when I humorously praised and highlighted the value of various jobs and professions in society, from the lowest to the highest positions. It became clear that, while you have a very high opinion of people in general, when it comes to specifics, you're just as harsh and critical as I am. There's something important I want to point out to you that’s worth thinking about. Most people, if not all, want to be seen as fair, yet it’s incredibly challenging to keep our judgment unbiased when we’re swayed by love or hate. No matter how fair-minded people try to be, we often find their friends aren’t as great or their enemies as terrible as they claim, especially when they’re angry with one or overly fond of the other. Personally, I don’t believe that, generally speaking, prime ministers are any worse than their opponents, who, for their own gain, defame them while doing everything they can to take their place. Let’s consider two prominent individuals in any European court who are equal in merit and ability, with similar virtues and flaws, but come from opposing sides. Whenever we find two such figures—one favored and the other overlooked—we’ll see that the one in power receives accolades from their party. If things go relatively well, their supporters attribute every success to their leadership and claim all their actions are driven by honorable motives. The opposing side finds no virtues in them; they insist their motives are purely selfish and are quick to assert that any mistakes wouldn’t have happened if their own candidate had held the same position. This is how the world works. People from the same country often have vastly different opinions about their leaders and commanders, even when those leaders are celebrated for their successes! We've seen firsthand that one part of the nation credits a general's victories solely to his exceptional military expertise and skills in battle, maintaining that it’s impossible for someone to endure all the hard work and stress he faced with enthusiasm or to willingly seek out danger without being fueled by true heroism and a deep love for his country. You know these were the views of one side, while the other side attributed all his achievements to the bravery of his soldiers and the extraordinary support provided from home. They insisted that his entire life showed he was motivated by nothing other than excessive ambition and an insatiable desire for wealth.

Hor. I do not know but I may have said so myself. But after all, the Duke of Marlborough was a very great man, an extraordinary genius. [506]

Hor. I might have said that myself. But really, the Duke of Marlborough was a remarkable man, an extraordinary genius. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. Indeed was he, and I am glad to hear you own it at last.

Cleo. He really was, and I'm glad to hear you finally admit it.

Virtutem incolumem odimus,

We hate unscathed virtue,

Sublatum ex oculis quærimus invidi.

Out of sight, envy seeks.

Hor. A propos. I wish you would bid them stop for two or three minutes: some of the horses perhaps may stale the while.

Hor. A propos. I wish you would tell them to pause for two or three minutes: some of the horses might need to relieve themselves in the meantime.

Cleo. No excuses, pray. You command here. Besides, we have time enough.——Do you want to go out?

Cleo. No excuses, please. You're in charge here. Plus, we have plenty of time.——Do you want to head out?

Hor. No; but I want to set down something, now I think of it, which I have heard you repeat several times. I have often had a mind to ask you for it, and it always went out of my head again. It is the epitaph which your friend made upon the Duke.

Hor. No; but I want to write down something, now that I think of it, that I've heard you say a few times. I've often thought about asking you for it, but it kept slipping my mind. It's the epitaph your friend wrote for the Duke.

Cleo. Of Marlborough? with all my heart. Have you paper?

Cleo. From Marlborough? Absolutely. Do you have paper?

Hor. I will write it upon the back of this letter; and as it happens, I mended my pencil this morning. How does it begin?

Hor. I'll write it on the back of this letter; and as it turns out, I fixed my pencil this morning. How does it start?

Cleo. Qui belli, aut paucis virtutibus astra petebant.

Cleo. Those who sought the stars through war or a few virtues.

Hor. Well.

Hor. Okay.

Cleo. Finxerunt homines sæcula prisca Deos.

Cleo. People in ancient times found gods.

Hor. I have it. But tell me a whole distich at a time; the sense is clearer.

Hor. I've got it. But give me one complete line at a time; it's easier to understand.

Cleo. Quae martem sine patre tulit, sine matre Minervam,

Cleo. She brought Mars without a father, Minerva without a mother.

Illustres mendax Græcia jactet avos.

Illustrious Greeks boast of their ancestors.

Hor. That is really a happy thought. Courage and conduct: just the two qualifications he excelled in. What is the next?

Hor. That's really a great thought. He was excellent in courage and leadership: just the two skills he was best at. What's next?

Cleo. Anglia quem genuit jacet hac, Homo, conditus Urna,

Cleo. The Anglia that gave birth lies here, a man, buried in a urn,

Antiqui, qualem non habuere Deum.

Ancient, like no other god.

Hor.——I thank you. They may go on now. I have seen several things since first I heard this epitaph of you, that are manifestly borrowed from it. Was it never published?

Hor.——Thank you. They can continue now. I've noticed a few things since I first heard this epitaph about you that clearly borrowed from it. Was it ever published?

Cleo. I believe not. The first time I saw it was the day the Duke was buried, and ever since it has been handed about in manuscript; but I never met with it in print yet.

Cleo. I don't think so. The first time I saw it was the day the Duke was buried, and ever since it has been passed around in manuscript; but I haven't come across it in print yet.

Hor. It is worth all his Fable of the Bees, in my opinion. [507]

Hor. I think it's worth all of his Fable of the Bees. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. If you like it so well, I can show you a translation of it, lately done by a gentleman of Oxford, if I have not lost it. It only takes in the first and last distich, which indeed contain the main thought: The second does not carry it on, and is rather a digression.

Cleo. If you like it so much, I can show you a translation of it that was recently done by a guy from Oxford, if I haven’t misplaced it. It only includes the first and last couplets, which really have the main idea: the second one doesn’t continue it and is more of a side note.

Hor. But it demonstrates the truth of the first in a very convincing manner; and that Mars had no father, and Minerva no mother, is the most fortunate thing a man could wish for, who wanted to prove that the account we have of them is fabulous.

Hor. But it shows the truth of the first point in a really convincing way; and the fact that Mars had no father and Minerva no mother is the best thing a person could hope for if they wanted to prove that the stories we have about them are fictional.

Cleo. Oh, here it is. I do not know whether you can read it; I copied it in haste.

Cleo. Oh, here it is. I’m not sure if you can read it; I wrote it out quickly.

Hor. Very well.

Hor. Sounds good.

The grateful ages past a God declar’d,

The grateful ages honored a declared God,

Who wisely council’d, or who bravely war’d:

Who wisely advised, or who bravely fought:

Hence Greece her Mars and Pallas deify’d;

Hence Greece deified her Mars and Pallas;

Made him the heroe’s, her the patriot’s guide.

Made him the hero’s, her the patriot’s guide.

Ancients, within this urn a mortal lies

Ancients, in this urn lies a mortal.

Shew me his peer among your deities.

Show me his equal among your gods.

It is very good.

It's really good.

Cleo. Very lively; and what is aimed at in the Latin, is rather more clearly expressed in the English.

Cleo. Very lively; and what is intended in the Latin is expressed more clearly in the English.

Hor. You know I am fond of no English verse but Milton’s. But do not let this hinder our conversation.

Hor. You know I only like English poetry when it comes to Milton. But don’t let that stop our discussion.

Cleo. I was speaking of the partiality of mankind in general, and putting you in mind how differently men judged of actions, according as they liked or disliked the persons that performed them.

Cleo. I was talking about how biased people are in general, and reminding you how differently men evaluate actions based on whether they like or dislike the people doing them.

Hor. But before that you was arguing against the necessity, which I think there is, for men of great accomplishments and extraordinary qualifications in the administration of public affairs. Had you any thing to add?

Hor. But before that, you were arguing against the need, which I believe exists, for people with significant achievements and exceptional skills in the management of public affairs. Do you have anything else to add?

Cleo. No; at least I do not remember that I had.

Cleo. No; at least I don’t remember having.

Hor. I do not believe you have an ill design in advancing these notions; but supposing them to be true, I cannot comprehend that divulging them can have any other effect than the increase of sloth and ignorance; for if men may fill the highest places in the government without learning or capacity, genius or knowledge, there is an end of all the labour of the brain, and the fatigue of hard study.

Hor. I don't think you have bad intentions in promoting these ideas; but if we assume they're true, I can't understand how spreading them would do anything but promote laziness and ignorance. If people can hold the top positions in government without education or skill, talent or knowledge, then all the effort put into thinking and the hard work of studying becomes pointless.

Cleo. I have made no such general assertion; but that an artful man may make a considerable figure in the highest post of the administration, and other great employments, without [508]extraordinary talents, is certain: as to consummate statesmen, I do not believe there ever were three persons upon earth at the same time, that deserved that name. There is not a quarter of the wisdom, solid knowledge, or intrinsic worth in the world that men talk of and compliment one another with; and of virtue or religion there is not an hundredth part in reality of what there is in appearance.

Cleo. I haven't made any sweeping statement; however, it's clear that a clever person can make a significant impression in top government positions and other important roles without needing extraordinary skills. As for exceptional statesmen, I doubt there have ever been three people on earth at the same time who truly earned that title. There's only a fraction of the wisdom, solid knowledge, or real value in the world that people often discuss and praise each other for; and when it comes to virtue or religion, there's far less in reality than what appears to be.

Hor. I allow that those who set out from no better motives, than avarice and ambition, aim at no other ends but wealth and honour; which, if they can but get anywise they are satisfied; but men who act from principles of virtue and a public spirit, take pains with alacrity to attain the accomplishments that will make them capable of serving their country: and if virtue be so scarce, how come there to be men of skill in their professions? for that there are men of learning and men of capacity, is most certain.

Hor. I agree that those who start with nothing but greed and ambition only aim for wealth and honor; if they can achieve those, they’re satisfied. But people who are driven by principles of virtue and a sense of community work hard to gain the skills needed to serve their country. If virtue is so rare, how do we have skilled professionals? It’s clear there are educated and capable individuals out there.

Cleo. The foundation of all accomplishments must be laid in our youth, before we are able or allowed to choose for ourselves, or to judge, which is the most profitable way of employing our time. It is to good discipline, and the prudent care of parents and masters, that men are beholden for the greatest part of their improvements; and few parents are so bad as not to wish their offspring might be well accomplished: the same natural affection that makes men take pains to leave their children rich, renders them solicitous about their education. Besides, it is unfashionable, and consequently a disgrace to neglect them. The chief design of parents in bringing up their children to a calling or profession, is to procure them a livelihood. What promotes and encourages arts and sciences, is the reward, money and honour; and thousands of perfections are attained to, that would have had no existence, if men had been less proud or less covetous. Ambition, avarice, and often necessity, are great spurs to industry and application; and often rouse men from sloth and indolence, when they are grown up, whom no persuasions or chastisement of fathers or tutors, made any impression upon in their youth. Whilst professions are lucrative, and have great dignities belonging to them, there will always be men that excel in them. In a large polite nation, therefore, all sorts of learning will ever abound, whilst the people flourish. Rich parents, and such as can afford it, seldom fail bringing up their children to literature: from this inexhaustible spring it is, that we always draw much larger [509]supplies than we stand in need of, for all the callings and professions where the knowledge of the learned languages is required. Of those that are brought up to letters, some neglect them, and throw by their books as soon as they are their own masters; others grow fonder of study, as they increase in years; but the greatest part will always retain a value for what has cost them pains to acquire. Among the wealthy, there will be always lovers of knowledge, as well as idle people: every science will have its admirers, as men differ in their tastes and pleasures; and there is no part of learning but somebody or other will look into it, and labour at it, from no better principles than some men are fox hunters, and others take delight in angling. Look upon the mighty labours of antiquaries, botanists, and the vertuosos in butterflies, cockle-shells, and other odd productions of nature; and mind the magnificent terms they all make use of in their respective provinces, and the pompous names they often give to what others, who have no taste that way, would not think worth any mortal’s notice. Curiosity is often as bewitching to the rich, as lucre is to the poor; and what interest does in some, vanity does in others; and great wonders are often produced from a happy mixture of both. Is it not amazing, that a temperate man should be at the expence of four or five thousand a-year, or, which is much the same thing, be contented to lose the interest of above a hundred thousand pounds, to have the reputation of being the possessor and owner of rarities and knicknacks in a very great abundance, at the same time that he loves money, and continues slaving for it in his old age! It is the hopes either of gain or reputation, of large revenues and great dignities that promote learning; and when we say that any calling, art or science, is not encouraged, we mean no more by it, than that the masters or professors of it are not sufficiently rewarded for their pains, either with honour or profit. The most holy functions are no exception to what I say; and few ministers of the gospel are so disinterested as to have a less regard to the honours and emoluments that are or ought to be annexed to their employment, than they have to the service and benefit they should be of to others; and among those of them that study hard and take uncommon pains, it is not easily proved that many are excited to their extraordinary labour by a public spirit or solicitude for the spiritual welfare of the laity: on the contrary, it is visible, in the greatest part of them, that [510]they are animated by the love of glory and the hopes of preferment; neither is it common to see the most useful parts of learning neglected for the most trifling, when, from the latter, men have reason to hope that they shall have greater opportunities of showing their parts, than offer themselves from the former. Ostentation and envy have made more authors than virtue and benevolence. Men of known capacity and erudition are often labouring hard to eclipse and ruin one another’s glory. What principle must we say two adversaries act from, both men of unquestionable good sense and extensive knowledge, when all the skill and prudence they are masters of are not able to stifle, in their studied performances, and hide from the world, the rancour of their minds, the spleen and animosity they both write with against one another.

Cleo. The foundation of all achievements should be set in our youth, before we are able or allowed to make choices for ourselves, or to determine the best way to spend our time. Men owe a lot of their progress to proper discipline and the careful guidance of parents and teachers; few parents are so neglectful that they don't want their children to be well-educated. That natural desire to leave their kids financially secure also makes them concerned about their education. Besides, it's seen as unacceptable, and therefore embarrassing, to overlook their upbringing. The main goal of parents in raising their children for a career is to ensure they can support themselves. What drives and encourages fields like arts and sciences are rewards, money, and prestige; many accomplishments have been reached that wouldn't exist if people were less proud or less greedy. Ambition, greed, and often necessity push individuals to work hard and focus, waking them from laziness and indifference in adulthood, when no amount of persuading or punishing from fathers or teachers affected them in their youth. As long as careers are profitable and carry significant respect, there will always be individuals who excel in them. Therefore, in a vast cultured society, all kinds of knowledge will persist as long as the population thrives. Wealthy parents, and those who can afford to, almost always ensure their children engage in literature: this endless source is what allows us to draw far greater [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] resources than we actually need for all professions requiring knowledge of the learned languages. Among those raised in scholarly pursuits, some abandon them and set aside their books as soon as they are independent; others grow more passionate about studying as they age; but most will always appreciate what they've worked hard to obtain. Among the affluent, there will always be lovers of knowledge, alongside those who are simply idle: every discipline will have its enthusiasts, as people's tastes and pleasures differ; and there will be no part of learning that someone won't explore and study, often for reasons as trivial as some men being passionate about hunting foxes, while others enjoy fishing. Consider the immense efforts of antiquarians, botanists, and enthusiasts for butterflies, shells, and other peculiarities of nature; note the grand terminology they use in their respective fields, and the extravagant names they frequently assign to things that others, lacking similar interests, might not find worthy of attention. Curiosity can often enchant the rich just as greed does the poor; what drives some is vanity for others, and remarkable outcomes often arise from a fortunate blend of both. Is it not surprising that a temperate person would spend four or five thousand a year, or equivalent to losing the interest on over a hundred thousand pounds, just to maintain the reputation of owning an abundance of rarities and trinkets, while simultaneously loving money and continuing to work hard for it in old age? It is the hopes of either gain or reputation, of massive incomes and high status, that promote learning; and when we claim that any profession, art, or science is not supported, we mean that the masters or teachers aren't adequately compensated for their efforts, either with honor or profit. The most sacred professions are no different; few ministers are so altruistic that they care less about the honors and benefits tied to their work than about serving and benefiting others. Among those who study diligently and strive unusually hard, it’s not easy to prove that many are driven by a public spirit or concern for the spiritual welfare of the community; on the contrary, it’s evident that most are motivated by a desire for fame and the hope for advancement. It’s also rare to see people neglecting the most beneficial aspects of knowledge for the most trivial, when the latter offers a better chance to showcase their talents than the former. Show-off and jealousy inspire more authors than virtue and kindness. Recognized individuals of ability and knowledge often toil to overshadow and ruin each other’s reputation. What motive can we attribute to two rivals, both obviously smart and well-informed, when all their skill and wisdom can’t hide from their crafted work the bitterness, resentment, and hostility they both express toward one another?

Hor. I do not say that such act from principles of virtue.

Hor. I'm not saying that such actions come from a place of virtue.

Cleo. Yet you know an instance of this in two grave divines, men of fame and great merit, of whom each would think himself very much injured, should his virtue be called in question.

Cleo. But you know an example of this in two serious theologians, renowned men of great worth, each of whom would feel deeply wronged if anyone questioned his virtue.

Hor. When men have an opportunity, under pretence of zeal for religion, or the public good, to vent their passion, they take great liberties. What was the quarrel?

Hor. When people get a chance to express their anger, claiming it’s for the sake of religion or the greater good, they really push the limits. What was the argument about?

Cleo. De lana caprina.

Cleo. Goat's wool.

Hor. A trifle. I cannot guess yet.

Hor. Just a little thing. I still can't figure it out.

Cleo. About the metre of the comic poets among the ancients.

Cleo. About the meter of the comic poets from ancient times.

Hor. I know what you mean now; the manner of scanding and chanting those verses.

Hor. I get what you're saying now; the way of reciting and singing those lines.

Cleo. Can you think of any thing belonging to literature, of less importance, or more useless?

Cleo. Can you think of anything in literature that's less important or more useless?

Hor. Not readily.

Hor. Not right now.

Cleo. Yet the great contest between them, you see, is which of them understands it best, and has known it the longest. This instance, I think, hints to us how highly improbable it is, though men should act from no better principles than envy, avarice, and ambition, that when learning is once established, any part of it, even the most unprofitable, should ever be neglected in such a large opulent nation as ours is; where there are so many places of honour, and great revenues to be disposed of among scholars.

Cleo. But the real competition between them is about who understands it best and has known it the longest. This example suggests to us how unlikely it is that, even if people are driven by nothing more than envy, greed, and ambition, any aspect of knowledge, even the least useful, would ever be overlooked in a rich and powerful nation like ours; where there are so many prestigious positions and substantial incomes available for scholars.

Hor. But since men are fit to serve in most places with so little capacity, as you insinuate, why should they give themselves [511]that unnecessary trouble of studying hard, and acquiring more learning than there is occasion for?

Hor. But since men are capable of doing most things with so little knowledge, as you suggest, why should they bother putting in the effort to study hard and learn more than they actually need? [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Cleo. I thought I had answered that already; a great many, because they take delight in study and knowledge.

Cleo. I thought I already answered that; a lot of them, because they enjoy learning and gaining knowledge.

Hor. But there are men that labour at it with so much application, as to impair their healths, and actually to kill themselves with the fatigue of it.

Hor. But there are people who work at it so hard that they damage their health and even end up killing themselves from the exhaustion.

Cleo. Not so many as there are that injure their healths, and actually kill themselves with hard drinking, which is the most unreasonable pleasure of the two, and a much greater fatigue. But I do not deny that there are men who take pains to qualify themselves in order to serve their country; what I insist upon is, that the number of those who do the same thing to serve themselves with little regard to their country, is infinitely greater. Mr. Hutcheson, who wrote the Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, seems to be very expert at weighing and measuring the quantities of affection, benevolence, &c. I wish that curious metaphysician would give himself the trouble, at his leisure, to weigh two things separately: First, the real love men have for their country, abstracted from selfishness. Secondly, the ambition they have of being thought to act from that love, though they feel none. I wish, I say, that this ingenious gentleman would once weigh these two asunder; and afterwards, having taken in impartially all he could find of either, in this or any other nation, show us in his demonstrative way, what proportion the quantities bore to each other.—Quisque sibi commissus est, says Seneca; and certainly, it is not the care of others, but the care of itself, which nature has trusted and charged every individual creature with. When men exert themselves in an extraordinary manner, they generally do it to be the better for it themselves; to excel, to be talked of, and to be preferred to others, that follow the same business, or court the same favours.

Cleo. There aren’t nearly as many people who hurt their health and actually drink themselves to death as there are who indulge in that unreasonable pleasure, which is also far more exhausting. However, I don’t deny that there are men who work hard to prepare themselves to serve their country; what I emphasize is that the number of those who do the same mainly to serve themselves, with little regard for their country, is infinitely greater. Mr. Hutcheson, who wrote the Inquiry into the Original of our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, seems quite skilled at measuring the amounts of affection, benevolence, etc. I wish this curious philosopher would take the time, at his leisure, to separately weigh two things: First, the genuine love men have for their country, apart from selfishness. Second, the ambition they have to be seen as acting out of that love, even though they feel none. I wish, I say, that this clever gentleman would once measure these two separately; and then, having taken everything he could find from this or any other nation into account, show us in his clear way what proportion the quantities bear to each other.—Quisque sibi commissus est, says Seneca; and indeed, it is not the care of others, but the care of itself that nature has entrusted and assigned to every individual creature. When men push themselves to extraordinary lengths, they usually do it to benefit themselves; to stand out, to be talked about, and to be preferred over others who are pursuing the same goals or seeking the same favors.

Hor. Do you think it more probable, that men of parts and learning should be preferred, than others of less capacity?

Hor. Do you think it's more likely that skilled and educated people would be favored over those with less ability?

Cleo. Cæteris paribus, I do.

Cleo. Other things being equal, I do.

Hor. Then you must allow that there is virtue at least in those who have the disposal of places.

Hor. Then you have to agree that there’s at least some virtue in those who control positions.

Cleo. I do not say there is not; but there is likewise glory and real honour accruing to patrons for advancing men of merit; and if a person who has a good living in his gift, bestows [512]it upon a very able man, every body applauds him, and every parishioner is counted to be particularly obliged to him. A vain man does not love to have his choice disapproved of, and exclaimed against by all the world, any more than a virtuous man; and the love of applause, which is innate to our species, would alone be sufficient to make the generality of men, and even the greatest part of the most vicious, always choose the most worthy, out of any number of candidates; if they knew the truth, and no stronger motive arising from consanguinity, friendship, interest, or something else, was to interfere with the principle I named.

Cleo. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist; but there’s also glory and true honor that comes to those who support deserving individuals. If someone has a great position to offer and gives it to a capable person, everyone praises them, and every parishioner feels particularly grateful. A vain person doesn’t like their choice to be criticized and condemned by others, just like a virtuous person. The desire for approval, which is natural to us, would be enough to lead most people, even many of the most corrupt, to pick the best candidate from a group, if they knew the whole truth and no stronger motivations from family ties, friendships, personal gain, or other influences were interfering with the principle I mentioned.

Hor. But, methinks, according to your system, those should be soonest preferred that can best coax and flatter.

Hor. But I think, based on your system, those who can best charm and flatter should be the ones preferred the most.

Cleo. Among the learned there are persons of art and address, that can mind their studies without neglecting the the world: these are the men that know how to ingratiate themselves with persons of quality; employing to the best advantage all their parts and industry for that purpose. Do but look into the lives and the deportment of such eminent men, as we have been speaking of, and you will soon discover the end and advantages they seem to propose to themselves from their hard study and severe lucubrations. When you see men in holy orders, without call or necessity, hovering about the courts of princes; when you see them continually addressing and scraping acquaintance with the favourites; when you hear them exclaim against the luxury of the age, and complain of the necessity they are under of complying with it; and at the same time you see, that they are forward, nay eager and take pains with satisfaction, in the way of living, to imitate the beau monde, as far as it is in their power: that no sooner they are in possession of one preferment, but they are ready, and actually soliciting for another, more gainful and more reputable; and that on all emergencies, wealth, power, honour and superiority are the things they grasp at, and take delight in; when, I say, you see these things, this concurrence of evidences, is it any longer difficult to guess at, or rather is there room to doubt of the principles they act from, or the tendency of their labours?

Cleo. Among the educated, there are people skilled in the art of managing their studies while engaging with the world. These are the individuals who know how to win favor with those of high status, using all their talents and efforts to do so. Just take a look at the lives and behavior of these notable figures we've been discussing, and you'll quickly see the goals and benefits they seem to seek from their intense study and late-night work. When you observe individuals in religious orders, with no call or need, lingering around the courts of royalty; when you see them constantly trying to mingle and form connections with the favorites; when you hear them criticize the excesses of the era and complain about the necessity to conform; and at the same time notice that they are eager and willing to adopt the lifestyle of the beau monde as much as they can: that the moment they secure one position, they are already looking, and actively seeking another, more profitable and prestigious one; and that in every situation, wealth, power, honor, and superiority are what they covet and take pleasure in; when I mention all this, this collection of evidence makes it impossible to guess, or rather leaves no doubt about the principles that drive their actions or the aims of their efforts.

Hor. I have little to say to priests, and do not look for virtue from that quarter.

Hor. I don't have much to say to priests, and I don't expect to find virtue from them.

Cleo. Yet you will find as much of it among divines, as you will among any other class of men; but every where less in reality, than there is in appearance. Nobody would [513]be thought insincere, or to prevaricate; but there are few men, though they are so honest as to own what they would have, that will acquaint us with the true reason why they would have it: therefore the disagreement between the words and actions of men is at no time more conspicuous, than when we would learn from them their sentiments, concerning the real worth of things. Virtue, is without doubt, the most valuable treasure which man can be possessed of; it has every body’s good word; but where is the country in which it is heartily embraced, præmia si tollas? Money, on the other hand, is deservedly called the root of all evil: there has not been a moralist nor a satirist of note, that has not had a fling at it; yet what pains are taken, and what hazards are run to acquire it, under various pretences of designing to do good with it! As for my part, I verily believe, that as an accessary cause, it has done more mischief in the world than any one thing besides: yet it is impossible to name another, that is so absolutely necessary to the order, economy, and the very existence of the civil society; for as this is entirely built upon the variety of our wants, so the whole superstructure is made up of the reciprocal services which men do to each other. How to get these services performed by others, when we have occasion for them, is the grand and almost constant solicitude in life of every individual person. To expect that others should serve us for nothing, is unreasonable; therefore all commerce that men can have together, must be a continual bartering of one thing for another. The feller who transfers the property of a thing, has his own interest as much at heart as the buyer who purchases that property: and, if you want or like a thing, the owner of it, whatever stock or provision he may have of the same, or how greatly soever you may stand in need of it, will never part with it, but for a consideration which he likes better than he does the thing you want. Which way shall I persuade a man to serve me, when the service I can repay him in, is such as he does not want or care for? Nobody who is at peace, and has no contention with any of the society, will do any thing for a lawyer; and a physician can purchase nothing of a man, whose whole family is in perfect health. Money obviates and takes away all those difficulties, by being an acceptable reward for all the services men can do to one another. [514]

Cleo. You'll find just as much of it among religious folks as in any other group; but in reality, there's usually less than it seems. No one wants to be seen as insincere or evasive, but few people, despite being honest about their desires, will tell us the real reason behind those desires. So, the disconnect between what people say and do is most obvious when we try to understand their true values. Virtue is undoubtedly the most valuable treasure anyone can have; everyone praises it, but where is the place that truly embraces it, præmia si tollas? Money, on the other hand, is rightly called the root of all evil: every notable moralist and satirist has taken a jab at it; yet people go to great lengths and take risks to acquire it, claiming they want to do good with it! Personally, I believe that as an accessory cause, it has caused more harm in the world than anything else; yet it's impossible to name another necessity as critical for the order, economy, and existence of civil society. This society is built entirely on the diversity of our needs, and the entire structure depends on the mutual services people provide to each other. Figuring out how to get those services from others when we need them is a constant concern in everyone's life. Expecting others to help us for free is unreasonable; therefore, all interactions must involve a continuous exchange of one thing for another. The person who sells something is just as interested in their own gain as the buyer is in purchasing that item. If you want or like something, the owner, no matter how much of it they have or how much you need it, will only give it up for something they value more than the item you're after. How can I convince a guy to help me when I can't offer a service that he desires? No one at peace and without any conflicts in society will do anything for a lawyer; and a doctor won't be able to buy anything from someone whose whole family is perfectly healthy. Money solves all these issues by being a universally valued reward for all the services people offer each other. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. But all men valuing themselves above their worth, every body will over-rate his labour. Would not this follow from your system?

Hor. But since everyone sees themselves as more valuable than they actually are, everyone will overrate their work. Wouldn't this come from your system?

Cleo. It certainly would, and does. But what is to be admired is, that the larger the numbers are in a society, the more extensive they have rendered the variety of their desires, and the more operose the gratification of them is become among them by custom; the less mischievous is the consequence of that evil, where they have the use of money: whereas, without it, the smaller the number was of a society, and the more strictly the members of it, in supplying their wants, would confine themselves to those only that were necessary for their subsistence, the more easy it would be for them to agree about the reciprocal services I spoke of. But to procure all the comforts of life, and what is called temporal happiness, in a large polite nation, would be every whit as practicable without speech, as it would be without money, or an equivalent to be used instead of it. Where this is not wanting, and due care is taken of it by the legislature, it will always be the standard, which the worth of every thing will be weighed by. There are great blessings that arise from necessity; and that every body is obliged to eat and drink, is the cement of civil society. Let men set what high value they please upon themselves, that labour which most people are capable of doing, will ever be the cheapest. Nothing can be dear of which there is great plenty, how beneficial soever it may be to man; and scarcity enhances the price of things much oftener than the usefulness of them. Hence it is evident why those arts and sciences will always be the most lucrative, that cannot be attained to, but in great length of time, by tedious study and close application; or else require a particular genius, not often to be met with. It is likewise evident, to whose lot, in all societies, the hard and dirty labour, which nobody would meddle with, if he could help it, will ever fall: but you have seen enough of this in the Fable of the Bees.

Cleo. It definitely would, and does. But what’s impressive is that as the population in a society grows, so does the variety of their desires, making their fulfillment more complicated due to custom. The negative outcomes of this situation become less harmful when they have access to money. Conversely, in smaller societies, where members focus only on meeting their basic needs, it’s much easier for them to agree on mutual assistance. However, obtaining all the comforts of life and what we call happiness in a large, refined society would be just as difficult without speech as it would be without money or any substitute. When money is present and well-regulated by the government, it always serves as the benchmark for evaluating the value of everything. There are great benefits that come from necessity; the fact that everyone needs to eat and drink binds society together. Regardless of how highly people value themselves, the labor that most individuals can perform will always be the cheapest. Nothing can be expensive if it's abundant, no matter how beneficial it is to humanity; scarcity generally drives up prices more than usefulness does. Thus, it’s clear why those professions and fields of study that take a long time and a lot of effort to master, or require a rare talent, will always be the most profitable. It’s also clear who will end up doing the hard and dirty work that others would avoid if they could. But you’ve learned enough about this from the Fable of the Bees.

Hor. I have so, and one remarkable saying I have read there on this subject, which I shall never forget. “The poor,” says the author, “have nothing to stir them up to labour, but their wants, which it is wisdom to relieve, but folly to cure.”

Hor. I have, and there's one striking quote I came across on this topic that I'll always remember. “The poor,” the writer says, “have nothing to motivate them to work except their needs, which it's wise to alleviate, but foolish to eliminate.”

Cleo. I believe the maxim to be just, and that it is not less calculated for the real advantage of the poor, than it appears [515]to be for the benefit of the rich. For, among the labouring people, those will ever be the least wretched as to themselves, as well as most useful to the public, that being meanly born and bred, submit to the station they are in with cheerfulness; and contented, that their children should succeed them in the same low condition, inure them from their infancy to labour and submission, as well as the cheapest diet and apparel; when, on the contrary, that sort of them will always be the least serviceable to others, and themselves the most unhappy, who, dissatisfied with their labour, are always grumbling and repining at the meanness of their condition; and, under pretence of having a great regard for the welfare of their children, recommend the education of them to the charity of others; and you shall always find, that of this latter class of poor, the greatest part are idle sottish people, that, leading dissolute lives themselves, are neglectful to their families, and only want, as far as it is in their power, to shake off that burden of providing for their brats from their own shoulders.

Cleo. I think the saying is true, and that it benefits the poor just as much as it seems to benefit the rich. Among the working class, those who are the least miserable themselves and most helpful to society are the ones who, despite being born and raised in humble circumstances, accept their situation with a positive attitude. They are happy that their children will follow in their footsteps, training them from a young age to work hard and accept their low status, along with simple food and clothing. On the other hand, those who are dissatisfied with their work and constantly complain about their low status are usually the least helpful to others and the most unhappy themselves. Under the guise of caring for their children's well-being, they often look to others for charity in educating them. You’ll typically find that many of those in this latter group are lazy and aimless people, leading destructive lives without taking care of their families, only wishing to offload the responsibility of providing for their kids onto someone else.

Hor. I am no advocate for charity schools; yet I think it is barbarous, that the children of the labouring poor, should be for ever pinned down, they, and all their posterity, to that slavish condition; and that those who are meanly born, what parts or genius soever they might be of, should be hindered and debarred from raising themselves higher.

Hor. I'm not a supporter of charity schools, but I find it cruel that the children of the working poor should be forever stuck in that miserable situation, along with their descendants; and that those who are born into low status, no matter their talents or potential, should be prevented from improving their circumstances.

Cleo. So should I think it barbarous, if what you speak of was done any where, or proposed to be done. But there is no degree of men in Christendom that are pinned down, they and their posterity, to slavery for ever. Among the very lowest sort, there are fortunate men in every country; and we daily see persons, that without education, or friends, by their own industry and application, raise themselves from nothing to mediocrity, and sometimes above it, if once they come rightly to love money and take delight in saving it: and this happens more often to people of common and mean capacities, than it does to those of brighter parts. But there is a prodigious difference between debarring the children of the poor from ever rising higher in the world, and refusing to force education upon thousands of them promiscuously, when they should be more usefully employed. As some of the rich must come to be poor, so some of the poor will come to be rich in the common course of things. But that universal benevolence, that should every where industriously lift [516]up the indigent labourer from his meanness, would not be less injurious to the whole kingdom than a tyrannical power, that should, without a cause, cast down the wealthy from their ease and affluence. Let us suppose, that the hard and dirty labour throughout the nation requires three millions of hands, and that every branch of it is performed by the children of the poor. Illiterate, and such as had little or no education themselves; it is evident, that if a tenth part of these children, by force and design, were to be exempt from the lowest drudgery, either there must be so much work left undone, as would demand three hundred thousand people; or the defect, occasioned by the numbers taken off, must be supplied by the children of others, that had been better bred.

Cleo. So should I consider it cruel if what you’re talking about happened anywhere or was proposed to happen. But there’s no class of people in Christendom that are condemned, along with their descendants, to slavery forever. Even among the lowest ranks, there are lucky individuals in every country; and we often see people who, without education or support, elevate themselves from nothing to a decent living, and sometimes even higher, if they genuinely value money and enjoy saving it. This often happens more to average folks than to those who are more talented. However, there's a huge difference between preventing poor children from ever improving their situation and refusing to provide widespread education to thousands of them when they could be more productively engaged. Just as some rich people will eventually become poor, some poor people will become rich in the natural course of life. Yet, that universal goodwill intended to lift the struggling laborer from his low status would be just as harmful to the entire kingdom as a tyrannical force that unjustly brings down the wealthy from their comfort and prosperity. Let’s imagine that the hard and dirty work across the nation requires three million workers, and that every part of this work is done by poor children. Many of them are uneducated or have had little to no schooling themselves; it’s clear that if even a tenth of these children were forcibly removed from the most menial jobs, there would either be so much work left undone that it would require three hundred thousand extra people, or the shortfall created by taking these children out would need to be filled by the children of others who were better educated.

Hor. So that what is done at first out of charity to some, may, at long run, prove to be cruelty to others.

Hor. So what starts out as kindness to some might, in the long run, turn into cruelty to others.

Cleo. And will depend upon it. In the compound of all nations, the different degrees of men ought to bear a certain proportion to each other, as to numbers, in order to render the whole a well proportioned mixture. And as this due proportion is the result and natural consequence of the difference there is in the qualifications of men, and the vicissitudes that happen among them, so it is never better attained to, or preserved, than when nobody meddles with it. Hence we may learn, how the short-sighted wisdom of perhaps well-meaning people, may rob us of a felicity that would flow spontaneously from the nature of every large society, if none were to divert or interrupt the stream.

Cleo. And it will rely on that. In the mix of all nations, the different levels of people should match each other in proportion to their numbers, to create a well-balanced mix. This proper proportion comes naturally from the differences in people’s skills and the changes that happen among them. It's best achieved and maintained when no one interferes with it. From this, we can see how the short-sighted wisdom of well-meaning people can take away a happiness that would naturally arise from the essence of every large society, if no one were to disrupt or interfere with it.

Hor. I do not care to enter into these abstruse matters; what have you further to say in praise of money?

Hor. I’m not interested in diving into these complicated issues; what else do you want to say about the benefits of money?

Cleo. I have no design to speak either for or against it; but be it good or bad, the power and dominion of it are both of vast extent, and the influence of it upon mankind has never been stronger or more general in any empire, state, or kingdom, than in the most knowing and politest ages, when they were in their greatest grandeur and prosperity; and when arts and sciences were the most flourishing in them: Therefore, the invention of money seems to me to be a thing more skilfully adapted to the whole bent of our nature, than any other or human contrivance. There is no greater remedy against sloth or stubbornness; and with astonishment I have beheld the readiness and alacrity with which it often [517]makes the proudest men pay homage to their inferiors: It purchases all services, and cancels all debts; nay, it does more, for when a person is employed in his occupation, and he who sets him to work, a good paymaster, how laborious, how difficult or irksome soever the service be, the obligation is always reckoned to lie upon him who performs it.

Cleo. I don’t intend to argue for or against it; but whether it’s good or bad, its power and control are extensive, and its influence on humanity has never been stronger or more widespread in any empire, state, or kingdom than in the most knowledgeable and refined eras when they were at their peak of grandeur and prosperity; and when the arts and sciences were thriving. Therefore, the invention of money seems to be more skillfully suited to our nature than any other human creation. There’s no better remedy against laziness or stubbornness; and I’ve been amazed at how readily and eagerly it often [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]makes the proudest individuals show respect to their inferiors: It buys all services and clears all debts; in fact, it does even more because when someone is working in their job, and they are hired by a good payer, no matter how labor-intensive, difficult, or unpleasant the task is, the responsibility is always seen to lie with the one doing the work.

Hor. Do not you think, that many eminent men in the learned professions would dissent from you in this?

Hor. Don’t you think that many respected people in academia would disagree with you on this?

Cleo. I know very well, that none ought to do it, if ever they courted business, or hunted after employment.

Cleo. I know very well that no one should do it if they ever want to pursue a career or look for work.

Hor. All you have said is true among mercenary people; but upon noble minds that despise lucre, honour has far greater efficacy than money.

Hor. Everything you've said is true for mercenary folks; but for noble minds that look down on wealth, honor has way more power than money.

Cleo. The highest titles, and the most illustrious births, are no security against covetousness; and persons of the first quality, that are actually generous and munificent are often as greedy after gain, when it is worth their while, as the most sordid mechanics are for trifles: The year twenty has taught us, how difficult it is to find out those noble minds that despise lucre, when there is a prospect of getting vastly. Besides, nothing is more universally charming than money; it suits with every station, the high, the low, the wealthy, and the poor: whereas, honour has little influence on the mean, slaving people, and rarely affects any of the vulgar; but if it does, money will almost every where purchase honour; nay, riches of themselves are an honour to all those who know how to use them fashionably. Honour, on the contrary, wants riches for its support; without them it is a dead weight that oppresses its owner; and titles of honour, joined to a necessitous condition, are a greater burden together than the same degree of poverty is alone: for the higher a man’s quality is, the more considerable are his wants in life; but the more money he has, the better he is able to supply the greatest extravagancy of them. Lucre is the best restorative in the world, in a literal sense, and works upon the spirits mechanically; for it is not only a spur that excites men to labour, and makes them in love with it, but it likewise gives relief in weariness, and actually supports men in all fatigues and difficulties. A labourer of any sort, who is paid in proportion to his diligence, can do more work than another who is paid by the day or the week, and has standing wages. [518]

Cleo. The highest titles and the most distinguished backgrounds don't protect against greed; even people of the highest status who are genuinely generous can be just as eager for profit, when it suits them, as the most miserly workers are for small gains. The year twenty has shown us how hard it is to find those noble individuals who truly disregard money when there's a chance to gain a lot. Moreover, nothing is more universally appealing than money; it fits every level of society, whether high or low, rich or poor. In contrast, honor has little impact on the common, struggling people, and rarely influences the general populace; but when it does, money can almost always buy respect. Indeed, wealth itself is a mark of honor for those who know how to wield it appropriately. Honor, on the other hand, requires wealth to uphold it; without money, it becomes a heavy burden for its holder. Titles of nobility combined with a needy situation are a heavier load than the same level of poverty alone: the higher a person's status, the more significant their needs in life. Conversely, the more money they have, the better they can fulfill their most extravagant desires. Profit is the best revival in the world, literally, and it works mechanically on people's spirits; it's not only a motivator that drives people to work and makes them enjoy it, but it also alleviates fatigue and sustains them through all hardships and challenges. Any worker who is compensated according to their effort can accomplish more than someone who is paid by the day or week and has a steady salary. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hor. Do not you think, then, that there are men in laborious offices, who, for a fixed salary, discharge their duties with diligence and assiduity?

Hor. Don’t you think there are people in demanding jobs who, for a set salary, perform their responsibilities with hard work and dedication?

Cleo. Yes, many; but there is no place or employment in which there are required or expected, that continual attendance and uncommon severity of application, that some men harass and punish themselves with by choice, when every fresh trouble meets with a new recompence; and you never saw men so entirely devote themselves to their calling, and pursue business with that eagerness, dispatch, and perseverance in any office of preferment, in which the yearly income is certain and unalterable, as they often do in those professions where the reward continually accompanies the labour, and the fee immediately either precedes the service they do to others, as it is with the lawyers, or follows it, as it is with the physicians. I am sure you have hinted at this in our first conversation yourself.

Cleo. Yes, many; but there isn’t a job or role that demands the kind of constant presence and intense focus that some people willingly put themselves through. Every new challenge comes with a fresh reward, and you’ve never seen anyone devote themselves to their work or pursue their careers with such enthusiasm, speed, and determination in positions that guarantee a stable annual income, as they do in fields where the payoff is directly linked to their effort. This is especially true for professions like law, where the payment often comes before the service, or medicine, where it comes afterward. I’m sure you mentioned this in our first conversation.

Hor. Here is the castle before us.

Hor. Here is the castle in front of us.

Cleo. Which I suppose you are not sorry for.

Cleo. I guess you don’t regret it.

Hor. Indeed I am, and would have been glad to have heard you speak of kings and other sovereigns with the same candour, as well as freedom, with which you have treated prime ministers, and their envious adversaries. When I see a man entirely impartial, I shall always do him that justice, as to think, that if he is not in the right in what he says, at least he aims at truth. The more I examine your sentiments, by what I see in the world, the more I am obliged to come into them; and all this morning I have said nothing in opposition to you, but to be better informed, and to give you an opportunity to explain yourself more amply. I am your convert, and shall henceforth look upon the Fable of the Bees very differently from what I did; for though, in the Characteristics, the language and the diction are better, the system of man’s sociableness is more lovely and more plausible, and things are set off with more art and learning; yet in the other there is certainly more truth, and nature is more faithfully copied in it almost every where.

Hor. I really am, and I would have loved to hear you talk about kings and other ruling figures with the same honesty and openness that you've used when discussing prime ministers and their jealous opponents. When I see someone who is completely impartial, I always feel it's fair to think that, even if they’re not right in what they say, they are at least striving for the truth. The more I look at your views in light of what I see in the world, the more I find myself agreeing with them; and all this morning, I’ve only disagreed with you to learn more and to give you a chance to explain your thoughts in greater detail. I’m convinced by your arguments, and from now on I will see the Fable of the Bees in a completely different light; because even though the language and style in the Characteristics are better, the idea of human sociability is more beautiful and convincing there, presented with more skill and knowledge, the other one definitely has more truth in it, and nature is represented more accurately throughout.

Cleo. I wish you would read them both once more, and, after that, I believe you will say that you never saw two authors who seem to have wrote with more different views. My friend, the author of the Fable, to engage and keep his readers in good humour, seems to be very merry, and to do something else, whilst he detects the corruption of our nature; [519]and having shown man to himself in various lights, he points indirectly at the necessity, not only of revelation and believing, but likewise of the practice of Christianity manifestly to be seen in mens lives.

Cleo. I wish you would read both of them again, and after that, I think you’ll agree that you’ve never seen two authors with such different perspectives. My friend, the writer of the Fable, seems to be very cheerful in order to engage his readers and keep them amused, while he also reveals the flaws in our nature; [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]and after showing man in various ways, he subtly points out the need for not just revelation and faith, but also for the practice of Christianity to be clearly evident in people's lives.

Hor. I have not observed that: Which way has he done it indirectly?

Hor. I haven't noticed that. How has he done it indirectly?

Cleo. By exposing, on the one hand, the vanity of the world, and the most polite enjoyments of it; and, on the other, the insufficiency of human reason and heathen virtue to procure real felicity: for I cannot see what other meaning a man could have by doing this in a Christian country, and among people that all pretend to seek after happiness.

Cleo. By showing, on one hand, the emptiness of the world and its most refined pleasures, and on the other, the limitations of human reasoning and pagan virtues in achieving true happiness: I can't understand what other intention a person could have by doing this in a Christian country, surrounded by people who all claim to be in pursuit of happiness.

Hor. And what say you of Lord Shaftsbury?

Hor. What do you think of Lord Shaftesbury?

Cleo. First, I agree with you that he was a man of erudition, and a very polite writer; he has displayed a copious imagination, and a fine turn of thinking, in courtly language and nervous expressions: But, as on the one hand, it must be confessed, that his sentiments on liberty and humanity are noble and sublime, and that there is nothing trite or vulgar in the Characteristics; so, on the other, it cannot be denied, that the ideas he had formed of the goodness and excellency of our nature, were as romantic and chimerical as they are beautiful and amiable; that he laboured hard to unite two contraries that can never be reconciled together, innocence of manners, and worldly greatness; that to compass this end, he favoured deism, and, under pretence of lashing priestcraft and superstition, attacked the Bible itself; and, lastly, that by ridiculing many passages of Holy Writ, he seems to have endeavoured to sap the foundation of all revealed religion, with design of establishing Heathen virtue on the ruins of Christianity.

Cleo. First, I agree with you that he was a knowledgeable man and a very polite writer; he showed a rich imagination and a great way of expressing himself, using elegant language and strong phrases. However, while it must be acknowledged that his views on freedom and humanity are noble and inspiring, and that there is nothing cliché or mundane in the Characteristics, it cannot be denied that the ideas he formed about the goodness and excellence of human nature were as idealistic and unrealistic as they are beautiful and appealing. He worked hard to combine two opposites that can never truly coexist: innocence and worldly success. To achieve this, he supported deism, and under the guise of criticizing religious fraud and superstition, he went after the Bible itself. Lastly, by mocking many passages of Scripture, he seems to have tried to undermine the foundation of all revealed religion, intending to establish pagan virtue on the ruins of Christianity.

FINIS.

FINIS.

[521]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

INDEX.

Abelard, page 334.

Abelard, page __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Absurd, nothing is thought so that we have been used to, 367.

Absurd, nothing is thought so that we have been used to, 367.

Absurdities in sacred matters not incompatible with politeness and worldly wisdom, 413, 414, 415, 422.

Absurdities in sacred matters are not incompatible with politeness and worldly wisdom, 413, 414, 415, 422.

Acclamations made at church, 369.

Church praises, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Accomplishments. The foundation of them is laid in our youth, 508.

Accomplishments. They are built on what we learn in our youth, 508.

Acknowledgment due to ancestors, 202.

Respect to ancestors, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Active, stirring man. The difference between such a one, and an easy indolent man in the same circumstances, 338 to 346.

Active, energetic man. The difference between someone like him and a laid-back, lazy man in the same situation, 338 to 346.

Adam. All men are his descendants, 402.
Was not predestinated to fall, 429.
A miraculous production, 485.

Adam. All men are his descendants, 402.
Was not destined to fall, 429.
A miraculous creation, 485.

Administration, the civil, how it ought to be contrived, 495.
What men it requires, ibid.
Most branches of it seem to be more difficult than they are, 496.
Is wisely divided into several branches, ibid.
Is a ship that never lies at anchor, 504.

Administration, the civil, how it should be planned, 495.
What kind of people it needs, ibid.
Most parts of it appear to be harder than they really are, 496.
Is wisely separated into different sections, ibid.
Is a ship that is always on the move, 504.

Affections of the mind mechanically influence the body, 376.

Emotions of the mind automatically affect the body, 376.

Affectionate scheme, 441.
Would have been inconsistent with the present plan, 442.
When it might take place, 447.

Affectionate plan, 441.
Wouldn't match up with the current plan, 442.
When it could happen, 447.

Age, the golden, fabulous, 483.
Inconsistent with human nature, 452.

Age, the golden, fabulous, 483.
Inconsistent with human nature, 452.

Air and Space, no objects of sight, 207.

Air and Space, no visible objects, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Alexander the Great. The recompence he had in view, 20.
Proved from his own mouth, ibid.
Another demonstration of his frailty, 212.

Alexander the Great. The reward he was after, 20.
Proved from his own words, ibid.
Another example of his weakness, 212.

Alexander Severus, his absurd worship, 414.

Alexander Severus, his absurd worship, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

America, what the conquest of it has cost, 115.

America, what the conquest of it has cost, 115.

Americans. The disadvantage they laboured under, 492.
May be very ancient, ibid.

Americans. The disadvantage they faced, 492.
May be very old, ibid.

Ananas, the, or pine-apple, excels all other fruit, 400.
To whom we owe the cultivation of it in England, 401.

Pineapple stands out among all other fruits, 400.
We owe its cultivation in England to 401.

Anaxagoras, the only man in antiquity that really despised riches and honour, 341.

Anaxagoras, the only person in ancient times who truly looked down on wealth and fame, 341.

Anger defined, 119.
Conquered by fear, ibid. and 122.
The operation of strong liquors imitates that of anger, 126.
Anger described, 386.
The origin of it in nature, ibid.
What creatures have most anger, ibid.
The natural way of venting anger is by fighting, 474.

Anger defined, 119.
Conquered by fear, ibid. and 122.
The effect of strong alcohols resembles that of anger, 126.
Anger described, 386.
The source of it in nature, ibid.
Which creatures experience the most anger, ibid.
The natural way to express anger is through fighting, 474.

Animal Economy. Man contributes nothing to it, 477.

Animal Economy. Humans contribute nothing to it, 477.

Animals, all, of the same species intelligible to one another, 466.

Animals can all understand each other if they are of the same species, 466.

Antagonists, the, of prime ministers, 500, 501.
Are seldom better than the ministers themselves, 504.

Antagonists of prime ministers, 500, 501.
Are rarely any better than the ministers themselves, 504.

Apology, an, for several passages in the book, 137, 138.
An apology for recommending ignorance, 182.

Apology, an, for several sections in the book, 137, 138.
An apology for suggesting ignorance, 182.

Applause, always grateful, 369.
The charms of it, 271.

Applause, always appreciated, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Its attraction, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Arts and Sciences. What encourages them, 509.
Which will always be the most lucrative, 514.

Arts and Sciences. What drives them, 509.
Which will always be the most profitable, 514.

Atheism has hid its martyrs, 128.

Atheism has hidden its martyrs, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Atheism and Superstition of the same origin, 487.
What people are most in danger of atheism, ibid.
Atheism may be abhorred by men of little religion, 266.

Atheism and Superstition come from the same place, 487.
The people who are most at risk of atheism, ibid.
Atheism might be despised by those with weak faith, 266.

Atheists may be men of good morals, 488.

Atheists can be people of strong moral principles, 488.

Avarice, 52.
The reason why it is generally hated, ibid.
Why the society stands in need of it, 53.
Is equally necessary with prodigality, ibid.
What ought to be deemed as such, 266.

Greed, 52.
The reason why it is generally disliked, ibid.
Why society needs it, 53.
Is just as necessary as extravagance, ibid.
What should be considered as such, 266.

Author of the Fable of the Bees, the, desires not to conceal any thing that has been said against him, 261.
The reason of his silence, ibid.
How far only he defends his book, 262.
Has called it an inconsiderable trifle, and a rhapsody, ibid.
Was unjustly censured for confessing his vanity, 263.
How far he is answerable for what Horatio says, 275.
His fears of what will happen, ibid.
The report of his having burnt his book, 276.
The preparatory contrivance this report was built upon, ibid. and 277.

Author of the Fable of the Bees, he doesn't want to hide anything that has been said against him, 261.
The reason for his silence, ibid.
To what extent he only defends his book, 262.
He has referred to it as a minor trifle and a ramble, ibid.
He was unfairly criticized for admitting his vanity, 263.
To what extent he is responsible for what Horatio says, 275.
His concerns about what will happen, ibid.
The rumor that he burned his book, 276.
The underlying scheme this rumor was based on, ibid. and 277.

Authors compared to architects, 480.
Ought to be upon the same footing with their critics, 261.
When most foolishly employed, 262.

Authors are like architects, 480.
They should stand on the same level as their critics, 261.
When they are most foolishly engaged, 262.

Beards, the various modes concerning them, 208.

Beards, the different styles related to them, 208.

Bears brought forth chiefly in cold countries, 430.

Bears primarily live in cold areas, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Bear-Gardens not inferior to operas, as to the real virtue of the companies that frequent either, 301. [522]

Bear-Gardens are just as good as operas when it comes to the genuine quality of the groups that attend either, 301. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Beau Monde censured 333.
What has always employed the wishes of them, 365.
Are every where the judges and refiners of language, 471, 472.
A character of a considerable part of the beau monde throughout Christendom, 266.
The indulgence of the beau monde censured, ibid.
Their easy compliance with ceremonies in divine worship, 267.
Exceptions from the generality of them, ib.

Beau Monde criticized 333.
What has always catered to their desires, 365.
They are everywhere the judges and critics of language, 471, 472.
A characteristic of a significant part of the beau monde throughout Christendom, 266.
The indulgence of the beau monde criticized, ibid.
Their easy acceptance of rituals in divine worship, 267.
Exceptions from the general consensus, ib.

Bees, in, society is natural, in man artificial, 393, 394.

Bees exist naturally in nature, while in humanity, they are created artificially, 393, 394.

Beggars, their policy, 158, 159.
What sort of people complain of them most, ibid.

Beggars, their policy, 158, 159.
What kind of people complain about them the most, ibid.

Behaviour of modest women, 31.
Of a bride and bridegroom, 33.
Of undisciplined soldiers, 123.
Of a fine gentleman at his own table, 307.
Abroad, ibid.
To his tenants, 308.
To his servants, 309.
To tradesmen, 310.
Of an indolent man of no fortune, 338.
Of an active man in the same circumstances, 339.
Of men meanly born, 479.
Of savages, 354, 355.
Of the ill-bred vulgar, 466.
Of different parties, 504, 505.

Behavior of modest women, 31.
Of a bride and groom, 33.
Of undisciplined soldiers, 123.
Of a fine gentleman at his own table, 307.
Abroad, ibid.
To his tenants, 308.
To his employees, 309.
To merchants, 310.
Of a lazy man with no money, 338.
Of an active man in the same situation, 339.
Of men of low birth, 479.
Of savages, 354, 355.
Of the poorly behaved common people, 466.
Of different groups, 504, 505.

Belief, when we deserve it, 90.

Belief, when we earn it, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Believing. The necessity of it, 488.

Believing. Its necessity, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Benefits that accrue from the worst of people, 42 to 48.

Benefits that come from the worst of people, 42 to 48.

Blessing, a, there is nothing created that is always so, 356.
The children of the poor one of the greatest blessings, 446.

Blessing, there's nothing made that lasts forever, 356.
The kids of the poor are one of the greatest blessings, 446.

Blessings, prejudicial, 136.

Blessings, biased, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Bodies, our, visibly contrived not to last, 435.

Bodies, ours, clearly designed not to endure, 435.

Brain, the, compared to a spring watch, 377.
The economy of it unknown, 378.
Conjectures on the use of it, 380.
Of infants compared to a slate and a sampler, 381.
The labour of the brain, 383.
The brain more accurate in women than it is in men, ibid.

Brain, like a spring watch, 377.
Its efficiency is unknown, 378.
Speculations about its use, 380.
Infants compared to a blank slate and a sampler, 381.
The work of the brain, 383.
The brain is more precise in women than in men, ibid.

Brandy Shops, the qualifications required to keep them, 45.

Brandy Shops, the qualifications needed to operate them, 45.

Breeding, good, a definition of it, 36.
A discourse on it, ibid. to 38.

Breeding, beneficial, a definition of it, 36.
A discussion about it, same source as above, to 38.

Brewing and baking luxurious inventions, 98.

Brewing and baking high-end creations, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Britain, Great, wants ignorance, 189, 203.

Britain, Great, wants ignorance, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Brutes, have privileges and instincts which men have not, 467.

Brutes have privileges and instincts that humans don’t, 467.

Bustle, the, to be made in the world to procure a scarlet or crimson cloth, 228.

Bustle, the, to be made in the world to get a scarlet or crimson cloth, 228.

Cardinals, the most valuable accomplishments among, 496, 297.

Cardinals, the most significant achievements among, 496, 297.

Care, what ought to employ our first, 351.

Care, what should occupy our thoughts first, 351.

Carthaginians. Their abominable worship, 414.

Carthaginians. Their horrific worship, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Castrati. See Eunuchs.

Castrati. See Eunuchs.

Castration, the effects of it upon the voice, 333.

Castration, its effects on the voice, 333.

Cat-calls, 371.

Catcalling, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Cato, his character, 213.
His self-denial. 264.

Cato, his persona, 213.
His ability to deprive himself. 264.

Centaurs, sphinxes, and dragons. Their origin, 426.

Centaurs, sphinxes, and dragons. Their origin, 426.

Chance. What it is, 448, 449.

Chance. What it is, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Chancellor, the Lord, of Great Britain. What he should be, 495.
His post requires greater qualifications than any other, 498.

Chancellor, the Lord, of Great Britain. What he should be, 495.
His position demands more qualifications than any other, 498.

Charity. A definition of it, 155.
Is often counterfeited by our passions, 156, 158, 160.
The compliments paid to all the appearances of charity, ibid.
Abuses of charity, 161, 162, 164.
Often counterfeited, 345.
The world hates those who detect the counterfeits, ibid.
An instance of an unjust pretence to charity, ibid.

Charity. A definition of it, 155.
Is often faked by our emotions, 156, 158, 160.
The praise given to all the outward signs of charity, ibid.
Misuses of charity, 161, 162, 164.
Often faked, 345.
The world dislikes those who uncover the fakes, ibid.
An example of an unjust claim to charity, ibid.

Charity children have no opportunity to learn good manners, 166.
Why they are pleasing to the eye, 175.

Charity children don't have the chance to learn proper manners, 166.
Why they are appealing to look at, 175.

Charity schools are admired to distraction, 165.
What is said in behalf of them, ibid.
Not capable to prevent thefts and robberies, ibid.
The cause of our fondness for those schools, 171.
A description of the first rise and subsequent steps that are made to erect a charity school, ibid. to 175.
The joy they give, 175.
They are an inexhaustible fund for tittle-tattle, ib. and 176.
The charms of them to the multitude, 176.
The different views partymen have in wishing well to them, 194, 195.
More labour and eloquence are laid out upon them than on any other duty, ib.
The comfort the wicked find in liking them, 177.
The true motives of the bustle made about them, ibid.
Arguments against charity schools, showing them to be destructive to the public, 178 to 203.
A perpetual nursery for them, 188.

Charity schools are admired to the point of obsession, 165.
What is said in their favor, ibid.
They can't stop thefts and robberies, ibid.
The reason we are fond of these schools, 171.
A description of how they first started and the steps taken to establish a charity school, ibid. to 175.
The joy they provide, 175.
They are an endless source of gossip, ib. and 176.
Their appeal to the masses, 176.
The different perspectives that party members have in supporting them, 194, 195.
More effort and persuasive speech are put into them than any other responsibility, ib.
The comfort that the wicked find in liking them, 177.
The real reasons behind the fuss made about them, ibid.
Arguments against charity schools, showing them to be harmful to the public, 178 to 203.
A constant source for them, 188.

Chastity, the worlds opinion about it, 267.

Chastity, people's opinions on it, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Children. What makes them mannerly, 166.
What all delight in, 174.
Labour the proper province of the children of the poor, 187.
What they are indebted for to parents, 420.
Whether people marry with design of having them, 422.
The children of savages when sociable, 404.

Kids. What makes them polite, 166.
What everyone enjoys, 174.
Work is the appropriate realm for the children of the less fortunate, 187.
What they owe to their parents, 420.
Whether people get married with the intention of having kids, 422.
The children of uncivilized people when friendly, 404.

Children of the poor, one of the greatest blessings, 446.
What their lot always will be, 315, 316.

Children of the poor, one of the greatest blessings, 446.
What their fate will always be, 315, 316.

Christianity, the essentials of, never to be talked of among the beau monde, 267.

Christianity, the basics of, should never be discussed among the beau monde, 267.

Church, going to it of the utmost necessity to the poor, 193.

Church, going to it is essential for the poor, 193.

Cicero, his character, 384.
He imitated Plato, 264.

Cicero, his persona, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
He emulated Plato, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Cid. The six famous lines of it censured, 476.

Cid. The six famous lines of it criticized, 476.

Cities, great flourishing, the work of Providence, 493.
What is requisite to govern them, ibid, and 494.

Cities, thriving and vibrant, a result of divine intervention, 493.
What is needed to manage them, ibid, and 494.

Claim, the unjust, men lay to every thing that is laudable, 410, 411.

Claim, the unfair, men attribute to everything that is praiseworthy, 410, 411.

Classes. The two classes men are divided into, 14.

Classes. The two groups that men are divided into, 14.

Cleomenes begs of Horatio to accept of the Fable of the Bees, and read it, 299.
Is denied, ibid.
Thinking Horatio displeased, breaks off the discourse, 301, 302.
But [523]Horatio owning himself in the wrong, is persuaded to go on, 312.
Shows himself not uncharitable or censorious, 314.
Gives reasons why well accomplished persons may be ignorant of the principles they act from, 315.
Explores duelling; demonstrates the laws of honour to be clashing with the laws of God, from 318 to 333.
Shows the false pretences that are made to virtue, from 337 to 349.
His maxim of inquiring into the rise of arts and inventions, 352.
Gives his conjectures concerning the origin of politeness, from 353 to 364.
Shows the inconsistency of the affectionate scheme with the world as it is, from 442 to 448.
Proves his assertions concerning the nature of man, from the tendency of all laws, especially the ten commandments, from 453 to 466.
Gives his opinion concerning the different designs Lord Shaftsbury and his friend have wrote with, 519.
His character, 270, &c.
His censuring of his own actions, 272.
His aversion to contempt, 273.

Cleomenes asks Horatio to read the Fable of the Bees, 299.
Is denied, ibid.
Thinking Horatio is upset, he ends the conversation, 301, 302.
But [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Horatio admits he's wrong and is persuaded to continue, 312.
He shows himself to be neither unkind nor judgmental, 314.
He explains why well-educated people might not understand the principles behind their actions, 315.
Explores dueling; shows how the laws of honor conflict with the laws of God, from 318 to 333.
He reveals the false claims made about virtue, from 337 to 349.
His principle of examining the origins of arts and inventions, 352.
He offers his thoughts on the origin of politeness, from 353 to 364.
He shows the inconsistency of the idealistic plan with reality, from 442 to 448.
He substantiates his claims about human nature based on the tendencies of all laws, especially the Ten Commandments, from 453 to 466.
He shares his views regarding the different intentions of Lord Shaftsbury and his friend, 519.
His character, 270, &c.
His criticism of his own actions, 272.
His dislike of contempt, 273.

Clergy, pride concealed them, 72.
Their value for the comforts of life, 88.
A deceitful plea of theirs, 89.
What brings them into contempt, ibid.
The same illustrated by example, 90.
The clergy, when poor, expose themselves by matrimony, 91.

Clergy, their pride hides them, 72.
Their appreciation for life's comforts, 88.
A dishonest request from them, 89.
What earns them disdain, ibid.
The same shown through examples, 90.
The clergy, when they are poor, reveal themselves through marriage, 91.

Clergyman, the social, 292.
Why many clergymen are angry with the Fable of the Bees, 333.

Clergyman, the social, 292.
Why many clergymen are upset with the Fable of the Bees, 333.

Clothes, the use of them, 68.

Clothes, how we use them, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Combabus, 334.

Combabus, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Comforts of life, various as the conditions of men vary, 57.

Comforts of life, as diverse as the different circumstances people face, 57.

Commandments, the ten, are a strong proof of the principle of selfishness and instinct of sovereignty in human nature, 456.
All of them have their political uses, 464.
What is implied in the ninth commandment, 457.
What may be inferred from the sixth, ibid.
The two first point at our natural blindness and ignorance of the true Deity, 459.
The purport of the third discussed, 460.
The fifth explained, 462, 463.
The usefulness of the fourth in worldly affairs, 464.

The Ten Commandments are a strong testament to the selfishness and desire for power inherent in human nature, 456.
Each one has its political applications, 464.
The implications of the ninth commandment, 457.
What can be understood from the sixth, ibid.
The first two highlight our natural ignorance and lack of knowledge of the true Deity, 459.
The meaning of the third is discussed, 460.
The fifth is explained, 462, 463.
The significance of the fourth in everyday matters, 464.

Company, good, 214.
The love of it not the cause of man’s sociableness, 213.
Solitude to be preferred to some company, 216.
Love of company no virtue, ibid.
The reason why man loves it, 391.

Company, good, 214.
The enjoyment of it isn’t what makes people social, 213.
Sometimes solitude is better than certain company, 216.
The love of company isn’t a virtue, ibid.
The reason why people seek it out, 391.

Compassion. A story of a child to raise compassion, 156.
See Pity.

Compassion. A story about a child to inspire compassion, 156.
See Pity.

Compliments, which are Gothic, 368.
Not begun among equals, ibid.
Lose their dignity, 369.

Compliments, which are Gothic, 368.
Not started among equals, ibid.
Lose their dignity, 369.

Conclaves, a character of, 369.

Conclaves, a character of __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Conclusion of the Remarks, 150 to 154.

Conclusion of the Remarks, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ to 154.

Confidence reposed in prime ministers, 502, 503.

Trust in prime ministers, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Confucius, 489.

Confucius, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Conjectures on the origin of politeness, 409, 414.
On the first motives that could make savages associates, 425, 426.
This conjecture not clashing with any of the Divine attributes, 435, 448.

Conjectures about the origin of politeness, 409, 414.
On the initial reasons that might cause primitive people to form associations, 425, 426.
This idea aligns with all of the Divine attributes, 435, 448.

Consciousness, what it consists in, 385.

Consciousness, what it is, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Constitution of the body. What it consists in, 126.

Constitution of the body. What it consists of, 126.

Constitution, the, 497.
Wisdom of that of Great Britain, ibid. and 498.
Is chiefly to be taken care of in all countries, 504.

Constitution, the, 497.
Wisdom of that of Great Britain, ibid. and 498.
Is mainly to be addressed in all countries, 504.

Constructions, the kind, of the beau monde, 263, 269.
Are hurtful to the practice of Christianity, 270.

Constructions, the kind, of the beau monde, 263, 269.
Hinder the practice of Christianity, 270.

Content, the bane of industry, 3, 9, 10, 144.
A definition of content, 146.
Is a precarious virtue, ibid.
An instance of it, 148.
Content more opposite to industry than laziness, ibid.

Content, the enemy of industry, 3, 9, 10, 144.
A definition of content, 146.
It’s a tricky virtue, ibid.
An example of it, 148.
Content is more opposed to industry than laziness, ibid.

Contracts never lasting among savages, 452.

Contracts never last among savages, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Conversation between a mercer and a lady his customer, 223 to 226.

Conversation between a fabric dealer and a lady who is his customer, 223 to 226.

Corneille cited, 476.
Defended, 477.

Corneille mentioned, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.
Supported, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Covetousness. What people are not taxed with it by the beau monde, 269.

Covetousness. What people aren’t criticized for by the beau monde, 269.

Counsellor, the social, 292.

Counselor, the social, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Courage, natural, 321.
Proceeds from anger, 121.
Spurious and artificial courage, 122.
Natural courage, good for nothing in war, 123.
Stratagems to create courage, 124, 125, 129.
May be procured by discipline, 490.
How pride is mistaken for courage, 124.
A definition of artificial courage, 125.
Why it does not appear in dangers where honour is not concerned, 329.

Courage, natural, 321.
Comes from anger, 121.
Fake and artificial courage, 122.
Natural courage, useless in battle, 123.
Tactics to build courage, 124, 125, 129.
Can be gained through training, 490.
How pride is confused with courage, 124.
A definition of false courage, 125.
Why it doesn't show up in situations where honor isn't at stake, 329.

Courtiers, their business, 500.

Courtiers, their role, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Courts of Princes. What procures men admittance there, 480.

Courts of Princes. What gets people in there, 480.

Creatures, how some to be talked of that never had any existence, 426.

Creatures, how can we discuss those that never existed, 426.

Creatures, living, compared to the engine that raises water by fire, 380.
The production of their numbers in every species proportioned to the consumption of them, 439.
This is very conspicuous in whales, ibid.

Creatures, living, are like the engine that lifts water using fire, 380.
The number of creatures in each species is balanced with their consumption, 439.
This is very obvious in whales, ibid.

Cruelty, not greater in a wolf that eats a man, than it is in a man who eats a chicken, 435.

Cruelty is no greater in a wolf that eats a man than in a man who eats a chicken, 435.

Custom, the force of it, 99.

Custom, its influence, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Customers, the different ways of drawing them, 225.

Customers, the various methods of attracting them, 225.

Danger, the, from wild beasts, the first inducements to make savages associate, 425, 426.
The effects of it upon man’s fear, ibid. 427.
Objections to this conjecture, 425, 429, 430, 434, 436, 447, 448.
This danger is what our species will never be entirely exempt from upon earth, 450.

Danger from wild animals was the main reason for early humans to come together, 425, 426.
The impact of this on human fear, ibid. 427.
Counterarguments to this idea, 425, 429, 430, 434, 436, 447, 448.
This danger is something our species will never be completely free from on earth, 450.

Death, not always the thing we fear most, 124.
Interest of money after death, 163.
It is death and not the manner of dying, to which our aversion is universal, 436, 437. [524]

Death, not always the thing we fear the most, 124.
The interest on money after death, 163.
It's death itself, not how we die, that we all universally dislike, 436, 437. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Debate, a, about pride, and what sort of people are most affected with it, 305, 306.
About money to servants, 309, 310.
About the principles a fine gentleman may act from, 312, 313.
About which it is that inclines men most to be religious, fear, or gratitude, from 410 to 416.
About the first step to society, 425, 426.

Debate, on pride and which types of people are most impacted by it, 305, 306.
On money for servants, 309, 310.
On the principles guiding a fine gentleman's actions, 312, 313.
On what motivates people to be religious more, fear or gratitude, from 410 to 416.
On the initial step to society, 425, 426.

Decencies and conveniencies have a large signification, 148.

Decencies and conveniences have a wide meaning, 148.

Deism, modern, what has increased it in this kingdom, 488.
No greater tie than atheism, ibid.

Deism, modern, what has increased it in this kingdom, 488.
No stronger connection than atheism, ibid.

Deity, notions worthy of the, 393, 408, 418, 441, 444, 448.
The same, unworthy, 417, 418, 443, 444.

Deity, concepts deserving of the, 393, 408, 418, 441, 444, 448.
The same, unworthy, 417, 418, 443, 444.

Descartes, his opinion refuted, 105.

Descartes, his opinion challenged, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Description, a, of the pleasures of the voluptuous, 399, 400.
Of the killing of a bullock, 105.

Description, a, of the pleasures of the sensual, 399, 400.
Of the slaughter of a calf, 105.

Dialogues, the reputation that has been gained by writing them, 265.
Why they are in disrepute, ibid.

Dialogues, the reputation that has been built by writing them, 265.
Why they have fallen out of favor, ibid.

Dice, spoken to illustrate what chance is, 449.

Dice, used to explain what chance is, 449.

Discourse, a, on the social virtues according to Lord Shaftsbury, from 288 to 302.
On duelling, natural and artificial courage, from 318 to 333.
On the different effects the same passions have on men of different tempers, from 338 to 341.
On pride, and the various effects and symptoms of it, from 347 to 352.
On the origin of politeness, 352, to 364.
On compliments, tokens of respect, laughing, &c. from 366 to 377.
On the faculty of thinking, from 377 to 386.
On the sociableness of man, from 386 to 403.
On the first motive that could make savages associate, from 425 to 451.
On the second step to society, and the necessity of written laws, from 451 to 465.
On language, from 466 to 488.
On diverse subjects relating to our nature and the origin of things, from 477 to 491.
On government, capacities, and the motives of study, on ministers, partiality, and the power of money, to the end.

Discourse, a, on social virtues according to Lord Shaftsbury, from 288 to 302.
On dueling, natural and artificial courage, from 318 to 333.
On how the same passions affect people with different temperaments, from 338 to 341.
On pride and its various effects and symptoms, from 347 to 352.
On the origins of politeness, 352, to 364.
On compliments, respect tokens, laughter, etc., from 366 to 377.
On the ability to think, from 377 to 386.
On the sociability of humans, from 386 to 403.
On the initial motive that could lead savages to associate, from 425 to 451.
On the second step toward society and the need for written laws, from 451 to 465.
On language, from 466 to 488.
On various topics related to our nature and the origins of things, from 477 to 491.
On govt, abilities, and the motivations for studying, on leaders, bias, and the influence of money, to the end.

Distiller, a, what is required to make an eminent one, 40.

Distiller, what it takes to become a great one, 40.

Divines, what it is we are obliged to for the great numbers of them, 184.

Divines, what we owe to the vast number of them, 184.

Docility depends upon the pliableness of the parts, 390.
Lost if neglected in youth, 396.
The superior docility in man, in a great measure owing to his remaining young longer than other creatures, 397.

Docility depends on how flexible the parts are, 390.
Once lost due to neglect in youth, 396.
The higher docility in humans is largely because they stay young longer than other animals, 397.

Dominion, the desire of, all men are born with it, 406.
Seen in the claim of parents to their children, ibid.

Dominion, the desire that all people are born with, 406.
It's evident in the way parents lay claim to their children, ibid.

Dress, the only thing by which men are judged of at courts, 480.

Dress, the one thing through which people are judged in court, 480.

Drunkenness, how it is judged of, 268.

Drunk behavior, how it's perceived, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Dryades and Hama-Dryades, 410.

Dryads and Hamadryads, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Duelling, proceeds not from false notions of honour, 130.
The benefit of it to society, 131.
The custom of it not to be abolished, ibid.
How to prevent it, ibid.
Men of honour would be laughed at if they scrupled it, because it is a sin, 319.
What considerations are slighted for it, 332.

Duelling doesn't come from misguided ideas of honor, 130.
The benefit of it to society, 131.
The tradition of it shouldn't be eliminated, ibid.
How to stop it, ibid.
Men of honor would be mocked if they hesitated to engage in it, because it's a sin, 319.
What factors are ignored for it, 332.

Duellists, their concern chiefly owing to their struggles between the fear of shame and the fear of death, 326.
Seem to act by enchantment, 327.

Duellists, primarily worried about their battles with the fear of shame and the fear of death, 326.
Seem to be driven by some sort of magic, 327.

Dutch, the, not frugal from principle, 108.
Their calamities under Philip II. of Spain, ibid.
Their other disadvantages, 109.
How they differ from us, ibid.
Their profuseness, 111.
Their policy in encouraging the extravagancies of sailors, ibid.

Dutch, who aren't careful with money by principle, 108.
Their troubles during Philip II of Spain's rule, ibid.
Their other challenges, 109.
How they differ from us, ibid.
Their excessive spending, 111.
Their approach to supporting the extravagances of sailors, ibid.

Dying, the means of, are all equally the contrivance of nature, 436.
It is as much requisite to die as to be born, ibid.
Several ways of dying are necessary, 443.

Death, the method of, is all equally the design of nature, 436.
It is just as essential to die as it is to be born, ibid.
Various methods of dying are necessary, 443.

Earth, the, our species would have overstocked it, if there never had been war, 443.

Earth, our species would have overcrowded it if there had never been war, 443.

Education, observations concerning it, 19, 23.
(a refined) teaches no humility, 305.
The most effectual means to succeed in the education of children, 315.
Teaches to conceal, and not to conquer the passions, 305, 337.
The best proof for the necessity of a good education, 476.
People may be miserable only for want of education, 482.
The necessity of a Christian education, 488, 489.
A gentleman’s education destructive to Christian humility, 272.

Education, thoughts about it, 19, 23.
(a refined) doesn't teach humility, 305.
The most effective way to educate children, 315.
It teaches how to hide passions rather than overcome them, 305, 337.
The best evidence of the need for a good education, 476.
People can be unhappy simply because they lack education, 482.
The importance of a Christian education, 488, 489.
A gentleman’s education can undermine Christian humility, 272.

Effendi, Mahomet, died for atheism, 128.

Effendi, Mahomet, died for not believing in God, 128.

Eggs in fish not impregnated by the male as in other oviparous animals, 438.
The use of this, ibid.

Eggs in fish aren't fertilized by the male like in other egg-laying animals, 438.
The use of this, ibid.

Elements, the, are all our enemies, 219.

Elements are all our enemies, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Emulation, mankind divided into two classes for emulations sake, 14.
The emulation of school-boys not derived from virtue, 75.

Emulation, humanity split into two groups for the sake of competition, 14.
The competition among schoolboys not stemming from virtue, 75.

Englishmen do not covet Spartan greatness, 150.

English people do not desire Spartan greatness, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Enthusiasm, the force of it, 149.

Excitement, its energy, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Envy, 73.
A definition of it, ibid.
The various symptoms of it, 74, 75.
Envy conspicuous in wild beasts, 75.
An argument to show that envy is rivetted in our nature, ibid.
The use of envy in painters, 76.
Envy has reformed more bad husbands than preaching, ibid.
An instance of envy, 77.
Nobody is without, ibid.
Cato’s envy to Cæsar, 213.
Envy accounted for, 386.

Envy, 73.
A definition of it, ibid.
The various symptoms of it, 74, 75.
Envy visible in wild animals, 75.
An argument to demonstrate that envy is embedded in our nature, ibid.
The role of envy in art, 76.
Envy has corrected more bad husbands than sermons, ibid.
An example of envy, 77.
No one is free from it, ibid.
Cato’s envy of Cæsar, 213.
Envy explained, 386.

Epicurus. The pleas and apologies of Epicurus, 140, 141.
The doctrine of Epicurus exploded, 485, 486.

Epicurus. The arguments and defenses of Epicurus, 140, 141.
The teachings of Epicurus took off, 485, 486.

Essay, an, on charity and charity schools, 155.

Essay, about charity and charity schools, 155.

Evil, both moral and natural the solid basis of society, 237.
The cause of it more inquired into than that of good, 441. [525]

Evil, both moral and natural, is the foundation of society, 237.
People tend to investigate its causes more than those of good, 441. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Eunuchs overvalued, 33, 34.
No part of the creation, ibid.

Eunuchs were overvalued, 33, 34.
No part of creation, ibid.

Examination of one’s self, 302, 316, 330, 272.

Self-reflection, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__.

Exchequer, the wise regulations of it, 496.
In all the business belonging to it, the constitution does nine parts in ten, ibid.

Exchequer, its wise rules, 496.
In all matters related to it, the constitution covers nine out of ten parts, ibid.

Exclaim, why all nations cry Oh! when they exclaim, 374.

Exclaim, why do all nations cry Oh! when they shout, 374.

Experience of greater use in procuring good laws than genius, 491.

Experience is more valuable in creating good laws than natural talent, 491.

Fable, the, or what is supposed to have occasioned the first dialogue, 273, 274.

Fable, the, or what is believed to have sparked the first dialogue, 273, 274.

Fable of the Bees, the first part of the, quoted, 326, 332, 436,
spoke against, 280, 301, 332, 336,
defended, 293, 332.—
What view the book ought to be seen in, 333.
The treatment it has had illustrated by a simile, 333.
Vice is no more encouraged in it than robbing is in the Beggar’s Opera, 263.

Fable of the Bees, the first part of the, quoted, 326, 332, 436,
criticized, 280, 301, 332, 336,
defended, 293, 332.—
How the book should be interpreted, 333.
The treatment it has received is illustrated by a metaphor, 333.
Vice is no more promoted in it than theft is in the Beggar’s Opera, 263.

Fall, the, of man not predestinated, 429.

Fall, the, of man not predetermined, 429.

Fame, what the thirst after fame consists in, 20.

Fame, what the desire for fame really is, 20.

Fathers of the church delighted in acclamations whilst they are preaching, 269.

Fathers of the church enjoyed praise while they were preaching, 269.

Fear, not to be conquered by reason, 118.
A definition of fear, ibid.
The necessity of fear in the society, 122.
Fear of death, when the strongest, 211.
Fear the only thing man brings into the world with him towards religion, 408.
The Epicurean axiom that fear made the gods exploded, ibid. and 409.

Fear, not to be overcome by logic, 118.
A definition of fear, ibid.
The importance of fear in society, 122.
Fear of death, when it's the strongest, 211.
Fear is the only thing a person brings into the world with them regarding religion, 408.
The Epicurean belief that fear created the gods was disproven, ibid. and 409.

Fees, the power of them upon lawyers and physicians, 293.

Fees, their influence over lawyers and doctors, 293.

Fish, a visible provision made by nature for their extraordinary numbers, 437.
The vast consumption of them, 438, 439.

Fish, a clear gift from nature for their incredible numbers, 437.
The large amount consumed, 438, 439.

Flatterers of our species. Why they confound what is acquired with what is natural, 478.

Flatterers of our kind. Why do they mix up what's learned with what's instinctive, 478.

Flattery, no man proof against it, 18, 316.
The various arts of it, 20, 21.
The beginning of it in society, 363.
Becomes less barefaced as politeness increases, 369.

Flattery, no man is immune to it, 18, 316.
The different ways to do it, 20, 21.
Its emergence in society, 363.
It becomes less obvious as politeness grows, 369.

Flesh of animals, to eat it is a cruel piece of luxury, 99, 100.

Flesh of animals, eating it is a cruel luxury, 99, 100.

Flies, 440.

Flies, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Folly of infants, 424.

Folly of children, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Fools, learned, where to be met with, 383.

Fools, figured out where to meet, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Footmen, the faults they are generally guilty of in England, 189, 190, 191.
What it is that spoils them, 191.
A society of them, 192.

Footmen, the mistakes they typically make in England, 189, 190, 191.
What it is that ruins them, 191.
A group of them, 192.

Frailties palmed upon the world for virtues, 338.

Weaknesses presented to the world as strengths, 338.

Friendship, never lasting without discontent on both sides, 337.

Friendship, never lasts without some level of discontent on both sides, 337.

Fright, a, pride of no use in it, 126.
The effects it had upon us, ibid.

Fright, a, pointless pride in it, 126.
The impact it had on us, ibid.

Frowning described, 373.

Frowning described, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Frugality, a definition of it, 105.
What frugality will always depend upon, 106.
What his made the Dutch frugal, 110.
A discourse on frugality, ibid. to 113.—
The impossibility of forcing people to be frugal without necessity, 113.
The frugality of the Spartans, 133.
The influence of it on trade, ibid.
When it is no virtue, 338, 339.

Frugality, a definition of it, 105.
What frugality will always depend upon, 106.
What made the Dutch frugal, 110.
A discussion on frugality, ibid. to 113.—
The impossibility of forcing people to be frugal without necessity, 113.
The frugality of the Spartans, 133.
The influence of it on trade, ibid.
When it is no virtue, 338, 339.

Fulvia, the reason why no character is given of her, 273.

Fulvia, the reason why no character is described for her, 273.

Gamesters, the reason why they conceal their gettings before the losers, 39 to 41.

Gamesters, the reason they hide their winnings from the losers, 39 to 41.

Gassendus is the example the author has followed in his dialogues, 274.

Gassendus is the example that the author has used in his dialogues, 274.

Genius, many things are ascribed to genius and penetration that are owing to time and experience, 361.
Has the least share in making laws, 493.

Genius, many things are attributed to genius and insight that actually come from time and experience, 361.
Has the smallest role in creating laws, 493.

Gentleman, a fine, drawn, and the picture approved of by Horatio, from 306 to 311.
Why there are not many such, from 306 to 315.

Gentleman, a refined individual, and the image endorsed by Horatio, from 306 to 311.
It's surprising there aren't many like this, from 306 to 315.

Gestures made from the same motive in infants and orators, 469.
The abuse of them, 470.
To make use of them more natural than to speak without, ibid.

Gestures made with the same intent in babies and speakers, 469.
Their misuse, 470.
Using them feels more natural than talking without them, ibid.

Gift, a great, of a late physician examined into, 105 to 164.

Gift, a great, of a late physician examined into, 105 to 164.

Glory, the love of, in men of resolution and perseverance, may, without other help, produce all the accomplishments men can be possessed of, 312, 313, 314.
A trial to know whether a fine gentleman acts from principles of virtue and religion, or from vain glory, 317, 318.
When only the love of glory can be commendable, 324.
The eager pursuit of worldly glory inconsistent with Christianity, 269.

Glory, the desire for it, in determined and persistent men, can, without any other support, lead to all the achievements a person can have, 312, 313, 314.
A test to determine whether a true gentleman is motivated by principles of virtue and faith, or by selfish ambition, 317, 318.
When the love of glory is the only thing that can be admirable, 324.
The intense pursuit of worldly glory is not aligned with Christianity, 269.

Golden age not fit for society, 11, 220.

Golden age unsuitable for society, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Governing. Nothing requires greater knowledge than the art of it, 491, 492.
Is built on the knowledge of human nature, 493.

Governing. Nothing needs more understanding than the skill of it, 491, 492.
It's based on the understanding of human nature, 493.

Government, the rise of it, 222.
What is the best form of it, is yet undecided, 394.
Is in bees the work of nature, 393, 394.
None can subsist without laws, 377.
What the best forms of it are subject to, 491.

Government, its emergence, 222.
The best type of it is still up for debate, 394.
Is the activity of bees part of nature's design, 393, 394.
No one can survive without laws, 377.
What the best types of it depend on, 491.

Government, the, of a large city. What sort of wisdom it requires, 493.
Compared to the knitting frames, 494.
To a musical clock, ibid.
Once put into good order it may go right, though there should not be a wise man in it, 494.

Government, of a large city. What kind of wisdom it needs, 493.
Compared to knitting frames, 494.
To a musical clock, ibid.
Once organized properly, it might function well, even if there's not a wise person involved, 494.

Governor, the charms of the word to mean people, 173.
Governors of charity schools, ibid.
The praises given them, 175.

Governor, the appeal of the word to signify people, 173.
Governors of charity schools, ibid.
The accolades given to them, 175.

Grammar schools, how to be managed, 211.

Grammar schools, how to operate, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Gratitude, man’s, examined into, as the cause of Divine worship, 411, 413, 414.

Gratitude, humanity's, looked into, as the reason for Divine worship, 411, 413, 414.

Grumbling. See Hive.

Grumbling. See Hive.

Happiness on earth like the philosopher’s stone, 388.

Happiness on earth is like the philosopher’s stone, 388.

Hardships are not such when men are used to them, 199. [526]

Hardships aren't so tough when people are used to them, 199. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Hats, the various modes of them, 208.

Hats, the different styles of them, 208.

Heroes, their great views, 20.
What they differ in from coward is corporeal, 126.
Of antiquity, chiefly famed for subduing wild beasts, 426.

Heroes, their grand perspectives, 20.
What sets them apart from cowards is physical, 126.
From ancient times, primarily known for conquering wild animals, 426.

Hive, Grumbling Hive, 1.
Their glorious condition, ibid. 2.
Their knavery, 2. to 4.
Their murmurings, 6.
Jupiter makes them honest, ibid.
Their conversion and the effects of it upon trade, 7 to 11.
The moral, 11.

Hive, Grumbling Hive, 1.
Their glorious state, ibid. 2.
Their trickery, 2. to 4.
Their complaints, 6.
Jupiter makes them honest, ibid.
Their transformation and its impact on trade, 7 to 11.
The lesson, 11.

Honesty, the effects of it on trade, 9, 132, 133, 134, 139.
Where the most of it is to be found, 165, 166.

Honesty, its impact on business, 9, 132, 133, 134, 139.
Where it is most commonly found, 165, 166.

Honour, the genuine signification of it, 27.
The figurative sense of it, 116.
Rubs of honour, ibid. 117.
Principles of honour, how raised, 123.
The standard of honour, 130.
A new standard of it, ibid.
The latter much easier than the first, ibid.
Honour opposite to religion, 132.
The great allowances of honour, ibid.
Why there are so many men of real honour, ibid.
The principles of it extolled, 299, 300, 318.
The same condemned, ibid.
Is a chimerical tyrant, 322.
Is the result of pride, but the same cause produces not always the same effect, 325.
Is acquired, and therefore no passion belonging to any one’s nature, 326.
Is not compatible with the Christian religion, 329.
In women more difficult to be preserved than in men, 349.
Is not founded upon any principle of virtue or religion, ibid.
The signification of the word whimsical, ibid.

Honor, its true meaning, 27.
The figurative meaning of it, 116.
Issues of honor, ibid. 117.
The principles of honor, how they are developed, 123.
The standard of honor, 130.
A new standard of it, ibid.
The latter is much easier than the first, ibid.
Honor in contrast to religion, 132.
The major allowances of honor, ibid.
Reasons why there are so many men of true honor, ibid.
The principles of it praised, 299, 300, 318.
The same criticized, ibid.
Is a fanciful oppressor, 322.
Is the result of pride, but the same cause doesn't always lead to the same outcome, 325.
Is obtained, and thus is not an emotion inherent to anyone's nature, 326.
Is not compatible with the Christian faith, 329.
Is harder to maintain in women than in men, 349.
Is not based on any principles of virtue or religion, ibid.
The meaning of the word whimsical, ibid.

Hope, a definition of it, 78.
The absurdity of the words certain hope, 79.

Hope, a definition of it, 78.
The ridiculousness of the phrase certain hope, 79.

Horatio refuses to accept of the Fable of the Bees, 299.
Is taxed with maintaining the theory of what he cannot prove to be practicable, ibid.
Owns that the discourse of Cleomenes had made an impression on him, 302.
Mistakes Cleomenes and grows angry, 303, 304.
Interrupts him, 305.
Finds fault again with Cleomenes wrongfully, and seems displeased, 310.
Sees his error, begs pardon, and desires Cleomenes to go on, 311.
Takes upon him to be the fine gentleman’s advocate, 317.
Labours hard to justify the necessity of duelling, 318, 319, 322.
—Shows the intolerable consequences of affronts not resented, 322, 323.
Accepts of the Fable of the Bees, 331.
Why he dislikes it, 336.
Having considered on the origin of politeness, pays a visit to Cleomenes, 367.
Invites him to dinner, 399.
Cannot reconcile the account of savages with the Bible, 401.
Proposes mutual affection as a means to make men associate, 441.
Allows of the conjecture about the first step towards society, 449.
Comes into the sentiments of Cleomenes, 518.
His character, 270, 271.

Horatio refuses to accept the Fable of the Bees, 299.
Is criticized for upholding a theory he can't prove to be practical, ibid.
Recognizes that Cleomenes' discussion has influenced him, 302.
Misunderstands Cleomenes and becomes angry, 303, 304.
Interrupts him, 305.
Again faults Cleomenes unfairly, appearing displeased, 310.
Realizes his mistake, apologizes, and asks Cleomenes to continue, 311.
Takes on the role of the fine gentleman’s advocate, 317.
Works hard to defend the necessity of dueling, 318, 319, 322.
—Illustrates the severe outcomes of not addressing insults, 322, 323.
Accepts the Fable of the Bees, 331.
Explains why he dislikes it, 336.
After considering the origins of politeness, visits Cleomenes, 367.
Invites him to dinner, 399.
Finds it hard to reconcile the account of savages with the Bible, 401.
Suggests mutual affection as a way to encourage people to associate, 441.
Agrees with the idea about the first step towards society, 449.
Aligns with Cleomenes’ views, 518.
His character, 270, 271.

Horses, not tamed by nature, 454.
What is called vicious in them, 455.

Horses, not domesticated by nature, 454.
What is considered vicious in them, 455.

Hospitals, the necessity of them, 164.
A caution against the increase of them, ibid. 165.

Hospitals, the need for them, 164.
A warning about the rise of them, ibid. 165.

Humility, Christian, no virtue more scarce, 272.

Humility, Christian, no virtue is rarer, 272.

Hunger and lust the great motives that stir up courage in brutes, 118, 119.
The influence these appetites have upon ourselves, 120, 121.

Hunger and desire are the major drives that spark courage in animals, 118, 119.
The impact these cravings have on us, 120, 121.

Hutcheson, Mr., a favour asked him, 511.

Hutcheson, Mr., asked him for a favor, 511.

Hypocrisy, to deceive by counterfeiting, 297.
Of some divines, 333.
Four are never guilty of it, 338.
Detected in the pretences to content in poverty, 339, 340.
When owned, 345.

Hypocrisy is about deceiving by pretending to be something you're not, 297.
Some religious leaders, 333.
Four types never engage in it, 338.
Caught in pretending to be okay with poverty, 339, 340.
When acknowledged, 345.

Idiots, not affected with pride, 376.
Made by loss of memory, 385.

Fools, free from pride, 376.
Created by forgetfulness, 385.

Idolatry, all the extravagancies of it pointed out in the second commandment, 459.
Of the Mexicans, 460.

Idolatry, all the excesses of it highlighted in the second commandment, 459.
Of the Mexicans, 460.

Ignorance, a necessary ingredient in the mixture of society, 55, 179.
Reasons for it, ibid.
Punishments the author has to fear for recommending ignorance, 181, 182.
Great Britain wants it to be happy, 203.
Of the true Deity is the cause of superstition, 408.

Ignorance, an essential part of society, 55, 179.
Reasons for it, ibid.
Consequences the author faces for promoting ignorance, 181, 182.
Great Britain seeks it for happiness, 203.
Of the true God is the reason for superstition, 408.

Imaginary, rewards for self-denial, 14.

Imaginary, rewards for self-control, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Immortality, the, of the soul, a doctrine older than Christianity, 138.
Why so generally received, ibid.

Immortality, of the soul, a belief that predates Christianity, 138.
Why is it so widely accepted, ibid.

Indolence not to be confounded with laziness, 343.

Indolence should not be confused with laziness, 343.

Indolent easy man, an, the difference between him and an active stirring man in the same circumstances, 338 to 345.

Lazy, relaxed guy, and the difference between him and an active, motivated guy in the same situation, 338 to 345.

Industry, differs from diligence, 148.

Industry, differs from hard work, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Infants, the management of them, 380.
Why they ought to be talked to, 381, 390.
Imagine every thing to think and feel, 409.
This folly humoured in them, 410.
Their crying given them to move pity, 467.
Vent their anger by instinct, 473.

Infants, how to take care of them, 380.
Why you should talk to them, 381, 390.
Imagine everything capable of thought and feeling, 409.
This ridiculousness indulged in them, 410.
Their crying designed to evoke pity, 467.
Express their anger by instinct, 473.

Innes, the Rev. Dr. quoted, 276.
His sentiments on charity, 277.

Innes, Rev. Dr. quoted, 276.
His views on charity, 277.

Innocence, state of, described, 220.
Prejudicial to society, 221.

Innocence, state of, described, 220.
Harmful to society, 221.

Insects, would overrun the earth in two years time if none were destroyed, 439.

Insects would take over the planet in two years if none were exterminated, 439.

Interest teaches men the use of their limbs, 360.
Savages to love and infants to suck, neither of them thinking on the design of nature, 422.
All men are born with an instinct of sovereignty, 456, 457.

Interest shows people how to use their bodies, 360.
Savages to love and babies to suckle, neither considering the purpose of nature, 422.
All humans are born with a natural sense of authority, 456, 457.

Invention, of ships, 361, 362.
What sort of people are best at invention, 363.
No stability in the works of human invention, 394.

Invention, of ships, 361, 362.
What kind of people excel at inventing, 363.
There's no consistency in human inventions, 394.

Invisible Cause, an, how savages come to fear it, 408.
The perplexity it gives to [527]men ignorant of the true Deity, 411, 412.
The wildest parents would communicate the fear of it to their children, 412.
The consequence of different opinions about it, 413, 414.

Invisible Cause, and how people come to fear it, 408.
The confusion it brings to [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]people unaware of the true Deity, 411, 412.
Even the wildest parents would pass on their fear of it to their children, 412.
The result of differing opinions about it, 413, 414.

Jealousy, a compound, 78.
No jealousy without love, 82.

Jealousy, a complex emotion, 78.
No jealousy without love, 82.

Jews, knew truths which the politest nations were ignorant of, 1500 years after, 421.

Jews knew truths that the most polite nations were unaware of, 1500 years later, 421.

Judges, who are fit to be, 495.

Judges, who are qualified to be, 495.

Judgment, sound, what it consists in, 383.
Women are as capable of acquiring it as men, ibid. 384.

Judgment, sound, what it consists of, 383.
Women can acquire it just as well as men, ibid. 384.

Justice, and Injustice. What notions a savage of the first class would have of it, 403.

Justice and Injustice. What ideas would a top-level savage have about it, 403.

Justice, the administration of it impracticable without written laws, 377.

Justice, administering it is impossible without written laws, 377.

Juvenal, quoted on superstition, 460.

Juvenal, quoted on superstition, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Knowledge, does not make men religious, 165, 166, 170, 193.
Knowledge beyond their labour is prejudicial to the poor, 179, 180.
Neither knowledge nor politeness belong to a man’s nature, 480.

Knowledge doesn’t make people religious, 165, 166, 170, 193.
Excess knowledge that exceeds their work can harm the poor, 179, 180.
Neither knowledge nor courtesy are inherent to a person's nature, 480.

Knowing, à priori, belongs to God only, 393.

Knowing, à priori, is something only God possesses, 393.

King, a, his happiness compared to that of a peasant, 198, 199.

King, a, his happiness compared to that of a peasant, 198, 199.

Labour, the usefulness of dividing and subdividing it, 465.

Labor, the benefits of breaking it down and analyzing it, 465.

Lampredius, quoted, 414.

Lampredius, cited, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Languages, that of the eyes is understood by the whole species, 497.
Is too significant, 468.
How language might come into the world from two savages, ibid.
Signs and gestures would not cease after the invention of speech, 469.
A conjecture on the strength and beauty of the English language, 471.
The reason of it, ibid. 472.
Whether French or English be more fit to persuade in, 475.
The same things are not beautiful in both languages, ibid.
The intention of opprobrious language, 477.
Is an equivalent for fighting, 474.

Languages, the language of the eyes is understood by everyone, 497.
It's too important, 468.
How language could originate from two primitive people, ibid.
Signs and gestures would continue even after speech was invented, 469.
A reflection on the strength and beauty of the English language, 471.
The explanation for it, ibid. 472.
Which is more effective for persuasion, French or English, 475.
The same concepts are not equally beautiful in both languages, ibid.
The purpose of offensive language, 477.
Is equivalent to fighting, 474.

Latin, not necessary to write and spell English, 185.
To whom it is prejudicial, 186.

Latin, not needed to write and spell English, 185.
To whom it is harmful, 186.

Laughter, conjectures on the rationale of that action, 371, 372.

Laughter, theories on why that happened, 371, 372.

Laws, sumptuary, useless to opulent kingdoms, 153.
All laws point at some defect or frailty belonging to human nature, 455, 456.
The necessity of written laws, 455.
The Israelites had laws before they knew Moses, 456.
What the wisest of human laws owing to, 491.
Laws in all countries restrains the usurpation of parents, 406.
Laws of honour are pretended to be superior to all other, 318.
Are clashing with the laws of God, 319.
Whether there are false laws of honour, 326.

Laws, sumptuary, useless to wealthy kingdoms, 153.
All laws address some flaw or weakness in human nature, 455, 456.
The need for written laws, 455.
The Israelites had laws before they even knew Moses, 456.
What the smartest of human laws are based on, 491.
Laws in all countries limit parental overreach, 406.
Laws of honor are claimed to be superior to all others, 318.
But they conflict with God's laws, 319.
Whether there are false laws of honor, 326.

Lawgivers, what they have chiefly to consider,454.

Lawgivers, what they need to primarily think about,454.

Lawyers, when fit to be judges, 495.

Lawyers, when ready to be judges, 495.

Laziness, a definition of it, 144.
People often call others lazy, because they are so themselves, ibid.
A story of a porter wrongfully suspected of laziness, 145, 146.

Laziness, a definition of it, 144.
People often label others as lazy because they are lazy themselves, ibid.
A story of a porter wrongly accused of laziness, 145, 146.

Leaping, cunning displayed in it, 360.

Leaping, it showed off its cleverness, 360.

Learned fools, where to be met with, 383.

Smart fools, where to find them, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Learning, methods to promote and increase it, 182 to 187.
How all sorts of it are kept up, and looked into in flourishing nations, 508, 509.
How the most useful parts of it may be neglected for the most trifling, 510.
An instance of it, ibid.

Learning, ways to promote and enhance it, 182 to 187.
How all kinds of it are maintained and explored in thriving nations, 508, 509.
How the most beneficial aspects of it can be overlooked for the most trivial, 510.
An example of it, ibid.

Letters, the invention of them, the third step to society, 453.

Letters, the creation of them, the third step toward society, 453.

Lies concerning the Invisible Cause, 41.

Falsehoods about the Invisible Cause, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Life in creatures. The analogy between it and what is performed by engines that raise water by the help of fire, 380.

Life in creatures. The comparison between it and what machines do to lift water using fire, 380.

Lion, the, described, 427.
What designed for by nature in Paradise, 428.
Not made to be always in Paradise, ibid.
The product of hot countries, 430.

Lion, the, described, 427.
What was created by nature in Paradise, 428.
Not intended to remain in Paradise forever, ibid.
The result of warm climates, 430.

Linen, the invention of it, the result of deep thought, 97.

Linen, its creation, born from profound contemplation, 97.

Literature, most parents that are able, bring up their sons to it, 509.

Literature, most parents who can, raise their sons to appreciate it, 509.

Lives, we are to judge of men from their lives, and not from their sentiments, 86.

Lives, we should judge people by their actions, not by their opinions, 86.

Love to their species, is not more in men than in other creatures, 391.

Love for their kind is no stronger in humans than in other creatures, 391.

Love has two significations, 79.
The difference between love and lust, 80.
No jealousy without love, 82.
Whether the end of it is the preservation of the species, 423.
Is little to be depended upon among the ill-bred vulgar, 481.

Love has two meanings, 79.
The difference between love and lust, 80.
There's no jealousy without love, 82.
Whether the goal is to ensure the survival of the species, 423.
Is hardly reliable among the poorly mannered, 481.

Lovers, Platonic may find out the origin of that passion, 81.

Lovers, those who share a deep friendship, might discover the source of that passion, 81.

Loudness, a help to language, 470, 471.

Loudness, a language support tool, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Lucian, 265.

Lucian, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Lucre, a cordial in a literal sense, 417.

Lucre, a cordial in the literal sense, 417.

Lucretia, 124.
The motive she acted from, ibid. 125.
Valued her glory above her virtue, ibid.

Lucretia, 124.
The reason she acted the way she did, ibid. 125.
Placed her reputation over her morals, ibid.

Lust, concealed from ourselves by education, 151.

Lust, hidden from ourselves by upbringing, 151.

Luxury, the definition of it, 56.
The usefulness of it discussed, 57.
Luxury promoted by the legislature, 59.
Maxims to prevent the mischiefs to be feared from luxury, 60, 61.
Arguments for luxury, 63, 64, 134.
Every thing is luxury in one sense, 97, 98.
Instances of luxury in the poor, 98, 99.

Luxury, what it means, 56.
The practical benefits of it discussed, 57.
Luxury supported by the government, 59.
Principles to avoid the problems that may arise from luxury, 60, 61.
Reasons supporting luxury, 63, 64, 134.
Everything is luxury in some way, 97, 98.
Examples of luxury among the poor, 98, 99.

Magistrates, not the less obeyed for despising pomp and luxury, 149.

Magistrates, who are still respected despite looking down on showiness and extravagance, 149.

Males, more, than females born of our species, 445.

Males, more than females born of our species, 445.

Man naturally loves praise and hates contempt, 14.
The manner in which savage man was broke, 16.
A dialogue between a man and a lion, 102.
Man has no real value for his species, 192.
Man a [528]fearful animal, 121.
Is ever forced to please himself, 222.
Always the same in his nature, 137, 138.
Man in the state of nature, 353, 354.
Every man likes himself better than he can like any other. 359.
No man can wish to be entirely another, ibid.
Always seeks after happiness, 388.
Always endeavours to meliorate his condition, 390.
Has no fondness for his species beyond other animals, 392.
Has a prerogative above most animals in point of time, ibid.
Remains young longer than any other creature, 397.
May lose his sociableness, ibid.
There can be no civilized man before there is civil society, ibid.
Man is born with a desire after government, and no capacity for it, 407.
Claims every thing he is concerned in, 411, 421.
Is more inquisitive into the cause of evil than he is into that of good, 411.
Is born with a desire of superiority, 420.
Has been more mischievous to his species than wild beasts have, 436.
What gives us an insight into the nature of man, 453.
Is not naturally inclined to do as he would be done by, 455.
Whether he is born with an inclination to forswear himself, 457.
Thinks nothing so much his own as what he has from nature, 478.
The higher his quality is, the more necessitous he is, 389.
Why he can give more ample demonstrations of his love than other creatures, 481.
Could not have existed without a miracle, 485.

Man naturally loves praise and hates scorn, 14.
The way in which primitive man was tamed, 16.
A conversation between a man and a lion, 102.
Man has no true value for his kind, 192.
Man is a [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]frightened creature, 121.
Is always forced to satisfy himself, 222.
Always the same in his nature, 137, 138.
Man in the state of nature, 353, 354.
Every man thinks more highly of himself than he can of anyone else. 359.
No man wishes to be entirely someone else, ibid.
Always seeks after happiness, 388.
Always tries to improve his situation, 390.
Has no greater affection for his species than for other animals, 392.
Has an advantage over most animals in terms of lifespan, ibid.
Stays young longer than any other creature, 397.
May lose his ability to socialize, ibid.
There can be no civilized man before there is a civil society, ibid.
Man is born with a desire for governance but no ability for it, 407.
Claims everything he is involved in, 411, 421.
Is more curious about the causes of evil than those of good, 411.
Is born with a desire for superiority, 420.
Has been more harmful to his species than wild animals have been, 436.
What gives us insight into human nature, 453.
Is not naturally inclined to treat others as he wants to be treated, 455.
Whether he is born with a tendency to betray himself, 457.
Thinks nothing belongs to him more than what he has by nature, 478.
The higher his status is, the more desperate he becomes, 389.
Why he can show his love more profoundly than other creatures, 481.
Could not have existed without a miracle, 485.

Mankind divided into two classes, 14.
Cannot endure truths that are mortifying, 138.

Humanity split into two groups, 14.
Cannot handle truths that are shameful, 138.

Manners, the comedy of manners, 37.
The doctrine of good manners has many lessons against the outward appearance of pride, but none against the passion itself, 306.
What good manners consist in, 336.
Their beginning in society, 363, 364.
Have nothing to do with virtue or religion, ibid.
See Breeding.

Manners, the comedy of manners, 37.
The concept of good manners teaches us many lessons about avoiding the appearance of pride, but it doesn't address the feeling itself, 306.
Good manners are defined by 336.
Their origins in society, 363, 364.
They have nothing to do with virtue or religion, ibid.
See Breeding.

Marlborough, the Duke of, opposite opinions concerning him, 505, 306.
Was an extraordinary genius, ibid. A Latin epitaph, upon him, 506.
The same in English, 507.

Marlborough, the Duke of, differing views about him, 505, 306.
Was an exceptional talent, ibid. A Latin epitaph for him, 506.
The same in English, 507.

Masters of charity schools, 166.
The number of those that wish to be masters and mistresses of them, 181.

Masters of charity schools, 166.
The number of those who want to be masters and mistresses of them, 181.

Mathematics, of no use in the curative part of physic, 375.

Mathematics, not helpful in the healing aspect of medicine, 375.

Maxims to render people good and virtuous, 106, 107, 108, 139.
Others to aggrandize a nation, 107.
To make the poor serviceable, 113, 114, 165 to 203.
To outsell our neighbour, 191.
The maxims advanced not injurious to the poor, 198, 199.

Maxims to make people good and virtuous, 106, 107, 108, 139.
Others to elevate a nation, 107.
To make the poor useful, 113, 114, 165 to 203.
To outperform our neighbor, 191.
The maxims proposed not harmful to the poor, 198, 199.

Memory, the total loss of it makes an idiot, 385.

Memory, losing it completely turns someone into a fool, 385.

Men, of very good sense may be ignorant of their own frailties, 314.
All men are partial judges of themselves, 338.
All bad that are not taught to be good, 454.

Men, who are quite sensible, may not be aware of their own weaknesses, 314.
Everyone has a biased view of themselves, 338.
All those who haven't been taught to be good are bad, 454.

Merchants, a story of two that both took advantage of their intelligence, 25.

Merchants, a story of two who both used their smarts, 25.

Mexicans, their idolatry, 460.

Mexicans, their idol worship, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Milton, quoted, 228.

Milton, cited, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Minister, the prime, no such officer belonging to our constitution, 497.
Has opportunities of knowing more than any other man, 498.
The stratagems played against him, 499.
Needs not to be a consummate statesman, 500.
What capacities he ought to be of, ibid. 502.
Prime ministers not often worse than their antagonists, 505.

Minister, the prime, there isn’t an officer like that in our constitution, 497.
He has more opportunities to know things than anyone else, 498.
The schemes used against him, 499.
He doesn’t need to be a master statesman, 500.
What skills he should have, ibid. 502.
Prime ministers are not usually worse than their opponents, 505.

Miracles, what they are, 407.
Our origin inexplicable without them, 484, 485, 489, 490.

Miracles, what they are, 407.
Our origin makes no sense without them, 484, 485, 489, 490.

Mistress, a, the difficulty of parting with her while we love, 82.

Mistress, the challenge of saying goodbye to her while we love, 82.

Mobs, not more wicked than the beau monde, 301, 302.
In them pride is often the cause of cruelty, 351.

Mobs, no more evil than the beau monde, 301, 302.
In them, pride is often the reason for cruelty, 351.

Modesty, whence derived, 27.
Has three different acceptations, 30.
The difference between men and women as to modesty, 31, 32.
The cause of it, 33.
The great use of it to the civil society, 80.

Modesty, where it comes from, 27.
Has three different meanings, 30.
The difference between men and women regarding modesty, 31, 32.
The reason for it, 33.
Its significant role in civil society, 80.

Money, the chief use of it, 113, 114.
Too much of it may undo a nation, ibid.
Is of no intrinsic worth, 189.
The money in different ways given to the poor, ill spent, 200, 201.
Money is the root of all evil, 512.
The necessity of it, in a large nation, ibid. 514.

Money, its main purpose, 113, 114.
Having too much can ruin a country, ibid.
It has no real value, 189.
The money given to the poor in various ways often gets wasted, 200, 201.
Money is the source of all evil, 512.
Its necessity in a large nation is crucial, ibid. 514.

Money, will always be the standard of worth upon earth, ibid.
The invention of it adapted to human nature beyond all others, 516.
Nothing is so universally charming as it, ibid.
Works mechanically on the spirits, 517.

Money will always be the measure of value on earth, ibid.
Its invention suited human nature better than anything else, 516.
Nothing is as universally appealing as it, ibid.
It has a mechanical effect on people's emotions, 517.

Money to Servants. A short debate about it, 308, 309.

Money to Servants. A brief discussion on the topic, 308, 309.

Montaigne, a saying of his, 354.

Montaigne, one of his sayings, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Moral, the, of the Grumbling Hive, 11.

Moral, of the Grumbling Hive, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Morals not always the same, 209.

Morals aren't always the same, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Moralists, their artifices to civilize mankind, 13, 14.

Moralists, their tricks to refine humanity, 13, 14.

Morality broached for the ease of government, 14.

Morality was discussed for the sake of making government easier, 14.

Moreri censured, 414.

Moreri criticized, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Moses vindicated, 402, 417, 428, 483, 489, 490.

Moses cleared his name, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_3__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_4__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_5__.

Mothers have but little love for their children when they are born, 35.
Mothers and sisters in the east married their sons and brothers, 209.

Mothers have very little love for their children when they are born, 35.
Mothers and sisters in the east married their sons and brothers, 209.

Motives. The same may produce different effects, 338.
To study and acquire learning, 508, 509, 510.
They are what actions ought to be judged by only, 272.

Motives. The same can lead to different outcomes, 338.
To learn and gain knowledge, 508, 509, 510.
They are the only basis for judging actions, 272.

Music houses at Amsterdam described, 29, 30.

Music venues in Amsterdam described, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Nations may be ruined by too much money, [529]114. The great art to make nations happy, 115. What the wealth of nations consists in, 116, 189. Why all nations cry Oh! when they exclaim, 374. In large flourishing nations, no sorts of learning will be neglected, 511, 512.

Nations can be brought down by too much money, [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]114. The key to making nations happy is 115. The source of a nation's wealth lies in 116, 189. It’s why all nations exclaim “Oh!” when they say 374. In large, thriving nations, no type of knowledge will be overlooked, 511, 512.

Natural. Many things are called so, that are the product of art, 367.
How we may imitate the countenance of a natural fool, 376.
Why it is displeasing to have what is natural distinguished from what is acquired, 478, 479.

Natural. Many things are labeled as such that are actually created by human hands, 367.
How we can mimic the expression of a natural fool, 376.
Why it's frustrating to separate what is natural from what is learned, 478, 479.

Nature not to be followed by great masters in painting, 282.
Great difference between the works of art, and those of nature, 393, 394.
Nature makes no trials or essays, 394.
What she has contributed to all the works of art, 395.
She forces several things upon us mechanically, 373.
Her great wisdom in giving pride to man, 386.
All creatures are under her perpetual tutelage, 421.
And have their appetites of her as well as their food, ibid. 422.
Nature seems to have been more solicitous for the destruction, than she has been for the preservation of individuals, 440.
Has made an extraordinary provision in fish to preserve their species, 439.
Her impartiality, 440.
The usefulness of exposing the deformity of untaught nature, 474.
She has charged every individual with the care of itself, 511.

Nature shouldn’t be imitated by great masters in painting, 282.
There’s a big difference between works of art and those of nature, 393, 394.
Nature doesn’t make trials or experiments, 394.
Everything she has contributed to all works of art, 395.
She mechanically imposes certain things upon us, 373.
Her great wisdom in giving pride to humanity, 386.
All creatures are under her constant guidance, 421.
And they draw their needs from her as well as their food, ibid. 422.
Nature seems to focus more on destruction than on the preservation of individuals, 440.
She has made an extraordinary provision in fish to sustain their species, 439.
Her impartiality, 440.
The value of revealing the flaws of untrained nature, 474.
She has tasked every individual with taking care of itself, 511.

Nature, human, is always the same, 369.
The complaints that are made against it are likewise the same every where, 455.
The usefulness of it is visible in the dialogue, 456, 449.

Nature, human, is always the same, 369.
The complaints made about it are also the same everywhere, 455.
Its usefulness is clear in the conversation, 456, 449.

Navigation. The blessings and calamities of the society on account of it, 231.

Navigation. The benefits and drawbacks that society experiences because of it, 231.

Necessaries of life. The multiplicity of them, 57, 58, 178.

Essentials of life. The variety of them, 57, 58, 178.

Noah, 401. An objection stated concerning his descendants, ibid. 402.

Noah, 401. A concern was raised about his descendants, ibid. 402.

Noise made to a man’s honour is never shocking to him, 370.
Of servants, why displeasing, 371.

Noise made about a man's honor never surprises him, 370.
As for servants, why they are displeasing, 371.

Nola, Jordanus Bruno of, died for atheism, 128.

Nola, Giordano Bruno, was executed for his atheism, 128.

Oaths. What is requisite to make them useful in society, 452, 453.

Oaths. What is needed to make them effective in society, 452, 453.

Obedience, human, owing to parents, 463.

Obedience, human, owed to parents, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Objections against the necessity of pride answered, 66, 67.
An objection to the manner of managing the dialogues, 274.

Objections against the necessity of pride answered, 66, 67.
An objection to the way the dialogues are handled, 274.

Obstacles to happiness we meet with, 219.

Obstacles to happiness we face, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Operas extravagantly commended, 284, 285, &c.
Compared to bear gardens, 301.

Operas were lavishly praised, 284, 285, &c.
In contrast to bear gardens, 301.

Opera, Beggars, injuriously censured, 263.

Opera, Beggars, harshly criticized, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Opinions. The absurdity of them in sacred matters, 338.
How people of the same kingdom differ in opinion about their chiefs, 505.

Opinions. The ridiculousness of them in sacred matters, 338.
How people from the same kingdom disagree about their leaders, 505.

Origin of moral virtue, 13.
Of courage and honour, 117.
Of politeness, 353 to 364.
Of society, 404, 405, 425.
Of all things, 485, 486.
The most probable account of our origin, 438.

Origin of moral virtue, 13.
Of courage and honor, 117.
Of politeness, 353 to 364.
Of society, 404, 405, 425.
Of all things, 485, 486.
The most likely explanation of our origin, 438.

Ornaments bespeak the value we have for the thing adorned, 479.
What makes men unwilling to have them seen separately, ibid.

Ornaments show how much we value the things they decorate, 479.
What makes people reluctant to display them individually, ibid.

Ostracism, 78. A definition of it, ibid.

Ostracism, 78. A definition of it, ibid.

Pain limited in this life, 437.

Pain limited in this life, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Painters blamed for being too natural, 285.

Painters are criticized for being too realistic, 285.

Painting. A discourse concerning it, and the judges of it, 206 to 208.
How the people of the grand gout judge of it, 281.

Painting. A discussion about it, and those who evaluate it, 206 to 208.
How the people with great taste assess it, 281.

Parable, a, 141 to 143.

Parable, a, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__ to __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Paradise. The state of it miraculous, 328, 484, 485.

Paradise. The state of it amazing, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_2__.

Parents. The unreasonableness of them, 406, 421.
Compared to inanimate utensils, 423, 424.
Why to be honoured, 462.
The benefit we receive from them, ibid.

Parents. Their unreasonable behavior, 406, 421.
Compared to lifeless objects, 423, 424.
Why should we hold them in high regard, 462.
The advantage we gain from them, ibid.

Partiality is a general frailty, 506.

Partiality is a common weakness, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Passion. What it is to play that of pride against itself, 315, 350.
How to account for the passions, 386.

Passion. What does it mean to have pride clash with itself, 315, 350.
How can we understand the passions, 386.

Personages introduced in dialogues. The danger there is in imitating the ancients in the choice of them, 264.
Caution of the moderns concerning them, ibid.
When they are displeasing, ibid.
It is best to know something of them before hand, 266.

Characters introduced in conversations. The risk lies in copying the ancients in selecting them, 264.
Modern caution about them, ibid.
When they are unlikable, ibid.
It's better to know a bit about them beforehand, 266.

Philalethes, an invincible champion, 265.

Philalethes, an unstoppable champion, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Physician, a late, his character, 162.
The motives of his last will, 163.
The social, 292.
Physicians are ignorant of the constituent parts of things, 375.

Doctor, a late, his character, 162.
The reasons behind his last will, 163.
The social, 292.
Doctors are unaware of the essential components of things, 375.

Physic, mathematics of no use in it, 375.

Physics, math that has no application in it, 375.

Pity. A discourse concerning it, 157.
No virtue, and why, 21.
Nobody without, 157.
A definition of it, 156.
The force of pity, ibid.
Pity more conspicuous than any pretended virtue, 157.

Pity. A discussion about it, 157.
No virtue, and why, 21.
No one is without it, 157.
A definition of it, 156.
The impact of pity, ibid.
Pity is more evident than any false virtue, 157.

Places of honour and trust.
What persons they ought to be filled with, 495.

Places of honor and trust.
What kind of people should fill them, 495.

Plagues. The fatality of them, 434.

Plagues. Their deadliness, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Plato. His great capacity in writing dialogues, 265.

Plato. His remarkable talent for writing dialogues, 265.

Pleas, deceitful, of great men, 92, 93, 94.
And excuses of worldly men, 270, 271.

Request, misleading, from powerful people, 92, 93, 94.
And justifications from everyday people, 270, 271.

Pleasures, real, 83.
Pleasures of the voluptuous, ibid. 84.
Of the Stoics, 85.
The more men differ in condition, the less they can judge of each other’s pleasures, 198.

Pleasures, real, 83.
Pleasures of the indulgent, ibid. 84.
Of the Stoics, 85.
The more people differ in circumstances, the less they can understand each other’s pleasures, 198.

Politeness demands hypocrisy, 32, 223.
Exposed, 332, 333, and 270.
The use of it, 351, 352.
The seeds of it lodged in self-love and self-liking, 355.
How it is produced from pride, 359.
A philosophical reason for it, ibid.

Politeness requires a degree of dishonesty, 32, 223.
When laid bare, 332, 333, and 270.
The application of it, 351, 352.
Its roots are found in self-love and self-approval, 355.
How it stems from pride, 359.
A philosophical explanation for it, ibid.

Polite, a, preacher. What he is to avoid, 266, 267. [530]

Polite, a, preacher. What he should avoid, 266, 267. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]

Politics. The foundation of them, 16.
What is owing to bad politics, is charged to luxury, 60.

Politics. The basis of them, 16.
What is blamed on poor politics is attributed to excess, 60.

Politicians play out passions against one another 81, 123.
The chief business of a politician, 493.

Politicians express their passions against each other 81, 123.
The main job of a politician is 493.

Polygamy, not unnatural, 209.

Polygamy, not unnatural, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Poor, the, would never work if they did not want, 113.
The plenty of provisions depends on the cheapness of their labour, 114, 178.
Qualifications required in the labouring poor, ibid. 179.
What they ought not to grumble at, 186.
Great numbers of poor are wanting, 201.
The mischiefs arising from their not being well managed, 188.
Not to be suffered to stay from church on Sundays, 193.
The petty reverence that is paid to the poor, injurious, 195.
Which sort of them are most useful to others, and happy in themselves, and which are the reverse, 515.
The consequences of forcing education upon their children, ibid., 516.

Poor people wouldn’t work if they didn’t want to, 113.
The abundance of resources depends on the low cost of their labor, 114, 178.
The qualifications needed for the working poor, ibid. 179.
What they shouldn’t complain about, 186.
A large number of poor people are missing, 201.
The problems that arise from not managing them well, 188.
They shouldn’t be allowed to skip church on Sundays, 193.
The petty respect shown to the poor is harmful, 195.
Which ones are most beneficial to others and content within themselves, and which are the opposite, 515.
The effects of forcing education on their children, ibid., 516.

Popes. What is chiefly minded in the choice of them, 297.

Popes. What is mainly considered in their selection, 297.

Poverty, voluntary, brings nobody into contempt, 89.
An instance of that truth, 90. Very scarce, 341.
The only man in antiquity that can be said to have embraced it, ibid.
The greatest hardship in poverty, 343.

Poverty, when chosen, doesn't lead to anyone's disgrace, 89.
A case in point, 90. Very rare, 341.
The only man in history who can honestly be said to have accepted it, ibid.
The biggest struggle with poverty, 343.

Praise, is the reward all heroes have in view, 20.

Praise is the reward that all heroes seek, 20.

Predestination, an inexplicable mystery, 429, 441.

Predestination, an mysterious concept, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Preferment. What men are most like to get it, 511.

Preferment. Who is most likely to get it, 511.

Pretences, false, of great men concerning pleasure, 95.

Pretenses, false, of great men about pleasure, 95.

Pride, 5.
What animals show the most of it, 15.
The pride of men of sense, 38.
A definition of pride, 66.
The apologies of proud men, and the falsities of them detected, ibid. 67.
Various symptoms of pride, 30, 71.
How it is encouraged in military men, 129.
The benefit we receive from the pride of great men, 130.
The power of pride, 304, 305.
No precepts against it in a refined education, 306.
Increases in proportion with the sense of shame, 315.
What is meant by playing the passion of pride against itself, ibid.
Is able to blind the understanding in men of sense, ibid., 316.
In the cause of honour, 324.
Pride is most enjoyed when it is well led, 331.
Why more predominant in some than in others, 347.
Whether women have a greater share of it than men, 348.
Why more encouraged in women, ibid.
The natural and artificial symptoms of it, 350, 351.
Why the artificials are more excusable, 351.
In whom the passion is most troublesome, ibid.
To whom it is most easy to stifle it, ibid.
In what creatures it is most conspicuous, 353.
The disguises of it, 357.
Who will learn to conceal it soonest, 361.
Is our most dangerous enemy, 474.

Pride, 5.
What animals display the most of it, 15.
The pride of sensible people, 38.
A definition of pride, 66.
The excuses of proud individuals, and the lies they tell revealed, ibid. 67.
Various signs of pride, 30, 71.
How it's encouraged in military personnel, 129.
The benefits we gain from the pride of influential people, 130.
The power of pride, 304, 305.
No rules against it in a refined education, 306.
Increases alongside the sense of shame, 315.
What it means to play the passion of pride against itself, ibid.
Can blind the understanding in sensible individuals, ibid., 316.
In the pursuit of honor, 324.
Pride is most enjoyable when it is well-directed, 331.
Why it’s more prominent in some people than in others, 347.
Whether women have a greater share of it than men, 348.
Why it's more encouraged in women, ibid.
The natural and artificial signs of it, 350, 351.
Why the artificial ones are more excusable, 351.
In whom the passion is most troublesome, ibid.
Who finds it easiest to suppress it, ibid.
In which creatures it is most noticeable, 353.
The disguises of it, 357.
Who will learn to hide it the quickest, 361.
Is our most perilous enemy, 474.

Principle. A man of honour, and one that has none, may act from the same principle, 324.
Reasons why the principle of self-esteem is to be reckoned among the passions, ibid., 325.
Honour not built upon any principle either of religion or virtue, 349.
Principles most men act from, 511, 512.

Principle. A man of honor and one without it may act from the same principle, 324.
Reasons why the principle of self-esteem is considered among the passions, ibid., 325.
Honor not based on any principle of religion or virtue, 349.
Principles that most people act on, 511, 512.

Prodigality, 54.
The use of it to the society, ibid. 152.

Wastefulness, 54.
Its impact on society, same source. 152.

Proposal, a, of a reverend divine for an human sacrifice to complete the solemnity of a birth day, 277.

Proposal, a, by a reverend minister for a human sacrifice to complete the solemnity of a birthday, 277.

Providence saved our species from being destroyed by wild beasts, 431, 433.
A definition of it, 431.
The raising of cities and nations the work of Providence, 492.

Providence saved our species from being wiped out by wild animals, 431, 433.
A definition of it, 431.
The building of cities and nations is the work of Providence, 492.

Provisions, how to procure plenty of them, 114, 115, 178.

Supplies, how to get a lot of them, 114, 115, 178.

Prudence, 458.

Wisdom, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Public spirit has left the nation, 201.
The symptoms of the want of it, ibid, 202.
An exhortation to retrieve it, 203.

Public spirit has left the nation, 201.
The signs of its absence, ibid, 202.
A call to bring it back, 203.

Pulchrum, the, Honestum of the ancients, a chimera, 210.

Pulchrum, the, Honestum of the ancients, a chimera, 210.

Punch, the society compared to a bowl of punch, 55.

Punch, the society likened to a bowl of punch, 55.

Purposes. Fire and water are made for many that are very different from one another, 435.

Purposes. Fire and water serve many different purposes, 435.

Qualifications. The most valuable in the beginning of society would be strength, agility, and courage, 452.

Qualifications. The most valuable traits at the start of society would be strength, agility, and bravery, 452.

Qualities, the hateful, of women more beneficial to trade than their virtues, 137.
The good qualities of man do not make him sociable, 218.
Which are the heft for the society, 227.

Qualities, the negative traits of women benefit trade more than their good qualities, 137.
A man's good qualities don't make him friendly, 218.
These are the burdens on society, 227.

Quarrels, how to prevent them, 318.
The cause of them on account of religion, 413.
Occasioned by the word predestination, 429.
A quarrel between two learned divines, 510.

Arguments, how to avoid them, 318.
The reason for them due to beliefs, 413.
Triggered by the term predestination, 429.
A dispute between two knowledgeable theologians, 510.

Question, which has done the most mischief; 209.

Question, which has caused the most trouble; 209.

Quixote, Don, the last man of ancient honour upon record, 117.

Don Quixote, Don, the last man of ancient honor on record, 117.

Reading and writing, why hurtful to the poor, 180.
Never to be taught for nothing, 186.
Not necessary to make good Christians, 193.

Reading and writing, why it’s harmful to the poor, 180.
Never taught for free, 186.
Not essential for being good Christians, 193.

Reality of pleasures discussed, 85, 86.

Reality of pleasures talked about, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Reason, a, why few people understand themselves, 12.
Why our neighbours outdo us at foreign markets, 196, 197.

Reason, a, why few people really know themselves, 12.
Why our neighbors outperform us in international markets, 196, 197.

Reason is acquired, 396.
The art of reasoning not brought to perfection in many [531]ages, 417.
The stress men lay upon their reason is hurtful to faith, 487, 269.

Reason is learned, 396.
The skill of reasoning hasn't been fully developed in many [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]ages, 417.
The emphasis people put on their reasoning is damaging to faith, 487, 269.

Reformation, the, of less moment to trade than hooped petticoats, 228.

Reformation, which is less important to trade than hooped petticoats, 228.

Religion not the cause of virtue, 17.
Of the heathens absurd, 40.
Where there is the least of it, 165, 193.
Things pass for religion that are foreign to it, 175.
The Christian, the only solid principle, 332, 488.
Came into the world by miracle, 407.
What was not revealed is not worthy to be called religion, 408.
The first propensity towards religion, not from gratitude in savages, 411.

Religion is not the source of virtue, 17.
It's absurd among non-believers, 40.
Wherever there’s the least of it, 165, 193.
Things are accepted as religion that have nothing to do with it, 175.
Christianity, the only solid foundation, 332, 488.
Entered the world through a miracle, 407.
What hasn't been revealed doesn't deserve to be called religion, 408.
The initial inclination towards religion doesn't come from gratitude in primitive people, 411.

Religious houses examined, 87, 88.

Religious buildings examined, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Reneau, Monsieur, accounts mechanically for the sailing and working of ships, 362.

Reneau, Sir, explains the sailing and operation of ships in a mechanical way, 362.

Respect, whether better shown by silence or by making a noise, 371.

Respect, whether it’s better expressed through silence or by making some noise, 371.

Revenge, what it shows in our nature, 458.

Revenge, what it reveals about our nature, 458.

Reverence, the ingredients of it, 405.
Illustrated from the decalogue, 461.
The weight of it to procure obedience, 462.

Respect, the elements of it, 405.
Detailed from the Ten Commandments, 461.
The significance of it to ensure compliance, 462.

Riches, the contempt of them very scarce, 341.
Lavishness no sign of it, ibid.

Wealth, the disregard for it is rarely seen, 341.
Extravagance is not a sign of it, ibid.

Ridicule, the Lord Shaftsbury’s opinion concerning it, 296.

Ridicule, Lord Shaftsbury's view on it, 296.

Right, the, which parents claim to their children is unreasonable, 406, 413, 414.

Right, the, which parents assert their authority over their children is unreasonable, 406, 413, 414.

Right and wrong, the notions of it are acquired, 418, 419, 420.

Right and wrong, the ideas of them are learned, 418, 419, 420.

Rogues, not made for want of reading and writing, 169.
Are oftener very cunning than ignorant, 170.

Rogues, not lacking in reading and writing skills, 169.
Are usually more clever than uneducated, 170.

Roman Catholics are not subjects to be relied upon, but in the dominions of his holiness, 329.

Roman Catholics are not people to depend on, but in the territories of his holiness, 329.

Rome, new, is obliged to old Rome, 203.
Rome, the court of the greatest academy of refined politics, 197.
Has little regard for religion; or piety, ibid.

Rome, new, owes a debt to old Rome, 203.
Rome, the center of the most sophisticated political academy, 197.
Has little respect for religion or piety, ibid.

Rule, a, to know what is natural from what is acquired, 478.

Rule, a, to understand what is natural versus what is learned, 478.

Russia wants knowledge, 203.

Russia seeks knowledge, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Sabbath, the, the usefulness of it in worldly affairs, 464.

Sabbath, the, its usefulness in everyday life, 464.

Savages of the first class are not to be made sociable when grown up, 355.
It would require many years to make a polite nation from savages, ibid.
The descendants of civilized men may degenerate into savages, 401, 450.
There are savages in many parts of the world, 403.
Savages do all the same things, 465.
Those of the first class could have, no language, 466.
nor imagine they wanted it, ibid.
Are incapable of learning any when full grown, ibid.

Savages of the first class cannot be socialized as adults, 355.
It would take many years to transform savages into a polite society, ibid.
The descendants of civilized people can regress into savagery, 401, 450.
There are savages in various parts of the world, 403.
Savages do the same things, 465.
Those of the first class would have no language, 466.
nor would they even realize they needed it, ibid.
They are incapable of learning any language once they are fully grown, ibid.

Savage, a, of the first class of wildness would take every thing to be is own, 403.
Be incapable of governing his offspring, 405.
Would create reverence in his child, 404.
Would want conduct, 406.
Could only worship an invisible cause out of fear, 408.
Could have no notions of right or wrong, 418.
Propagates his species by instinct, 422.
Contributes nothing to the existence of his children as a voluntary agent, 423.
The children of his bringing up would be all fit for society, 426.

Savage, a type of wildness, would take everything to be his own, 403.
He would be unable to control his offspring, 405.
He would instill reverence in his child, 404.
He would desire guidance, 406.
He could only worship an invisible force out of fear, 408.
He would have no concepts of right or wrong, 418.
He propagates his species by instinct, 422.
He contributes nothing to the lives of his children as a conscious choice, 423.
The children he raises would all be suitable for society, 426.

Scarlet or crimson cloth, the bustle to be made in the world to procure it, 228, 229.

Scarlet or crimson fabric, the effort required in the world to get it, 228, 229.

Scheme, the, of deformity, the system of the Fable of the Bees, so called by Horatio, 279, 281.

Scheme, the, of deformity, the system of the Fable of the Bees, so called by Horatio, 279, 281.

Scheme, the, or plan of the globe, requires the destruction as well as generation of animals, 436.
Mutual affection to our species would have been definitive to it, 443.

Scheme, the plan of the world, involves both the destruction and creation of animals, 436.
A mutual love for our species would have been crucial to it, 443.

Scolding, and calling names, bespeaks some degree of politeness, 473.
The practice of it could not have been introduced without self-denial at first, 274.

Scolding and name-calling show a certain level of politeness, 473.
The practice of it couldn't have started without some self-restraint at first, 274.

Sea, the, blessings and calamities we receive from it, 230 to 235.

Sea, the, blessings and troubles we get from it, 230 to 235.

Search, a, into the nature of society, 205, to 238.

Search, a, into the nature of society, 205, to 238.

Security of the nation.
What a great part of it conflicts in, 503.

Security of the nation.
What a significant portion of it is filled with conflict in, 503.

Self-liking different from self-love, 353.
Given by nature for self-preservation, ib.
The effect it has upon creatures, ibid. and 356.
Is the cause of pride, 354.
What creatures do not show it, ibid.
What benefit creatures receive from self-liking, 355.
Is the cause of many evils, ibid.
Encomiums upon it, 357.
Suicide impracticable while self-liking lasts, ibid.

Self-liking is different from self-love, 353.
It's given by nature for self-preservation, ib.
The impact it has on living beings, ibid. and 356.
It's the reason for pride, 354.
What creatures don’t express it, ibid.
What advantages creatures gain from self-liking, 355.
It's the source of many problems, ibid.
Praise for it, 357.
Suicide is not possible while self-liking persists, ibid.

Selfishness, the, of human nature, visible in the ten commandments, 455, 456.

Selfishness, part of human nature, is evident in the ten commandments, 455, 456.

Self-love, the cause of suicide, 357.
Hates to see what is acquired separated from what is natural, 478, 479.

Self-love, the reason for suicide, 357.
Detests seeing what is gained apart from what is innate, 478, 479.

Self-denial, a glorious instance of it, 90.

Self-denial, a remarkable example of it, 90.

Seneca, his summum bonum, 86.

Seneca, his greatest good, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Servants, the scarcity of them occasioned by charity schools, and the mischief it produces, 189, 190, 191.
Their encroachments on masters, 192, 195.

Servants, the shortage caused by charity schools, and the problems it leads to, 189, 190, 191.
Their overstepping boundaries with employers, 192, 195.

Services, reciprocal, are what society consists in, 513.
Are impracticable without money, 514.

Services, which are mutual, form the foundation of society, 513.
They are impossible to achieve without money, 514.

Shaftsbury, Lord, his system contrary to the author’s, 205.
Refuted by his own character, 210.
Remarks upon him for jesting with revealed religion, 292, 519.
For holding joke and banter to be the best and surest touchstone to try the worth of things by, 296.
For pretending to try the scriptures by that test, ibid.
Was the first who held that virtue required no self-denial, 337.
Encomiums on him, 296, 519.

Shaftsbury, Lord, his system goes against the author’s, 205.
Disproved by his own character, 210.
Comments on him for making jokes about revealed religion, 292, 519.
For considering jokes and banter the best and most reliable ways to evaluate the value of things, 296.
For claiming to test the scriptures by that standard, ibid.
Was the first to argue that virtue didn’t need any self-denial, 337.
Praise for him, 296, 519.

Shame, a definition of it, 27.
What makes us ashamed of the faults of others, 28.
The symptoms of it, 29.
The usefulness of it to make us sociable, 30 to 33.
Its [532]real passion in our nature, 328.
The struggle between the fear of it and that of death, is the cause of the great concern of men of honour, in the affair of duelling, 325, 328.
The same fear of shame that may produce the most worthy actions, may be the cause of the most heinous crimes, 349.

Shame, a definition of it, 27.
What makes us feel ashamed of the faults of others, 28.
The signs of it, 29.
Its usefulness in making us sociable, 30 to 33.
Its [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__] real passion in our nature, 328.
The struggle between the fear of it and the fear of death is what drives the great concern of honorable men in the matter of dueling, 325, 328.
The same fear of shame that can lead to the most commendable actions can also trigger the most terrible crimes, 349.

Shame, the sense of, the use that is made of it in the education of children, 315.
Is not to be augmented without increasing pride, ibid.

Shame, the feeling of it, the way it's used in teaching children, 315.
It's not to be increased without also boosting pride, ibid.

Ships are the contrivance of many ages,361.
Who has given the rationale of working and steering them, 362, 363.

Ships are the invention of many ages,361.
Who has explained the rationale of operating and navigating them, 362, 363.

Simile, a, to illustrate the treatment that has been given to the Fable of the Bees, 333, 335.

Simile, a, to explain the approach taken with the Fable of the Bees, 333, 335.

Sighing described, 373.

Sighing described, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Signs and gestures, the significancy of them, 466, 467.
Confirm words, 469.
Would not be left off after the invention of speech, ibid.
Added to words are more persuading than speech alone, ibid.

Signs and gestures, their significance, 466, 467.
Confirming words, 469.
Would not be discarded after the invention of speech, ibid.
Added to words, they are more convincing than speech alone, ibid.

Sociable, man not so from his good qualities, 213, to 219.
What it is that makes us sociable, ibid.

Sociable, a person is not sociable just because of their good traits, 213, to 219.
What is it that makes us sociable, ibid.

Sociableness, the love of our species not the cause of it, 387, 391.
Erroneous opinions about it, 388, 389.
Reasons commonly given for man’s sociableness, ibid.
Great part of man’s sociableness is lost if neglected in his youth 390.
What it consists in, 392, 393, 394.
The principle of it is the work of Providence, 393.
Mutual commerce is to man’s sociableness what fermentation is to the vinosity of wine, 395.
Sociableness in a great measure owing to parents, 463.

Sociableness, the love for our kind rather than the reason for it, 387, 391.
Misguided views about it, 388, 389.
Common explanations for human sociableness, ibid.
A significant portion of sociableness is lost if not nurtured in youth 390.
What it involves, 392, 393, 394.
Its foundation is the design of Providence, 393.
Mutual interaction is to human sociableness what fermentation is to the flavor of wine, 395.
Sociableness is largely influenced by parents, 463.

Social System, the manner of it in judging of state-ministers and politicians, 187.
Of the piety of princes, 288.
Of foreign wars, ibid. 289.
Of luxury, ibid.

Social System, the way of assessing state ministers and politicians, 187.
Regarding the piety of rulers, 288.
Concerning foreign wars, ibid. 289.
About luxury, ibid.

Social virtue, according to the system of Lord Shaftsbury, discovered in a poor woman, who binds her son apprentice to a chimney-sweeper, 289.
On lawyers and physicians, 292.
On clergymen, ibid.
Is of little use unless the poor and meaner sort of people can be possessed of it, ibid. 293.

Social virtue, according to Lord Shaftesbury's system, is found in a poor woman who apprentices her son to a chimney sweep, 289.
Regarding lawyers and physicians, 292.
On clergymen, ibid.
It is of little value unless it can be found among the poor and less significant people, ibid. 293.

Social toyman, the, described, 295.

Social toyman, the, described, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Society, no creatures without government less fit for it than man, 13, 221.
The society compared to a bowl of punch, 55.
The defects of it should be mended by the legislature, 202.
The nature of society, 187, 205.
Man’s love for society, examined into, 213 to 227.
Cautions to be used in judging of man’s fitness for society, 387 to 391.
Is of human invention, 393.
Man is made for it as grapes are for wine, ibid.
What man’s fitness in it consists in, 395.
Might arise from private families of savages, 398, 403.
Difficulties that would hinder savages from it, 404, 405.
The first step towards it would be their common danger from wild beasts, ibid.
The second step they would be in, would be the danger from one another, 451.
The third and last would be the invention of letters, 453.
Civil society is built upon the vanity of our wants, 513.
Temporal happiness is in all large societies, as well to be obtained without speech, as without money, 514.

Society has no creatures less suited for self-governance than humans, 13, 221.
Society is like a bowl of punch, 55.
Its flaws should be fixed by the legislature, 202.
The essence of society, 187, 205.
Examining man's love for society, 213 to 227.
Cautions to consider when judging if a person is fit for society, 387 to 391.
It is of human design, 393.
Man is made for it just like grapes are made for wine, ibid.
What makes a person fit for society consists of 395.
It might come from private families of savages, 398, 403.
Obstacles that would prevent savages from it, 404, 405.
The first step toward it would be their shared danger from wild animals, ibid.
The second step would be the danger posed by each other, 451.
The third and final step would be the invention of writing, 453.
Civil society is based on the vanity of our desires, 513.
Temporal happiness in large societies can be achieved without conversation, just as it can be without money, 514.

Soldiers, their paultry finery, 129.
The usage they receive, ibid. 130.
The alteration it makes on them when they turn soldiers, 174.

Soldiers, their shabby uniforms, 129.
The treatment they get, ibid. 130.
The change it brings in them when they become soldiers, 174.

Sommona-Codom, 489.

Sommona-Codom, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Soul, the, compared to an architect, 377.
We know little of it that is not revealed to us, 380.

Soul, the, is like an architect, 377.
We know little about it that isn't shown to us, 380.

Spartans, their frugality, 149.

Spartans, their thriftiness, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Species, the strength of our species unknown, 127.
The love to our species an idle pretence, 213, 227.
The high opinion we have of it hurtful, 269.

Species, the true strength of our species unknown, 127.
The love for our species just an empty show, 213, 227.
The high regard we hold for it is harmful, 269.

Speech, though a characteristic of our species must be taught, 397.
Is not to be learned by people come to maturity, if till then they never had heard any, ibid, 466.
Want of it easily supplied by signs among two savages of the first class, 467.
Whether invented to make our thoughts known to one another, 392.
The first design of it was to persuade, ibid.
Lowness of speech a piece of good manners, 471.
The effect it has, 472.

Speech, while a trait of our species, must be taught, 397.
It’s not something that people can learn once they reach adulthood if they haven’t heard it before, ibid, 466.
Lack of it can easily be compensated for by gestures among two primitive people, 467.
Whether it was created to express our thoughts to each other, 392.
The original purpose of it was to convince, ibid.
A soft tone of speech is a form of good manners, 471.
The effect it has, 472.

Spinosism, 486.

Spinosism, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Statesman, a consummate, what he ought to be, 500.
The scarcity of those who deserve the name, ibid.

Statesman, a true example of what he should be, 500.
There are few who truly deserve that title, ibid.

Steele, Sir Richard, his elegant flatteries of his species, 19.

Steele, Sir Richard, his stylish compliments of his kind, 19.

Stoics, their pleasures, 85.
Their arrogance and hypocrisy, ibid.

Stoics, their pleasures, 85.
Their arrogance and hypocrisy, same source.

Study, hard, whether men submit to it to serve their country or themselves, 511, 513.

Study, hard, whether people do it to serve their country or for their own benefit, 511, 513.

Suicide, never committed but to avoid something worse than death, 124.

Suicide, never done except to escape something worse than death, 124.

Sun, the, not made for this globe only, 433.

Sun, not just created for this world, 433.

Sunday, the most useful day in seven, 193.
What it is set apart for, ibid.

Sunday, the most beneficial day of the week, 193.
What it is designated for, ibid.

Superiority of understanding in man, when most visibly useful, 477.
When disadvantageous, 478.

The advantage of understanding in a person, when it's most obviously beneficial, 477.
When it's a drawback, 478.

Superstition, the objects of it, 459, 460.
What sort of people are most in danger of falling into it, 487.

Superstition, the things associated with it, 459, 460.
What kind of people are most likely to fall into it, 487.

Superstitious men may blaspheme, 487.

Superstitious men may curse, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Symptoms of pride, natural and artificial, 350.

Symptoms of pride, both genuine and fake, 350.

System, the, that virtue requires no self-denial is dangerous, 337.
The reason, ibid.

System, the idea that virtue requires no self-denial is dangerous, 337.
The reason, ibid.

Tears, drawn from us from different causes. 374. [533]

Tears, from different reasons. __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__. [__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__]

Temperance, personal, makes no rulers slighted that have real power, 93, 94.

Temperance, personal, does not underestimate those in real power, 93, 94.

Temple, Sir William, animadverted upon, 398.
A long quotation from him, ibid. 399.

Temple, Sir William, commented on, 398.
A long quote from him, ibid. 399.

Tennis play, spoke of to illustrate what chance is, 448, 449.

The game of tennis is used to explain what chance is, 448, 449.

Thefts and robberies, the causes of them in great cities, 167, 168, 169.

Thefts and robberies, the reasons behind them in large cities, 167, 168, 169.

Theology, the most necessary faculty, 184.

Theology, the most important subject, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Thinking, where performed, 377.
What it consists in, 378, 380.
Immense difference of the faculty of it, 382.
Acquired by time and practice, 396.

Thinking, when done, 377.
What it involves, 378, 380.
Huge difference in the ability to do it, 382.
Gained through time and practice, 396.

Thought operates upon the body, 377.

Thought influences the body, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Time, great difficulty in the division of it, 464.
The Sabbath a considerable half in it, ibid.

Time, a major challenge in dividing it, 464.
The Sabbath takes up a significant portion of it, ibid.

Traders, none strictly honest, 25.
Why all take such pains to hide the prime cost of their goods, 39.

Traders, none entirely trustworthy, 25.
Why does everyone go to such lengths to conceal the true cost of their products, 39.

Trades, a discourse on the various trades required, and the numbers in each, 188, 189.

Trades, a conversation about the different trades needed, along with the numbers in each, 188, 189.

Traffic. What it is that promotes it, 230.

Traffic. What causes it, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Treasurer, the Lord, whom he obeys at peril, 497.

Treasurer, the Lord, who he obeys at risk, 497.

Treasury, what the management of it requires, 496, 497.

Treasury, what it takes to manage it, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_1__.

Trooper, why worse than a foot soldier, 129.

Trooper, why are you worse than a foot soldier, 129.

Truth, impertinent in the sublime, 281.
Not to be minded in painting, 283.

Truth, disrespectful in the sublime, 281.
Not to be ignored in painting, 283.

Vanini, a martyr for atheism, 128.

Vanini, a martyr for atheism, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Vanity may be owned by modest men, 263, 264.

Vanity can be possessed by humble individuals, 263, 264.

Vice, a definition of it, 17.
Has the same origin in man as it has in horses, 455.
Why the vices of particular men may be said to belong to the whole species, 458.
Vice is exposed in the Fable of the Bees, 262.
What it consists in, 364.
Why bare-faced vice is odious, 268.

Vice, a definition of it, 17.
Has the same origin in humans as it does in horses, 455.
Why the vices of certain individuals can be said to reflect the whole species, 458.
Vice is illustrated in the Fable of the Bees, 262.
What it consists of, 364.
Why open vice is detestable, 268.

Views, the different, things may be set in, 228, 238.

Views, the various things can be placed in, 228, 238.

Universities, their policy, 163.
Ours are defective as to law and physic, 182, 183.
What universities should be, ibid. 184.

Universities, their policies, 163.
Ours are lacking in law and medicine, 182, 183.
What universities should be, ibid. 184.

Virgins, rules how to behave themselves, 31.

Virgins, outlines how to conduct themselves, 31.

Virtue, the origin of moral virtue, 13.
A definition of virtue, 17.
Not derived from religion, ibid.
What excited the ancients to heroic virtue, 18.
How virtue is made friends with vice, 41.
No virtue without self-denial, 88, 205.
Where to look for the virtues of great men, 96.
The reason why there are so few men of real virtue, 132.
Consists in action, 211.
In the sense of the beau monde imbibed at operas, 287.
What most of the beau monde mean by it, 267.
Real virtue not more to be found at operas than at bear gardens, 301.
A trial whether a fine gentleman acts from principles of virtue and religion, or from vain glory, 317, 318.
It requires self-denial, 337.
False pretences to virtue, 338, 339, 344.
No virtue more often counterfeited than charity, 345, 346.
Virtue is not the principle from which men attain to great accomplishments, 508, 511, 512.
Is the most valuable treasure, 513.
Yet seldom heartily embraced without reward, ibid.
No virtue more scarce than Christian humility, 271.

Virtue, the source of moral goodness, 13.
A definition of virtue, 17.
Not based on religion, ibid.
What inspired the ancients to heroic virtue, 18.
How virtue makes friends with vice, 41.
No virtue without self-denial, 88, 205.
Where to find the virtues of great individuals, 96.
The reason there are so few truly virtuous people, 132.
It consists in action, 211.
In the sense of the beau monde experienced at operas, 287.
What most in the beau monde mean by it, 267.
Real virtue is not found at operas any more than at bear gardens, 301.
A test of whether a gentleman acts from principles of virtue and faith, or from vain glory, 317, 318.
It requires self-denial, 337.
False claims to virtue, 338, 339, 344.
No virtue is more often faked than charity, 345, 346.
Virtue is not the principle from which people achieve great things, 508, 511, 512.
Is the most valuable treasure, 513.
Yet it is rarely fully embraced without reward, ibid.
No virtue is rarer than Christian humility, 271.

Virtuous, when the epithets is improper,337.
Actions are called virtuous, that are manifestly the result of frailties, 339.
There are virtuous men; but not so many as is imagined, 504.

Virtuous, when the term is misapplied, 337.
Actions are described as virtuous when they clearly stem from weaknesses, 339.
There are virtuous people; but not as many as one might think, 504.

Vitzliputzli. Idol of the Mexicans, 460.

Vitzliputzli. The Mexican deity, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Unity, the, of a God, a mystery taught by Moses, 416.

Unity, the concept of one God, a mystery taught by Moses, 416.

Understanding, man’s superior, has defeated the rage of wild beasts, 429.
When found most useful, 476.
Disadvantages in savages, 477.

Understanding, humanity's greatest strength, has conquered the fury of wild beasts, 429.
When it is most beneficial, 476.
Drawbacks in primitive peoples, 477.

Wars. The cause of them, 442.
What would have been the consequence, if there never had been any, ibid., 445, 446.

Wars. The reason for them, 442.
What would have happened if there had never been any, ibid., 445, 446.

Watermen. Their manner of plying, 226.

Watermen. Their way of working, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Waters, strong. Their bad effect on the poor, 44.

Waters, strong. Their negative impact on the underprivileged, 44.

Watches and clocks. The cause of the plenty, as well as exactness of them, 465.

Watches and clocks. The reason for their abundance and accuracy, 465.

Weeping, a sign of joy as well as sorrow, 374.
A conjecture on the cause of it, ib.

Weeping, a sign of both joy and sadness, 374.
A guess about the reason for it, ib.

Whales. Their food, 436.
Why the economy in them is different from other fish, ib.

Whales. Their food, 436.
Why their economy is different from other fish, ib.

Whores. The necessity there is for them, 50, 51, 52.

Prostitutes. The need for them is significant, 50, 51, 52.

Wild beasts. The danger from them the first step towards society, 425.
Always to be apprehended whilst societies are not well settled, ib. 426, 431, 432, 450.
Why our species was never totally extirpated by them, 430, 433.
The many mischiefs our species has sustained from them, 426, 429, 433, 434.
Have never been so fatal to any society of them as often plagues have, ib.
Have not been so calamitous to our species as man himself, 437.
Are part of the punishment after the fall, 450.
Range now in many places where once they were rooted out, ib.
Our species will never be wholly free from the danger of them, ib.

Wild animals. The threat they pose is the first step toward society, 425.
They are always a concern as long as societies are not well established, ib. 426, 431, 432, 450.
The reason our species was never completely wiped out by them, 430, 433.
The many harms our species has endured from them, 426, 429, 433, 434.
Have never been as deadly to any group of them as various plagues have been, ib.
Have not been as disastrous to our species as humans themselves, 437.
Are part of the punishment after the fall, 450.
Now roam in many areas where they were once eliminated, ib.
Our species will never be completely free from the threat they pose, ib.

Wild boars. Few large forests without, in temperate climates, 432.
Great renown has been obtained in killing them, ib.

Wild boars. Few large forests exist without them in temperate climates, 432.
They have gained significant fame for being hunted, ib.

Will, the, is swayed by our passions, 426.

Will is influenced by our feelings, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Wisdom, the Divine, very remarkable in the contrivance of our machines, 375, 407.
In the different instincts of creatures, 430, 462, 463.
In the second commandment, 459.
Acts with original certainty, 391.
Becomes still more conspicuous as our knowledge increases, 408.
[534]Wisdom must be antecedent to the things contrived by it, 486.

Wisdom, the Divine, is truly impressive in the design of our machines, 375, 407.
In the various instincts of living beings, 430, 462, 463.
In the second commandment, 459.
Acts with original certainty, 391.
Becomes even more evident as our knowledge grows, 408.
[__A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__]Wisdom must come before the things it creates, 486.

Wives, more often put men on dangerous projects than mistresses, 134.

Wives are more likely to assign men to risky projects than mistresses, 134.

Wolves, only dreadful in hard winters, 434.

Wolves, only terrifying in harsh winters, 434.

Woman, a savage, of the first class would not be able to guess at the cause of her pregnancy, 422.

Woman, a wild one of the highest order, wouldn't be able to figure out why she's pregnant, 422.

Women may be made wicked by modesty, 35.
Modest women promote the interest of prostitutes, 49.
The ill qualities of them beneficial to trade, 134 to 136.
The artifices of married women, 135, 136.
Women are equal to men in the faculty of thinking, 383.
Excel them in the structure of the brain, 384.

Women can become corrupted by modesty, 35.
Modest women support the interests of prostitutes, 49.
Their negative traits can benefit the business, 134 to 136.
The tricks of married women, 135, 136.
Women are just as capable as men when it comes to thinking, 383.
They surpass them in the structure of the brain, 384.

Work, the, yet to be done among us, 200.

Work, the, yet to be done among us, 200.

Works of art lame and imperfect, 394.

Works of art that are flawed and incomplete, 394.

Worship, Divine, has oftener been performed out of fear, than out of gratitude, 410, 415, 416.

Worship, Divine, has often been done more out of fear than out of gratitude, 410, 415, 416.

Wrongheads, who think vice encouraged, when they see it exposed, 263.

Wrongheads, who believe that vice is encouraged, when they see it revealed, 263.

Youth, a great part of man’s sociableness owing to the long continuances of it, 397.

Youth, a significant aspect of being social due to its lasting presence, 397.

Zeuxis, 284.

Zeuxis, __A_TAG_PLACEHOLDER_0__.

Colophon

Availability

Metadata

Encoding

Apparent typographical errors and some inconsistencies in the spelling have been corrected. All corrections have been listed in the colophon at the end of the work.

Apparent typos and some spelling inconsistencies have been fixed. All corrections are listed in the colophon at the end of the work.

End-of-line hyphenation has been removed, and words rejoined, with or without a hyphen, based on the conventions of the source.

End-of-line hyphenation has been removed, and words have been rejoined, with or without a hyphen, based on the conventions of the source.

The old-style long s (ſ) has been replaced with the modern s.

The old-style long s (ſ) has been replaced with the modern s.

Revision History

  • 2018-05-31 Started.

External References

Corrections

The following corrections have been applied to the text:

The following corrections have been made to the text:

Page Source Correction Edit distance
N.A., 522, 527, 531, 532, 533 . , 1
N.A., 227, 228, 267, 268, 497, 523, 526, 530, 530, 530 [Not in source] , 1
vi, 96 Montagne Montaigne 1
vi By by 1
ix fair-dailing fair-dealing 2
ix inuendos innuendos 1
ix, 229 to to to 3
2 southsayers soothsayers 1
2 downrright downright 1
3 dissabled disabled 1
7 loook’d look’d 1
7 365 265 1
8 minsters ministers 1
9 Ortelans Ortolans 1
13, 412, 435, 479 his is 1
15 owtward outward 1
15, 184, 524 goverment government 1
19, 19 curtesy curtsey 2
20 their their their 6
22 two too 1
28 acompanied accompanied 1
31, 518 o to 1
34 luxest lux est 1
34 deligent diligent 1
35 excesive excessive 1
42 Llne Line 1
42 middle meddle 1
44 meddling middling 1
48 is it 1
48 Hugonots Huguenots 2
Passim. , . 1
49 excuseable excusable 1
50 course coarse 1
51 Monsier Monsieur 1
51 [Not in source] 1
51, 128, 398 [Not in source] 1
52 may many 1
54 treasure it, treasure, it 2
57 ever every 1
61, 136, 255 wordly worldly 1
64, 116, 133, 173, 248, 254, 296, 308, 310, 373, 500, 529, 531, 531, 533, 533 [Not in source] . 1
72 gaity gaiety 1
73 aad and 1
78, 126 imbecillity imbecility 1
80 continance continuance 1
82, 146, 222, 523, 524, 532 , [Deleted] 1
83 continnence continence 1
84 transcendant transcendent 1
88 adultry adultery 1
89, 198 anothers another’s 1
94 the ir their 1
94 rug ged rugged 1
94 destiutte destitute 2
96 belive believe 1
98, 334, 334, 377, 377, 378, 384, 393, 394, 417, 419, 448, 527 a à 1 / 0
101 Cathaginian Carthaginian 1
103 imbecillities imbecilities 1
106 then than 1
108 connuance continuance 2
110, 481 their there 2
112 fidler fiddler 1
118 him him him 4
119 vigourously vigorously 1
127 Rochefocault Rochefoucauld 2
127, 133 ; : 1
129 dicipline discipline 1
130 villians villains 2
133 cielings ceilings 2
135 uxurious uxorious 1
138 goal-keepers gaol-keepers 2
138 aporobation approbation 1
139 barrons barons 1
139 wholsome wholesome 1
139, 178 thi this 1
140 ortelans ortolans 1
141, 469 affirmitive affirmative 1
142 cavear caviar 1
143 acknowledgements acknowledgments 1
147 contines continues 1
148 dilligent diligent 1
148, 369 cobler cobbler 1
148 an and 1
149 kept keep 2
151 privisos provisos 1
151 Fdit. Edit. 1
151, 168, 203 administred administered 1
155 neices nieces 2
157, 435 calamitious calamitous 1
160, 162, 411 acknowledgement acknowledgment 1
162 neer never 1
162 excelllency excellency 1
163 effectully effectually 1
164, 241 mens men’s 1
164 alm-houses alms-houses 1
164 indispensible indispensable 1
165, 405, 406 childern children 2
167 wants want 1
178 infallability infallibility 1
179 goal gaol 2
184 theolgy theology 1
184 cassoc cassock 1
185 orthogragphy orthography 1
185 scriblings scribblings 1
185 grammer grammar 1
188 gardners gardeners 1
190 quarreling quarrelling 1
191 instrusted instructed 1
205 perfecton perfection 1
208 brimed brimmed 1
211 infallibe infallible 1
213 stoick stoic 1
217 carousals carousels 1
221 pleasent pleasant 1
221 superfluons superfluous 1
223 parishoners parishioners 1
236 so [Deleted] 3
237 acqiring acquiring 1
242 scriblers scribblers 1
242 scribler scribbler 1
243 consquence consequence 1
243 prophaneness profaneness 2
244 circumstancies circumstances 1
246 childrens children 1
246 affected effected 1
247 schoos schools 1
247 catachism catechism 1
247 Cataline Catiline 1
249 wheresover wheresoever 1
250 indispensibly indispensably 1
252 contivance contrivance 1
255 mintained maintained 1
259 delit delet 1
266, 525 ones one’s 1
267 adandon abandon 1
273, 516 stubborness stubbornness 1
273 uch such 1
279 enagements engagements 1
289 colleclection collection 3
301 threatning threatening 1
304 seasonable reasonable 1
306 higly highly 1
307 own on 1
307 good humoured good-humoured 1
311 adherred adhered 1
314 estemed esteemed 1
322 valvable valuable 1
323 intollerable intolerable 1
331 atchievement achievement 1
339 maintainance maintenance 2
340 goood-natured good-natured 1
342 gerality generality 2
354 Montain Montaigne 2
354 a a a 2
355 tollerably tolerably 1
360, 360 stupenduous stupendous 1
378 deposite deposit 1
380 charte carte 1
386 docilility docility 2
389 nore more 1
390 nevet never 1
390 charasteristic characteristic 1
391 ,, , 1
393 pease peas 1
394 stibility stability 1
405 grand-childern grand-children 2
407 depít dépit 2 / 0
408, 419, 479 . ? 1
409 guestures gestures 1
416 synonimous synonymous 1
423 rekoned reckoned 1
434 chesnuts chestnuts 1
436 hunded hundred 1
438 Hor. Cleo. 4
441 hindred hindered 1
442 commmon common 1
446 than than than 5
446 inexhuastible inexhaustible 2
447 fickelness fickleness 2
455 soeiety society 1
465 principle principal 2
473 . [Deleted] 2
478 assunder asunder 1
480 it it it 3
481 dependend depended 1
488 acknowleding acknowledging 1
495 plenipotentaries plenipotentiaries 1
500, 500 statesmen statesman 1
503 nations nation’s 1
508 solicitou solicitous 1
513 mant man 1
517 peope people 1
517 biths births 1
522 is Is 1
523 Explodes Explores 1
523 Combalus Combabus 1
523 ignorace ignorance 1
523 content Content 1
524 the The 1
526 . [Deleted] 1
526 Interupts Interrupts 1
526 consequencences consequences 3
527 Knowlegde Knowledge 2
528 Montaign Montaigne 1
529 ; . 1
529 Stoicks Stoics 1
530 unexplicable inexplicable 1
530 Quixot Quixote 1
532 pursuade persuade 1
533 Immence Immense 1
533 impertint impertinent 2


        
        
    
Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!