In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Commerce,Conversation,and ContradictioninMandeville'sFable TIMOTHYDYKSTAL ThatBernardMandeville,authorofTheFableoftheBees(1714,1728), providesoneofthefirstapologiesfortheemergingcapitalistorderin earlymodernEnglandisoneofthecommonplacesofMandevilliancriti- cism.ForMandeville,commercebringshumanbeingstogetherinsociety :oneofthe"publicbenefits"thattherelentlesspursuitofour"private vices"producesisthecooperationamongotherwisedisagreeableindivid- ualstogratifythosevices.Thiscommercialcooperationresemblesakind ofconversation.Conversationisthecirculationofopinions,andcom- merceisthecirculation,orexchange,ofgoodsandservices.As Cleomenes,Mandeville'sspokesmaninthedialoguesthatmakeupPart2 oftheFable,observes,"allCommerce,thatMencanhavetogether,must beacontinualbarteringofonethingforanother."1Indeed,giventhat oneoftheeighteenth-centurymeaningsof"commerce"was,astheOxfordEnglishDictionaryputsit,"Interchange(esp.ofletters,ideas, etc.),"therelationshipbetweencommerceandconversationislessanal-ogythanliteralcorrespondenceandMandeville's"continualbartering"maywellentailtheexchangeofopinionsaswellasgoods. Buteveninthisconversablecommerceourvicesremain,nomatter howmanybenefitstheyproduce.Ifindividualscooperateincommerce, theyalsodissimulatetomaketheirshareofsociety'sgoodsandservices aslargeaspossible.Dissimulation,whichresemblesthe"laudablequality 93 94 / DYKSTAL ...commonlyknownbythenameofMannersandGood-breeding," "consistsinaFashionableHabit,acquir'dbyPreceptandExample,of flatteringthePrideandSelfishnessofothers,andconcealingourown withJudgmentandDexterity"(1:77).Tosimulate,ortrulyrepresent,our own"pride"and"selfishness"wouldbothoffendoursocialcompanions andscareoffourcommercialpartners:wedissimulate,ormisrepresent thosequalities,saysMandeville,bothtokeepsocietygoingandtodrive itscommercialexchanges.Takingnoteof"theinnumerableArtifices,by whichBuyersandSellersout-witoneanother,"Mandevilleasks,"Where istheMerchantthathasneveragainsthisconscienceextoll'dhisWares beyondtheirWorth,tomakethemgooffthebetter?"Hethenrelatesa storyoftwomerchantswhobarterwithoneanotheroveraparcelof sugar,raisingorloweringthepriceaccordingtoinformationthatthey eachreceiveandconcealfromtheotherconcerningitssupply."[A]Hof thisiscalledfairdealing,"concludesMandeville,"butIamsureneither ofthemwouldhavedesiredtobedoneby,astheydidtoeachother" (1:61-63).ElsewhereMandevilleadds:"Tradesmenaregenerallyforc'd totellLiesintheirownDefence,andinventathousandimprobable Stories,ratherthandiscoverwhattheyreallygetbytheirCommodities" (1:81).Commerce,inshort,requiresdissimulation,butitwouldfailto benefitsocietymateriallywithouttheliesoftradesmendrivingupthe pricesofcommodities,encouragingproduction,andmakingeveryone richer. Givenhisanalysisoftheself-interestedmotivesbehindcommercial conversation,onemightexpectthatMandeville'sownconversations,the dialoguesthatmakeupPart2oftheFable,wouldbeexercisesindissim- ulation.2Ifcommerceisakindofconversation,itseemslikelythatwhen Mandevilleattemptstorepresentrealconversationitwouldresemble commerce,themanydissimulativeconversationsthatkeepsocietygoing. Whatwouldsuchconversationlooklike?Mandevillehasalreadygiven usapictureofitinthestoryofthetwotraders:ifCleomenesandhis conversationalpartner,theShaftesburianHoratio,wereactinginkind, theywouldeachtalktodeceivetheother,drivingupthevalue,ifnotof anygoodsthattheyaretryingtosell,atleastoftheopinionsthatthey hold.SuchdialoguesmightresemblethecalculatingtransactionsofRes- torationcomedywherebeneaththesurfaceofcivilityweseethemachinationsofwitsstrivingonlytobedtheinnocentorfleecethefoolish . OutsideofPart2oftheFable,Mandevilledoubtsthatconversation, whetherpoliteorno,canbetrulydisinterested."Eventhemostpolite PeopleintheWorld,"heassertsin"ASearchintotheNatureofSociety," "givenoPleasuretoothersthatisnotrepaidtotheirSelf-Love."Man- devillelookstopolite,andpleasurable,conversationforproof:"the Mandeville'sFable / 95 plainestDemonstrationthatinallClubsandSocietiesofConversable PeopleeverybodyhasthegreatestConsiderationforhimselfis,thatthe Disinterested,whoratherover-paysthanwrangles;...iseverywherethe DarlingoftheCompany:WhereastheManofSenseandKnowledge... isseldomsowellbelovedasaweakerManlessAccomplish'd"(1:342; emphasisadded). Mandevilleusestheword"disinterested"ironicallyhere:byrestricting ittomerepoliteness,evenflattery,heseparatesthequalities—politeness andgoodsense—thatHoratio'smodel,thethirdearlofShaftesbury, meantittojoin.3The"disinterested"individualisthe"darling"ofthis companyofpoliteconversationalistsbecausehe"overpays"orflatters theprideofhisfellows;"themanofsenseandknowledge,"becausehe doesnothesitateto"wrangle"withorcriticizethem,isostracized.Inhis usualparadoxicalwayMandevillefindsevidencethatconversationcan- notbedisinterestedintheobviousinterestthatthosewholiketotalk takeinthepolite(ordisinterested)flatterer.Indeed,ashereiterateshere, whenwedoconverse,"weonlyendeavourtostrengthenourInterest" (1:343—emphasisadded),eithermaterially,orbecauseitflattersour pridetoappeardisinterested,polite,andsociable.Whyshouldhisown conversationsbeanydifferent? Attheveryleast,onemightexpectthatMandeville'sdialogueswould promoteasortofgrudgingacceptanceofdissimulation,andvicein general,asnecessarytothefunctioningandprosperityofthecommon- wealth.Thisis,indeed,whyMandevillesayshewritestheFable.He objectstothosewhovociferateagainstprivatevice(inhisday,members oftheSocietiesfortheReformationofManners),andtheproblemthat besets"TheGrumblingHive"(thepoemthatactuallyconstitutesthe "fableofthebees,"andbeginsthebookthatistheFoWe)isnotvicebut precisely"grumbling":thebeesarenot"content"withthebustlethat makestheirhivesoprosperousbut"Curs[e],"cry,"rail"andgrumbleat themoralimperfections,thedesires,thataccountforthatbustle (1:26-27).Inthemoralofthepoem,hethusadvisesthebeesto"leave Complaints:Foolsonlystrive/TomakeaGreatanHonestHive"(1:36), andgivesashissecondreasonforwritingtheFabletoteachthosewho "reapalltheBenefitsthataretheConsequenceofagreatandflourishing Nation,...tosubmittothoseInconveniences,whichnoGovernment uponEarthcanremedy"(1:8).IfHoratiowereamoralreformer,one mightexpectthatCleomeneswouldforcefullyshowhimwherehisown hypocrisylies,asMandevilledoestoreformers(likecharity-schoolphi- lanthropists)inPart1oftheFable.*IfPart2weretofollowtheplanof Part1,thatis,Mandevillewouldnotnecessarilywritedialogueslike Restorationcomedy,butlikeAugustansatire,withCleomenesmocking 96 / DYKSTAL Horatio'spretensionstovirtue.(IfMandevilleweretrulyperverse, CleomenesmightevenencourageHoratiotocontinuehishypocritical dissimulation.) ButHoratioisneitheragrumblernoramoralreformer;notabour- geoistradesmanorabourgeoisphilanthropist.Heis,instead,anaristo- cratic(oraristocraticallyminded)"moralist,"ontheorderofShaftes- buryhimself,5andCleomenes'saiminMandeville'sdialoguesisto converthimtoMandeville'ssystem.Hedoesnotlietoormockhim, therefore,buttalkstohimpolitely.Atonepointintheirdialogue, CleomenestellsHoratiothat,however"convincing"anargumentcanbe "thathadallitsForcefromtheVehemenceitwasmadewith,"heprefers thepresent"Fashion"inEngland,whichis"speakinglow,"for"whena manaddresseshimselftomeinacalmmanner...hegivesmethe Pleasuretoimagine,thathethinksmenotinfluenc'dbymyPassions, butaltogethersway'dbymyReason"(2:291-92).This"unaffectedman- nerofspeaking"(2:292)isclearlybeingdisplayednow:itisthestyleof dialogue.Despitethewonderfulambiguityofthispassage(theimplica- tionthatCleomenes,whoscornsfashioningeneral,nowsaysthathe prefersthe"Fashion"oftalkingpolitely;thedoubtinjectedbytheverbs "imagine"and"thinks"),itseemsthatthisisthewayMandevillereally thinksofdialogue:asadisinterested,oratleastdispassionate,useof reason.Mandeville'sdialogues,inshort,proposenotthatconversationis todrivecommerce,buttodiscovertruth.Theyarenotexercisesindis- simulation,butphilosophicalconversationsthatleadtodisinterested enlightenment. Ontheonehand,Mandeville'srecoursetodialogueinPart2ofthe Fableisentirelyconsistentwithhisdesiretodemystifywhatpassesfor "virtue"amonghiscontemporaries.Part1,especiallywiththeaddition ofthe"EssayonCharity,andCharity-Schools,"hadbeencondemnedby thosephilanthropists,politicians,anddivineswhopreachedtheethicof publicoverprivategood:inmanyways,Mandeville'sdissectionofthe self-interestthatmotivatesmost(ifnotall)humanactionsmadehimthe samesortofwhipping-boyforeighteenth-centurymoraliststhatThomas Hobbeshadbeenforthoseintheseventeenthcentury.AsMandeville contendsintheprefacetoPart2,suchcriticismissimplytheresultof misunderstanding.HethuswritesPart2,hesays,to"illustrateand explainseveralThings,thatwereobscureandonlyhintedatintheFirst," andheusesthedialogueasthe"easiestwayofexecuting"this"Design" (2:7).LikemanyothersduringtheEnlightenment,Mandevilleis attractedtothedialogueasan"easyandfamiliar,"andespeciallyaccessi- ble,form.6 Ontheotherhand,Mandeville'sdialogicalturnisantitheticaltothe Mandeville'sFable / 97 "commercial"concernsoftheFable.WhenCleomenes,advancingan evolutionarytheoryofhumandevelopment,7makesHoratiowonder "thatProvidenceshouldhavenogreaterregardtoourSpecies,thanit hastoFlies,andtheSpawnofFish,"heexplainsthathisfriendis incredulousonlybecauseHoratiohasnothadthetimetoconsiderhis theory:"wearesofullofourownSpecies,andtheExcellencyofit,that wehavenoLeisureseriouslytoconsidertheSystemofthisEarth;Imean thePlanonwhichtheOEconomyofitisbuilt,inrelationtotheliving Creatures,thatareinanduponit"(2:251;emphasisadded).Muchas MandevilleascribesthemisinterpretationsoftheFabletoafailureof imagination,CleomenesattributestothesamesourceHoratio'sumbrage attheideathathumankindhasevolvedlikeothercreatures.IfHoratio thoughtaboutCleomenes'stheoryharder,andmoreimportantly,ifhe hadthetimetothinkaboutit,hewouldcometoshareCleomenes's evolutionaryview.PresumablythereasonthatHoratiodoesnothave timetothinkisbecauseheiscaughtupinthesatisfyingbustle(asinthe busy,ifgrumbling,hiveofthepoem)thatkeepssocietygoing:tobe"full of"one'sownspeciesistobecontent(ifstillbusy)ratherthancurious. WhatCleomenesneglectstomentionisthatthinkinghardaboutthe subjectofhumanevolution,nottomentionthesubsequentdevelopment oflanguage,religion,ethics,andgovernment(inapproximatelythat order),ispreciselywhatheandHoratioaredoinginthesedialogues.In therealmofdialoguetheydohavetheleisurethatittakestothink successfully,aphilosophicalleisurethatisseverelyatoddswiththe practicalbustlehappeningelsewhere.IfMandeville'scommerceisakind ofconversation,theleisurelinessoftheconversationthatmakesupthe dialoguesofPart2oftheFablesuggeststhatitisnotakindofcom- merce. Thatdialogueisleisurelyandcommerceisbustlingisjustaformal differencebetweenthetwo,however.Dialoguediffersfromcommercein atleastthreeother,moresubstantial,ways.Thefirstisthatdialogue explainsratherthandissimulates.Mandeville,afterall,admittedthathe wrotethedialoguesofPart2to"illustrateandexplain"theobscuritiesof Part1,andhisstanceinthedialoguesisconsistentlyapologeticand explanatory.HeseemsgenuinelydismayedthattheFablehasbeenmis- understood,andgenuinelydeterminedtorightthatmisunderstanding. When,forexample,attheendofthefirstdialogueHoratio,atCleome- nes'srequest,actuallycondescendstoreadtheFable(Part1)andcomes backatthebeginningofthesecondwiththeimpressionthatinitMan- deville"speaksinFavourofDuelling"and"shewstheNecessityofkeep- ingupthatCustom,topolishandbrightenSocietyingeneral," Cleomenesasksoutright, 98/DYKSTAL Don'tyouseetheIronythere? Hor.Noindeed:heplainlydemonstratestheUsefulnessofit,givesas goodReasonsasitispossibletoinvent,andshewshowmuch ConversationwouldsufferifthatPracticewasabolished....[Reading apassageinfavorofduelling...]Thatindeedseemstobesaidwitha Sneer:butinwhatgoesbeforeheisveryserious. Cleo.Heisso,whenhesaysthatthePracticeofDuelling,... contributestothePolitenessofMannersandPleasureofConversation, andthisisverytrue;butthatPolitenessitself,andthatPleasure,arethe ThingshelaughsatandexposesthroughouthisBook.(2:101-02) Horatioeventuallydoesgetthejoke,butnotwithoutevenfurtherexpli- cationbyCleomenes.Philosophicaldialogue,itseems,islessironic,and thuslessambiguous,thanordinaryspeech,anditisespeciallylessironic thanthemocking,sarcastic,andsometimespuzzlingproseofPart1of theFable}Irony,asanysatiristknows,caneasilybemisunderstood.If yourinterlocutorfailstounderstandwhatyouaresayingindialogue, however,youcanalways,asCleomenesdoeshereforMandeville, explainitagain.Abitearlier,HoratioexpresseshisreliefthatCleomenes doesnot"concludefromtheselfishnessinsome,thatthereisnovirtuein others,"andconcludeshimselfthatCleomenes's"Opinion"is"lessdangerousthanIimagin 'd:...butIwouldnothaveyouflatteryourself, thatyoudeceiv'dmebyhangingoutfalseColours."Cleomenesreplies: "IdidnotlayontheDisguisesothick,asnottohaveyouseethroughit, norwouldIeverhavediscours'duponthisSubjectwithanybody,who couldhavebeensoeasilyimposedupon"(2:56).Indialogue,theotheris alwaystheretocallone'sbluff,toexposethejest(or,asismoreoftenthe casewithHoratio,whoismoregulliblethanCleomenes'scompliment wouldsuggest,tohavethejestexposedtohimorher).Ifthedialoguesof Part2oftheFablearetoexplainPart1,ironyisa"disguise"thatmust bedropped.9 Thesecondwaythatdialoguediffersfromcommerceisthatitcom- mandsassentwithlogicalargumentratherthandeceitfuleloquenceor evenviolence.Inthe"EnquiryintotheOriginofMoralVirtue"from Part1oftheFable,Mandevillelocatesthebeginningofsocietyinthe abilityof"skilfulPoliticians"toheightenthenaturaldifferencesamong humanbeingsbythepoweroftheirrhetoric,thusspurringthelower classesto"emulate"thecivilizedvirtuesoftheupper(1:47).Inthedia- logues,however,becauseHoratioisalreadycivilized(andbecause Cleomenesisnopolitician),Cleomenesdoesnothavetouse"cunning Management"—either"Persuasion...

pdf

Share