The Fable of the Bees and Other Writings

La fable des abeilles #1

by Bernard Mandeville, E.J. Hundert (Editor)

This edition includes, in addition to the most pertinent sections of The Fable's two volumes, a selection from Mandeville's An Enquiry into the Origin of Honor and selections from two of Mandeville’s most important Pierre Bayle and the Jansenist Pierre Nicole. Hundert's Introduction places Mandeville in a number of eighteenth-century debates--particularly that of the nature and morality of commercial modernity--and underscores the degree to which his work stood as a central problem, not only for his immediate English contemporaries, but for such philosophers as Hume, Rousseau, and Kant. The selections are substantive enough to faithfully represent Mandeville the social theorist, and compact enough to be used in courses that can afford to spend no more than a week on his work.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Economics, Poetry, Nonfiction, Classics, History

260 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1714

About the author

Bernard Mandeville, or Bernard de Mandeville, was a philosopher, political economist and satirist. Born in the Netherlands, he lived most of his life in England and used English for most of his published works. He became famous (or infamous) for The Fable of the Bees.

Reviews

[Warwick · Rating 3 out of 5]

A workmanlike poem followed by a very interesting political essay about "virtue" and "vice", and what those words really mean, and how essential they are for a prosperous society. In my reading of it, there are two main premises, both of which must have been controversial at the time. The first is that the concepts of good and evil come from human social values and are not handed down by God:

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 convinc'd, that the Moral Virtues are the Political Offspring which Flattery begot upon Pride.

Got it? Good and evil are not god-given, they're a political convenience. Secondly, and related to the first idea, is the assertion that altruism does not exist. If someone does something that appears to be selfless, it's really just because it makes them feel better about themselves. This argument is not new, but Mandeville frames it in attractively strong terms:

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 our selves; for to have seen it fall, and not strove to hinder it, would have caused a Pain which Self-preservation compell'd us to prevent [...].

From these two principles, Mandeville suggests a number of rather complex socioeconomic conclusions – but what is comes down to is the (shocking!) idea that virtuous behaviour does not make for a commercially successful state, and that a certain amount of self-interest, acquisitiveness, and even corruption are, overall, good for business and good for society.

This assumes of course that you want a society which is making lots of money, and not one which is full of happy people helping each other out; but that is obviously a given for political scientists. There is a lot of proto-economic stuff in here which I don't fully understand and which evidently became important for people like Adam Smith and even Keynes; if your interests lie in that direction you may get more out of it. I'm just happy to follow the argument and enjoy Mandeville's spiky prose and even more spiky attitude.

[Eugeniu Kanskii]

As I am writing my dissertation on the moral thought of David Hume (1711–1776) and Adam Smith (1723–1790), I cannot help but notice the tremendous challenge posed to religious people and moralists by the Dutch philosopher Bernard Mandeville. In line with Thomas Hobbes, Mandeville argued that Selfishness is the basic principle of human nature, a principle that can ultimately account for all our actions, no matter whether one sees them as being 'vicious' or 'virtuous.'

In his famous and extremely controversial 'Fable of the Bees' (1714) Mandeville described how 'private vices lead to public benefits'. Our economies and societies would be ruined, were it not for people's selfish desires and whims. What use of locksmiths if there are no burglars? How many doctors would become jobless if all people followed healthy lifestyles?

Moreover, Mandeville appears to suggest that, on an individual level, absence of selfishness is even more disastrous. It is precisely the lack of self-liking, Mandeville argued, that leads men to suicide.

Hume & Smith, though acquainted with Mandeville's work and even inspired by it, saw his views as reductionist. Some of our actions, perhaps the majority of them, can indeed be accounted by self-love. At the same time, experience teaches us, that people are frequently motivated by other things as well.

Smith, in a famous passage of his Theory of Moral Sentiments (1st edition, 1759), says that, if all people were utterly selfish and competitive, without any regard for justice, 'a man would enter an assembly of men as he enters a den of lions.'

Hume, appealing to experience, argues that there should be other motives in our nature, apart from self-regard, from whence our actions derive it origin: "Do you not see, that though the whole expense of the family be generally under the direction of the master of it, yet there are few that do not bestow the largest part of their fortunes on the pleasures of their wives, and the education of their children, reserving the smallest portion for their own proper use and entertainment.” (A Treatise of Human Nature, 1739).

Mandeville, however, insisted that it is SELF-DECEIT to pretend that we are guided by motives distinct from Self-Love. What he appeared to argue is that, even caring for one's friends and acquaintances ultimately amounts to our seeking approbation from other people, even if we try to persuade ourselves that we act from Disinterested and Benevolent motives.

[Anna Snader]

Not about bees

[Shulamith Farhi · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book is composed of the fable itself and a commentary on it. What follows is a review of the text of the fable.

Mandeville is difficult to situate politically. It would be easy to say that he is no friend to radical politics, as the text is on its face quite reactionary. To dismiss it as merely reactionary would be a mistake. To give a taste of Mandeville's writing, consider this excerpt from the preface: "before the stinking Streets of London, I would esteem a fragrant Garden, or a shady Grove in the Country." One can be forgiven for mistaking this praise of luxury for a cynical consumerism. The message, however, is universal. Mandeville concludes his text with a moral: "Vice is beneficial found, When it’s by Justice lopt, and bound." Leftists should take this seriously - hedonism belonged to the left in the 60s and has since been replaced by a new asceticism. We shouldn't give up on the sexual revolution - justice and vice remain linked, though this link is today an open secret. The sexual revolution never ended, it went underground and learned to pass.

[Aygul A. Baghirova · Rating 4 out of 5]

What we usually call the “dark side” of human nature actually plays a role in keeping society alive. Ambition, desire and self-interest may look negative on an individual level but collectively they create movement and change. A society without contradiction wouldn’t be peaceful but stagnant.

[Patrick Berzai · Rating 5 out of 5]

I came across this as a teenager due to reading Will (and Ariel) Durant's "Story of Civilization" volumes. I revisit it from time to time.

[Bertrand · Rating 3 out of 5]

'One of the most quoted and less read books in the world' was I told by a friend when I was in the middle. This might be a bit of an exageration, but it's easy to see where it comes from. The lecture reminded me at time of Mein Kampf, in that it is often painfully convoluted, and the ideas central to the author's thesis need to be unearthed from layer after layer of useless sediment - biographical in the case of Mein Kampf, rhetorical or too particular in the case of The Fable of the Bees and Mandeville's other writings.
Mandeville no doubt had the best intentions, those of making the lecture easier and entertaining for his reader, but unfortunately not all the flavour and references seems to have trickled down to us, and many a time the digressions he excuse himself for will leave the reader dozy. At any rate once the archaelogical work has been finished, the ideas central to the work and those Mandeville is often remembered for, do not disapoint:
One could attempt to sum up Mandeville's position by saying he believes not only in 'necessary evils' but further more, as his subtitle indicates, that evil very much fuel society. His book is essentially an attack on XVIIIth century England's alleged hypocrisy in preaching virtue for all, while wanting to expand economically and geographically, which to Mandeville seems incompatible, as 'vices' are the root of all economic success.
The interesting bit to me is to be located in his ambivalent position as to which is to be prefered: not unlike Machiavelli he time and again separate the moral, christian virtue, with which he is at pain to associate himself, from the 'reason of state', here taking mainly the form of a proto-laissez-faire economic theory, which might strive on vice but none the less be beneficial to the country. In trying to juggle both counts he does not succeed at reconciling the two but shows already a complacent fascination with the paradox he outlined, somewhat understandable coming from a satirist, which I suspect to show the way to other, contrarian later ideologies.

[Sunny · Rating 2 out of 5]

didn't really like this at all. i found it hard to read. he uses capital letters for nouns German style which was hard for me to get my head around and the English was just hard to follow most of the time. the book was basically about challenging conventional thinking of the time and one of the multiple points he picks up on is around charity schools and how philanthropic a venture they were. he challenged peoples reasons for investing money into those. are you doing it from your heart my friend or is fashion lending you its fragile grace? - not worth a read hence 2 months it took for me to read it.

[Leonardo]

Si el capitalismo es, por definición, un sistema de corrupción, mantenido, como en la fábula de Mandeville, por su agudeza cooperativa y redimido según todas sus ideologías del derecho, y continuado por sus funciones progresivas, entonces, cuando la medida se disuelve y el telos progresivo se quiebra, nada esencial queda del capitalismo, salvo corrupción.

Imperio Pág.289

[Catherine · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting from a cultural perspective; one of the first sociological adaptations of the Hobbesian/libertine type ethos. Reminded me of older treatises like "The Feminine Monarchie" wherein the practical advice of beekeeping is mixed with practical advice about life and society, though Fable is far more focused on society.

[Michael Meeuwis · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely delightful, particularly if you've read a lot of high-toned eighteenth century philosophy. Mandeville argues that selfishness and greed make for a happy society, but that doesn't entirely do justice to his range of reference and pragmatic humor. Of no other eighteenth-century philosopher would I so much like to have dinner.

[Csilcox · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://csilcox-thebookshelf.blogspot....

[Samuel · Rating 2 out of 5]

Erasmus wrote In Praise of Folly, this is more like In Praise of Corruption.