sign in sign up
<<
Home , John Dennis (dramatist), Richard Blackmore

Metadata of the chapter that will be visualized online

Chapter Title «Remarks Upon that Wonderful Chapter»: The Controversy on Luxury Between Mandeville and Dennis Copyright Year 2015 Copyright Holder Springer International Publishing Switzerland Corresponding Author Family Name Revolti Particle Given Name Matteo Suffix Organization Goethe Universität Address Frankfurt am Main, Abstract In the debates triggered by the Fable of the bees, was one of the earliest critics of Bernard Mandeville. In the essay Vice and luxury Dennis attacked Mandeville’s text, paying much attention to the economic system elaborated by the Dutch author. Specifically, the English writer denied the beneficial effects generated by luxury in enriching society and increasing the wealth of the nation. According to Dennis, this perverse model was responsible of the corruption of English society and was related to slumps such as the South Sea Bubble. In this perspective, Dennis appealed to Machiavelli’s civic humanism as the main bulwark against the Fable. In particular, he considered liberty and moral virtues as the main defense of civil society. From this point of view, the controversy between Dennis and Mandeville assumed a political meaning by stressing the clash between the values of the ancient constitution and the new economic model promoted by the Fable. Keywords Luxury - Corruption - Machiavelli - Civic humanism - Public (separated by “-”) spirit - Foreign customs - Liberty - Mercantilism - Laissez-faire Chapter 11 1 «Remarks Upon that Wonderful Chapter»: The 2 Controversy on Luxury Between Mandeville 3 and Dennis 4

Matteo Revolti 5

Abstract In the debates triggered by the Fable of the bees, John Dennis was 6 one of the earliest critics of Bernard Mandeville. In the essay Vice and luxury 7 Dennis attacked Mandeville’s text, paying much attention to the economic system 8 elaborated by the Dutch author. Specifically, the English writer denied the beneficial 9 effects generated by luxury in enriching society and increasing the wealth of the 10 nation. According to Dennis, this perverse model was responsible of the corruption 11 of English society and was related to slumps such as the South Sea Bubble. In this 12 perspective, Dennis appealed to Machiavelli’s civic humanism as the main bulwark 13 against the Fable. In particular, he considered liberty and moral virtues as the main 14 defense of civil society. From this point of view, the controversy between Dennis and 15 Mandeville assumed a political meaning by stressing the clash between the values 16 of the ancient constitution and the new economic model promoted by the Fable. 17

Keywords Luxury • Corruption • Machiavelli • Civic humanism • Public 18 spirit • Foreign customs • Liberty • Mercantilism • Laissez-faire 19

11.1 Introduction 20

On 9 April, 1724 the Daily Journal advertised a book entitled Vice and luxury public 21 mischiefs: or, remarks on a book intituled, The fable of the bees. The book’s author 22 was 66 year old John Dennis, an English critic, who in those years was engaged 23 in a literary controversy with (Hooker 1943: xxvi–xxx.). In the 24 124 pages of Vice and luxury, Dennis proposed to criticize some arguments of 25 the Fable, focusing his attention on its “Remark L”, where Mandeville defended 26 theUNCORRECTED presence of luxury in , and praised its beneficial PROOF effects for society. In 27 particular, the Dutch physician was of the opinion that the presence of foreign luxury 28 did not diminish the wealth of the British nation. From Dennis’s point of view 29 Mandeville’s remark was a symptom of England’s corruption. Dennis ironically 30

M. Revolti () AQ1 Goethe Universität , Frankfurt am Main, Germany AQ2 © Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 E. Balsemão Pires, J. Braga (eds.), Bernard de Mandeville’s Tropology of Paradoxes, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-19381-6_11 M. Revolti referred to Remark L as «that wonderful chapter» (1724: 51), mentioning that the 31 dispute on luxury was at the origin of his essay against the Fable. 32 Within the British public debate caused by Mandeville’s Fable, though, Dennis’s 33 critic Vice and luxury was not a great success.1 Kaye, in his classical edition of 34 the Fable, described Dennis as «an extreme rationalist author» (1924: 407–409) 35 and accused him of misunderstanding Mandeville’s text. Nevertheless, Dennis’s 36 contribution to the topic of luxury in the Fable is important for several reasons. 37 First, the topos of luxury is strongly anchored within Dennis’s literary production. 38 Second, Dennis was the first critic of Mandeville interested in this topic. As Martin 39 Stafford remarked (1997: 139), his work came out within months of the early attacks 40 against the Fable by Law and Fiddes.2 Unlike these authors, Dennis’s criticism 41 did not only concern itself with the moral aspects of the Fable, but also with the 42 problem of luxury exposed in Mandeville’s text. Moreover his book against the 43 Fable symbolized the clash between the values of the ancient constitution and the 44 new social model promoted by Mandeville. 45 In this contribution I intend to clarify the controversy between Dennis and 46 Mandeville, analyzing first of all Dennis’s literary and political background. As 47 we shall see, those elements are important to understanding his polemic against the 48 Fable. Later on I want to pay attention to his response to the Fable by explicating 49 the arguments and the cultural tradition to which Dennis referred. 50

11.2 Sir Tremendous: Dennis Between Literature 51 and Politics 52

Born in into a saddler’s family in 1657, Dennis attended Caius College 53 in Cambridge and received his Master of Arts in 1683 at Trinity Hall.3 After his 54 degree he began to spend some time in the Will’s Coffee-house. Situated at the 55 crossing of Russell and Bow Streets, this coffee-house was the principal meeting 56 point for many and literati. Here he met the famous dramatist , 57 who was to become his patron later on. Dennis was soon known in literary circles 58 for his ferocious reviews against contemporary authors such as Blackmore and 59 Steele.4 Mandeville himself in his Letter to Dion described him as «a noted Critick, 60 who seems to hate all Books that sell, and no other, has, in his Anger at that 61 UNCORRECTED PROOF

1This is also evidenced by the absence of a second edition of Vice and luxury. 2As reported the Monthly catalogue for the year 1724, Law’s Remarks were published in January, whereas Fiddes’s Treatise in February. 3For an account on Dennis’s life, see The life of Mr. John Dennis 1734;Paul1911;Lenz1913; Tupper 1938: 211–217; Hooker 1943: vii–cxliii. 4On the controversy between Dennis and Blackmore see Dennis 1696. On Dennis’s relationship with Steele see Hooker 1943: xxxi–xxxiv. 11 «Remarks Upon that Wonderful Chapter»: The Controversy on Luxury...

Circumstance, pronounced against the Fable of the Bees in this Manner: it is a 62 wretched Rhapsody; the Wit of it is low; the Humour of it contemptibly low, and the 63 Language often barbarous» (1732: 46). 64 In his literary works Dennis showed himself to be a supporter of the protestant 65 succession. At the death of William III he wrote an epitaph where the defunct 66 sovereign was called the best and greatest of kings (Dennis 1702). According 67 to Dennis the restored the values of the ancient constitution 68 repressed by the Stuarts and established the vigour of Christianity in England 69 once again. Politically Dennis was a supporter of the Whig party. This political 70 involvement is especially apparent in his tragedy Liberty asserted presented in 71 London in 1704, where he applauded the Whigs as «one who is for the Present 72 Establishment, and the Protestant Succession [ :::]» (Dennis 1704: a1). In addition 73 his political sympathy is proved by Dennis’s friendship with some important 74 members of Whig circles like Charles Montagu, William Cavendish and the Duke of 75 Marlborough. Thanks to those friendships Dennis was engaged not only in literary 76 works but also received official appointments. In 1701 the Duke of Marlborough 77 procured him the place of one of the Queen’s Waiters in the Custom-house. During 78 that time Dennis published an essay entitled A Proposal for putting a speedy end 79 to the war that concerned the conflict between England and . In the essay 80 he proposed boycotting French maritime commerce and strengthening the power of 81 the English fleet in international waters (Dennis 1703). He advanced the idea that 82 English merchants could have the monopoly of the market, financing the English 83 fleet against their foreign competitors. Particularly in the Proposal Dennis presented 84 a plan concerning the English independence from foreign customs and commerce. 85 During the years of the debate on the Fable, the old critic was losing his ancient 86 prestige. His financial resources became insufficient: he was accused of bankrupt 87 and he was forced to sell his title of Queen’s waiter (Paul 1911: 58). In addition 88 Dennis stood more and more in opposition to the literary establishment and entered 89 a controversy with Alexander Pope. Pope and other members of the Scriblerian Club 90 described him as a lunatic writer, calling Dennis «Sir Tremendous or the greatest 91 critic of our Age» (Gay 1717: 18). Dennis responded by claiming that Pope and 92 the Scriblerian Club represented the lowest level of English literature. Dennis’s 93 isolation from his literary environment was manifested in his works, where he 94 made up analogies between the ancient Roman world to the present-day situation in 95 England. Themes like the resistance of or the murder of Cesar were used 96 by him to show his opposition against the corruption of British literature (Dennis 97 1720UNCORRECTED, 1722). PROOF98 The shock set off by the Fable turned out to be a good occasion for Dennis 99 to redeem his reputation. With Vice and Luxury he hoped to cleanse his literary 100 position from the aspersions of the Scriblerian Club. That essay also offered him the 101 opportunity to deal with some matters that interested him, as we shall see. Judging 102 by the lukewarm reception by the British press, Vice and luxury did not appear 103 as one of the most significant works of Dennis’s production. The fortune of that 104 essay is recorded by the Dennis’s first biographer who defined it as «a religious 105 controversy» (The Life of Mr. John Dennis 1734: 53). As late as 1911 a different 106 M. Revolti

judgement on Dennis’s essay was offered by Harry Gilbert Paul. In his work entitled 107 John Dennis, his life and criticism, Paul marked Vice and luxury as «his last and 108 longest political tract» (1911: 62). This different evaluation of Dennis’s work may 109 be clarified through an analysis of its title, and especially by paying attention to the 110 word “luxury” contained in it. 111

11.3 The Reception of Luxury in Great Britain and Dennis’ 112 Work 113

Historically, the term “luxury” did not have a monolithic meaning, but assumed 114 several senses over the years. As many studies demonstrated, in England at the 115 end of the seventeenth century that topic concerned not only the moral dimension: 116 luxury was also tied to the problem of commerce on British soil (Sekora 1977; 117 Berry 1994; Grugel-Pannier 1996; Berg and Clifford 1999; Reith 2003;Berg 118 2005). According to that approach luxury showed itself through the introduction of 119 foreign products in England. Consequently, luxury appeared as the negative effect 120 of commercial activities and its foreign character was the cause of its bad reputation 121 among the inhabitants of the British Isles. 122 This argument was raised many debates. In the essay Usury at six per cent (1669) 123 Thomas Manley criticized the proposal by Thomas Culpeper in the Tract against the 124

AQ3 high rate of usurie, where he had suggested the reduction of interest rates from ten 125 to six per cent. Manley replied to Culpeper arguing the reduction would provoke 126 the vain consumption of foreign commodities imported by English money. In other 127 words, the depletion of British currency reserves. This position against “foreign 128 commodities” was emphasised particularly at the beginning of the war between 129 France and England. The consumption of foreign products, especially from France, 130 was perceived as a betrayal of English interests. This fear was launched in the year 131 1700 by A Proposal for remeeding our excessive luxury, where the anonymous 132 author asserted that «the promoving of our Trade, and amending of our Coin, will 133 not much increase our Stocks, untill we amend our Manners: for if Luxurie bring in 134 more Goods than by our Native product and industrie we export» (A Proposal for 135 remeeding our excessive luxury 1700:1). 136 The idea of luxury as an exogenous element appeared in many literary works 137 by Dennis. In 1705 he argued that luxury had a precise geographic counterpart in 138 FrenchUNCORRECTED customs and in the following year he even identified PROOF the music of Italian 139 operas as a sign of luxury (Dennis 1706). Despite the literary attention devoted 140 to luxury, the theme achieved a political meaning only in Dennis’s Essay upon 141 publick spirits published in 1711. In the 31 pages of that essay he denounced British 142 submission to continental fashions as a form of prostitution. This submission was 143 responsible for the death of public spirit, which is «the ardent Love of one’s Country, 144 affecting us with a zealous Concern for its Honour and Interest, and inspiring us 145 with Resolution and Courage to promote its Service and Glory» (Dennis 1711:2). 146 According to Dennis the lack of this spirit was provoked by several factors, such 147 11 «Remarks Upon that Wonderful Chapter»: The Controversy on Luxury... as the importation of foreign customs and the impotence of the Church towards 148 the dangerous influences of freethinkers. This state was emphasized by Dennis by 149 his comparison with the kingdom of Henry VII: the frugality and sobriety of the 150 first Tudor king was a counterexample to the contemporary death of public spirit 151 (Dennis 1711: 8). Of course, the dispute on corruption and the public spirit was 152 a common theme among Augustan moralists, satirists and political pamphleteers. 153 As Goldsmith reminds us, the controversy combined two distinguishable strands of 154 thought: on one side they referred to the values of the country ideology, on other side 155 they saw a support against corruption and luxury in Puritanism (Goldsmith 1985: 156 3–4). The first element appeared in Dennis’s Essay: we find the names of Lycurgus 157 and Plato as champions of the republican side. Nevertheless, Dennis did not restrict 158 himself to condemning contemporary customs. Remembering his experience at 159 Customs-house, he also offered several proposals to contain the spread of foreign 160 luxuries such as the introduction of sumptuary laws. In the Preface to his Essay 161 Dennis argued that: 162

If what is here is publish’d is favourably receiv’d, I shall endeavour to shew in a Second 163 Part the mighty Mischiefs that the introduction of foreign Manners and foreign Luxury hath 164 done to this Islands, and to rest of Europe; and the proper Methods that are to be us’d to 165 restrain Luxury, and to retrieve Publick Spirit. (Dennis 1711:v) 166

11.4 Republican Virtues, Modern Vices: Dennis vs 167 Mandeville 168

Thirteen years later, Dennis returned to the topic with Vice and luxury. We do not 169 know whether this work was conceived by Dennis as the continuation of his previous 170 essay. However, many of the Essay’s arguments also appeared in Vice and luxury. 171 This hypothetical link can be proved partly from the structure of the text. In the 172 appendix to the comment on the Fable Dennis also published four letters he had 173 addressed to Sir and John Potter earlier. The letters were written 174 some months before the scandal of the South Sea Bubble and they returned to the 175 topic of the corruption of British spirit. 176 The choice of Vice and luxury’s addressee fell on the influential Earl of 177 Pembroke, Thomas Herbert. The English politician had been the patron of authors 178 like and had been elected as the president of the Royal Society in 1689. 179 Pembroke’s name in Dennis’s work is significant for two reasons. First, Dennis 180 himselfUNCORRECTED dedicated his Essay on the navy to Pembroke in 1702. PROOF Second, Pembroke 181 was chosen as addressee not only by Dennis but also by Fiddes, another critic of the 182 Fable.5 In his Preface Dennis wrote that his essay intended to defend the religion 183 which was understood as a bulwark of the civil society and British liberty. The 184 defense of religion was explained through a typical Whig syllogism. Liberty and 185 society depend upon a contract between king and citizens; this contract is sealed by 186

5For the work against Mandeville see Fiddes 1724. M. Revolti religion; therefore religion is the fundament of a civil society. Ergo infidelity is the 187 principal threat to current liberty. That threat especially accrued from the issue of 188 irreverent books, a phenomenon that had reached its peak with the Fable: 189

But a Champion for Vice and Luxury, a serious, a cool, a deliberate Champion, that is a 190 Creature intirely new, and has never been heard of before in any Nation, or any Age of 191 the World. And to make it farther appear, how widely Infidelity, and how diffusively its 192 Offspring Vice and Luxury have spread, the Work which this Champion has publish’d in 193 their Defence, has found great Success, tho’a very wretched Rhapsody, weak, and false, 194 and absurd in its Reasoning; aukward, and crabbed, and low in its Wit; in its Humour 195 contemptibly low, and in its Language often barbarous. (Dennis 1724: xvi–xvii) 196

The preface continued with a defense of the charity schools. The defense of these 197 institutions is conducted by Dennis by means of two arguments. First Dennis claims 198 the formative character of charity schools, stating that the knowledge imparted 199 by them is a necessary attribute to direct the actions of the young people to 200 virtue. Dennis countered the criticism of their professional uselessness by accusing 201 Mandeville of depriving the poor of the education, forcing them to be cheap 202 labourers. Dennis concluded the preface by informing his readers that he will contest 203 the assertions of the Fable with three remarks. 204 In the first remark Dennis offers a semantic analysis of the title of the Fable:he 205 argues that private vices did not provoke public benefits, but only public mischief 206 (1724: 2–6). For Dennis, public benefits are addressed to liberty, whereas vices and 207 luxury are caused by public mischief, as shown by the recent scandal of the South 208 Sea Bubble. In this range he quotes Sidney and Machiavelli as champions of virtues 209 and authorities of the republican tradition. The names Sidney and Machiavelli 210 in Dennis’s essay were a reference to the tradition that Hans Baron called civic 211 humanism. A confirmation of that adhesion is proved by the fact that Dennis also 212 declared «I may be branded with the odious Name of Republican, and pass for 213 an Assertor of Democratical Government» (1724: 8). Civic humanism linked the 214 ideas of freedom and independence. This view has its fundament in Aristotelian 215 conception of man as “a politikoon zoon” who improved his virtue through his 216 political participation and in the practice of citizenship. In particular, this tradition 217 elevated Rome as champion of ancient prudence: its fall was a consequence of the 218 corruption and the feudalization by emperors and their mercenaries. The theme was 219 central in Machiavelli’s Discorsi and was transferred in England by Harrington in 220 the seventeenth century. As Pocok demonstrated in his studies, the followers of Har- 221 rington, the so-called Neo-Harringtonians, saw the main source of British corruption 222 in theUNCORRECTED growth of credit and commerce at the end of seventeen PROOF century. Dennis saw 223 himself in this tradition, calling to his defense Sidney and Machiavelli against the 224 corruption brought by the Fable. From Sidney, Dennis cited the Discoures concern- 225 ing government where Sidney asserted the supremacy of popular government built 226 on virtues and civic qualities against Filmer (Dennis 1724: 7). Conversely, the name 227 of the Florentine secretary is linked to his Discorsi sopra la primo decade di Tito 228 Livio: Dennis particularly alluded to the twelfth chapter of the first book where 229 Machiavelli suggested how the government from corruption could be preserved. 230 11 «Remarks Upon that Wonderful Chapter»: The Controversy on Luxury...

Dennis concluded his first remark by observing that luxury was a danger for 231 religion and the cause of the actual divisions in England. As he asserted: 232

That the People of Great Britain were never so divided as they are at the present, appears 233 to be manifest; for not only the whole Body of the Nation is divided into Whig and Tory, 234 but Whigs are divided against Whigs,andTories against Tories [ :::] The Clergy is not only 235 divided into Whig and Tory,buttheTory Clergy is divided again into Jurors and Nonjurors; 236 the latter of which abhor the former, and the former despise the latter. (Dennis 1724: 24) 237

The second remark is devoted to notes about the Enquiry into the origin of moral 238 virtues. Against Mandeville’s argument about the a-moral genesis of civil society, 239 Dennis argued that religion and virtues are the bases of society. Mandeville declared 240 in his Enquiry that virtues are the political offspring which flattery begot upon pride 241 (1729: 22). Dennis replied that religion and virtues could be considered the pillars 242 of every society as the Roman republic demonstrated. Especially, he argued, the 243 existence of two different kinds of religion: natural and revealed religion. Dennis 244 held the opinion that the first was stronger than the second, because the heathens 245 followed laws, without being Christians. In agreement with Machiavelli, Dennis 246 recognized that «Roman Virtue was the Effect of their Religion, and not of the 247 Contrivance of wary Politicians» (1724: 48). 248 In the third note Dennis analyzed the famous remark L of the Fable dedicated 249 to luxury: as the English author remembered, the praise of luxury was at the origin 250 of his essay because «it has rais’d so much fresh Indignation in me, that I cannot 251 help bestowing some particular Remarks upon that wonderful Chapter» (Dennis 252 1724: 51). In his remark Mandeville backed the beneficial effects of luxury with 253 three reasons: first, that in one sense everything may be called luxury; and that in 254 another there is no such thing. Secondly, that under a wise administration all people 255 may swim in as much foreign luxury as their product can purchase, without being 256 impoverished by it. Finally, its presence did not bring about negative effects in the 257 army (Mandeville 1729: 73–85). 258 Dennis refuted the first thesis on the relative meaning of luxury, alluding 259 indirectly to the Aristotelian doctrine of metriotes. According to him moderation 260 was the best canon to identify what is excessive and what is not. As an example to 261 prove his theory, he uses the image of a diet, as the mid-point between abstinence 262 and gluttony (Dennis 1724: 54). Therefore he held the opinion that every man could 263 distinguish vice from virtue as well temperance from luxury. But the most important 264 of Dennis’ considerations on luxury was the one that criticized a laissez-faire ante 265 litteram, as some of Mandeville’s critics have called it. Although there has been (and 266 is still)UNCORRECTED a great debate on whether Mandeville was a mercantilist PROOF or an advocate of 267 laissez-faire (Heckscher 1931;Viner1953; Rosenberg 1963;Chalk1966; Goldsmith 268 1977; Horne 1978: 51–57; Carrive 1994: 301–322), the criticism formulated by 269 Dennis seemed to tend toward the second assumption. 270 A significant example of the model was expressed by Mandeville in mentioning 271 the commerce between Turkey and England. In his remark Mandeville criticized the 272 assumption that only domestic commerce could improve the economy of England. 273 This mercantilist argument was denied by Mandeville through the example of trade 274 between Turkey and England. If Turkey decreased her importations from England, 275 the same Turkey would have less possibility to buy English products and would 276 M. Revolti

abandon its commercial partnership with England. Although Mandeville stated that 277 the imports never exceed exports, he declared that no nation could be impoverished 278 by the foreign luxury (Mandeville 1729: 74–79). 279 Dennis responded to Mandeville that if a man, with a £ 500 in income spends all 280 his savings on foreign products like champagne, Tokaj or oil, he will become poor 281 and the nation will receive no benefits (1724: 55). In addition, Dennis criticized 282 Mandeville’s argument that luxury was not related with corruption. In the Fable 283 the Dutch physician maintained that corruption and robbery derived only from 284 bad administration and not from luxury. Dennis asserted instead that the political 285 administration was not guilty; for him the state had only a guarantor role and had to 286 defend the properties of the citizens. In this perspective the state cannot intervene 287 into private affairs, therefore the presence of corruption is due only to individual 288 luxury (Dennis 1724: 56–59). 289 Finally Dennis dealt with the argument about the benefits from the circulation of 290 luxury in the military sphere, showing the absolute incompatibility between luxury 291 and army. That dissonance stood out with the example of Pompeius debacle in 292 Farsalo due to the indolence of his army. For Dennis a free society could maintain 293 its existence only through its warrior qualities: therefore he stressed the importance 294 of the fighting values which marked the republican societies like Rome. 295 In conclusion Vice and luxury represents a key piece of the puzzle within 296 the controversy on luxury raised by the Fable. Dennis was the first author to 297 discuss Mandeville’s considerations in the framework of economic system, reading 298 Mandeville’s text as an extended form of a perverse model which had spin-offs into 299 social episodes like the South Sea Bubble. 300 Dennis identified himself with the values of the republican tradition, as a bulwark 301 against the social and economic model proposed by Mandeville. His constant 302 references to authors like Machiavelli and Sidney symbolized Dennis’s defense of 303 the republican tradition and his discomfort vis-à-vis the corruption of the society. 304 Dennis’s concern is constantly demonstrated through the defense of civil liberty: 305 according to Dennis, England’s liberty was threatened by her economic and cultural 306 dependence on foreign customs and public debts. This stress on freedom and 307 independence places Dennis within the circle of the Country Whigs, who fought 308 against the financial revolution and the moneyed interest. In this perspective Dennis 309 with Vice and luxury showed the contrast between the nostalgia for a virtuous and 310 traditional society and the new economic model promoted by the Fable. 311 UNCORRECTED PROOF References 312

Primary Sources 313

A proposal for remeeding our excessive luxury. 1700. 314 AQ4 Dennis, John. 1696. Remarks on a book entituled prince Arthur, an heroick poem: With 315 some general critical observations and several new remarks upon . London: Samuel 316 Heyreck/Richard Sare. 317 11 «Remarks Upon that Wonderful Chapter»: The Controversy on Luxury...

Dennis, John. 1702. The monument: A poem sacred to the immortal memory of the best and greatest 318 of kings, William the third. King of the Great Britain. London: Daniel Brown/Andrew Bell. 319 Dennis, John. 1703. A proposal for putting a speedy end to the war, by ruining the commerce of 320 the French and Spaniards, and securing our own, without any additional expense to the nation. 321 London: Daniel Brown/Andrew Bell. 322 Dennis, John. 1704. Liberty asserted. A tragedy. As it is acted at the new theatre in little Lincoln’s- 323 Inn-Fields. London: George Strahan/Bernard Lintot. 324 Dennis, John. 1706. An essay on the opera’s after the Italian manner, which are about to be 325 establish’d on the English stage: With some reflections on the damage which they may bring to 326 the publick. London: John Nutt. 327 Dennis, John. 1711. An essay upon publick spirit; being a satyr in prose upon the manners and 328 luxury of the times, the chief sources of our present parties and division. London: Bernard 329 Lintot. 330 Dennis, John. 1720. Coriolanus, the invader of his country: Or, the fatal resentment. A tragedy; as 331 it is acted at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-Lane. London: John Peele. 332 Dennis, John. 1722. Julius Caesar acquitted, and his murderers condemn’d. In a letter to a friend. 333 Shewing, that it was not Caesar who destroy’d the Roman liberties, but the corruptions of the 334 Romans themselves. Occasion’d by two letters in the London journal, the one of the 2d, the 335 other of the 9th of December. London: J. Mack-Euen. 336 Dennis, John. 1724. Vice and luxury public mischiefs: Or, remarks on a book intituled, The fable 337 of the bees; or private vices, publick benefits. London: William Mears. 338 Fiddes, Richard. 1724. A general treatise of morality, form’d upon the principles of natural reason 339 only. With a preface in answer to two essays lately published in The fable of the bees. And some 340 incidental remarks upon an inquiry concerning, virtue, by the right honourable Anthony Earl 341 of Shaftesbury. London: Samuel Billingsley. 342 Gay, John. 1717. Three hours after marriage. A comedy, as it is acted at the theatre royal. London: 343 Bernard Lintot. 344 Mandeville, Bernard. 1729. The fable of the bees. London: . 345 Mandeville, Bernard. 1732. A letter to Dion, occasion’d by his book call’d Alciphron, or the minute 346 philosopher. London: James Roberts. 347 The life of Mr. John Dennis, the renowned critik. In which are likewise some observations on most 348 of the poets and criticks, his contemporaries. Not written by Mr. Curll. 1734. London: James 349 Roberts. 350

Secondary Sources 351

Berg, Maxine. 2005. Luxury and pleasure in eighteenth-century Britain. Oxford: Oxford University 352 Press. 353 Berg, Maxine, and Clifford Helen. 1999. Consumers and luxury: Consumer culture in Europe 354 1650–1850. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 355 Berry,UNCORRECTED Christopher J. 1994. The idea of luxury: A conceptual and PROOF historical investigation. 356 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 357 AQ5 Carrive, Paulette. 1994. Mandeville, le mercantilisme et le capitalism. In La pensèe politique 358 anglaise: passions, pouvoirs et libertés de Hooker à Hume. Paris: P.U.F. 359 Chalk, Alfred F. 1966. Mandeville’s fable of the bees: A reappraisal. Southern Economic Journal 360 33: 1–16. 361 Goldsmith, Maurice M. 1977. Mandeville and the spirit of capitalism. Journal of British Studies 362 17: 63–81. 363 Goldsmith, Maurice M. 1985. Private vices, public benefits: Bernard Mandeville’s social and 364 political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 365 M. Revolti

Grugel-Pannier, Doris. 1996. Luxus: eine begriffs- und ideengeschichtliche Untersuchung unter 366 besondere Berücksichtigung von Bernard Mandeville. Frankfurt am Main: Lang. 367 Hayek, Friedrich A. 1966. Dr. Bernard Mandeville. Proceedings of the British Academy 52: 368 125–141. 369 Heckscher, Eli F. 1931. Merkantilismen: ett led i den ekonomiska politikens historia. Stockholm: 370 Norstedt. English edition: Heckscher, Eli Filip. 1934. Mercantilism (trans: Mendel Shapiro). 371 London: George Allen & Unwin. 372 Hooker, Edward N. 1943. The critical works of John Dennis, vol. 2. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins 373 Press. 374 Horne, Thomas A. 1978. Mandeville and mercantilism. In The social thought of Bernard 375 Mandeville. Virtue and commerce in early eighteenth-century England. London/New York: 376 Macmillan/Columbia University Press. 377 Kaye, Frederick B. 1924. The fable of the bees: Or private vices, publick benefits, vol. 2. Oxford: 378 Clarendon. 379 Lenz, Hermann. 1913. John Dennis, sein Leben und seine Werke, ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der 380 englischen Literatur im Zeitalter der Königin Anna. Halle: Ehrhardt Karras. 381 Paul, Harry G. 1911. John Dennis, his life and criticism. New York: The Columbia University 382 Press. 383 Reith, Reinhold. 2003. Luxus und Konsum. Eine historische Annäherung. Münster: Waxmann. 384 Rosenberg, Nathan. 1963. Mandeville and laissez-faire. Journal of the History of Ideas 24: 183– 385 196. 386 Sekora, John. 1977. Luxury: The concept in western thought, Eden to Smollett. Baltimore: Johns 387 Hopkins University Press. 388 Stafford, Martin. 1997. Private vices, publick benefits? The contemporary reception of Bernard 389 Mandeville. Solihull: Ismeron. 390 Tupper, Fred S. 1938. Notes on the life of John Dennis. English Literary History 5: 211–217. 391 Viner, Jacob. 1953. Introduction. In A letter to Dion, Augustan reprint society publication 41, ed. 392 Mandeville Bernard, 1–15. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California. 393

UNCORRECTED PROOF AUTHOR QUERIES

AQ1. Please provide email address for the corresponding author. AQ2. Please provide the department name. AQ3. Please confirm if the edit made to the sentence “where he had suggested the reduction of interest....” is okay. AQ4. Please provide in-text citation for reference Friedrich (1966). AQ5. Please provide the editor name for references Carrive (1994), Horne (1978).

UNCORRECTED PROOF